but a wrangling Personal Dispute betwixt T. E. and G. Keith about some Papers Exhibited by the one against the other All which I pass over And come to G. Keiths Appendix to his Narrative which T. E. begins there to Consider SECT V. The several Charges in the Appendix THese are some further Instances upon the Four Heads which are the subject of the Narrative And a few other things which come in by the by and might have been spar'd But that this Reply may be Full I proceed to Examin them 1. A Quotation out of G W. is set down p. 198. Wherein he denies either the Soul or Body of Christ to be Human or that he had an Human Nature and he says that the Blood of God with which he purchased his Church Act. xx 28. Was not the Blood of the Human Nature And where doth the Scripture says he call the Blood of God Humane or Humane Nature To this T. E. Answers That Christ was not of a meer Earthly Extraction That there was more of Divinity even in that Body than in the Bodies of other Men. Which none hardly the Socinians will Deny But T. E's Inference is not Good That because Christ's Body had more Divinity in it than other Mens that therefore it was too Heavenly to he call'd Humane or Earthly For the Hypostatical or Personal Union of his Human with his Divine Nature did not Destroy or Swallow up his Humanity as the Eutychians held But his Human both Soul and Body are still and for ever Truly and Properly Humane else he were not Truly and Properly a Man And the not knowing of this has greatly Milled the Quakers Who if they had given themselves but a little to Humane Learning which they despis'd because they had it not and had known the Ancient Heresies which were Condemned by the Church in several Ages they wou'd not have fallen in with so many of them as they have Ignorantly done T. E. Wou'd not have given such an Answer as he do's here That Christ's making his Soul an offering for Sin was true and so it is says he in a Figurative Manner of Speaking Which was the very Words and Excuse of these Primitive Hereticks who said that Christ's Passion was not Real but onely in Appearance to Mens Eyes And if his Body was but a Vaile or Garment wherein he dwelt as the Quakers and Socinians do make it then indeed his sufferings were no other than Figurative or â—alse and he cou'd no more be said to have been Cruciâ—y'd then a Man would be Crucify'd if his Cloak or Garment was Crucify'd And thus it must be if Christ's Humane Nature was not Hypostatically united to his Divine Nature so as both to make but one Person as Soul and Body is in Man For otherwise the Soul cou'd feel nothing or be said to suffer for whatever was done to the Body And T. E's Argument and G. W's which he Recites is most Ridiculous that Christ's Soul was Immortal and cou'd not be put to Death So is every Mans. And when we Kill a Man no body says that we Kill his Soul But as the Separation of Body and Soul is Death to us So it was and us Really to Christ And not onely In a Figurative maâ—ner of speaking as T. E. with the Ancient Hereticks do's contend II. Page 202. There is a Quotation of G. W's brought wherein he denies That there is continual need of Repentance And T. E. Justifies it by supposing that the Quakers are free from all Sin Else there must be Continual need of Repentance I will not Enter now upon their most Exploded Title to a Sinless Perfection having done it sufficiently elsewhere I onely mention this now to shew their Infallible Hardiness in pretending still to it after it has been Expos'd even to Laughter and as many Failings shewn of these Perfect Sinless Creatures as wou'd make any of the Prophane to appear Ridiculous And this Pretence to a Sinless Perfection is not the least Gross of their Imperfections And shews the Excess of their Spirituall Pride For which they may Read their Sentence 1 John 1.8 If we say that we have no Sin we deceive our selves and the Truth is not in us For as Solomon says Prov. xx 9. Who can say I have made my Heart clean I and Pure from Sin III. The next Quotation is p. 202. Where G. W's Perversion of Isa ix 6. Is set down He turns that most Express Prophesy of Christ Viz. Vnto us a Child is â—orn c. To an Allegorical sense of Christ within and his being Born in our Hearts And says that he was thus Born in Isaiah himself who wrote these Words Who had also been as with Child Says he i. e. Of Christ T. F. In Defence of this says p. 203. That this was meant of Both Viz. Of Christ's Outward and his Inward Birth but this is false for the Prophecy was only of his Outward Birth And if it can be turned to the Inward how shall we thereby convince the Jews as to the Outward Christ This Liberty of Interpretation will confound all the Prophesies of Christ in the Old Testament And it is Remarkable that Isaac Penington a Quaker having wrote a Book Intituled Some Queries and Answers of deep Concernment to the Jews and Design'd purposely for Their Conversion do's not through the whole once Name the outward Christ But bids them onely look to their Light within T. E. Quotes a Book of G. Keith's call'd The Rector Corrected p. 30. In Justification of this Exposition of his of Isa ix 6. To mean both the Outward and the Inward Birth of Christ And tho my business is not here to Vindicate G. Keith yet I had the Curiosity to look into that Book of his and find that this Text was not so much as under Consideration or once Nam'd in that place but he was treating there wholly of another Subject and which is no ways Applicable to this IV. The next Quotation is p. 203. G. W. in his Book call'd The He Goats Horn Broken by way of Wittieism upon John Horn whom he Answers p. 33. 34. Charges this among others as an Error in J. Horn Viz. That when Paul saith Christ was seen of him Last 1 Cor. xv 8. He must needs mean it of his Body seen and seen by Bodily sight Which is contrary says G. W. to Gal. 1.16 To this says T. E. that if G. W. had denied that Christ was Bodily seen of Paul that had not Allegorized a-away Christ's Resurrection And this is all he says to it But if Christ was not Bodily seen of Paul then was Paul a false Witness of Christ For in that Place 1 Cor. xv He Names himself among other Witnesses to Christ's outward Resurrection He was seen says St. Paul v. 5. Of Cephas then of the Twelve After that he was seen of above 500 Brethren at once after that he was seeen of James then of all the Apostles and last of all
Distinct Operation or Manifestation of the Father Christ is not Distinct from the Father says George Fox and They the Father Son Great Mystery p. 242. 293. and Holy Ghost are not Distinct And he opposes Chr. Wade for saying that God the Father never took upon him Humane Nature but the Son pag. 246. as Chr. Wade words it and quotes against it that Text where Christ is called The Everlasting Father So that herein they join with those Old Hereticks the Patripassians and with Muggleton who say that it was God the Father who was Incarnate and Dyed And they cannot think otherwise if they believe the Word to be nothing else but a Distinct Operation or Manifestation of the Father and so but Nominally Different from Him as some of them do express it for an Operation or Manifestation can neither be Incarnate or Dye III. The next Heresie of G. W's and the Quakers which T.E. defends is that against the Incarnation of Christ in making Christ or the Word to have assum'd an Humane Body only as a Vail or a Garment wherein He Dwelt for a time as Angels when they appear'd in Bodies but Deny with the Socinians that He really became a Man by taking our Nature into His own Person and therefore say that He had not an Humane Soul tho' He dwelt in an Humane Body For this G. K. produc'd this passage out of a Book of G. W's which T. E. owns and Repeats p. 33. viZ. If the Body and Soul of the Son of God were Both Created doth not this render him a Fourth Person In excuse of this T. E. supposes that he in answer to whom G. W. wrote this one T. Danson a Presbyterian Preacher did hold that Christ had a Created Soul from Eternity and upon that Supposition that G. W. brought this as an Absurdity following from Danson's Position that this would infer a Fourth Person in the Divinity Now this is so gross a Prevarication that not only no Presbyterian but no Christian ever held that Christ's created Soul was from Eternity It is a Contradiction for if it was created it could not be from Eternity And therefore such a Pretence as this is downright pleading Guilty But shews the true Quaker Doctrine that Christ had no Human Soul and consequently that He was not truly a Man For proof of which this Quotation of G K's was most Pertinent and T. E's Answer confirms it much more IV. G. K. brought another Proof to shew that G. W. do's not acknowledge that Christ has now the Body of a Man or will come in that Body to Judge the World T. E. repeats the Words of G. W. p. 37. Do'st thou look for Christ as he was Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a Bodily Existence to save thee if thou do'st thou mayst look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him This George Whitehead wrote against one Robert Gordon and says T. Ellwood pag 38. If he be Dead his Eyes may be already dropt out without seeing it This was spoke like Merry Andrew Why did Robert Gordon pretend that the Last Judgment should come before he Dyed was that the Dispute betwixt him and G. W No. Their Dispute was concerning Christ's coming in His Human Body to the Last Judgment and T. E. do's not pretend to the Contrary And therefore this Childish put off as it is an Affront to his Readers so is it a Total yielding up the Cause and that in the most Shameful Manner As is his other Excuse that that coming to Judgment was not to save us for the Contest was not for what End He came But whether He would come or not None ever said that the Saints were not saved that is justified and in Bliss before the Day of Judgmentâ— yet the Full and Compleat Consummation of their Bliss in the Re-Union of Soul and Body and Perfect Happiness will not be till then which is the Ultimate and Compleat Salvation V. The next Quotation out of G. W's Books is p. 39. in these words And that he Christ existeth outwardly Bodily without us at God's Right hand what Scripture-proof hath he for these Words and then what and where is God's Right hand Is it Visible or Invisible within us or without us only And is Christ the Saviour as an outward Bodily Existence or Person without us Distinct from God and on that consideration to be worshipped as God yea or nay And where doth the Scripture say He is Outwardly and Bodily Glorify'd at God's Right hand Do these terms express the Glory that he had with the Father before the World began in which He is now Glorified In Excuse for all this Vehement Denyal of Christ's BODILY Existence at the Right Hand of God T. E. says p. 40. That sometimes Questions are only for Information or to amuse an Adversary not to shew ones own Opinion Yes sometimes they are so And it is very Plain when they are so And sometimes they are the most Positive way of asserting as implying an Astonishment or Wonder of the Contrary as so manifest an Absurdity as not to be Defended And it is as manifest when Questions are in this strain And T. E. dares not say that these Questions of G. W. were not in this later sense And therefore his suggesting this was against his own Conscience and to shew that he was Resolv'd to support his Cause Right or Wrong His second Answer is yet more Notorious p. 40. He supposes that R. Gordon G. W 's Opponent intended to Deny the Divinity of Christ which he never Deny'd but Strongly asserts and to set up the Body that was born of the Virgin for the only whole Intire Christ and Saviour And that G. W. only meant to oppose him in this 1st The Words above quoted were a strange sort of opposition if this had been so But 2dly This is as Errant a Slander as ever was Invented and T. E. and G. W. know it full well For R. Gordon held no such thing nor any thing like it No nor any Man that ever was Born that only the Body was Christ Did that ever enter into the Head of any Creature So Confounded so Destitute of all appearance of Truth are these Quaker Pretences whereby in stead of forsaking they seek to cover and sow Fig-leaves before their Nakedness They have but one Security left That it is a shame to Confute them But this Drudgery some must undergo for the Good of those among them who are not stung with the Deaf Adder and to save others out of their Cobweb but Destructive Snares to those who are bewitch'd into them VI. As vile and gross but more Impudent is that Imputation which T.E. puts upon whole Professions of Christians in Vindication of G. W's answer to a Baptist who from Rev. 1.7 inferr'd that Those who Pierced him Christ in his Body of Flesh shall see that Body visibly come again which G. W. opposes and says that
Spiritual as the Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink and Spiritual Rock in the Wilderness 1 Cor x. 2.3 Will this if there be no more in it makes His Blood to be the Blood of God And what is this to G. W's Argument That a Spirit cannot have Material Blood and therefore That if the Blood of the New Covenant be the Blood of God it cannot be Material Blood i. e. That the Material Blood of Christ was not the Blood of God otherwise than as the Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink and All things are His. This lets us into the Heart of the Quaker Divinity VII G. W. says in a Book of his call'd The Voice of Wisdom p. 36. That the Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finit but Infinit T. E. says p. 113. That these Words are an Inference from a Position of his Adversaries one Thomas Danson viz. That the Righteousness whereof Christ is the Subject and that whereof He is the Efficient are of one Species or Kind 'T is true that G. W. mentions this But not as finding any Fault with it For he says the same and more himself in the same page viz. That Righteousness which God works in us by His Spirit it s of the same Kind and Nature with that which worketh it for the Saints are made Partakers of the Divine Nature 2 Pet. 1.4 T. Danson made the Righteousness of the Man Christ of the same Species or Kind with ours as His Human Nature is But G. W. makes the Righteousness of God to be of the same Kind and Nature with ours which is Blasphemy and far beyond what T. Danson had said with which G. W. found no Fault unless that he had said too little of the Oneness of the Righteousness of God and ours But he brings this former saying of Danson's to Confront that Position of his which G. W. sets down viz. That the Righteousness which God works in us is but Finite as well as other Effects This G. W. opposes and brings the above-quoted saying of Danson's as a Contradiction to this and then Proves against Danson according to his skill that the Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finit but Infinit This is in opposition to the above saying of Danson's That it was but Finit And if G. W. thought it but Finit why did he oppose Danson in this But he not only says that it is Infinit but goes on to Prove it For says he Christ is Gods Righteousness and Christ is formed in us Gal. iv 19. Thus miserably Perverting the Scripture But they are Desir'd to tell us how Infinity can be Formed 2dly How formed in that which is Finit G. W. in the same place Exclaims against those who would make that Righteousness in them the Saints but Finit When as says he Christ His Infinit Righteousness and the Saints are in one another Here he makes the Righteousness of Christ and of the Saints to be the same and corrupts that Text Heb. ii 11. to Prove it which he Repeats thus He that Sanctifieth and they that are Sanctified are one Whereas the Text is are all of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And concludes thus Then God's Righteousness in us is not Finit but Infinit Yet T. E. would make us believe that he said no such thing But this is no Novelty with him VIII Again p. 134. he justifies this saying of G. Ws That Blood and Water that 's said to Cleanse is not of another Kind but agrees in one with the Spirit And Demands in great assurance Is not that True No. Mr. E. it is not True but far from Truth That the Blood and Water are not of another Kind from the Spirit They are Material and outward Blood and Water which through the operation of the Blessed Spirit do cleanse But this makes them not of the same Kind with the Spirit more than Christ's Human Nature is of the same Kind with His Divine Nature or than a Man's Body is of the same Kind or Natuâ—â— with his Soul And this still shews more and more your Contempt and Denyal of the outward and Material Body and Blood of Christ for your Justification IX T. E. p. 136. brings in W. Penn justifying this saying of Isaac Penington viz. Can outward Blood Cleanse the Conscience And W. P. says We do Deny that outward Blood can be brought into the Conscience to Perform that Inward Work which they themselves i. e. the Professors as the Quakers call'd their Opponents Dare not nay do not hold Yet T. E. says p. 135. that Isaac Pennington put this Question Can outward Blood cleanse the Conscience to the Professors who place ALL upon the OVTWARD You must Excuse him he Began and was Resolv'd to go Quite through with this Topick in every Case to Misrepresent his Adversaries Meaning and if he cannot Find Faults to Make them But here he stands fairly Corrected by the more Ingenious W. P. whose Authority he Pretends to Maintain who says that the Professors Dare not nay Do not hold this G. Keith as quoted by T. E. p. 137. has given a clear Answer to this poor Subterfuge of Supposing that any did think the outward and Material Blood of Christ was to be brought into the Conscience and there Materially Apply'd which none sure in this World ever Imagin'd G. K. says The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience is by the Application of a Living Faith in Christ whose Blood it was the Spirit of God working that Faith in me This is Full and Orthodox But says T. E. in answer to this Why do's he say The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience as if it had been Really and Materially brought in there This is Intolerable and shews that they either can not or will nor take an Answer T. E. p. 136. tells of a Distinction which W.P. made betwixt the Pardon of Past Sin and the Present Sanctification of any Person and applys it to this Purpose as if the outward Blood of Christ could have no Tendency but only to the Former But this instead of Solving the Matter serves only to Discover the strange Confusion and Ignorance of these Men in the Mystery of the Gospel as if Christ's Blood outwardly shed were not as Effectual to our Sanctification as to our Justification to Procure for us the Graces of the Holy Spirit towards Living acceptably to God for the Future as the Pardon of Sins that are Past. SECT 3. Concerning the Resurrection of the Body I. T. E. is in Great Confusion upon this Head making Tedious Repetitioâ— and long Digressions about the Bush not knowing what to say and yet that he might appear to say something But I will Reduce his Immethodical Ramblement into this Order 1st To shew his weak and Fallacious Excuse for that Great Opposition which the Quakers have given to this Article of our Faith 2dly That T. E. instead of Vindicating others has himself down-right
Leven In their Publick Schools it is Enjoyn'd that the Scholars shou'd Read such a Portion of that Blasphemous Journal of G. Fox's every day Particularly in their great School at Wansworth The Publick ought to take some care of this in Pity to their Poor Souls And in Private Families that odious Journal is daily Read where the Holy Bible is suffer'd to Mould And the Travels of Fox are more Read and Valu'd by the Quakers than those of St. Paul or any of the Acts of the Apostles 4. But to shew how their Infection does spread if what I have said be not enough I will give this further Demonstrative Proof which has occur'd very lately There is one Thomas Curtis commonly call'd Captain Curtis he was such in Oliver's Army at Reading a wealthy Man and one of the Quakers of the most Ancient standing now among them he has â—een a Preacher with them about 40 years and so still continues Has suffer'd and merited in their cause as much as any But is more open-hearted and less Dissembling than the Rest He freely owns the Doctrines he has Learn'd and which he always taught since he first engag'd amongst the Quakers and carry'd it on with Indesatigable Zeal He erected or was chiefly Instrumental in it a Monthly Quaker Meeting at Kings-Heath in Lamborne Woodlands in Berkshire 25 Miles from Reading it was call'd Thom. Curtis's Meeting And Preaching there at their Monthly Meeting upon Sunday the 4th of this Oct. 1696. He took notice of their Present Divisions upon Account of the New Doctrine as they call it which G. Keith had of Late Broached among them And finding that some of that Meeting had a favourable opinion of G. Keith herein and embraced his Principles parcicularly one William Clark he challenged him by Name and any 5000 of that Party to dispute with him Whereupon Will. Clark did engage him And there Publickly before them all T. Curtis asserted That Christ had a Prepared Body but what is become of it he knew not neither said he do I care Being ask'd whether Christ had a Soul He said he knew not Whether it was the Godhead or Manhood that suffered He Answered that he cou'd not tell whether it was the Manhood or the Godhead that suffered He said There was no Resurrection but of the Soul from the Death of Sin and this said he I have often Preached and do still maintain it He said That Paul got all the Resurrection while living in this World That he did believe his own Body shou'd be changed like unto Christ's Glorious Body while he was living in this World That he knew nothing of Christ but within himself Being asked by W. Clarke whether he did believe that Christ is in Heaven without us in the Entire nature of Man of Soul and Body the some for substance it was on Earth Glorify'd at God's Right Hand He Repâ—y'd This is one of thy Quibbles I will not Answer thee And then asked Where is God's Right Hand Being again Demanded by W. C. Whether he had whole Christ in him He Answered I know nothing of Christ but within my self He said That a man might be come to the Resurrection and have the Resurrection and yet not Past iâ—e That the Resurrection being once come it Remains and so is not Past At which Rate it will not be Past in Heaven after the Resurrection But this is a Fetch of the Quakers to make their Denyal of the Resurrection appear not to be the same with that of Hymeneus and Philetus 2 Tim. 2.18 With which it is the very same and St. Paul calls it 〈◊〉 overthrowing of the Faith For he did not oppose them in the State of the Blessed after the Resurrection being a Remaining State and not to Pass away But in that they said the Resurrection was already Past i. e. Inwardly brain'd by the Faithful and therefore no â—â—ster or outward Resurrection of the Body to be expected 5. Thomas Ellwood in his Answer before â—â—â—â—â—der'd p. 142 143. Repeats these words of George Whitehead's against our Notion of the Resurrection viz. And their Assertion and Determination therein is contrary to what the Apostle saith 2 Cor. V. For we know if our Earthly House of this Tabernacle were Dissolved we have a Building of God an House not made with hands Eternal in the Heavens For we that are in this Tabernacle do Groan being Burdened c. But why wou'd he close this with his c. So soon For the very next words in the same ver 4. wou'd have set him Right and Determin'd the cause fully on our side viz. Not for that we wou'd be un-cloathed but Cloathed upon that Mortality might be swallow'd up of Life i. e. Not that we wou'd be un-Cloathed or quite Divested of our Bodys but that a New Cloathing of Immortality shou'd be given to our Bodys The un-Cloathing is the Quaker Notion of the Resurrection The Cloathing upon is ours T. E. by way of excuse says p. 143. That G. W. wrote this against that Notion That the Happiness of the Soul is not Perfect without the Body and that the Soul hath a strong desire to a Re-Vnion to the Body This T. E. thought such an absurdity as that no Man wou'd own it Which shews how very far they have wander'd from the Truth in this Doctrine of the Resurrection For it is not doubted among Christians but the Soul hath a strong desire to a Re-Vnion with the Body And that her Joy is not Perfect i. e. Compleat before that time Which makes them Cry How Long O Lord Rev VI. 10. XXII 20. Holy and Just And Pray that God wou'd Hasten his Kingdom and Come Quickly And the Quakers endeavouring to Ridicule this as before is shewn is a Proof that they have more need of being Taught than Disputed against And instead of medling with Controversy shou'd be sent to Learn their Catechism But to Return to Thom. Curtis 6. The Account I have above given and all the Particulars I have seen under the hand of William Clarke the Person Concern'd And I am told That a Narrative of the whole Proceedings of that Monthly Meeting is like to be Published In the mean time the use I have to make of it is this to shew that the Quakers do still hold these Abominable Heresies and always have held them Notwithstanding of the shuffling excuses which T. E. G. W. and W. P. wou'd now put upon them If it be objected that Thom. Curtis is a Separatist from the Quakers of Grace-Church-street and joyned with those of Harp-Lane And therefore that those of Grace-Church-street are not Accountable for any thing he says or does Answ 1. Those of Harp-Lane are Answerable and all in Communion with them And my present business is to shew that these Vile Heresies are still Taught among the Quakers Answ 2. These of Harp-Lane did not separate from those of Grace-Church-street upon any Principle of Faith or Doctrine But meerly upon
this is an addition to the Scripture And T. E. p. 47. brings him off as before by supposing that the Baptist meant as if Christ's Body at his coming to Judgment should not be chang'd at all from the condition and appearance it had upon Earth and that it was only this sort of Appearance which G. W. opposed It is well known says he p. 49. that many of the Baptists as well as others of other Professions do hold the Body of Christ now in Heaven to be as Really and Materially a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones as it was when upon the Cross And p. 47. Not so much as mentioning any Change in it Now if there never was a Christian who did not believe that Christ's Body was Glorified in Heaven and much changed from the Condition it was in upon the Cross how will T. E. answer for this Horrid and Senseless Imputation cast upon so many Christians How will he clear G. W. from Denying Christ's outward appearance at the Great Day when he can save him by no other Supposition than this which is notoriously False to all that bear the Name of Christians Ay and must be so to T. E. and G. W. themselves VII Here T. E. spends a great deal of fruitless pains as in several other places in Retorting upon G. K. But I leave him to Defend himself He needs no Second in his Contest with them For as to the Points of Doctrine Debated he has brought them for the most part to comply with him at least to Counterfeit an Agreement which is a Greater Victory if that were his aim They Confess that they have no Objection against his Morals and that they Differ not in Doctrine from him and yet have Excommunicated him that is have Condemned themselves And as to their Retortions and In-consistencies charg'd upon him he has hitherto kept himself superiour to them And set them an Example which is the only Method to save their Consciences and Reputation if they have not too much Pride to follow it that is he has own'd that there are some Errors in his former Books and has Promis'd to Print a Re-tractation of them as St. Augustine and other Great Men have done and to their Greater Praise But T. E. and the Party he defends stand still upon their Insallibility after it is Expos'd to the utmost Contempt They will yield no Error in themselves no not in an Iota not in their saying that Christ was bâ—rn at NaZâ—reth which T. E. in his Truth Defended printed 1695. p. 167. quotes out of W. Pean's Christian Quaker p. 104. But on the contrary They Invent such Salvâ—'s and strange Fetches to Reconcile their Heresies and Contradictions as T. E. in the Present Case that sinks them Deeper into the Mire is a Plain conviction of their guilt and makes them a Laughing-stock to all Maâ—kind But like a Bird that hides his Head and thinks no body sees him so they while they do not confess against themselves think themselves safe and will perswade many of their Implicit Followers that no body else sees them VIII But enough of this Let us Return to T. E. p. 53. he Defends G. W's Disputation against a Baptist for asserting that there was a Personal Christ now in Heaven at God's Right Hand all which G. W. turns Inward viz. a God's Right Hand WITHIN VS and a Christ WITHIN VS and to understand these as out of his People in a Personal being which are no Scripture terms says he still implies him to be a Personal God or Christ like the Anthropomorphite or Muggletonians conceit of him So that it seems a Personal God or Christ WITHOUT VS is as Ridiculous to G. W. as the Anthropomorphit or Muggletonian conceit of God's having a Body in shape and circumscription like to ours Can we imagine these Men so Ignorant as to know no Difference betwixt Person and Body but to think every Person to be a Body because in common speaking when we say such a Person we mean a Man and this Man has a Body This sure must be the Size of their Philosophy though it is hard to believe it that Men who are Writers and trouble the World with Books should remain in such Childish Ignorance as to think that no Spirit is a Person for which only reason they Deny Personality to God and by this fall into the same Muggletonism with which they charge the Baptist For if God cannot be a Person without having a Body then He must have a Body or have no Existence because every Intelligent Being is a Person that is the Meaning of the word Person Which if the Quakers have not hitherto understood Let them go to School again and Learn to Read before they Write and to Humbly themselves Greatly before God and confess their Fault before Men for Causing so Grievous a Schism in the Church and Branding so many Christians all the World but themselves as Limbs of the Devil and Deserters of the Faith upon a Mistake which Proceeds meerly from their own Ignorance But though God be a Person without a Body yet Christ has now and ever will have a Body an Human Body in His Person even the same Body which he took of the Blessed Virgin in which He Suffer'd Rose from the Dead and Ascended into Heaven And for G. W. to call this the Anthropomorphit or Muggletonian Conceit shews his Utter Ignorance and Blind Heresie for both these give a Body to God i. e. to God the Father to the very Nature of the Deity Which has no Relation to those who acknowledge only the Body of Christ but own no Body of the Father But G. W. puts both in the same Bottom and makes the one as absurd and contradictory as the other to shew how sound and orthodox he is in the Christian Faith And T. E. makes no other Defence for G. W. but his Old False Suppose that this Baptist was an Anthropomorphit Nay p. 53. he finds fault with G. K. for saying that There is no Church of England Man Presbyterian or Baptist that holds that notion That the Godhead has the shape of a Man T. E. tells him that he is too slight a Voucher for all of these Communions Insinuating as if some of them did hold that Notion against his own Heart which knows the contrary All the World knows it That all these Communions do Detest and Abominate any such Notion Nor can I tell him in all Christendom where to find except himself and Partners any Associates for the Muggletonians in this Point but only their Brethren the Bidleite Socinians or Vnitarians for Bidle was a Profess'd Anthropomorphit as he has Publish'd in his Socinian Catechism But T. E. takes great pains to prove that G. W. do's acknowledge in what Sophistical sense he understands and we too now understand them a Body of Christ now in Heaven Let him free himself then upon this Hypothesis from Muggletonism and he will at the same time
Nature and the same Body which He took of the Blessed Virgin in opposition to the Quaker Notion of understanding Christ's Coming only of the Inward and Invisible Appearance or Manifestation of Christ in the Heart And T. E's objecting against this of Christ's coming as the Son of Mary do's further Confirm us that these Quakers do not mean his coming in His true Human and Outward Body T. E. Objects too that these words to save thee are not Repeated in this Second Quotation of G. W's Words Which has been spoke to before and so I dismiss this head as I do likewise a long Contest which lasts as far as p. 177. Concerning some Letrers and other Papers in MS. which G. Keith Produced full of the Heretical Delusions before mentioned And which T. E. Confesses and Denies as if he were Mumbling of Thistles and Interlards with Billings-Gate against G. Keith With which I do not meddle And having Proofs sufficient out of their Printed Books I will not trouble the Reader with Examining of their Manuscripts IV. T. E. Comes to defend himself p. 177. And a Quotation of his own which G. Keith cited Viz. In comparing the Books of Friends to the Books of them called the Greek and Latin Fathers he G K. has not done as a Friend and Brother but as an Enemy in supposing Friends Books to have been Written by no better Guidance nor clearer sight than theirs who Lived and Wrote in those Dark times T. E. is very Angry that the Auditors at Turners-Hall shouted at this Quotation And well they might To see the most Ignorant and Heretical of all the Sects that ever were in Christendom thus to set up themselves above the Primitive Fathers of the Church and to Prefer their own Writings who cou'd not rightly spell their own Mother Tongue Illiteral Mechanicks to the Great Atbanasius Basilius the two Gregories Naziansen and Nysen Cyril Ambrose Epiphanius Chrisostom Hierom Augustin Hilarius c. All of whom T. E. Instances by Name p. 178. As Inferior to the Quakers and ascends Higher to the Second Century and p. 179. Names Cyprian Tertullian and Origen None of these were to be Compar'd with George Fox and his Disciples These were Dark Times to the Year 1650 when the New Light of the Quakers Arose in our Hemesphere When the Church being Pull'd down the Vilest and most Monstrous and Numerous Spawn of Multifarious Sects that ever the Bottomless Pit spew'd forth at once were with a Thousand other Devils let loose amongst us A just Punishment for our Schism and Rebellion And we are yet left to War with the Tayle of this Hydra which is Gathering New Life and if it shou'd for our sins Prevail our Last Sâ—â—â—e wou'd be worst than the First Who can refrain from Indignation To see such a Conceited Senseless most Ignorant and Blasphemous Crew Destitute of Comon Modesty or â—hame wipe their Mouths and Gravely set up themselves above all the Glorious Lights of the Church Confessors and Martyrs ever since the Apostles whom they Damn as Apostates See Snake in the Grass 2. Part Sect iv As their Execrable Father G. Fox said in his Great Mystery p. 89. That the Quakers Have a Spirit given them beyond all the Fore-fathers since the days of the Apostles in the Apostacy T. E. Quotes scraps out of Perkins Jurieu and Dalley to shew Errors in the Fathers who did not pretend to Infallibility Tho these Modern Authors have made much too Bold with them There are Spots in the Sun But this must not Eclipse their Light and Glorious Gifts they had from God whereby they supported His Gospel with Irresistible Learning Piety and Constancy even to the Death God chargeth His Angels with Folly and suffer'd Imperfections in His Apostles Peter Deserved to be Blamed and even Barnabas was carry'd away with his Dissimulation Gal. 2.11.13 There were great Failings in Noah in Lot in Moses in Samson in David in Solomon And the Quakers who while in the sink of Heresy and Corruption â—oast of a Sinless Perfection may set themselves above all these by the same Rule But what is so Extravagant that they dare not that they have not done William Shewen a Great Quaker Writer and Preacher and Highly Extoll'd by them at his solemn Funeral about two years ago in his Treatise concerning Thoughts and Imaginations Printed 1685. p. 25. Sets up a Quaker as Meeker than Moses Stronger than Samson Wiser than Solomon And more Patient than Job Harmless and Innocent as He Christ was If the Reader be Astonished at this he will see more p. 37. Where the Quakers pretend to be come even beyond the Outward Christ or Jesus They can come to God now without Him And worship Him no more Not to Jesus says he on the Margent that you may take the more Notice of it The Son of Abraham David and Mary Saint or Angel but to God the Father all Worship Honour and Glory is to be Given thro' Jesus Christ i. e. Thro' the Inward Christ or Light within But to Worship the outward Jesus the Son of Mary he Ranks with the Worship of Saints and Angels And his Ascension and Sitting at the Right Hand of God W. Shewen will not have it understood of the outward Jesus but onely of this Inward Christ p. 38. Who when he is thus known to perform all these Offices in his People he is then by such known to sit down at the Right Hand of God He is then also known to Surrender up the Kingdom to the Father And in the Margin he puts this Note Viz. This is the Ascending of Christ up where he was before he Descended Turning all this to the Inward Christ or their Light within Perform'd within them where they have an Inward Ascension an Inward Right Hand of God an Inward Kingdom an Inward Delivering of it up c. And denying any thing of this to be Perform'd Outwardly or to belong to the outward Jesus Now T. E. is desired to shew any such Errors as these and the Denyal of these Four great Essentials of Christianity which is Châ—â—ged and Proved against him and his Partners and is the Subject of our present Discourse 1. Faith in Christ as he Outwardly suffer'd at Jerusalem to our Salvation 2. Justification by his Blood outwardly shed 3. The Resurrection of the Dead 4. The Future Judgment He is desir'd to shew any such Errors as these in those Fathers whom he so much despises No. If any had Published such Doctrines as these in those which he calls Dark Times they had been spew'd out of the Church with the utmost Abhorrence Many were cast out for much less Errors than these Nor ought such Errors to be Tolerated in any Christian Nation And it is an horrible Scandal that such shou'd be suffered to pass under the Name of Protestant It is enough to make that Name odious to all other Christians From the Place last Quoted to p. 197. There is nothing
Wit and their Time to Gloss and Cover their Errors which does but Expose them the more And since they now do pretend in Discourse and otherwise to be the same with the Church of England in Faith and Doctrine that they wou'd with a Noble and a Christian Courage Fairly and Above-board Retract and Condemn whatever they have said or wrote to the Contrary This is Incumbent upon them to Rescue the many Souls Deluded by them For that they are so Deluded none can deny I have many times heard several of them some of their Preachers plainly own all the Gross things Charged upon them even Denying any Merit or Salvation by the Blood of Christ which was outwardly shed That Christ is now a Man That there will be any Resurrection of our Dead Bodys or Future Universal Judgment Now where did they Learn these Doctrines There are none of any other Communion who believe few that ever heard of such things Therefore it is certain that these have been Deluded And who have Deluded them And nothing will undeceive them but seeing their Leaders downright Retract these Errors While they seem to excuse them they Confirm their Ignorant Followers in them Whose Blood will be requir'd at their Hands if they do not all that is in their Power to retrieve them What shall I say more To my Perswasions I will add my Prayers for them Which I do daily offer for their Conversion And thus to God and his Mercy I leave them through Jesus Christ who shed his Blood for them Dyed Rose and Ascended OVTWARDLY and will in the same Body come again to Judge them In which Day may they hear a Favourable sentence from Him and with us be one with him to all Eternity Amen Oct. 14. 1696. SOME GLEANINGS WITH Other further Improvements I. 1. THomas Ellwood is not onely Chargeable with what he has wrote in this Answer which has been Examined but the whole Body of the Quakers except Turners-Hall and those in Communion with them because it has been approved of by The second days Meeting as all Books are that they give forth which is their Supreme Authority in such Cases 2. Looking over his Answer again I cannot but Remark a Bold stroke of his p. 34. Thomas Danson being a Presbyterian Minister said G. Keith did Head that Christ as Man had a Creaâ—ed Soul Nay hold there Replies T. E. Thom. Danson spake of the Son of God i. e. That Christ is not the Son of God If he thinks to come off by that Limitation in Danson's words As Man it will not Rescue him For even As Man He was The Son of God Luk. 1.35 And as to his Eternal Generation He was the Son of God from all Eternity Therefore T. E. is to tell us in what sense he oppos'd Christ's being The Son of God And with the assurance of a Nay hold there As if some great Absurdity had been coming upon him II. 1. I told you in my Conclusion of the great Ignorance of the Generality of the Quakers And that many of them do at this day plainly own the most Blasphemous and Heretiâ—â— Doctrines which have been objected against them And thence I infer'd that whatever Face their Writers since the late Controversâ— against them have put upon their Principles yet this shews undeniably that such Heresies have been taught amongst them and are still so understood by their People And that vehemently A present Preacheâ— of theirs not long since being Pressed to acknowledge the Man Christ without us and the necessity of Faith in him Answered The Man Christ a F rt Horrid It Astonishes to Repeat such disdainful Blasphemy Tho it be necessary towards undeceiving of the World I know the Man and to whom he said it He deny'd before me and several others at another time That Christ's Body Rose out of the Grave That our Bodys should Rise That there wou'd be any General Judgment Or that the Scriptures were all True This is a Teacher Thus he has been Taught And thus he Teaches others And it is no wonder that they who are thus Taught to believe no outward Christ now in being shou'd use him with the utmost Contempt And his Worshippers with the greatest severity as being the Grossest sort of Idolaters to worship a Dead God who is no more in Being But the Quakers Faith is in an Inward Christ Viz. Their Light within And Inward Blood Inwardly shed c. 2. Can outward Blood Cleanse the Conscience Says Isaac Pennington in his Questions to the Professors p. 25. Was it the Flesh and Blood of the Vail or the Flesh and Blood within the Vail I have before observed that they call Christ's Body the Vail or Garment which he wore without taking it into his own Nature or being any Part of Christ For say they in a Book Compos'd by a great Club of them Intituled Some Principles of the Elect People of God in scorn called Quakers Printed 1671. p. 116. The Scriptures do expresly distinguish between Christ and the Garment which He wore between Him that came and the Body in which He came between the substance which was Vailed and the Vail that Vailed it There was the outward Vessel and the Inward Life This we certainly know say they and can never call the Bodily Garment Christ So that the Blood of Christ's Body was none of His Blood it was but the Blood of his Garment or Vail which the Quakers do not acknowledge to be Christ And which Isaac Pennington says cannot Cleanse the Conscience What Blood then is it which Cleanses Not the blood of the Vail that is of Christ's Body but The Flesh and Blood within the Vail i. e. of the Spirit which was within Christ's Body And this Spiritual Blood must be Spiritually that is Inwardly and not visibly shed This totally excludes the outward Christ and the outward Blood from having any Efficacy towards our Salvation Which Isaac Pennington explains yet fuller ibid Was it says he The Flesh and Blood of the outward Earthly Nature or the Flesh and Blood of the Inward Spiritual Nature Was it the Flesh and Blood which Christ took of the First Adam's Nature or the Flesh and Blood of the Second Adam's Nature This is Nonsense for Christ himself was the Second Adam and this Quere is whether he took Flesh and Blood of His own Nature But by the Second Adam the Quakers mean onely the Eternal word of God exclusive of the Humane Nature And they plainly here Exclude the Flesh and Blood which Christ took of the First Adam's Nature 3. Pursuant to this Notion the Quakers do not confine this Blood not â—â— the Vail i. e. Of Christ's Body but the Blood within the Vail i. e. the Mâ—stical Blood of the Spirit that dwelt in the Body of Christ they do not Confine this Blood to Christ alone but say that it is in themselves for they make iâ— to be nothing else than The Light within And from hence they