In the 4th Article of that Paper sign'd by G. W. I quoted these words The Divinity and Humanity i. e. Manhood of Christ Jesus that as he is true God and he is most glorious Man our Mediator and Advocate we livingly believe and have often sincerely confessed in our Publick Testimonies and Writings On this I noted That whatever seeming Confessions they have given in their publick Testimonies to this and other Doctrines yet seeing they have contradicted them most evidently in their printed Books and will not allow that they are chang'd in any one of their Principles they do Fallaciously and put a Cheat upon the Members of Parliament and the whole Nation A Quaker reply'd Dost thou think that the Members of Parliament are not more Wise than to suffer themselves to be cheated by the Quakers I answer'd It is one thing for the Quakers to put a Cheat upon them it is another thing for them to be cheated by them a Cheat may be put on Men and yet they not receive it I hope they are so wise as not to be deceived by them Some of the Quakers objecting That this tended to Persecution so to represent them I answered it tended to no Persecution being to rescue such from those Errors who were corrupted by them and prevent their further spreading and would they take my advice I would shew them a way to secure the Toleration unto them and that is by a free and plain Retractation of their gross Errors And for an evidence of their fallacious way of Speaking and Writing besides what was quoted and proved at the former Meeting to prove them grosly Erroneous concerning Christ his Humanity and Incarnation his Soul Body Flesh and Blood I brought a Quotation out of that call'd A Testimony for the true Christ printed 1668 and given forth as in the Title-Page from some of them call'd Quakers In page 4. As he speaks of Humane with relation to Nature and Body it hath relation to the Earth or Humus the Ground of which Man was made which the first Man is of not the second tho' he was really Man too but Humane or Humanity in the other sence with relation to Gentleness Mercifulness and the like this we know was and is in the Image of God in which Man was made and his Gentleness Kindness Mercifulness c. is manifested in Christ who is the Image of the invisible God and First-Born of every Creature which Image is not earthly for that must be put off but heavenly and so to be put on by all that come to know the Glory of the terrestrial in its place and the true and real Humanity as oppos'd to that Cruelty Envy and Inhumanity which is got up in Man since the Fall so that Humanity and the Unreasonableness of Beasts are two things Note Thus we see how they own Christ's Humanity not in the sence of Scripture and of all sound Christians viz. That the Word did take the real Nature of Man consisting of Soul and Body into a Personal Union with himself his Divinity and Humanity being two Natures distinguished in him but not divided and that he took a Body of Flesh and Blood the same in Nature with ours even our earthly Nature like to us in all things but without Sin but this they plainly deny That Christ had Humanity as it signifies Earthly but they tell in what sence they mean his Humanity viz. as it signifies Gentleness Mercifulness as oppos'd to Cruelty Envy and the unreasonableness of Beasts in which sence they may affirm all this of Christ's Divinity and Godhead That his Godhead is Humane i. e. Gentle Merciful Kind and yet believe not one tittle of Christ's Humanity as the Scripture holds it forth that is that he was really made of a Woman and had his Flesh of her Substance but this they not only here deny but G. F. expresly denyeth That Christ's Body was Earthly or of the Earth G. M. p. 322. He quotes his Opponent saying That Christ had and hath a Carnal Body A Carnal and Humane Body united to his Divinity In opposition to which he saith And Carnal Humane is from the Ground Humane Earthly the first Adam's Body and Christ was not from the Ground let all People read what thou say'st but he was from Heaven his Flesh came down from above his Flesh which was the Meat his Flesh came down from Heaven Again He quotes his Opponent saying That the Flesh of Christ is not in them he answers The Saints eat his Flesh and they that eat his Flesh hath it within them Again He quotes his Opponent That there is as much difference between a Body and a Spirit as there is between Light and Darkness he Answers Christ's Body is Spiritual and that which is Spiritual does not differ from the Spirit and so there is a spiritual Body and there is a natural Body and there is a spiritual Man and there is a natural Man and each hath their Body Note He plainly here denies a difference or distinction between Christ's Body of Flesh and his Spirit for he saith The Saints eat his Flesh and they that eat his Flesh hath it in them Now what Flesh can they have of Christ in them but what is merely Spirit whereas his Opponent and all Christians when they speak of Christs Flesh they meant a real Body as real as the Body of any other Man And whereas G. F. saith Christ's Flesh was not from the Ground or Earth the Scripture saith no such thing but the contrary that he did partake of the same Flesh and Blood with the Children wherefore he is not asham'd to call them Brethren * Heb. 2. 11 14. G. F. doth both Ignorantly and Fallaciously play and quible about the Word Carnal against his Opponent who said Christ had a Carnal Body he Answers Carnal indeed is Death saith the Scripture but here he belyes the Scripture it saith not the Carnal Body is Death but to be Carnally-minded is Death Could G. F. be so sottish as not to distinguish between a Carnal Body and a Carnal Mind His Opponents who said Christ had a Carnal Body united to the Divinity they meant not Carnal as it signifies Vicious or Corrupted but as it signifies Material i. e. a real Body as real a Bodily Substance as any other Man hath and tho' Christ's Body now in Heaven is a Spiritual Body yet it is a Body still and the same Body in Substance it was on Earth And when it was on Earth it was both a Material Body and yet in a sense a Spiritual i. e. a pure immaculate Body without all stain of Sin a most holy Body and in the like sense it might be said even when on Earth it was a heavenly Body to wit as opposed to sinful corrupt and tainted with Sin and not only so but in respect of its miraculous Conception by the Holy Ghost and the holy and heavenly Virtues it was endued with above the
acknowledged his Error than to lay the Fault upon as wrong writ or wrong printed And if he corrected them long since how comes it that he never published his Correction in any of the Books he has published since betwixt the Year 1655. and 1690. containing the space of 36. Years But for evidence against him that he hath not sincerely said That he writ not that Part of the Book it is enough that he owned it and this I can prove that without Exception he owned it to be his jointly with these others who signed it with him as appears from his Truth defending the Quakers p. 1. printed four Years after the Ishmael And he belches out the like antichristian and profane Expressions against the three Persons in the Godhead in Terms equivalent to those in the Ishmael He saith in his first Page in Answer to the first Question Do not you repent for your endeavouring vainly to defend August 29. 1659. in so great a Congregation these Positions printed in a Book writ by George Whitehead He answers for himself and his Brethren thus The Positions we defended are according to the Scriptures of Truth and them we need not repent of These were they contained in that very Book called Ishmael as doth appear out of the Book Ishmael it self here the Book was produced one of which Positions were in asserting the Scriptures or Writing not to be the Word Another was That there is no such Word in the Scriptures as Three Persons in the Trinity but it is a Popish Doctrine as the Mass or Common-Prayer-Book mentions it Fourthly And thou that affirms three distinct Persons in the Godhead art a Dreamer and he that dreams and tells Lies contrary to the Scriptures of Truth which we own he with his Imaginations and Dreams is for the Lake Here it is plain that by his Imaginations and Dreams G.W. meant the Ministers Doctrines of calling the Scriptures the Word and affirming that there are three Persons in the Godhead so whereas he said in his Ishmael Townsend and the three Persons are shut up in perpetual Doctrines Here in Truth defending c. he saith He with his Imaginations and Dreams that is the three Persons is for the Lake Now this is not one whit more sober than his Words in the Ishmael how then is it that G. Whitehead has not found some shift to put this part of his Truth defending upon another Again in his Truth defending c. p. 25. he plainly owns that Book called Ishmael to be his four Years after it was printed and now though in his Truth defending c. he saith That he and his Brethren need not repent of the Positions laid down in that called Ishmael yet now in the Year 1690. in his Christianity he saith He was sorry his Name was to that Paper and yet as before is mentioned in Truth defending p. 1. he saith They need not repent of it Is not this a plain Change in G. W. He need not repent of what was writ and yet was sorry that it was writ Formerly he owned that Book in the Year 1659 and in the Year 1690 He writ not that Part and was sorry it was writ and all this without any Change in his Mind But when People are sorry for what they do we commonly reckon they repent of it This offensive Passage objected against G. Whitehead out of his Ishmael was objected against him by Christopher Wade in his Quakery slain p. 9. printed in 1657. And though G. W. printed against C. Wade in his Truth defending 1659. yet he then took no notice of that Passage to disown it to be his But how is it that G. W. disowns what was written in the Book called Ishmael against the three Persons Doth he now own the three Persons not to be Popish as he formerly charged them Truth def p. 2 Though he has not in the least retracted his abusive and reviling Speeches against this glorious Truth both in the Ishmael and in his Truth defending c. for that would reflect upon his Infallibility yet he would seem now to own the Doctrine of the three Persons since the Act for Toleration came forth for that Act of Toleration does except those who deny in their preaching or writing the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity as it is declared in the Articles of Religion viz. the 39 Articles But that G. W. may have the Benefit of the Act which at present he has not by Law whatever he has by Indulgence he ought also to disown some other abusive Expressions of his and sophistical Arguings he has used in his other Books as particularly not only in his Truth defending c. above mentioned but in his Divinity of Christ signed by the two Letters G. W. see p. 18. he hath these Words As to T. D ' s telling of the Son of God's Incarnation the Creation of his Body and Soul the Parts of that Nature be subsisted in c. To this I say saith G. W. if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both created doth not this render him a fourth Person And as nonsensical and abusive is the reasoning of G. Fox their great Apostle in the Epistle prefixed to the Divinity signed by him and John Stubbs where in the 9th Page of that Epistle they thus argue And he speaks again in his 14th Page of three distinct Persons are one with the Godhead Now Reader is not here four to wit three Persons and the Godhead And thus G. F. and G. W. make no less by their wild and nonsensical Reasonings than five Persons in the Godhead an Absurdity they would fix on the Doctrine of three Persons for by their Arguments the Godhead is the fourth Person and Christ's created Soul and Body is the fifth Do not these Passages require a Retractation and will they say they are Protestants and one with the Church of England in Matter of Doctrine and in the common Principles of Christianity and yet boldly stand in the Defence of those abusive Passages But whereas they argue ad hominem that there must be five Persons if Father Son and Holy Ghost be said to be three Persons seeing G. W. calls them three Witnesses by their nonsensical Argument there must be five Witnesses that bear Record in Heaven viz. the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and the Godhead these are four and the created Soul and Body of Christ that is the fifth But G.W. has a way to evade this last by denying that Christ has any created Soul or Body as in the Words in p. 18. above mentioned doth appear for which I shall have some use hereafter Jos Wyeth in his Switch p. 184. would make his Readers believe It 's only the Word Person they object against as too gross We cannot saith he but think the VVord Person too gross to express them But to detect this Fallacy pray let us take notice that G. F. whom he calls an Apostle has expresly
to constitute one Christ which is by a miraculous and extraordinary Union that no other Creatures neither Angels or Men are dignified with and though Christ as Man was the Son of God miraculously conceived and born in Time and also as God was by a Generation from Eternity before all Worlds and Times yet he is but one Son of God and because of the personal Union of the Word with his Manhood both as God and Man he is properly the Son of God But there is yet another Fallacy in G. W's Words which is that neither the visible Body nor Manhood that was born of the Virgin was any Part of the true Christ or Son of God and first As to that visible Body of Flesh and Bones he denies that Christ consisted of it I distinguish said he between consisting and having Christ had visible Flesh and Bones but he did not consist of them Christian Quaker p. 139 140. This shews us the very Heart of their Heresie In like manner W. P's Rejoinder p. 299 to 307. W. P. argues for 16. Pages in his Rejoinder against Faldo That Christ never died for they will not have any thing properly to be the Christ but his Godhead which they make to be all one identically and essentially with his Heavenly Mandhood consisting of Heavenly Flesh and Blood that he had from all Eternity Here a Quaker called John Whiting opposed in Defence of W. Penn and said W. Penn did not deny that that outward Person was the Son of God I askt him whose Son was he properly He said The Son of Mary I replied Mary was his Mother but who was his Father properly He said He was conceived by the Holy Ghost I again replied But that 's no Answer to my Question who was his Father Every Son must have a Father and seeing Christ had no immediate Father but God then surely he was properly the Son of God as the Scripture plainly testifieth To this he made no Reply but opposed in Defence of G. W. I having said that G. W. denied that visible Body that hung on the Cross to be any Part of the true Christ I replied I have proved it already by the late Quotation here read wherein he says He denies that Christ consisted of Flesh and Bones I distinguish said he between consisting and having Christ had Flesh and Bones but did not consist of them as a Man has a Coat or Garment but doth not consist of it and that outward Person that suffered at Jerusalem was Christ by a Metonimy saith VV. P. of the thing containing having the Name of the thing contained And at this rate VV. P. himself may be called Christ because he hath Christ in him The Excuse That Christ did not Meerly consist of Flesh and Bones signifies nothing for that was no Part of the Question betwixt G.VV. and his Opponent None ever said That Christ did meerly consist of Flesh Blood and Bones no Socinian will so affirm for that were to say Christ was meerly a Body of Flesh and Bones without a rational Soul whatever hath Parts doth consist of those Parts incompleatly of one or more Parts compleatly of them all The Foundation of the Quakers great Error on this Head lieth here That because Christ was before the Body was therefore that Body is no Part of him which is easily answered thus Christ was before that Body was but he was not compleatly and in all Respects fitted to be the anointed Saviour of the World until the Word was made Flesh i. e. until the Word did take our Flesh and whole Nature into a personal Union with himself the which was necessary to the compleat Performance of his Mediatory Offices of King Priest and Prophet and especially of his Priestly Office And not only G. VV. hath denyed Christ to have any created Body whereof he consists but he hath denyed that he hath any created Soul in his Answer to T. Danson ' s Synopsis p. 18. As to T. Danson's telling of the Son of God's Incarnation the Creation of his Body and Soul the Parts of that Nature he subsisted in c. To this I say if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both created doth not this render him a fourth Person For Creation was in Time which contradicts their Doctrine of three distinct increated coeternal coessential Persons in the Deity seeing that which was created was not so But herein whether doth not his and their Ignorance of the only begotten of the Father and their Denial of Christ's Divinity plainly appear yea or nay VVhere doth the Scripture say that his Soul was created For was not he the Brightness of his Father's Glory and the express Image of his Divine Substance But supposing the Soul of Christ was with the Body created in time I ask if from Eternity he was a Person distinct from God and his holy Spirit without either Soul or Body and where doth the Scripture speak of any Person without either Soul or Body T. Elwood to cover this gross Error of G.VV. in his pretended Answer to my first Narrative saith That G. W. only denyed that Christ had a created Soul as God But this was not the State of the Question for neither T. D. nor any other Man were ever so gross as to affirm that Christ as God had a created Soul And the like Evasion doth G. VV. use himself in his Antidote p. 191. This Question saith he is no Determination that it was or was not Christ as God his Soul was increated as Man his Soul or Spirit was not the Deity but formed and assumed by the VVord But it 's Evident that his accusing T. D. and others of Ignorance for saying it was created determines it sufficiently But as is above said G. W. and his Brethren will have only the Godhead to be the Christ which they call The Heavenly Man having Soul and Body Flesh Blood and Bones uncreated and existing from all Eternity which they call The Seed within them the Seed of the Woman that bruiseth the Serpent's Head which G. F. as is above quoted denyeth to be a Creature What the Seed spoke in him he said he spoke it not as a Creature therefore that Heavenly Man or Seed consisting of Heavenly Flesh and Blood which they say is in them not being a Creature must needs in their Sense be from all Eternity and not from the Beginning of the World only This appears yet more fully from R. Hubberthorn When was that Christ created R. Hub. Coll. p. 49 50. which you say must as a Creature judge the World And if in Mary's Time who was Judge of the World till then Was not the Person of Christ Jesus before the World was Note here he owns Christ to be a Person and by G. W's Argument above mentioned he must being a Person have both Soul and Body before the World was And when had the Man Christ Jesus his Beginning If you can declare it how is
Lines immediately going before the Quotation W. Burnet clears the matter That he was not for having People go on Pilgrimage to Jerusalem either for Christ or to Christ W. Burnet in his Capital Principles p. 24. Israel of old he saith were commanded to go up to the literal Temple at Jerusalem to worship but now God's Worshippers may worship him each one in his Respective Place Yea G.W. in his Light and Life takes that to be W. Burnet's Sense That Christ was to be sought and found at such a Distance by Faith and yet he still objects against Christ sought at a Distance without us even by Faith as in Heaven above the Clouds or as he suffered at Jerusalem I ask saith he if the Object or Foundation of the Faith he divided from the Faith From which reasoning it is evident he is against Christ as without us as at a distance either as he suffered at Jerusalem or as he is now in Heaven to be the Object of our Faith And whereas in that called Some Account from Colchester they quote Rom. 10. 6 7 8. and set down the Words at full Length why do they not quote and set down the Words in p. 9 10. That if thou shall confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thine Heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved By all the things that have been objected against G.W. to move him to give some confession of his Faith in the Man Christ as he suffered and rose again without us and is now in Heaven without us in that very created Nature of the Soul and Body of Man he had on Earth as in Union with the eternal Word and that as such he is the great Object of our Faith for Remission of Sin yet he cannot be drawn to it which still shews he remains in his vile Antichristian Doctrine As to his seeming Confession to Christ without in his Supplement to the Switch we shall see ere long in its Place In his Truth and Inn. p. 54. he seeks to excuse W. P's Saying in his Quakerism a new Nick-name p. 6. Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation has been a deadly Poison these later Ages has been infected with G. W's Defence is 'T is making Faith in the History thereof that is in Opposition to his Power and Work in the Soul and to Godly living as is evident in the Place quoted But did I. Faldo W. P's Opponent make Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation in Opposition to his Power and Work in the Soul Nay surely nor did any other of their Opponents teach such Doctrine But this is the common way of G.W. and his Brethren to cloak their own vile Errors they will misrepresent their Opponents Principles It 's sufficiently evident from G. W's Doctrine that he has all along opposed Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation as necessary to Salvation and it will yet further appear Again he excuses W. P's Saying Truth and Inn. p. 55. And since they believe that outward Appearance i.e. of Jesus at Jerusalem they need not preach what is to be main by telling us he means They need not always preach it where it is believed and comesseth all true Quakers own that visible Appearance of Christ Note this is an evidenly apparent Strain W. P's Reason why the Quakers need not preach Christ's outward Appearance as he suffered Death was that it was not to be again which makes it unnecessary to be preached But this Liberty of G.W. and I. Weyeth and others of adding and taking away material Words is so intolerable where the plain Sense will bear no such Addition nor taking away that at this rate nothing so false but shall be made to seem true But why need they not always to preach it Suppose the Quakers believe it do not they preach always the Light within and do not the Quakers generally believe it and divers other Principles they prosess How shall their Children have the Faith of it without preaching Doth the Light within so reach it that they have it without preaching But how do they believe it Only histostically It is no necessary Article of their Faith to be preached or believed to Salvation the Light within is sufficient to Salvation without any thing else The like Fallacy and Sophistry he useth to excuse W. Shewen's Saying Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary but to God the Father all Worship Honour and Glory is to be given But to hide his Fallacy he gives a lame Quotation The Words being Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary nor to Saint nor Angel but to God the Father he saith he knows his Intent was Not to Jesus only as the Son of Abraham But then if the Word Only must be added as explanatory to one Part of the Sentence it must be added to the other Part of the same Sentence and so it will run thus Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David Mary nor to Saint and Angel only but to God the Father all Worship c. Is not this a fair Excuse by which to cover their vile Heresie they will run into Popish Idolatry they are not to give Worship to Saints and Angels only but to God Note G.W. writes this contrary to what he knoweth in his Conscience to be true for he was present at that Meeting in London 1678. where W.S. and others blamed me for praying to Jesus Christ in the Passage above quoted in my Book called The Way cast up c. Beside it was no Part of the Controversie betwixt the Quakers and the Church of England or Dissenters That Christ was to be prayed to only as the Son of Abraham But is G.W. now in good earnest in thus excusing W.S. Is he for giving divine Worship to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary in any respect seeing he hath denied that the true Jesus did consist of a Body of Flesh and Bone or that he hath a created Soul and Body as above quoted But let us once more hear how he excuseth that Passage of W. Penn his Address to Protestants p. 119. Let us but soberly consider what Christ is and we shall the better know whether moral Men are to be reckoned Christians what is Christ but Meekness Justice Mercy Patience Charity and Virtue in Perfection G.W. saith W.P. did not design thereby to lessen the Power or Dignity of Christ who is the Author of these Virtues no more than the Apostles did in saying He Christ is made of God unto us Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption spoken in the Abstract and the Prophet saying God is my Light and my Salvation though God and Christ also be the Author of Redemption and Salvation This is also a sophistical Evasion when Paul said Christ was made of God unto us Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption he meant not the Light within as it is in meer moral Heathens but so W.P. meant 〈◊〉 but Paul did really
mean Jesus of Nazareth who is both God and Man the Word made Flesh as is clear from the foregoing Words even Christ crucified as being the Author of those Graces Blessings and Virtues unto all sincere Believers in him by bestowing on them his holy Spirit to indue them with Wisdom and Sanctification and freely imputing his Righteousness that he wrought in his own Person without them for their Justification and Redemption Also David in calling the Lord his Light and Salvation had a Respect to God in Christ even the Man Christ who was to come out of his Loins as the Object of his Faith for Redemption and Salvation But the whole Tendency of W. P's Discourse in that Passage and in other Passages going before and following is to perswade that Men are Christians if they have these moral Virtues without Faith in Christ as he was outwardly crucified for in the Enumeration of these Virtues he has not the least Word of Faith in Christ crucified as necessary to Christianity but pleads for a false Notion of the Christian Faith p. 118. At he that believes in Christ believes in God so he that believes in God believes in Christ Thus making Faith in Christ to be nothing else but a Belief in God as a Creator without any Respect to Christ crucified And p. 119. a little after that scandalous Passage above quoted he saith Christians ought to be distinguished by their Likeness to Christ and not their Notions of Christ which is likewise scandalous as implyâ— That Men may be like Christ without true Notions of him and Faith in him 〈◊〉 Christ Jesus of Nazareth that died and rose again yea he pleads p. 118. That a meer just Man ought not to be excluded the Communion of Christians and that to exclude him is partial and cruel And at this rate professed Infidel Jews and Mahumetans if they be but meer just Men are to be received into Christian Society as good Christians indeed good enough to be Members of the Quakers Church But now let us see how the following scandalous Passages quoted out of G. VV's own Books are defended by the Colchester Quakers in that they call Some Account from Colchester Some Account from Colchester p. 11. When you tell us you have Faith in Christ do you mean Christ whose Person is now ascended into Heaven above the Clouds or do you mean only a Christ within you Ans saith G.VV. Here thou would make two Christs a Christ whose Person is above the Clouds and a Christ within but how provest thou two such Christs VVe have Faith in that Christ that descended from the Father who is the same that ascended far above all Heavens and this Christ we witness in us who is not divided Note in their Vindication of this Passage they say This Answer appears pertinent to detect and reprehend an impertinent and foolish Question which whether it does not imply two Christs let the serious judge from the natural Import and Sense of the Question in the disjunctive Part of it or do you only mean a Christ within you Here their pretended Grammatical Skill of the Term disjunctive fails them To ask the Question disjunctively implies no more two Christs than it implies two George VVhiteheads to ask Is George VVhitehead a Londoner born or a North Country Man born in the North of England this doth not imply two G. Whiteheads But if one should say George Whitehead was born in the North of England some 64 Years ago and since that was born in London this would import two G. Whiteheads very plainly And no less indeed do the Quakers wild Notions that many of them have printed even the Men of great Note among them import not only two Christs but many Christs even thousands and they have no way to extricate themselves of this Difficulty but sophistical Evasions for if ye ask them Was that the true Christ who was born at Bethlehem of a Virgin called Mary above 1600 Years ago and do they believe in that Christ They will tell you yea but they have this sophistical Sense that he was the Light within that Person that was outwardly born who is by a Metonimy called Christ the thing containing for the thing contained See W. Penn's Rejoinder p. 304 305. But that that outward Person was properly the Son of God we utterly deny said W.P. as above quoted But the most true and proper Christ is the Christ born in them and growing up in them from a holy thing or Seed to a Child born and then to the Mighty God which three Steps are orderly set down by W.B. in his printed Collection p. 291. See third narrative p. 37. And he tells who is the Virgin in whom this Child is born not the Virgin Mary but every Quaker who is converted to the Light within And because this Child is not born in them all at once but at different times as they witness the Work of Regeneration and as many as come to witness Regeneration as many regenerated Persons there are in the World as many times Christ is born and though they say Christ is one in all and would defend their so saying by Scripture yet they mean not as the Scripture means for Christ as he is God is the same in all and as he dwells in all the faithful by his Spirit and by Faith yet not so as that Christ is really and truly begotten and born in regenerate Persons without any Alleâ—â—â—y as they hold for they make Christ as both without the Figure and Allâ—â—â—â—â— and Christ as born within c. the Substance and on Supposition that the◠〈◊〉 so many real Births of Christ it is impossible they could be one Christ otherwise than specifically one though consisting of many Individuals as many Individuals of Men are called Man but they are not one numerical Man no more can Christ be one numerical Christ but many if he were really begotten and born in many as they say he is It 's true the Scripture speaks of Christ being formed in Believers but this is a metaphorical Expression and allegory even as the Image of Caesar on Gold or Silver is called Caesar so the true lively Image of Christ is called Christ in true Believers and that is the meaning of Christ formed in Believers so that if they would be content with the allegorical Sense of the Word Christ formed within begotten and born within as sound and sober Christians understand it none would blame them and that they laid no more Stress upon it than they should but the contrary they do so as to make the Christ thus born within the greater Reality and Mystery than Christ born without and to make that inward Birth to have no Dependence on Christ as born without us and as he died for our Sins and rose and ascended into Heaven in the true intire Nature of Man consisting of a created Soul and Body and so as to witness the inward Work of Regeneration to
his Cloaths and said he had spoke Blasphemy It seems if G. W. had been present he would have given the same judgment Doth G. W. think that the High Priest and those Jews shall see Christ with celestial Eyes seeing according to his Philosophy no other Eyes but celestial Eyes can see him at his Coming But again Note G. W.'s palpable contradiction both to himself and to T. E. in his Truth and Innoc. above-quoted p. 61. he seems to own Christ's Coming as a thing yet to be at the end of the World tho' in Light and Life p. 41. from that very place which he now quotes for it Matth. 16. 27 28. he did argue against it and thus in express words doth T. Elwood in his pretended Answer to my First Narrative argue p. 160. That Coming saith he there spoken of by Christ Matth. 16. 27. could not be meant of his Coming at the end of the World because it was to begin in that very Age. And yet G. W. in his Truth and Innoc. contrary to his former gloss and T. Elwood also would seem now to understand it of Christ's coming as a thing yet to be at the end of the World and if he do not so understand it he most grosly deceives his Reader and if he do so understand it he palpably contradicts himself as well as his Brother T. E. and yet he is the insallible G. W. still without any change And for all G. W. his seeming now at last to be drawn to a plain confession of his Faith concerning Christ without us in his Appendix to the Switch p. 544. yet he is still fallacious and lurks like a Snake in the Grass He professeth to own his belief concerning Christ without us in Eight several steps from his Conception and Birth without us to his Resurrection and Ascension without us Being seen saith he to ascend without us and a Cloud received him out of their sight who beheld him ascend unto whom it was said by the Two Angels present This same Jesus which is taken up from you into Heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into Heaven Acts 1. 3 9 10 11. And doubtless when he so comes and all his mighty Angels with him it will be in great Glory and open Triumph and he will in that Day be greatly glorified in his Saints and admired in all them that believe 2 Thess 1. 7 8 9 10. Note How he gooth no further in his confession to Christ without us but to his Ascension and the Cloud receiving him out of their sight But in the other two following steps of the Christians Faith fully as necessary as the former Eight and without which the other Eight are of little or no signification to demonstrate a true Christian viz. Christ's being sat down without us at the Right Hand of God in the true Nature of Man consisting of a Created glorified Soul and Body the same he had on Earth the same in Substance but wonderfully changed in manner and condition and in that very glorified Nature of Man that he will come without us to Judge the Quick and the Dead he is altogether silent and his Words seem rather to imply a denial of them than any affirmation as with respect either to Christ's being now in Heaven without us in that Body which rose from the Grave or his coming without us from Heaven in that Body to Judgment Again take notice of another fallacy of G. W. in his answer to the question proposed whether they i.e. the Quakers believe in Christ as without them as without all other Men he varieth the terms of the question from a believing in Christ without them to a Historical Faith of their believing that Christ was Conceived without them Born without them Crucified without them all which he and his Brethren may believe Historically as they believe the Historical Relation of Moses's Birth Death c. and yet have no Faith in Christ without them as the great Saviour of Men for remission of Sin Justification and Eternal Life and Salvation Light and Life p. 64. as the great Object of saving Faith for this he hath fiercely opposed in his Light and Life arguing against W. B. who asserted Christ without us in Heaven to be the Object of our Faith for Justification Saith G. W. Is the Object and Foundation of Faith divided from the Faith But what the Cloud is that received Christ out of the sight of Men and with what Body Christ did ascend and whether as a Person without us Christ is to be Prayed unto and whether he is to return as a Person without us to Judge the World hear what W. Bailie a great Author among the Quakers saith In his Printed Collection p. 300. But methinks I hear some say in their Reasonings and Imaginations What Body hath he and where is it seeing it is said he is at the Right Hand of God This I shall Answer saith he with his own words which he spake here on Earth viz. No Man ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven the Son of Man which is in heaven he that hath an Ear to hear let him hear and take notice what Body that was which came down from Heaven when Mary said unto the Angel How can this be seeing I know not a Man Thus we see he falsifies our Saviour's words and will have no Body that ascended to Heaven but what came from Heaven whereas our Saviour in the place quoted mentions not the Word BODY Again In his Treatise Deep calleth unto Deep p. 30. he saith And so he taught them to Pray Our Father c. not to look at his Person and Pray to him as a Person without them but bad them Pray to their Father which seeth in secret c. Again in his p. 26. But indeed it is but a Cloud that hath received him out of the sight of the Gazers but saith the Lord to his Children I have blotted out your Iniquities like a thick Cloud And indeed this viz. the Cloud of their Sins hath hid both his Body and Face from you for the Kingdom of Heaven and the Lord from Heaven comes not with outward observation but the Kingdom is within And in his p. 29. I never read in all the Scriptures saith he as I can remember of a Third Coming of Christ personally in his own single Person or of a personal Reign besides what shall be in his Saints And G. W. in his Christ Ascended above the Clouds not only denyeth any personal Coming of Christ yet to be at the end of the World but denyeth him to have a personal Existence in Heaven without the Saints and chargeth it to be Anthropomorphitism and Muggletonism And indeed I know not one place of Scripture of the many that are justly brought by sound Christians to prove Christ's Coming without us in his Glorified Body to Judge the World at the great Day of Judgment
but they have turned altogether to his inward Coming which they say they witness already fulfilled in them and they look for no other Coming Ninthly Concerning the Resurrection of the Body that Dyeth G. W. instead of answering to the Quotations brought out of his and his Brethren's Books against the Resurrection of the Body that Dyeth has not so much as produced them or any part of them they are so broad-fac'd Proofs to evidence his and his Brethren's Infidelity in that great Article of Faith that he seems asham'd so much as to mention them And whereas he saith their Arguments not being answer'd by their Opposers he shall need say the less to them and concludes That he would have them so Charitable that they would not condemn them as Blasphemers for believing that their Resurection-Bodies shall be Spiritual and Glorious far excelling these natural carnal and earthly Bodies for else how should the Saints Bodies be like unto Christ's Glorious Body Note here again He seeks to cloak his and his Brethren's Infidelity by perverting the true state of the Question which is not That the Resurrection-Bodies of the Saints shall not be wonderfully changed and far excelling these natural carnal and earthly Bodies and made Spiritual and Glorious like to Christ's Glorious Body for that is acknowledged But the true Question is Whether the Saints Bodies at the Resurrection shall be so changed that they shall not be the same in Substance or Essence of Bodies and consequently in no respect the same for if the Substance be not the same to be sure the Accidents are not and consequently nothing of that Body that dyeth either in Matter or Manner in Substance or Modification riseth again for our Lord's Body tho' it was wonderfully changed in Manner and Qualities at his Glorification yet it remained the same in Substance or Essence of a Body And yet more fully to detect their Fallacy the following Quotations will prove That they look for no Resurrection of the Body out of the Grave at the end of the World but all the Resurrection they look for is The New Birth or what they expect as some of them say immediately after Death which to be sure is no part of the Body that is laid in the Grave But whereas he saith that W. P.'s and T. Elwood's Arguments about the Resurrection have not been answer'd by their Opposers is false they have been sufficiently Answer'd again and again as The Snake in the Grass Satan Disrob'd and in my First Second and Third Narratives G. Whitehead in Christian Quaker p. 353. brings T. Danson saying The happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body its dear and beloved Companion the Soul having a strong desire and inclination to a re-union to the Body as the Schools not without ground determine c. To this G. W. Answers Both Calvin T. Danson the Schools and divers Anabaptists are mistaken in this very matter and see not with the Eye of true Faith either that the happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body or that the Soul hath a strong desire to a re-union to the Body while they intend the terrestrial elementary Bodies for this implies the Soul to be in a kind of Purgatory or disquietness till the supposed Resumption of the Body To the same effect doth W. P. argue against T. Hicks Reason against Railing p. 137. He quotes T. Hicks arguing for the Resurrection of the Body the Joy's of Heaven imperfect else To this W. Penn opposeth I Answer Is the Joy of the Ancients now in Glory imperfect Or are they in Heaven but by halves If it be so unequitable that the Body which hath suffer'd should not partake of the Joys Celestial is it not in measure unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul held by many Baptists or I am mistaken But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Widow and so in a state of Mourning and Disconsolateness which state is but a better sort of Purgatory Note We see from both their Reasonings they would infer divers absurdities that would follow upon that Doctrine that the Souls of the deceased Saints now in Glory do look for a re-union to their Bodies which they put off at the Bodily Death So that by their manner of Reasoning as well as their express Words they declare themselves in their own behalf and in the Name of the Quakers whose Faith they pretend to give an account of to be positive Unbelievers as concerning any Resurrection of the Body that Dyeth or any re-union of that Body to the Soul to which it was formerly united before the Bodily Death But still G. W. as his manner is perverts the true state of the question by his saying While they intend the terrestrial elementary Bodies For if he mean that the Bodies after they are raised shall have the same terrestrial elementary Qualities Passions and Accidents that they had before Death he wrongs his Opponents for none of them have so affirmed But if he mean the same Substance or Essence of Bodies under more excellent Qualities and Endowments as far excelling the former as Spiritual excells Natural or Animal and Carnal Immortal and Incorruptible excells Mortal and Corruptible and Heavenly excells Earthly they are the same For in all changes that Bodies are capable of as well as Souls or Spirits from worse to better the subject of these changes must remain the same and that is what is justly called the Substance as when the Soul or Mind of Man is converted and changed from Earthly affections to Heavenly the Subject or Substance which is the Soul or Mind is the same and by as good Reason when a Body is changed from Earthly qualities to Heavenly the Body is still the same Substance or Subject tho' changed in Qualities and Conditions For further proofs out of both G. W. and W. P. I refer to my Third Narrative p. 26 27 28. Again Rich. Hubbertborne a great Author among the Quakers in his Coll. p. 121. proceedeth at the same rate against the deceased Saints looking for the Resurrection of their Bodies And these are they saith he that plead for a Life in Sin while they are here and that say that the Saints glorified in Heaven do yet hope For the Resurrection of their Bodies and so not come to the end of their hope tho' in Heaven when as the Saints upon Earth witnessed the end of their hope the Salvation of their Souls Now these may well deny perfection on Earth who deny it in Heaven which the Saints we and the Scriptures do witness it in both and against all such who are not fit to speak of the things of God See further in my Third Narrative p. 29. Note Here again G. W.'s gross Fallacy and Sophistry Truth and Innoc. p. 59. as if Rich. Hubberthorne
he had Witness to prove it G. F. told him He was a Judas and he went away and after a while hanged himself and Christ in the Male and in the Female if he speak he was Christ the Seed and the Seed was Christ but he did not speak it as a Creature Note he grants he spoke the Words That he was Christ but he did not speak it as a Creature therefore he thought he was something more than a Creature the Seed in him spoke it which was Christ and that was not a Creature but what Seed was in him or in other Quakers that was not a Creature I cannot find out any other in his Writings but his Soul or invisible Part that he makes to be Christ and a Part of God as will afterwards appear on a distinct Head But he has yet another Defence to save the like blasphemous Saying of F. Howgel They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God in Nature but not in Stature It having been objected against the Quakers that some of them have said They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God To this F. Howgel answers after some foregoing Words F. Howgel's Col. p. 232. He that is born from above is the Son of God and he said I and my Father are one and where the Son is revealed and speaks the Father speaks in him and dwells in him and he in thy Father there is Equality in Nature though not in Stature Here it is a plain Case that F. H. places this Equality in Nature but not in Stature betwixt him that has the Spirit of God who is born from above and God himself for to place it betwixt Christ as he was the Son of God before all Ages and God the Father were to say That the Son is equal with the Father in Nature but not in Stature which has a twofold Error in it first To make a Distinction betwixt God's Nature and Stature Secondly Suppose that Distinction That the Son is equal to the Father in Nature but not in Stature both which are most gross and blasphemous and no less gross and blasphemous it is to affirm That the Saints are equal with God in Nature but not in Stature Now let us hear G. VVhitehead's Defence Truth and Inn. p. 10. The Equality in Nature objected relates to the Divine Nature which the Child of God partakes of in Measure though not in Stature relates to the Child that Divine Nature is one and unchangeable but our participating of it and Growth in it is gradual until all i. e. Christ's whole Church and Body come into the Measure of the Stature of the Fullness of Christ But doth all this Saying of G. VV. prove that the Children of God are equal with God either in Nature or Stature The Saints are said in Scripture to be Partakers of the Holy Ghost are they therefore equal to the Holy Ghost Which yet is the Way of G. VV's reasoning the Equality in Nature he says relates to the Divine Nature but who is it that is equal to God in the Divine Nature but not in Stature was it the Son or Holy Chost that is equal to God in the Divine Nature but not in Stature Nay therefore it must be the Saints or Believers here a Proposition is framed They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God and then this Distinction is given They are equal in Nature but not in Stature This Proposition hath for its Subject They i. e. the Saints or Children of God In all Propositions all the Parts of the Predicate belong to one and the same Subject the which Parts are equal in Nature but not in Stature But it is an unaccountable Liberty that G. VV. takes in his Way of defending these Blasphemies not only to change the Signification of Words from all common Use but the unalterable Rules of right Reason as in the present Case like as if one should say G. VVhitehead is equal to A. B. in Nature but not in Stature Nature relates to G. W. but not in Stature relates to another but who is this other who can tell Or as if one should say G. W. is a Man but not honest Man relates to G. Whitehead but not honest relates to another It is a real Shame that such pittiful Sophistry should be used by G. W. to defend his and his Brethrens vile Errors and Blasphemies whereby he makes himself guilty of them and all to save his and their pretended Infallibility It were much more Manly as well as Christian fairly to acknowledge and retract those most erronious Passages and own their Fallibility and Error and be contented to be lifted among fallible Men for humanum est errare labi decipi and not only so but to be greatly humbled for the Presumption that being Men they should equal themselves to God But the general Conceit of their sinless Perfection as they are a Body of People is such that both G. W. and Jos Wyeth doth justifie W. P's objecting to the Church of England their praying from seven to seventy Lord be merciful to us miserable Sinners G. VV. saith in Truth and In. p. 15. Alas poor Sinners Is not a Sign of Laughter at â—hem but rather of Lamentation and Pity over their miserable Estate who are always 〈◊〉 but not forsaking their Sins The like Answer doth J. VVyeth give in the Note Is not this a plain Evidence of the great Pride that is among the Quakers concerning their sinless Perfection As a Body of People and their great Uncharitableness towards not only the Church of England but all others called Christians throughout the whole World yea all Christians in all Ages and the universal Church of God both under the old and new Testament who always used Confession of Sin and prayed for Forgiveness of Sin find as Christ taught his Disciples to pray daily for their daily Bread so to pray daily for Forgiveness of Sins So under the old Testament there were daily Offerings for Sin and the High Priest however so holy yet offered both for his own Sins and the Sins of the People Doth it therefore follow that their Confessions and Offerings were hypocritical But doth not G. VV. know that as there is a gradual going unto Perfection so there is a gradual forsaking of Sin and a putting off the old Man with his Deeds Must not they who feel themselves wounded with Sin seek for a Cure And should not the diseased come daily to the Phisician till they be cured And as to the Quakers Uncharitableness and G. VV's especially towards all in the Church of England whom he chargeth without Exception that they are still confessing but not forsaking their Sins How can he more prove this Charge against them than his own Society or himself Many both in the Church of England and other Protestants can compare with the best of the Quakers for Holiness of Life and exceed them in many Virtues especially in
owned the Person of the Father G. M. p. 247. But thou saith Christ doth not dwell in them personally doth not Christ dwell in his Saints as he is in the Person of the Father the Substance And are not they of his Flesh and of his Bone Again G. Fox G.M. p. 248. owns expresly Christ's Person for first having cited his Opponent's Words It is a false thing to say Christ's Person is in Man in his Answer without finding the least fault with the Term Person he makes Opposition thus VVhich is as much as to say none are of his Flesh or of his Bone nor eat it nor had not his Substance By this it appears that G. F. did not find fault either with the Word Person as belonging to the Father or with Christ's Person but he will not allow them to be two Persons but one Person But if any will say he allowed them to be two Persons then by the Arguments both of G. F. and G. VV. they must be two Gods for if three Persons infer by Argument three Gods by the same Argument two Persons will infer two Gods The above mentioned Words of G. F. in G. M. Doth not Christ dwell in his Saints as he is in the Person of the Father the Substance Jos VVyeth in his Switch recites as quoted out of the Snakâ— Here the Switch finds no fault with G. Fox's owning the Person of the Father which were G. F's own Words but labors to prove that by that spiritual Oneness betwixt Christ and his Followers G.F. did not mean to make the Soul of the same Person and Substance with God which how ineffectual his Labor is in that may be shewn afterwards Note that the Switch doth justifie G. F. his Saying That God the Father did take upon him Humane Nature p. 190. and in Truth 's defence by G. F. p. 85. The Son's Body is called the Father's they are one not two viz. the Son and the Father But here once more on this Head let us take notice of G. VV 's Fallibility and self Contradiction in most evident manner In his Light and Life p. 47. he blames his Opponent VV. B. for these Words following concerning Christ Now as he was God he was Co-creator with the Father and so was before Abraham and had Glory with God before the VVorld was and in this Sense came down from Heaven To this G.VV. replies VVhat Nonsence and unscripture Language is this to tell of God being Co-creator with the Father or that God had Glory with God Doth not this imply two Gods and that God had a Father let the Reader judge Note how he calleth it Nonsence and unscripture Language to say That Christ as God had Glory with God and that he had a Father which is a plain Evidence that G. VV. denied the eternal divine Generation of the Son contrary both to the Nicene and Athanasian Creed and Scripture also But let us see how he excuses himself in his Antidote p. 188. But the Phrase God Co-creator with God I think still implies two Creators and consequently two Gods 'T is not the Particle Co with in this case will excuse the matter for Co or Con is simul together as Co-workers Co-partners which are more distinct Agents than one but the Creator is but one God one VVord one Spirit and so one Creator Note Here we see the Force of G. VV's Argument against Christ the Word being God Co-creator with the Father is that it would infer the Father and the Son to be Co-workers and consequently two Gods This Antidote he writ in the Year 1697. but in the Year 1674. wherein he published his Quakers Plainness in p. 24. he allows the Father and the Son to be Co-workers in the following Words That the Distinction of the Father and the Son is not only nominal as this Opposer implies against us but real in the divine Relation of Father and Son the Son as being the only begotten of the Father and also known as Co-workers in the Order and Degrees of Manifestation and Discovery where it is plain by his late manner of arguing in his Antidote against the Father and the Son being Co-workers that it doth infer two Gods that in his Saying in his Quakers Plainness as above quoted That the Father and the Son are known as Co-workers he has rendred himself guilty by his own Argument of holding the Father and the Son to be two Gods This is not only a Contradiction to himself but a severe Censure on himself that in the Year 1674. he was guilty of Idolatry in holding That the Father and the Son are two Gods Note Reader that the Quakers use to object two things against my charging Contradictions upon G. W. and other their principal Authors First That I have contradicted my self in my former and later Writings To this I have answered What in my later Writings I have retracted of my former Errors is no Contradiction for that 's a Contradiction when a Man holds contradictory Propositions to be both true simul semel without retracting his Errors But what a Man retracts he is no more chargeable with let G. W. and his Brethren retract their Errors and I shall cease to charge them with them or with Contradictions Secondly they object That I may find as many Contradictions in the Scriptures as in their Books Thus we see how they undervalue the Scriptures to be as contradictory as their Authors but I deny there are any real Contradictions in the Scriptures but there are many in the Quakers Authors Again further hear a Quotation out of the Primmer of G. F. junior and S. Crisp p. 24. And they that come to see and know the Son they come to see and know the Father also for the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father as saith the Scriptures and they are called by one Name which is The Word or The Light For the Word is God and Christ is the Word and God is Light and Christ is the Light of the World and the Spirit of Life proceeds from God and Christ who are Light Note Seeing they hold that the Father and the Son are called by one Name which is The Word and that the Father is the Word and the Son is the Word it is evident they make no Distinction betwixt the Father and Son and therefore according to their false Doctrine seeing the Word was made Flesh and the Father is the Word the Father was made Flesh the Father was born of a Virgin the Father suffered Death on the Cross yea the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father which is a plain overturning the great Fundamentals of Christianity yet this Primmer is so highly magnified among the Quakers that almost every Family of them have it to teach it their Children and they call it in the Preface A Fruit of the Plant of Righteousness given forth for the removing the Vse of such Books and Catechisins as
Christ the only begoten Son of God if he be a Creature Or how can God beget a Creature And if the whole Person of Christ was not before the Barthly Adam how was the Creation made by him or how can he be of the Nature of fallen Adam and not Earthly and defiled and is the Flesh of Christ Heavenly or Earthly or is he Christ without his Flesh Agreeable to this He Goarâ— Horn p. 11 12. is the Doctrine of both G. W. and E. B. G. Whitehead doth severely blame John Horne and T. Moor for saying That Christ took upon him their Nature And though they did well distinguish betwixt our Nature as in us it is corrupt by Sin since the Fall and as in Christ not corrupt and filthy yet by no means will he allow this Distinction nor will he allow That it 's one and the same Nature in the Gentiles by which they did the things contained in the Law and by which they broke the Law and he makes the sinful Nature and the pure Nature to be two Natures this agrees with G. F's Doctrine afterwards quoted That the Nature in us that doth the Will of God is Christ the Seed but the Nature in us that sinneth is the Devil the Serpent the Lust so that there is nothing in Mens Bodies but Christ or God and the Devil the Serpent Sin and Lust there is no reasonable created Soul in Men that at one time sinneth and afterwards is cleansed from Sin and obeyeth the Will of God yet still remaining one and the same Nature in Essence and Substance Next let us hear E. Bur. in his Collection p. 301. Thou sayest in that Answer that Christ ascended to the Right Hand of the Father in your Nature Mark now thy Nature and your Nature who are one with thee is sinful and wicked and of the Devil for so are all Liers and it is Blasphemy to say sinful wicked devillish Nature such as John Bunnion's is and his Fellows is at the Right Hand of God in Heaven Oh Horrible Again he saith p. 306. That Christ ascended into Heaven in our Nature viz. in his Nature and they that are one with him and he and they are proved to be in corrupt Nature as they will confess it O what Wickedness is it to hold forth That Christ is at the Right Hand of God in sinful Nature as his Words hold forth from his own Mouth Note His Opponent did not say sinful Nature but our Nature But seeing E. B. makes them both one that it cannot be our Nature that Christ hath in Heaven except it be sinful Nature This is to make Sin to be essential to our Nature which is a most vile and gross Heresie and agrees with that above mentioned of G.F. and G. W. That there are but two Natures in Man's Body the one that is divine and of God's Essence that neither doth nor can sin the other of the Devil that sinneth and can do no good So there is no Soul left in Man that is neither God nor the Devil nor any Part of either by these Mens Doctrine But what doth G. W. and his Brethren then say to W. Penn in his Primitive Christianity where he saith p. 85. That we do we bless God religiously believe and confess to the Glory of God the Father and the Honour of his dear and beloved Son that Jesus Christ took our Nature upon him and was like unto us in all things Sin excepted And p. 87. We say that he then overcame our common Enemy foiled him in the open Field viz. at his Death and in our Nature triumphed over him that had overcome and triumphed over it in our Forefather Adam and his Posterity and that as truly as Christ overcame him in our Nature in his own Person c. But possibly some will say W. P. by our Nature did mean the Quakers Nature which is not sinful but not the Priests Nature which is sinful But first was not the Quakers Nature once sinful as really as the Nature of other Men And doth no Sin cleave to the Nature of any Quaker at this Day But secondly W. P. tells us Our Nature which Christ took was that over which our common Enemy had triumphed in our Forefather Adam and his Posterity Now except the Quakers will say They are none of Adam ' s Posterity they must grant that according to W. P. Christ did take not only the Nature of the Quakers but the Nature of other Men which hath been defiled by Sin both in them and us What shall we now say of the great Unity that the Teachers of the Quakers boast of in Doctrine as well as in Spirit Whereas we see that what W. P. owns as a Part of his and his Brethrens Faith and for which he saith They bless God E. Burrough who was owned as a Prophet among them and was in greater Repute and more deserving then than ever W. P. was or now is E. B. hath past Sentence on it That it is horrible Blasphemy For if Christ took our Nature and triumphed over the common Enemy in our Nature surely he rose from the dead in our Nature and ascended into Heaven in our Nature which E. B. hath judged to be Blasphemy and Wickedness Here I asked John Whiting of which of these two Faiths he was whether that of G. W. and E. B. who said Christ was not in Heaven in our Nature or that of W. P. who said Christ took our Nature and triumphed in our Nature He replied He was of the Faith of both By which Answer he made himself very ridiculous and obnoxious to the general Censure of the Auditory who cried out against him as at several other times many cried out at his and his Brethrens Impertinencies and absurd Answers After the same manner doth W. Penn labour to excuse and cloak his and his Brethrens vile Heresie That he who died at Jerusalem was not properly the Son of God as is set down at the End of Truth and Innocency recommended by G. W. And W. P. thinks he has fairly defended himself Truth and Ion. p. 72. by what he formerly said viz. That he that laid down his Life and suffered his Body to be crucified by the Jews without the Gates of Jerusalem is Christ the only Son of the most High God But to assert the Body which suffered and died was properly the entire Son of God this brings him more under the Charge of making him but a meer Man than us who acknowledge him to be one with the Father and of a Nature eternal and immortal But here are two Fallacies one is He that laid down his Life and suffered his Body to be crucified is Christ the only Son of the most High God But by this HE he means only the Godhead or the Word This is the entire Christ by his Doctrine and this HE suffered his Body to be crucified but how was it his Body Not as any Part of the
Body of Adam in Innocency And thus the comparison is made betwixt the First Adam and the Second the first Man even as he was in Innocency is of the Earth Earthly his Body was Created or Made by God Almighty but was neither so wonderfully framed nor endued with such excellent Virtues as our Lord's Body was Tho' the Substance of both was the same in Specie or Kind yet the difference was great both in the manner of Production and the Virtues and Properties wherewith Christ's Body was endued above Adam's Body and chiefly in respect of the Hypostatical and Personal Union betwixt Christ's Body or Flesh and the Eternal Word Eternally Begotten of the Father It was an old Heresie of the Manicheans That Christ's Body that was Born of the Virgin had no part of her Body but did penetrate her Body as the Beams of the Sun penetrate Christal and did entirely come from Heaven which Heresie was reviv'd by Meno a Dutch-man but is effectually and solidly refuted by Calvin in his Institutions lib. 2. c. 13. And as to the Quakers arguing from 1 Cor. 15 47. The first man of the earth earthly the second Man the Lord from heaven that therefore his Body had not an earthly Substance which is the same Argument Manicheus used of old Calvin answereth solidly thus Manicheus aereum fabricatur Corpus quia vocetur Christus secundus Adam de Coelo Coelestis at neque illic essentiam corporis Coelestem inducit Apostolus sed vim spiritualem quaed Christo diffusa nos vivificat Sect. 2. i.e. Manicheus maketh him viz. Christ to have a Body of Air because he is call'd the Second Adam from heaven heavenly But neither doth the Apostle there infer that the Essence of his Body is heavenly but that there is a spiritual Virtue which being diffused from Christ doth quicken us Again Whereas G. W. saith Art 7. of that Paper Our really Believing and Confessing the Lord Jesus Christ his Passion Sufferings Death Atonement and Reconciliation made for us and his Resurrection Ascention and Glorification as without us according to Scripture cannot be to allegorize these away as if only transacted within us as we have been unduly accused for they were really done and transacted without us by our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ tho' our true knowledge of the Power and Effect of his Resurrection and Fellowship of his Sufferings and our being conformable to his Death must be experienc'd within us if ever we live and reign with him And in their Paper annexed Art 2. they say we sincerely Believe and Confess that Jesus of Nazareth who was Born of the Virgin Mary is the true Messiah the very Christ the Son of the Living God to whom all his Prophets gave Witness And we do highly value his Death Sufferings Works Offices and Merits for the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind together with his Laws Doctrine and Ministry Note That all this seemingly fair Confession cannot but be judged extremely Fallacious seeing they will not Retract any of their former assertions expresly contradictory to the same as is in great part already proved out of the above-given Quotations How do they sincerely Confess that Jesus of Nazareth who was Born of the Virgin Mary was the very Christ the Son of the Living God seeing they profess to be of one Faith with W. P. who saith That that Outward Person that Suffered at Jerusalem was properly the Son of God we utterly deny as above-quoted And to be of E. B.'s Faith who denyeth that Christ is in Heaven in our Nature And of G. F.'s Faith who denyeth That Christ's Body was from the Earth But yet more fully to detect their Fallacies Whereas G. W. saith Their really Believing and Confessing Christ's Passion Sufferings Death Atonement and Reconciliation made for us c. cannot be to allegorize these away as if only tranfacted within us as we have been unduly accused To detect his Fallacy here Note I know none that accuse them for holding that Christ's Birth and Death was only transacted within them they grant that a Man call'd Jesus of Nazareth was outwardly Born and Suffered Death but some of the chief of them have said That that Man was not properly the Christ nor Son of God but was by the metonymy of the thing Containing for the thing Contained so called so W. P. as above-quoted Next they make his being outwardly Slain and his Blood outwardly Shed and what was outwardly transacted by him both Actively and Passively a Figure of what he was to do and suffer in Men of his inward Crucifying his Blood inwardly Shed his Burial Resurrection and Ascension within them These outward transactions saith W. P. are so many facile representations of what was to be accomplished in Men as above-quoted and G. W. beside the Proofs already given out of his Books to that Effect he hath lately affirmed in his * Antidote p. 39. Antidote against the Venom of the Snake Printed in the Year 1697 That that Blood of his viz. Christ's outward Blood as well as the Water that came out of his Side with it had an ALLEGORICAL and MYSTERIOUS SIGNIFICATION as well as an Outward and Literal even of the Spiritual Blood and Water of Life which Christ our High Priest Sprinkleth and really Washeth our Hearts and Consciences withal which we hope no sensible Soul will say is an Outward or Literal Sprinkling or Washing but an Inward and Spiritual Note When we charge G. W. and his Brethren with Allegorizing away Christ's Birth Passion Death Burial Resurrection Blood Atonement and Reconciliation made for us c. the sense is obvious which is this That tho' they grant that a Man called Christ was outwardly Born Dyed had his Blood shed c. yet all this was an Allegory and had an Allegorical Signification of Christ truly and really without an Allegory Born within them Crucified and Dead within them his Blood shed within them Buried Risen Ascended within them Atonement Reconciliation made within them Now that this is so we have G. W.'s plain Confession in the Words just now quoted So that according to him Christ's Sufferings without his Blood shed without is the Allegory or Allegorical Signification of Christ's Sufferings within of his Blood shed within the Atonement made within as Hagar and Sarah who were real Women yet as Paul hath declar'd they are an Allegory of the Two Covenants and Types or Figures of them and as far short of the things signified by them as the Type is short of the Substance or thing signified for that is the true definition of an Allegory Where one thing is expressed and another thing is understood Now if Christ's Birth Sufferings Blood c. without Men be an Allegory or Allegorical Signification of Christ's Birth Sufferings Blood shed and sprinkled within Men that Within must be the Reality or Excellent thing signified or typified by the outward but both cannot be the Allegory as to say that as Christ's Blood
Now in Ver. 15. it 's said That we which are alive and remain unto the Coming of the Lord. Now I ask saith he if they did live and remain to a personal Coming of Christ in the Clouds yea or nay Or can it be reasonably thought to be a Coming that is not yet that they lived and remained unto Note How G. W. here most weakly but very plainly to discover his Infidelity argues against Christ's Coming at the latter end of the World and whereas in my First Narrative I did show That when Paul said We which are alive and remain to the Coming of the Lord he spoke by an Enallage Personae We for They we which remain i.e. such of our Brethren who shall be found alive at Christ's last Coming c. To this T. E. Answers in his pretended Answer to my First Narrative p. 162. Why might not the Apostle speak in the first Person We as supposing that great and extraordinary Appearance and Coming of Christ the certain time of which no Man knew Matth. 24. 36. was so near at hand that it might probably fall out in his Life-time and for this sense he quotes Heb. 1. 2 9 26. 1 Pet. 1. 20. 1 Joh. 2. 18. 1 Cor. 10. 11. 1 Pet. 4. 7. as because the times after Christ came in the Flesh are called the last times that therefore the Apostles thought the end of the World was not far off i. e. in his sense That Paul and the other Apostles thought that Christ would come to Judge the Quick and the Dead before they dyed This gross and absurd sense as it is contrary to G. W.'s words so it renders Paul to have spoke an untruth even by Divine Inspiration for said Paul This we say unto you by the word of the Lord. J. Wyeth in his Switch p. 297 298. and his Brethren their common excuse here and elsewhere that these were but Queries signifie nothing to defend them the very import of these Queries implying a positive denyal See this Fallacy of T. E. more fully detected in Satan Disrob'd being a Reply to his pretended Answer to my First Narrative Again G. W. in Light and Life p. 41. saith But Three Comings of Christ not only that in the Flesh at Jerusalem and that in the Spirit but also another Coming in the Flesh yet to be expected we do not read of but of a Second Coming without Sin unto Salvation which in the Apostles days was looked for And these words of Paul The dead in Christ shall rise first he expounds of an inward Death To this G. W. Answers very fallaciously in his Truth and Innoc. p. 61. But is this to deny or oppose Christ's coming to Judge the Quick and the Dead 'T was never so intended And questioning some Men's carnal Expectations of a fleshly coming of Christ to be seen with their carnal Eyes was this to deny his coming in the Glory of his Father with his Angels to reward every Man according to his works quoting Matth 16. 27. Luke 9. 6. no sure for that 's confessed and undeniable Note His and his Brethren's common evasion to hide their Infidelity is to quibble about the Word FLESH as if their meaning were only to deny That Christ is to Come in a fleshly Body subject to the like Passions it had in his state of Humiliation when upon Earth as Hunger Thirst Pain Death c. But this is no part of the Controversie betwixt the Quakers and their Opponents But why may not Glorified Flesh be taken to signifie Spiritual Flesh as distinct from Mortal Flesh as well as Glorified Body signifies Spiritual Body without any change of Substance But it is evident that G. W. not only denyed that Christ would Come to Judge the World in a Body of natural and passible Flesh but that he would not Come in the same Substance of that Body he had on Earth which was a mortal and passible Body of the same Nature with ours for he makes it most absurd That an earthly Body and an heavenly Body can be the same Substance as above-quoted Now That he denyeth that Christ was in Heaven in a bodily Existence or would come to Judgment as the Son of Mary in a bodily Existence to wit having any thing of that Body which he had on Earth is evident from his Nature of Christianity p. 29. Dâ—st thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee according to thy words p. 30. If thou dost thou may'st look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him Note To excuse his great Infidelity he useth a gross Fallacy in his Truth and Innoc. p. 61. and giving a lame Quotation of his own words This is true in Fact saith he for those very Eyes decay and perish But this was no part of the Controversie betwixt G. W. and his Opponent who did not presume to say or think That Christ's coming to Judge the World in that bodily Existence would be before his Death but the thing earnestly asserted was That Christ as he was now really in Heaven in a bodily Existence at God's Right Hand so he would come in that very bodily Existence to Judge the World for which G. W. doth evidently oppose him as above-quoted The Phrase Thy Eyes will drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance is equivalent to this Thou wilt never see such an Appearance nor any other Man sor thee as that common Phrase at the Greek Calends And whereas he adds And Christ's last Coming in Power and great Glory in his Glorious Body accompanied with his mighty Angels at the Resurrection must be seen with stronger clearer and more celestial Eyes than perishing Eyes Here he still hides his vile Error What are these more celestial Eyes seeing he will not have Christ's Coming to be without Men in a bodily Existence For in his Light and Life he quotes Matth. 16. 27 28. and Luke 9. 26 27. in plain opposition to Christ's outward Coming saying When was that Coming to be Is it now to be looked for outwardly and seeing he is not to Come outwardly but inwardly these celestial Eyes in his sense must be inward Eyes But then how shall the Wicked see him for the Scripture saith Every Eye shall see him even they who have pierced him must they have celestial Eyes wherewith to see him And tho' the Wicked shall not see him in the same manner that the Godly shall see him yet certainly according to Scripture and the Faith of all true Christians all that ever lived as well as they that shall be found alive in the Body at his Coming both good and bad shall see him as an object without them yea Christ told the Chief Priest and the Jews Mat. 26. 64. Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven At which saying the High Priest rent
Answer And whereas Jos Wyâ—th in his Printed Paper in Answer to my late Printed Advertisement saith They i. e. the Quakers in common with all Protestant Dissenters are Intituled to the peaceable Profession of their Christian Principles and may be deemed imprudent to call it in Question c. To this I say it is a meer begging the Question That either their Principles are Christian or that they are Intitul'd to the peaceable Profession of what they call so In Common with Protestant Dissenters The Act of Toleration has no more declared their Principles to be Christian than the Toleration that Holland and other Common-wealths have given to Jews and Papists doth declare their Principle to be Christian Besides tho' the Quakers think it imprudent in them to call their Principles or Profession in question yet it is no breach of the Act of Tolleration nor imprudence in me or any who have sufficient evidence to give of their Unchristian yea Antichristian Principles to call them in question and that publickly in the Face of the Nation And cannot the Quakers defend their Principles in Sober Disputes in a Christian Assembly without breach of Peace or invading their peaceable Profession How frequently did they provoke but some Years ago to publick Disputes Ministers of the Church of England whose Religion was more than Tollerated was Establish'd by Law By the Quakers Argument this was a breach of the Peace and an Invasion of the peaceable Profession of the Religion Establish'd by Law in the Nation But to deal plainly with them I do not think that either the Profession of G. Whitehead or Jos Wyeth's Principles is so much as Tollerated by the Act of Tolleration and if they will call me to an Account for this my plain dealing with them before any Judicatory I shall by God's Assistance be ready to Answer I neither envy nor grudge the connivance they have but seeing they are become so insolent with their false and unjust pretences to what they have not as if the Act of Tolleration did not only give them a permission but did entitle them to a peaceable profession of their most Antichristian Principles which they most falsely call Christian that their Principles may not be called in question and fairly examined and the falshood of them detected in that publick manner that I have hitherto used it is high time to tell them of their mistake that the Act of Tolleration doth neither of them and that therefore the best and only safest and readiest way to be included in the Act of Tolleration is for them to reject retract and renounce their vile errors especially those against the holy and ever blessed Trinity whereof I have sufficiently proved them guilty if this foregoing Narrative Jos Wyeth indeed hints at the most politick Reason they have for refusing to meet with me to hear themselves proved guilty of vile Heresies that it would be a too publick exposing themselves to the danger of losing their pretence to their being intituled to the peacable profession of their Principles which in other words he expresses thus To trifle away that for which they account themselves so thankfully engaged to their Superiours the intent of which he saith viz. The Act of Tolleration In it's Preamble is declared to be to Unite the King's Protestant Subjects in interest and affection Surely by this way of his Arguing he must needs think that to come to a publick fair and free Tryal were to endanger their liberty of Profession or trifle it away But how can this trifle away their liberty if their principles be Christian and that they are sure they are by virtue of their Christian principles included in that Act To suppose their may be a danger to trifle away their liberty or peacable profession of what they call their Christian principles by publick Tryal is to suppose that upon due examination their principles may be found not to be Christian which if once discovered would trifle away that liberty and therefore it is their best policy to hide and cover their principles all that they can and still lie hid as the Snake in the Grass for the evil doer hates the Light and is not willing to be brought to the Light But how little do the Quakers regard the intent of the Act of Tolleration declared in its Preamble to Unite the King's Protestant Subjects in interest and affection when they continue generally to this very Day in their horrid uncharitableness towards all visible Christian Societies both Church of England and all Protestant Churches That they are no part of the Church of Christ that their Religion and Worship is false and idolatrous the people belonging to those Societies are Worshippers of Baal and their Ministers Priests of Baal Deceivers Antichrists denyers of Christ come in the Flesh the bane of Soul and Body of Mankind c. And have never to this Day retracted this Language is this to Unite the King's Protestant Subjects in interest and affection to rail against that Religion and Church whereof the King himself and the best of his Subjects are members and to call me and my Friends for owning that Church and coming into Communion with her and relinquishing the errors condemned by that Church Apostates and Runagadoes as they have done and still continue to do For his insinuation of my envy which he saith increasing has led me into a disturbance of Mind which in its course resembles the returns of a delirious affliction I think it not worth noticing further than to give it as an instance of his and their Scornful Proud and Haughty as well as Uncharitable and Unchristian Temper and Spirit They reckon me their Enemy because I tell them the truth and labour to rescue them from out of the Snares of Satan and seeing my sincere labours God has been pleased to bless with success both in America and here away none of their malicious Insinuations or Accusations against me are nor I hope shall be of force to stop me from my Christian Duty to contend earnestly for the Faith of Christ which they seek to destroy Note Since the last Meeting at Turners-Hall there is come to my hands a pretended Answer to a Printed half Sheet of mine call'd A Synopsis W. P. ' s Deism by Benjâ— Cool called Sophistry Detected of which shortly I purpose God willing to give an answer and therein to detect his dull Sophistry false Quotation and gross Perversion FINIS The Correction of Errata most of which are not material yet to prevent Critical Objections are Corrected as follows PAge 1. Line 16. for truth defended read truths defence p. 2. 1. 19. f. the r. this 1. 30. after redemption should be a break p. 3. 1. 23. after p. 47. r. say 't is contrary to Christ to say it is an error that l. 41. for that r. the p. 4. l. 14. on the Margin for p. 413. r. 463. l. 38. for counsel r. council l. 39. after counceller should be