mean another thing But what a doltish man is this Is it not common for men yea have not the best of men done it to word a matter other wise and yet intend the very same as they did at first wording Let him see how Luke words the matter in giving account of some of Christ's last words to his diciples where he saith thus And behold I send the promise of my Father upon you but tarry ye in the city of Hierusalem until ye be endued with power sromon high Luke 24 49. Now compare this with the account he gives of the same thing Acts. 14 and see if he do not otherwise word the matter and yet intend the same thing for there he hath it thus And being assembled together with them commanded them that they should not depart from Hierusalem but wait for the promise of the Father which saith he ye have beard of me And many such like instances may be sound in scripture but least D. L. should dislike scripture instances under pretence of their being corrupted I will give him one out of his Friends G. K's late book of Explanations and Retractations not again retracted as I hear of yet let him Look in p. 5. where G. K. saith Though I cite scripture and make use of them in arguing this point yet I can truly say I have not my knowledge from them Note this he cites out of his book entituled Immediate Revelation p. 54. which he here explains by other wise wording the mâ—tter thus Here note I say from them as being the efficient cause c. Now though he here otherwise word the matter yet his intention are still the same For he saith himselfe in the same place What I then hold meaning what he held in 1668 he held in 1697 though he have other wise worded the matter But what Author shall I fetch to convince D. L. better than him self For in this very book of his p. 33 he finding fault with and ridiculing G W about his charging a contradiction upon John Newman saies D L Pray judge if this meaning Newman's assertions â—e any more then to say four pence in one place and a gro at in another Importing that to be one and the same thing and so indeed it is Therefore wether to say four pence in one place be not one way and agroat in another place be not another way of wording the matter and yet intend the same thing We see D. L. has resolved in the affirmative I come next to his p. 25. where he cites G. W. again Divinity of Christ p. 82. in these words while we were sinners Christ died for us it was Christ that dyed To which he sopposes John Whitehead s Refuge Fixed p. 38. thus Nothing that was mortal was called Christ Answ What John Wâ—â—e head wrote he declares twâ—â— as being eclxasive of the soul and spirit of Christ and we know exclusive from the sould and spirit his flesh was called the body of Jesus as it is said Joseph of Arimathea begged the body of Jesus and this was mortal and dyed But as whilst living his Godhead soul and spirit was united to that body so when that body dyed it was called the death of Christ though his Godhead soul and spirit dyed not so that if exclusive there from his body was properly and intirely the Christ then Christ was not from the beginning But we believe according to scripture that Christ was from the beginning and that the Rock that followed Israel in the Wilderniss was Christ 1 Cor 10 4. and yet also according to scripture he took on him the body that was mortal and that which he suffered in that body was also called the sufferings of Christ For as much saith the Apostle then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh c. 1 Pet 4 1. And though the scripture calls it's suffering the death of Christ yet it also implyes that Christ was that day in Paradise Luke 23 43 though that which was mortal was in the grave till three dayes after As to his comparing our Friends writings to those Priests whom Samuel Fisher in his Rusticus p 773. for their inconsistent arguments against our Friends twits with his rounds of No so so no c. I shall only say thus much that I hope I have shewed and yet shall shew here in that there is no comparison to be made between them For the occasion of Samuel Fisher's so treating the priests was the so different terms they at times gave to the light which D L. may disprove if he can whereupon saies S F. One while he calls it meaphorical not proper another while proper not metaphorical one while natural as opposite to civil and not moral spiritual not supernatural another while and in other respects he makes it civil moral and spiritual one while common to all universal but then not saving other while sufficient and saving but then particular only and particular to a few This with much more was what S. F. grounded his No. so so No. c. upon which D L. should not have concealed from his Reader But it is no wonder a man should do so who strives for victory more than truth Again in p 30. 31. he cites G. F's Great Mistery p 289. thus God was in Christ and they are one the Creator the father in the son and the Son in the father and Christ in you and God in Christ the Creator And Quakers Plainness p. 24. by G W The son is co worker with the Father To these he opposes G. W's Light and Life p 47 as follows viz What nonsense is this to tell of God being co Creator with the Father Where upon D. L. makes this Note Does not G. W. here accuse both G. F. and himself also with Non sense for what 's the difference between Co worker and Co Creator Answ As blind as D L. renders me in his p 45. about the Resurrection yet I shal shew him that I can see a great deae of difference may be betwixt a Co worker and a Co Creator For the saints were Co workers together with Christ but surely they cannot be said to be Co Creators with him And though Christ being man as well as God may be said to be Co-worker with the Father yet to tell of God being Co Creator with the Father does as G. W. saies imply two Gods And what G. F. said of Gods being in Christ and they are one the Creator the Father in the son and the Son in the Father c. is true and scriptural and it brings him no waies under accusation of G. W. as this quarrel picker would render him In his p 37. he quotes R. B.'s Apology p 95. in these words viz Wherefore as we believe he Christ was a true and real man so we also believe that he continues so to be glorified in the heavens in soul and body Upon which D. L. notes W. P. saith Christ as
whole paragraph that it may be seen whether any such thing be so much as deducible from what VV. P. there saith And now let me tell him there needs no carious wire drawing mincing nor mangling as he in p 43. insinuates we should be forced to in our answer to him to manifest his abuse to W. P. in this matter Neither was there any occasion for D. L. to talk of our agreeing upon a consistent Creed but if he write again let it be what is agreeable with honesty and consistent with truth that honest men may stand by him in it In p 4 it should be 7 DL saith v In Dirinity of Christ by G. W. and G. Fox they begin in the Epistle with commanding and charging Professours to bring express scripture for their Doctrine saying Whether do the scriptures speak of three persons in the Godhead in these express words And where doth the scripture speak of a humane nature of Christ in heaven c. A little lower D. L. saith Now may not the Professours say Come G. W. Come Quakers where doth the scripture say the distinction of Father and Son is not only nominal but real He having in p. 4. cited these as G. W 's words Answ We know that those Professors would have tyed our friends up to those very terms of three persons and also human nature of Christ in heaven c. And yet at the same time blamed them for not calling the scriptures the only rule of faith So that since they would needs tye our Friends up to those very words 't was but reasonable they should be held to their Rule to prove them by But as foâ— G. VV.'s saying the distinction of the Father and Son is not only nominal but real I question not if the Father Word and Spirit be owned to be one God but G. VV. will rest satisfied without disiring to impose the words nominal and real on any man though he might use them to satisfie the enquirer But since D. L. would make us beleive he is impartial in relation to G. K why must the Quakers be thus struck at and G. K. passed by in this matter For doth not he in his book called Presbyterian and Independent visible Churches c. p 87 say of the scripture That it is not safe to leave the scripture words and go to words of mans wisdom and thereby declare our faith of Christian doctrine And yet doth not the same G. K make abundant use of other words in managing of Controversy and plead for it too as in his book called Antichrists and Sadducees detected c. in p. 19 Where he saith I see not why I should be so confined to exspres scripture words ' in things that I require no man to own or believe as Articles of faith but leave them to their liberty c. And now I dare say G. VV. and all sensible Friends will say as much The next quotation of D. L.'s I take notice of is out of G. F's Great Mistery p 264 c. cited by him in his p 10 thus Priest sayes A man by his own power cannot get into regeneration for they are dead in sins and trespasses G. F. replies some are sanctified from the womb and some children are holy so all are not dead in sins and trespasses c. Now to this he opposes G VV.'s Divinity of Christ in answer to T. D. p 20 thus G. VV. saies Condemnation â—ame upon all men Death passed upon all men for that all have sinned p 24 Again Christ died for all so all were dead in sins and trespasses c. Answ That some are sanctified from the womb according to G F is but according to scripture see Jerem 1 5 Luke 1 15 and 1 Cor 7 15 And also that condemnation and death came upon all men according to G VV is also according to scripture see Rom 12 18 and so according to D L. may not the scripture be charged with contradiction in that respect as well as G F and G VV Then whereas G F said all are not mark are not which is in the present tense dead in sins and trespasses it doth not at all contradict what D. L produceth as G. VV's that all were dead in sins and trespasses were being the time past tho by the way let the Reader take notice that I can find no such words in the place cited by D. L as G. VV's though I have searched for them For those words of scripture being taken in the strictest sense viz If one died for all then were all dead 2 Cor. 5 14 yet it doth not follow that those which were sanctified from their Mothers womb nor those which were passed from death to life are still dead For as G F's following words are hwich D. L. hath left out and hwich had he inserted them would have better explained G F.'s meaning They that are so are but unbeleivers And where as it is said death passed upon all men it this be to be understood strictly and without any 〈◊〉 how is it said of Enoch That he was translated tha◠〈…〉 not see death Hebr. 11 5. 〈…〉 12 he quotes W P.'s Christian Quaker thus Now nothing can bruise the head of the Serpent but something that is also internal as the Serpent is but if the body oâ— Christ were the seed then could he not bruise the serpents head in all because the body of Christ is not so much as in any one c Whom he would make T. Ellwood to oppose in Foundation of Tythes c p. 2â—8 240 thus Nor do the Quakers ascribe salvation to the following the light within but to Christ Jesus to whom the light leads If any one expect Remission of sins by any other way than by the death of Christ renders the death of Christ useless Answ I do affirm if D L or any other comes to know the serpents head bruised in any measure it must be by some thing internal neither doth what T E. hath said as above any waies contradict it For though we ascribe not our salvation to our own following of Christ who is the â—â—ght of the world according to Tho. Ellwood yet that follows not but thath Christ the Light of the world is he thath bruises the Serpents head and to ascribe our salvation to Christ the light of the world who appears internally in order there to is one thing and to ascribe it to our works which Tho. Ellwood and all sound Friends deny is another thing For allthough the Apostle know nothing by him self which is a large degree of growth yet there by he was not justified 1 Cor 4 4. Nevertheless the same Apostle saith By grace ye are saved and thath not of Your selves it is the gift of God Eph 2 8. Yet this is no contradiction And though the Apostle saith We are reconciled by his death yet he also saith we are saved by his life Rom 5 10 which life is internal For in
G. F. answer to the Priest was but by way of query which does not alwaies conclude a judgement For when Christ asked the Pharisees what think ye of Christ whose son is he they said unto him The son of David Christ answered by way of query How then doth David in spirit call him Lord Matt. 22. 42 43. Now by this his answer Christ did not deny himself to be the Son of David for that would have contradicted the scripture which calls him the son of David c. Matt. 1 1. And so G. F's asking a question cannot be said to be a denyal of W. P's assertion therefore no contradiction I come now to his p 17 18 to what he cites from G. F about the soul To which I say 1st It hath been often answered by our Friends particularly G. W. and W. P. 2dly Though D. L. slights their answers counting them fallacious c. Yet his peculiar Friend G. K. hath but in the year 1692 vindicated both G. F. doctrine about the soul and also W. P's answers to the Professours about the very same subject of G. F.'s which D. L. cites see his Serious appeal p 60 not yet retracted where it may be seen that what D. L. calls in G. W. and W. P. Fallacious equivocation his Friend G. K. calls a Sufficient vindication Now what curious wire drawing will D L. use here to clear himself from contradicting his great Friend G. K. But since among so many learned and Wise men there have been so many opinions about the Soul unless he could define better than other folks what the Soul is and what the Breath of life is which God breathed into man by which he became a living Soul his raking up seeming contradictions about it tends to no bodies profit that I know of As fot what he tells us of the Raniers saying The Soul is a part of God therefore to talk of going to hell is an idle story is very idle in D. L. to cite For I do believe as man continued a living soul to God by vertue of that life which God breathed into him and as he is restored thereto again by Christ in that state Hell is not his portion Yet till then the Soul is not living to God but death and hell is it's poâ—tion for the Soul simply is one thing and its being a living soul to God is surely another thing In p 18 19 he cites G F again thus Great Mistery p 205 and p. 63. The Saints came to se the end of Sabbaths and New-Moons and witnessed the body Christ before the day was made for the body is the light of the world the body is the life given for the life of the World in whom there is rest Christ gave himself his body for the life of the World he was the offering for sin Now D. L. to make W. P. contradict G F quotes out his Serious Apology p. 146 as follows But that the outward person that suffered was properly the Son of God We utterly deny A Body best thou prepared me said the Son sot he Son was not the Body though the body was the Son's Upon which saies D L. Let W P. reconcile these and also tell us who is the Father of that outward person Answ Easily reconciled For as W P. denies the outward person to be properly the son of God so G F's words as here laid down by D L do import the same For he being there answering a Priest who was mightily crying up the outward Sabbath which according to scripture was a shadow of things to come Coll 2. 16 17 derected him to Christ the substance or body of that shadow and said the body is the life of the world and the light of the world c. Now what is this to W P's saying The outward person is not properly the son of God For surely the body which is the substance of the shadowy things under the law is Christ indefinitely which G F. calls the light of the world c. But what W P. meant was restricted to his outwatd visible person only which surely none will say that that of its self was properly the light and life of the world so that what W P. and G. F. both do say is true and therefore no contradiction And doth not D. L. know that the words body of Christ have various significations in scripture As first his Church is called his body Coll 1. 18. The bread of the passover is called his body by Christ him self Matt 26 26. And that which suffered on the cross was also his body Again the substance of shadowy ordinances which is Christ is called the body which was the body in G. F's sence in this place mentioned by D. L. And where as D. L. would know of VV. P who is the Father of that outward person I presuming that VV. P hath matters of more weight to exercise him self in than to answer such sort of cavilling folks shall therefore undertake to tell him and that according to scripture He was the son of David Matth. 1. 1 and as Paul said to the Romans 1 3 He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh which was the outward person VV. P. meant Well! but how was he the son of God why the next verss shew viz And dedared to be the son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness c. And now I cannot but often observe how D. L. by his striking thus against the Quakers does often hit his Friend G. K. a greivous box on the ear for in The VVay cast up p. 104. G. K. saith He was the son of Mary David and Ahraham according to the flesh but according to his heavenly nature even as man he was the son of God And in p. 102 he saith It is not the outward flesh and blood that is the man but it is the sould or inward man that dwelleth in the outward flesh and blood that is the man most properly such as Christ was from the beginng Surly now if D L. be impartial he must take in in G. F's errours in his next anniversary book D. L. falls upon VV. P. again p. 19. quoting his Reason against Railing p. 91 as follows Forgive us our debts as we forgive our Debtors were saith he nothing can be more obvious than that which is forgiven is not paid and if it is our duty so forgive without a satisfaction received and that God is to forgive us as we forgive them then is a satisfaction totally excluded Now to make as if he contradicts him self he cites Rejoynder p. 284. where saith D. L. VV. P. cites and defends We believe that Christ in us doth offer up a living sacrifice to God for us by which the wrath of God is appeased to us Where upon saith D. L. Note a self contradiction for in the one he totally excludes a satisfaction and in the other he grants it Answer Can D. L.
man was finite viz. came to an end But here R. B. says he continues a real man in soul and body and so is not finite And then D. L. says Chuse which of these you will believe Answ Not D. L. to be sure That Christ continues a real man c. is true according to scripture as well as according to Robert Barclay But that therefore he as man is not finite it follows not For D. L. continues to be a real man for ought I hear yet he is finite But to be sure R. B's meaning was that Christ as man was to continue without end Well the same is believed likewise concerning the Saints yet are they finite for all that But whereas D. L. tells us that W. P. saies Christ was finite viz came to an end it is a great abuse upon W P and great untruth in D L for W P hath no such words vis came to an end as D L wickedly renders it to insense the world as â—â— W P believed that the man Christ was come to an end An Abominable Forgery I come In The last paragraph I conviected D L of a great forgery and now in this I am about to convict him of another as great In his Number 58 he cites G VV's Divinity of Christ p 27 thus The God whom we serve and believe in is infinite the only wiâ—e God and nothing relating to him or his being finite Against which he brings VV P thus Sandy Foundation p 20 VV. P there calls the man Christ The finite impotent creature Answ I must needs desire the Reader to take notice of the greate heat D. L. hath imposed upon him and the great abuse he hath put upon VV. P here in in saying that he calls the man Christ The finite and impotent creature and there upon in divers places bestowing his discanting sort of vaunts and taunts upon W. P. after such a rate as if he had a sicence to abuse men at pleasure As first in the same page he saith Here I cannot but take notice that though VV P. blasphemously calls the Man Christ the finite impotent creature c. And in p. 39 he speaks again of VV P's calling Christ's whole man the finite impotent creature And in p. 39. he speaks again of W P's calling Christ's whole man the finite impotent creature And a little lower he ironically hath it thus The man Christ must be called The finite impotent creature by this high and elevated dust and as his W. Penn. Nay he is so fond of the lye that when he comes to p. 24. he hath it again thus I cannot but mind VV P's devised distinction and unscriptural expression if it were no worse in calling the man Christ The finite and impotent creature c. Now Reader do but behould how this D L. has made a man of straw and then fights with it For I do affirm there is no such saying or irreverent expression in the whose book as that the man Christ is a finite and impotent creature No neither expressly nor implicitely nor so much as consequentially By which it may be clearly enough seeâ— that D L. was not influenced to this work by a Moâ—ion heavenâ—y and well would it have been for him if he said no more in the case than what by a little otherwise wording matter he could have made out to have been in the main at least the truth But Alas poor Daniel The case is otherwise with him for no otherwise wording the matter will do here he can do no less in justice than according to the example of his friend G K. who has retracted wil out cause to openly and freely retract it he having so much cause so to do or else it wil assuredly lye hard at his door and likewise prove as hard to make good his assertion in the close of his preface that his proceeding here in viz in his book were good and sincere Well in p 140 he again cites G F's Great Mistery p 222 thus Priest sais Christ is without the saints in respect of his bodily presence G F. answers How then are they of his flesh and bone And the D L. brings in VV P. thus Christian Quaker p 9â— The body of Christ is not so much as in any one Upon which D L. notes That VV P. is still clashing against G F al most on every hand Answ It is clear that the body meant by VV P. was the visible body of flesh and blood c. in which sense I can hardly beleive D L. thinks that G F meant that that visible body is in us however G F's following words shew that purport of this passage to wit And eat his flesh and drink his blood and how have saints his mind and spirit and he with them and they with him and sit with him in heavenly places and he is the head of the Church How then is he absent c. Thus G F by which it appears to me that the reason of this his answer was because the Priest would not allow that Christ was in us by reason his bodily outward presence is absent from us Besides G F did but query and G K saith in his Truth Defence p 59 That to query a thing will not conclude the Questionist doth positively affirm or deny In the same page he offers a quotation out of W P s Rejoynder p 13 viz That Christ his coming was but mark but to bring the World to a more improved knovvlege and large enjoyment of that divine povver vvisdom life and righteousness vvhich former ages had comparatively but an obscure sight and imperfect sense of To oppose vvhich he cites Truth 's Principles by I Crook If Christ had not dyed man must have perished in sin this being the vvay found out by God to recover him Upon vvhich D L notes Here 's one Christian he grants the merit of Christ's coming and death But W. P makes the benefit of his coming to be no more but â—o shevv man more plain vvhat he savv before as through a glass c. Answ O strange Hovv soon has D L forgot himself For in his quoting W P he makes him to ovvn and assert that Christ's coming was as vvell to bring the World to a more large injoyment of life mark enjoyment of life as vvell as power and Rightousness But in his Note she saith W P makes the benefit of his coming to be no more mark no more but to shew man more plain what he saw before c. As if there vvere no difference betvveen seeing and enjoying I think vvhat W. P said in the matter is very comprehensive as to the end of Christ's coming to vvit to give the World a more clear knovvledge of him and to cause us to enjoy life by him For I am come saith Christ that they might have life and that they might have it more abundantly Iohn 10. 1â— And surely Christ did not intent by this that we should
G VV. would not have R. Gordon to expect should be as he imagined in his book p 30 viz That Christ as the Son of Mary should outwardly appear in a bodily existence to save But here 's not one word of denying Christ to have the body of man as D L. falsly cites him and sure it 's one thing for Christ to appear to save men by his ingrafted word which is able to save the Soul Iames. 1. 21 which the Quakers press people to come to witness and an other thing to say Christ has the body of man outwardly to come on the last day to reward every man according to his works which the Quakers also believe Then 2 dly in the same page D L. cites the same book in p. 41 thus paraphrasing upon it And in p. 41. he denies Christ's bodily existence without us Answ There is no such word neither But G VV. speaking of R G s pretended adoration and claim of salvation being to Christ only as the son of Mary existing outwardly and bodily without us There upon G VV. saith I ask him if he have so considered God the saviour or the Son from the substance of the Father and then he asks him What scripture proof he hath for Christ's existing outwardly â—odily without us at Gods right hand By all which it plainly appears that G. W. only opposed those terms viz Christ existing outwardly bodily without us because that would seem to exclude his being as he is God and as he is in men and therefore saies to R. G. And is Christ the saviour as an outward bodily existence or person without us distinct from God and upon that consideration to be worshipped as God yea or nay c. Now though G. W. opposes R. G's doctrine of Christ's being or existence to be outwardly and bodily without us yet it does not at all follow from thence that he believes Christ hath not a body that hath a being or existence without us It is one thing to maintain that Christ the Saviour of the World hath a body existing whithout us wich G. W. denied not and another thing to hold or maintain that that bodily existence it self is Christ the saviour of the world which and no less R. G ' s. words seem to import The outward bodily existence of a man cannot be said strictly to be the man for them when it dies and the bodily existence is put off the man would cease to be And where it is said of Christ that he bare oursins in his own body on the three 1 Pet. 2. 24 It might as well be said that the body bare our sins on his own body on the tree So that to conclude I say it is a manifest falsehood in D. L to say that G. W. denies Christ's bodily existence without us Christ's body doth exist without us Yet that bodily outwardly existence is not the Christ without his soul spirit and God head And 3 dly D L. in p. 25 falsly charges VV P. in these words And saies VV P. We deny that person that dyed at Jerusalem to be our Redeemer Referring to VV P s Apology p 146. Answ These are not the words of W P but of his Adversary Jenner cited by W. â— in the aforesaid book Jenner having thrown it upon the Quakers as their principle W. P. in answer thereto calls it a hoâ—râ—d impâ—tation and then acknowledges in these express words That he who laid down his life and suffered his body to be crucified by the Jews without the gates of Jerusalem is Christ the only begotten son of the most high God and though he there denies the outward person that suffered properly to be the son of God yet the stress oâ— the mâ—tte◠〈◊〉 only upon the word outward by which W. P. meant his outward body as is clear from his following words viz A body hast thou prepared me said the son then said W. P. The son was not the body though the body was the sons And if D. L. should say The body was the son theâ— this absurdity will follow viz Christ bare our sins in his own son instead of his own body on the tree And if D. L. say the outward person was properly the son of God and yet will be imparâ—tial then let him fall upon G. K. for asserting That it is not the outward Flesh and Blood that is the man but it is the soul or inward man that dwelleth in the outward flesh or body that is the man most properly such as Christ had from the beginning As his express words are in his Way Cast up p. 102. not yet retracted But whether he will believe his peculiar friend G. K. or not to be sure he has belyed W. P as above is shewn and it is not his pleading â— little failure in Syntax a thing he banteringly accuses G. W. within his book no nor otherwise wording the matter neither will do without an open and free Retraction of these his abuses Furthermore having after I had proceeded a good way in this work met with the book called The Quakers Plainness I have therein found fresh cause to take a little further notice of D. L's perfidiousness which I purpose a little more to detect before I proceed to any other matter see News of a Trumpet Numb 5. where he hath it thus Sâ—ndy Founda p 15 W. P. saith In the fullness of time God sent his son who so many hundred years since in person restified the virtue c. Now to make G. W. coÌ„tradict this he quotes Quakers Plainess p. 24. affirming that G. W. saith The title person is too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God Now Reader that thou may see how unfairly D. L. hath laid down G. W. words taken them as laid down by himself thus That Christ is not a person without â—s p 21. is our doctrine or phrase that I know of or remember only that the title is thought too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God many men having gross apprehensions about the phrase Person without But Christ is confest us both as without us and within us Well Where is the contradiction in all this Why here W. P saies That God sent his son so many hundred years ago in person and G. W saies The title person without is thought too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God Mark person without us was what was thought too low to be spoken concerning the son of God it was not thought too low for it to be said of him that so many hundred year since he appeared in person For it is one thing to say That the son so many hundred years ago appeared in person and another thing to say That the son or Christ of God is a person without us especially when it is spoken in opposition to those who deny him to be within us For though we sincerely believe Christ to be in heaven without us yet
upon the uncertain report of such an open and unwearied Enemie of G. F. as T. C. hath been known to be for many years In pag. 112. 113. he raises a mean Argument out of a quotation he produces out of G W's book Intitul'd Quakers Plainness pag. 14. on this wise It seems they have how lost this visible miracles and other Evidences of the Spirit if ever they had them â—or he there says and what if God will not bestow such Gifts and Signs now must we therefore be no Christians c. Answ D L's conclusion will not hold first G W did not in the least grant that God would not bestow such Gifts now but only askes what if He will not secondly but if he had granted it it does not therefore follow that the Quakers had lost other Evidences of the Spirit for surely the Spirit of God witnessing with our Spirits that We are the Children of God may be known now as well as of old and this can never be without such suitable workes as may be sufficient Evidence to the People of God at least that they are the Children of God whether the Lord be pleased to bestow such Gifts as were allways perculiar to few or not And to such as had such Gifts bestowed on them Christ Said In this rejoyce not that the spirits are subject unto you but rather rejoyce because Your names are written in Heaven Luke 10. 20. His 14. Chapt. Intituled Of Life and Doctrine he begins with a Base Insinuation viz Much more than formerly do my old Friends the Quakers cry out This Life is the Onely thing that is our all in all 't is no matter for Doctrine or Knowledge in this or that Principle away with Creeds and points of Faith so that we feel Life in our Bosoms and flowing from Vessel to Vessel Answer Herein D. L. shews himself to be a more than Ordinary Scoffer a Mere Ishmaelite and a false Insinuator as if we opos'd Doctrine relaing to and knowledge in the things of God to the Life that we feel many times in our Bosoms O ungodly man Let him prove if he can that ever one owned amongst us thus expressed himself But by his thus flouting at us about the feeling of Life among us it 's to be feared if ever he knew what it was that he is now much degenerated and far gone into the state of those of whom the Apostle speaks who were Alienated from the Life as God and past feeling Ephes. 4 18 19. And tho in his pag 115 he Compares in some sense our Friends Testimonies with an affecting sermon of a Debauched Priest which caus'd weeping eyes on every hand yet his Comparison will prove but lame for since we read that Sathan himself is transformed in to an Angel of Light 2. Cor 11 14. is it therefore a great wonder that his ministers should be sometimes transformed in to the Likeness of ministers of Righteousness But doth not this as much reflect upon Peter's preaching mentioned in â—â—â—s 2 where so many were pricked in their heart in so much that they said unto Peter and the Rest What shall we do And might not such as D. L. with this kind of Arguing as well have Incens'd the minds of the People against what the Apostle delivers when speaking of the powerfull effect their Ministry had upon the people He saies But if all Prophecy and there come in one that believeth not or one unlearned mark unleaned he is Convinced of all he is Iudged of all and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest and so falling down on his face he will worship God and report that God is in you of a Truth 1. Cor. 14. 24 25. And doubtless were those hearers now alive D. L. would say of them as he does to us Even such is the Devotion of all Zealous but Ignorant people Yet of this we are well assured That tho' God gives the Increase upon the Labours of his Ministers and that Paul may plant yet there are also Apollo's that water as truly now as of Old As for what he saies of Thomas Mâ—sgroves Preaching at many Meetings about Delaware That the flesh of Christ was a Constant enduring Paitence and his blood a Lively operating Spirit of Life or Divine operating Living Loâ—e I Answ I have been at many Meetings with him but never heard any such thing as D. L. expresses as I remember from him nor of him before neither can I hear upon Inquiry of any one that ever heard him speak so I am now come to his 15 th Chap. 1. 〈…〉 Sabbath day wheel turn'd round where speaking of some Quakers formerly having opened their shops followed their usual employments on the first Day both in Old England elsewhere he Crys out But behold how the wheel is now turned for the Quakers at Delaware being the Commanding Party of the Assemblies have lately made Law to prefer the first Day before others calling it the Lord's Day c. Answ We never preferr'd the first day above others for any holiness in it self as a day Nor do we commonly call it the Lords Day though in the Law he mentions we used that Word as the most proper of those that are generally given to it to explain more clearly to all what was meant by the preceeding word the first day But if D L will have the Instance of two or three who in the Beginning opened their Shops on a first day to be a proof of our Degeneracy because none do so now we may certainly much more reasonably alledge the Practice of all our Friends from the beginning except those two or three in keeping their Shops alwayes shut on that day till this very time as a stronger Argument to prove we are not degenerated in that point The occasion of making that Law he hints at amongst us will be best spoken in its own words as follows To the end that Looseness Irreligion Atheism may not creep in under pretence of Conscience in this Province Be it enacted That according to the Example of the Primitive Christians and for the Ease of the Creation Every First day of the week called the Lords day People shall abstain from their usual and common Toil and Labour that whether Masters Parents Children on Servants they may the better dispose themselves to read the Scriptures of Truth at home or frequent such Meetings of Religious worship abroad as may best sute their respective Perswasions And truly notwithstanding the Clamor D. L. makesabout it now I love Clamor so little that I should not have been vvilling to have ventured made anexchange vvith him for the Clamors he vvould have made if there had been no Lavv at all made here about it For I see there is such a Spirit enter'd him and others of them that vve must never expect to tread such such stepps as will prevent their finding fault with us In pag. 119. he brings in G W querying
thus where dost thou read in the Scrpitures that men must do no work on the first day of the week Now to this I shall say That G W propos'd this Querie to one who accounted the first Day the Sabbath day and that it was a sin in it self to work thereon which we say it is not there being no Command of God to be produced requiring it so to be kept But as it is no sin to work on that day so it is no sin to abstain from work on that day for if it had surely the Primitive Christians would many times have sinned in meeting to gether on that Day It is no sin in it self for the free People of West Jersie to Chuse their Magistrates and Officers on another Day and in another manner than by their Laws and Constitutions is appointed Yet inasmuch as it is no sin to Chuse them on that Day and in that manner and it being according to their Law and the Peoples Rights and Priviledges it ought to be kept Let D. L. take notice of that and so it is in the Case of abstaining from Labour on the First Day of the week In pag. 120 he produceth a Prophecy of W P against J H which he would have to be false but not withstanding his pretending he allwayes believed plainness and honest simple hearted dealing to be best Yet rather than he will loose the Advantage of making W P look like a false Prophet he hath Crastily as well as knavishly left out those words which would have show'd that the Prophecy vvas but Conditional although as laid dovvn by D. L. it 's absolute For proof whereof I shall transcribe it first as cited by D. L. and then as publisht by W. P. D. L. bath it thus So sure as God Liveth the Lord will make thee an example of his sury and thy head shall not go down to the Grave in peace and by this shalt thou know says he that not a Lyning nor Delusive but a true and Infallible spirit hath spoke by me See Reason against Railing pag. 181. Now vvhether W. P. did not there bely the spirit of God For I do understand that P. H. died at Peace in his bed and with great satisfaction Thus far D. L. Now hear the passage as it comes from W. P. As sure as God liveth Grear will be the Wrath that shall follow Thee Yea God will visit for these unrighteous dealings and I testifie to thee from God's living spirit if thou desist not and come to deep Repentance the Lord will make thee an example of his fury c. Now observe these words if thou desist not and come to deep Repentance D. L. hath far unlike to a man that loves honest simple hearted dealing best very dishonestly left out because it render'd the Prophecy but Conditional which Conditions if perform'd render also the Prophecy nevertheless true tho' the Iudgment did not come upon him Now desist I do believe he did and whereas D L says he understands he dy'd at Peace in his bed and with great satisfaction I may possibly as truly say he repented of his so Grievously abusing our Friends before he Dy'd for I have been told so by full as credible an Author I suppose as D. L 's was but to say he dy'd with great satisfaction if D. L. mean without Repentance I am satisfied his state could be never the better for that For altho' he might reckon us no Christians as Indeed he did and so without the Pale of the Church yet he ought to have walked honestly towards them that are without 1. Thess 4. 12. which T. H. did not do by the Quakers but by his misrepresenting them to the world in his Dialogues he did certainly do very dishonestly by them in giving those for the Quakers Answers and saying they were no other but what the Quakers give both in words and practice see Dialogue pag. 163 which he could never prove to be such But to my knowledge when call'd upon for his proofs us'd pitiful shirts to evade them and at last wholely absented himself from the Meeting appointed for tryal thereof And that the Reader may see I do not misrepresent T. H. now he is Dead I shall recite a few of his questions and also what he gives for the Quakers Answers and says it 's no other than what they give forth c. see his pag 72. Question Are you then as perfectly happy as ever you expect to be Answ We Witness Perfection Q. What proof is that to another man A. We say we witness it is not that proof Sufficient Q. But what if I believe otherwise A. We shall not spare to Stigmatize and Comdemn that person that questions the truth of our sayings Q Will this Convince me or any other of your Perfection A Tho' it do not yet thereby we shall render you so odious to our Friends that they will believe nothing that is spooken by You against us Q. Then may I not conclude that the Reason whey you so freely rail against and reproach your Opposers is only to secure your Credit with your own Procesytes A. I cannot deny but that there may be something of that in it Q. Will you be so liberal of your Revilings whether your Adversaries give Occasion or no A It concerns us to render them as ridiculous as we can c Q. But doth not this Signefie a very dishonest and malicious mind in you A. We care not what you think provided our Friends think not so This with a great deal more that might be mention'd was contained in the Book which as he was never able to prove to be as he wroet so let every Impartial man Iudge whether these were like to be the Quakers Answers or no and if notwithstanding all these Grievous abuses of us by Th. H he could lay down his head in peace with the Lord which doubtless was the Peace intended by W. P. without repentance I think people need not much mind that Command of our Savour As you would that men should do to you do you also to them likewise Luk. 6. 31. Which I would have D L to mind As for D L's Appendix I see little need to speak to it the most of it being very much like his other rambling stuff up and down throughout his whole Book yet not willing wholely to pass it by I shall make some few Observations as followeth In his pag 129 under the head Of infallibility He quotes a passage out of G W's Voyce of Wisdom pag 33. That they that want Infallibility are not true Ministers Now several of the Books he quotes I want and this among the rest Therefore whether this be fairly quoted or not I know not Yet I believe the thing to be true viz That where any Minister is not Infallibly assured that what he ministers to the People is from the movings and guidings of the holy Spirit of God so far he is not a true
God which raiseth the dead Who delivered as from so great a death and doth deliver in whom we must this he will yet delive us 2. Cor. 1. 8. 9. 10. Yet at last he was put to death at Rome In the next place I shall take some notice of D. L. ◠〈◊〉 In his p. 137. 138. he asks Why this following doctrine so frequently preached formerly by ancient friends is how let fall and nor preached by any of you viz I the Light will overturn nations Kingdome and Gathered Churches c. and citing many books as News out of the North c p 15. I am the same door that ever was says G F the same Christ to day yesterday and forrver c. Answ This is but a meer begging the question For as he hath not proved so I deny that the doctrine of the fight was frequently preached by antient friends in those terms And as for those words in the above cited News out of the North with several others cited â—y him I cannot sufficiently speak to them â—auing not the books and by what is before written it is easy to see that he ought not to be trusted in his quotations he is so exceedingly perfidious in them As a farther confirmation of this charge I shall produce another proof as followeth I happening to have one of the books he cites in the abovesaid page viz G. F's Great Mistery out of which he pretend to produce a quotation thus And tho that same spirit that raised Iesus from the dead is equal with God viz. the holy Ghost see Great Mistery p 66 127 I dilligently searched both those places and do affirm there are no such words to be found in either of them But I find in p. 127 that a Priest charged G F with professing equality with God whereupon G F tells us that the Assembly of Divines in their Catechisia say The holy Ghost is equall in power and glory with the Father Now saies G F every one that comes to witness the son of God and the holy ghost c by your account they witiness that which is equal in power glory with God and that his words were spoken beyond all creatures out of all creatures that he did not say G Fox Now is it not as cleare as the sun that D L hath again grieviously abused both G F also his Reader For it is one thing to witness the holy Ghost wich is equal in power and glory with the Father to be in us according to G F even beyond unterance and another thing to profess our selves equal with the Father Son or holy Ghost either as this abusive D L would render us In p 138 139 he asserts this falshood viz 'T is the faith or belief of all your preachers in general That when you preach or pray 't is not you but Christ in you that prays I prove this to be your belief by these two reasons First You do never in your meetings pray for pardon or forgiviness of sin Not that I have heard in twenty years due attendance for seeing 't is Christ in you that prays there is no need of it he being without sin Answ He may as well charge all those holy men of old who have prayed to God and yet heave not in all their prayers asked pardon for sin with the same as he falsly charges us with here viz with believing that it is Christ in us that prays And in order to prove that what he objects against us was not the common practice of the primitive Church I shall produce an example which at this time occurs to my mind as it is related Acts. 4. 24. to 31. where we find that the Church then assembled together lift up theie voices with one accord in prayer to God in which prayer there is not one word of confession of or begging pardon for sin And if D L be so blind as that he can perceive no difference or distinction to be made between Christ by his spirit helping our infirmitie's in our prayers which we say he doth and without which we cannot pray as we ought see Rom 8 26 and saying that 't is Christ in us that prays which we say not we cannot help it Then what or how due his attendance hath been for twenty years I know not but sure I am I have heard earnest cryes and servent supplications put up to God in our publick meetings for pardon and remission of sins many times in less than ten years His second reason is this You do not pray to Christ becaiuse it being Christ in you that prays it is absurd for Christ to pray to himself Answ This is again a meer begging of the question for we say no such thing as that when we pray 't is Christ prays in us but as above 't is Christ by his spirit that assists his children in their prayers who said Without me ye can do nothing John 15 5. He continues in his p. 139. to cast many unjust reflections upon us in relation to these two heads of not praying for pardon of sins and not praying to Christ at all which is partly answered already but in order to the more full clearing the latter objection I shall take notice of one passage more in the same page After he hath opposed the Apostles Saints and Martyrs to us he concludes that paragraph thus viz Both Apostles and other Christians frequently prayed to Jesus Christ as well as to God the Father Answ This affects not us at all as to what he infinuates that we do not pray to Christ because it is neither against our principle nor practice and if he will not believe us in relation to this assertion yet methinks he might credit his Friend G. K. in the matter who in p. 121. 122. of his Way cast up saith He hath not only himself done so but also hath heard others expresly naming the words Jesus Christ Although saith he when we express not these words yet if we pray by the movings of his liâ—e and Spirit we pray in the name of Jesus c. And he farther saith I have heard expresly such petitions put up in our prayers at our meetings unto Christ as Jesus son of David have mercy upon us O! thou blessed Jesus that wert crucified and dyed for our sins and shed thy pretious blood for us be gracious unto us O! thou our mercifull High Priest whose tender bowels of compassion are not more straitned since thy ascension but rather more inlarged Thou art our Advocate and Mediator in heaven with the Father our merciful High Priess Thou blessed Jesus thou knowâ—st our most secret desires and breathings which we offer up into thee in the inabâ—ngs of thy blessed â—ife and spirit that thou maist present them unto thy Father and our Father that in thee we may be accepted and our services also and for thy sake our defects and short comings our sins and transgressions that we have
really circumstantials or smaller matters as Tythes Mint c and not of necessity for a Christians practice they make the Fundamentals of their Religion All which suggestions I deny as fâ—lle and had he but a name I should require him to prove them 4thly As groundless as well as proofless is his insinuation That it seems Peâ—ple may sing the Quakers writings but not David's by their allowance For we allow the singing of David's Psalms full as much to say no more and in as true a sense as the singing of Quakers writings but we see no service in either to be sung in that formal way as is commonly and customarily used amongst people 5thly His flurt about bowing the body to which he joins that of the Quakers in England that live in great Towns and cities Causing their apprentices to stand bare headed before them c. I shall take no farther notice of than to tell him If he had named them and proved his charge perhaps he might have received a farther answer to it 6thly His story about Walter Clark Walter Clark denies as stated by him so that I cannot but esteem him false and abusive in this also To which I may add as all of a piece his envious reflection surmised after this manner viz. I question whether ever they 〈◊〉 be able to wrestle down the wordly Governours with only little guns till they get great ones Scoffingly infinuating as if we were for throwing down wordly Governours with guns A notorious slâ—ander 7thly He taxes W. P. with Boeing turned Painter and seems to charge him with denying that G. F. was a shomaker because in his preface to G. F's Iournal he declares his outward vocation to be a shepherd As iâ— it were impossible for him to have been a Shepherd and a Shomaker both which if this scribler imagines I would query how his esteemed Friend D. L. came to be a Surveyor and Planter as well as a Iustice of the Peace and Almanack-maker which are four vocations to the others two 8thly His story of G. F's having the midwife so long attending on his wife expecting her delivery of some child of wonder she being near 59 years of age buâ— at last brought forth no child and the midwife dis-mist And the reason he pretends to give why this was not put in the Journal viz It would be enough to give the lye to his pretended spirit of discerning I beleive I have heard the â—ruin of from as credible an Author and from one that know the businese perhaps better than this person of note or any that informed him who told me that G F. never did beleive that his wife was with child and consequently did not expectea child of wonder Neither would the inserting the thing in the Journal as it really was have given the lye to the spirit of discerning G F was endued with 9thly As to his saying I dare engage the Quakers will never print a Collection of them G F's He had books best have a care what he ingages upon it least if he live a few years longer he lose his ingagement 10thly What he produceth out or Edward Burrough's Works about the sufferings of Christ as to the substance of it hath been answered by our Friends already particularly by G W in his book called A Sober Expostiâ—l◠〈◊〉 c. p. 65. 11thly He saith Their books of controversy are so stuit with gross lyes grand forgeries wicked perverstoâ—â— false insinuations and shamefull calumnies as are the the late books of S. Jenings T. Ellwood the Penington's G. Whitehead C Pusey and others c. To which I shall onely say These are very high charges but the proofs not made to appear and therefore refer the Reader to the books of the Friends mentioned by him both their answers to G K and Reply's to G K's answers to theirs 12thly As to his saying They thrust in the Revolution of souls into the present controversy though it be no part of the Controversy I answer If G K will limpose such doctrines upon us and controvert such points with us as he cannot at least toour understandings make our without introducing this notion of the Revolution of souls This very practice makes the said notion become a part of the Controversy But that G K hath so done is made appear in the book stiled A Modest Account c. therefore the Revolutions is part of Controversy And now being about to conclude I shall take notice of an expression of D L's in his p. 140 which is this Now I sincerely profess that I have done nothing herein but with an honest design not having wilfully or knowingly wronged either books or Authors in any one passage Answ Therefore I having detected him and hereby given him to know that he hath wronged both books and Authors and that in many passages he ought now to acknowledge it For iâ— we could believe his design to be honest and sincere yet we must needs conclude that he has wofully misi it in the management and to make it the more observable to the Reader as well as to himself I shall here present to his immediate view a summary collection of a few of the many which might be produced out of this book he is chargable with 1st false it is which â—e â—ites cut of p. 66. and say of G. F's Great Mislery in his p. 138. viz. He that hath the same spirit that raised Jesus from the dead is equal with God c. For there is no such thing to be found in either page 2dly False it is which he objects against G W in his p 30 where he affirms that G W quarrels with the word God man For according to the place he refers to as cited by himself G W speaks thus As for those expressions God-man being born of Mary we do not find them in the scriptures nor do we read that Mary was the Mother of God but in the Popes Canons c. So that the word God-man is not what G W objects against but God-man born of Mary which much alters the case for to say God as well as man was born of Mary was too like the Pope's calling Mary the Mother of God For that which was conceived in her was of the Holy ghost but not the Holy Ghost Matt. 1 20. 3dly False it is which he quotes in the same page out of G W s book stiled Quakers Plainness viz That Jesus Christ is come in the flesh That he is God man c. Whereas there is no such thing said there for G W in that place giving some account of our saith saith Which is that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and that he is God man the son of God yea and God manifest in the flesh c. But not one word of his being God-man No it only looks like a trick of D L to render G W opposite to himself in relation to the former passage possibly thinking we