last appears we may appear with him in glory Coll. 3. 4. c. at the last trump of God and voice of the Arch-Angel the dead shall be raised incorruptible The dead in Christ shall rise first 1. Thess 4. 16. c. Thus far G. W. And now again least they should as lately they have done still tell us we have learned this out of late or that vve have been of late forced to it by G. K. I shall therefore shew one or tvvo plain proofs to the contrary First from Edward Burrough who died in the year 1662. vvho in his Works p. 440. speaking concerning the Resurrection expresseth himself thus viz And vve believe even that he that vvas dead is alive and lives for evermore and that he cometh and shall come to judge the vvorld vvith righieousness and all people vvith equity and shall give every man according to his deeds at the day of judgment vvhen all shall rise to condemnation or justification he that hath done good shall receive life and he that hath done evil to everlasting condemnation In the next place I shall produce a quotation out of an antient book of Stephen Crisp's entituled A plain path way opened to the simple hearted for the answering all doubts and objections c. vvhere in his p. 12. he speaks thus concerning the Resurrection viz For he that knovvs a death and Resurrection after this manner to be dead to sin and to be risen vvith Christ Jesus in the nevv life even vvhile they are in this earthly tabernacle before it is dissolved such will never question their appearing at the Iudgment seat of God after it is dissolved but do believe it with joy and gladness and have a fervent hope concerning the Resurrection of the dead and have their expectation unto God in that matter that he will according to his promise raise them up at the last day and will give unto every Seed his own body even as pleaseth Him and the creature is not carefull then about such foolish questions and doubts as to inquire about what manner of body God wil give them but leave it to the Lord in full Faith that he will raise them up according to the Scriptures Thus far S. C. And now lastly what Authors shall I bring to convince these our new opposers that we do not deny but own the Resurrection according to the Scripture Surely none more fit than their great original Sect Master G. K who in Presbyterian and Independent visible Churches c. not yet retracted which was written but in the year 1689 p. 3. 4 in answer to Sam. Norton's charging us with denying the Resurrection of the dead saith thus viz That they deny the Resurrection of the dead this is also a most false charge which they can never prove but because we deny their carnal conceptions of the Resurrection and hold us to scripure words which is most safe therefore they have so belyed us And for the more satisfaction of the Reader saith he I refer him to a little book called Truth 's Principles published by some noted men of the Quakers In which book it is expressly affirmed That we to wit the Quakers believe that the same body which is laid down shall be raised up at the Resurrection of the dead as much as a natural body can be the same with a spiritual body or an earthly body can be the same with a havenly body according to the Scripure testimony It is sown natural but raised spiritual And the glory of the heavenly is one and the glory of the earthly is another And this may satisfy any sober enquirer c. Thus far G. K. To all which I say though this was so lately cited by G K out of a former book of our Friends and laid down by him as one of our principles which he courts might satisfy any that inquires in sobriety Yet it seems it will not satisfy him now for which I fear the chief reason is for that he himself is gone into Apostacy and bitter enmity Having a little digressed upon this occasion I now return to D L's 12 th Chapter where I find him in his p. 103 a Hedging against â— Dickenson and S. Jenings in particular as follows 〈◊〉 Where fore some preachers particularly â— Dickenson and S. Jenings have now found out a new argment to prove to their he nearers that they are indeed balyed viz in being accoused for denying Jesus of Nazareth c. as before mentioned and that is That their refusing to pay Tythes to fight and to swear are three proofs that they own Jesus to be Christ and therefore they are falsly accused Answ Though hereupon he vaunts at no small rate yet all proceeds from a grand mistake at best For neither they nor we do say that our refusing to pay Tythes to fight and to swear are proofs of our owning Jesus to be Christ but the reason for which we refuse to pay Tithes to fight and to swear and our suffering so deeply on those accounts is because weilest Christ was in the flesh he forâ—ade and at his offering up himself he put an end to these things and yet our thus refusing to comply with those things because of his commands and prohibitions then given is a good proof that we own Jesus to be Christ Did not Paul bring such manner of reasoning to prove his hope and expectation of the resurrection of the dead see 1 Cor. 15. 32 where he said If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus what advantageth 〈◊〉 if the dead rise not let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die Even so may we say If Jesus be not the Christ that offered himself up and put an end to the ceremonial law of Twthes Let us pay Tythes and keep our selves out of prisons and our goods from being spoiled Oh! but this we can not do because our souls are satisfied that Jesus is the Christ and hath put an end to these things In the next place he falls â—oul upon us about Government matters He begins first with West Iersey the Province he lives in but with what truth he relutes things as done there I refer to them selves to answer if they think it worth their while But since in his p. 104. 105 he pretends to give a relation with reflections upon some affairs relating to our Government of Pennsilvania I shall not pass over that but detect his abuses of us therein He hath it thus viz Next let us step over into the Government of Pensilvania where in the year 1695 we find Coll. Benjamin Fletcher then Governour of that Province pressing upo the Assembly to raise a fund for his Majesties service to wards securing the Province from the French and Indians but this they could not do No it was against their tender consciences contrary to their antient testimony and principle and so no fund was raised Answer This is not so for Governour Fletcher's power
c. Now hence I observe That according to this aknoledgement for such it is implicitely at least the kernel of life and love had â—ot tookwing before the Year 1688 yet most of the â—ooks he quotâ—s were written long before thâ—t time But surely no orderly sensible man will imagine that order and form amongst God's People will occasion the life â—â—d power to withdraw whilst the power is not denyed Is not God a God of order And doth not the Apostel say to the Corinthians Let all things be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14 40. Moreover if the life and love took Wings but about or since the jear 1688 how could those Orders which were established above twenty years before be the occasion of it Again what Orders have We that they disown Have We Montly meetings So have they Have We Yearly meetings So have they Have We Womens meetings Daniel Leeds saith Those Meetings are certainly of service in Deeds of Charity and Hospitality page 66. But to proceed he concludes that page and begins the next with this passage viz When my intentions were first â—â—t on this ensuing work I had taken G. K's books in equally with the rest or else I should have been partial as â—aleb Pusey has been being blinded with prejudice as his term is in only faulting G. K's books but not his Opposers but as I proceeded on at lenght I found G. K. according to the example of good men in all Ages has publickly acknowledged himself guilty of Errors in divers of his former books and promised a correction of the same and now of late we have his Retractation come over in Print Answ A meer flam For among all the contradictions that we have charged and proved upon him he has been so far from retracting any part of them though they contradict his present doctrine that he boasts in the very Retracting book it self That for the most part they are the soundest passages in all his book and that he can shew a good consistency of them with his present faith See pa. 42 43. And now since Daniel Leeds in the close of his Preface asserts his proceedings in his book to be honest and sincere I appeal to all impartial people Since G. K's doctrines as charged by us do greatly contradict each other and yet he refuses to retract â—ny â—aâ—â— of them Whether I sâ—â—â—â— Ks. 〈…〉 which probably D. L. had no thought about whâ—â— he wrote his book 〈…〉 any argument in sincerity and tâ—uth for his not taking in G. Ks. books as wel as oâ—hers in this wraâ—gling piece of his As for his counting me Partial because I have not faultâ—d G. K's Opposers as well as G. K. I answer â—ll by G. K's opposeâ—s he mean our Friends I never 〈…〉 cause to be so scâ—utinous as D. L. hath been in searching either into our Friends books or G. K's either till since that time any farther than what related to the Controversy which G. K. had raised amongsâ— us here and chiefly that about the universal neccessity of the knowledge of Christ in the outward in order to salvationâ— without our acknowledging of which I found he would not own the most upright amongst us to â—e any better than Heatheâ—s Now upon a time looking into G. K's Universal free Grace of the Gospel in pa. 117 I found that he there would not grant That outward knowledge or the knowledge of Christ in the outward was universally 〈…〉 salvation which I presently shewed to an honest Friend and then a late Friend of his at Philadelphia and when I came to town again he told the he had shewed G. K. the passage and said his answer was to this purpose That if he was in his senses upon his death 〈◊〉 â—e would leave 〈◊〉 aâ— his last testimony to his Friends about him That if they should find any thing in his former books contrary what he now held they should scrach it out where they met with it Now had he not presently after this and after his so uncharitably counting honest Friends to be but Heathens gone about to perswade his over credulous followers That he was not changed in his Principles thereby deceiving and deluding them should have had no occasion on that account to have put Pen to Paper as I did But I suppose he waâ—ily considered in time That if he should acknowledge a change in his principles his New and raw disciples who â—alued themselves at that time much upon their being accounted Quakers and that of a primitive stamp too would have forsaken him and his notions also Well then he finds out a way to gloss over this place and would have us believe That when he denyed as aforesaid the knowledge of Christ in the outward to be universally necessary to salvation his meaning was that it was not so necessary to salvation begun as if that difference betwixt our Friends whom G. K. was then vindicating and other people was about salvation began only Yet least that would not do We must also be told of a distinction betwixt the express and the implicite knowledge of Christ and that the express knowledge was not universally necessary yet the implicite knowledge was Now these things put me into a farther search into both his former and latter books and in his former I still found where he was concerned to treat of the subject he alvvais denyed that knovvledge to be essentially necessary to salvation particularly in his Universal free Grace c. p. 117 and Light of truth triumphant p. 6. By his former books I mean such as bear date before the year 1681. or thereabouts Which is supposed to be about the time that he wrote as he acknowledged 199 of the 200 queries concerning the Revolution of humane souls c. But by his latter books it appears that he is clearly changed in principle as to the point of doctrine and I finding things thus and also how he was receded from his principles in some other matters wherein he differed with Friends as About the sufficiency of the Light without something else and about Preachers being Magistrares and of the confused work he had made about his strange notions of the Resurrection as in my said book is shovvn This I say Was the occasion of my Writing that book that thereby I might shevv to them especially to the most sincere amongst them hovv he vvent about to deceive them by drilling them on and persvvading them we could never prove he was chainged in his Principles as his ovvn vvords are see Some Fundamental Truths p 13. Printed about the year 1692 Wherein he further saith thus I can prove a good consistency of my present doctrine with all mark all my former and latter books Behold now the man for if this be true what need he now at a pinch have put out his book of Retraetations why he was driven to it he must either do it or else some of his followers might have
is our faith that we are justified by an inward righteousness wrought by the Spirit of God in our hearts What Saist thou now Daniel Can W P. be heterodox in this matter and G K. orthodox Be impartial for this of G K's is so far from being retracted that it is by him implicitely justified in the Retractation book it self For there he denies that he hath retracted or renounced any one assertion in any one of his former books that was judged by him an Article of faith of which this about justification is one for saith he this is our faith that we are justified by an inward Righteousness c. His next flingh is grounded cheifly upon his abusing G W's words and meaning as well as that he there in abuseth his Reader by his forging words in G. W. s name which are not G. W's words but his own as before is shown and so I shall leave both these misrepresentations of G. W. charged to D. L's account under the one head of Forgery In the same 14th page he cites W. P's Rejoinder p 287 thus No present work how good soever can justifie any man from the condemnation which is due for the guilt of sin that is past To which he opposes Sandy Foundation p 16 thus God's remission is grounded on our repentance Answer Though W P. saies in the one book No present work how good soever can justify any man from the condemnation which is due for the guilt of sin that is past Yet there is nothing in the other book that so much as consequentially doth say it can For though it is there said That Gods remission is grounded on our repentance yet yit is to be observed that it is called Gods remission and so no present work how good soever of ours can either remit or justifie us for it is Gods remission and so called by W P. And although W P. saith it is grounded upon our repentance yet it is to be understood in a scriptural sence and one of the scriptures which VV P. brought to prove what he asserted was 2 Chr. 30 9. For if ye turn again unto the Lord the Lord your God is gracious and mercifull and will not turn away his face from you Where saith W P. how natural is it to observe that Gods remission is grounded on their repentance and not that it 's impossible to pardon without a plenary satisfaction which was his then Antagonist's doctrine and the several scriptures brought by W P. prove clearly that it was upon the wicked's returning again to the Lord that he remitted them had mercy on them and abundantly pardonned them Again p. 15 he quotes G. F's Catechism p 2 The light that shews to every man his evil deeds is Christ In opposition to which he produced W. P's Christian Quaker p 91 We do not say that the light in every man is Christ but of Christ Answer Tho G F. saies The light that shews to every man his evil deeds is Christ yet W. P. saies nothing to the contrary so no cnotradiction And this is certainly true that the great Light that shews to every man his evil deeds is Christ according to G F. tho the measure that is contained in every man W P. chuses here rather to call the light of Christ than Christ in fulness And G K. himself in a late book entituled Heresy and Hatred p 14. say's The light within being God and Christ and yet in the same page he calls it A real measure or the eternal word Christ Jesus No question but this is sound enough in G K. though it would scarce be so in us He adds a citation out of G F's Great mistery p 185 viz The Devil teacheth them in whom he fows his seed not to have the light within them the seed Christ the Root of God Upon which D L. notes Who must we believe G F. or G W. and W P. For here G F. holds the light within to be not only Christ but even the Root of God Answer This is partly answered by the foregoing And whereas G F. calls the light the seed Christ it is according to Scripture which saies Christ is the Light of the world John 8 12 and also it is said Gal 3 16 that the Seed is Christ and whereas G F. saies so of the light within it is no more than to say and that in a scriptural sence Christ within the hope of glory Coll. 1 27. and yet in Ephe. 4 7. it is said But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ and surely D L. will not say this is a contradiction Besides I remember that G K. in a letter to John Delaval which I have by me in G. K's hand writing in the year 1692 saith To say the man Christ is in us or the light in us is the man Christ I do not contradict it in a true scripture sence as he is called the hidden man of the heart and the new man but this is a figurative expression and that in a twofold respect First by a Metaphor or Allagory as he is called a Lamb a Lion 2dly By a Sydechdoche of the giving the name of the whole to the measure Now I say if G. K. be thus allowed to distinguish why may not G F. G W. and VV P. and as for G F's using this expression The ROOT of God I ask Doth not Paul also use this expression viz The Foundation of God 2 Tim. 2 19 and as Christ is Gods Foundation for us to build upon so also he is according to Rom 11 16 17 18 the root for us to grow upon And G K. in his VVay cast up p 114 sais That Christ is the Root and vine into which the Saints are grafted As to the next clash It is also partly answered by the foregoing it relates to something G F. said in answer to a Priest who commonly in those daies denyed God and Christ to be in men according to scripture Though in this case I do confess the Priest's words were true in a sence viz That whole Christ God and Man is not in men yet that God is in men is clear according to Scripture and that Christ is in men is clear according to Scripture and that Christ is in men not only as he is God but also as man is clear according to D L's great Friend G. K. who in his VVay cast up p. 123 saith That Christ is really present in and among us not only as he is God but also as he is man Now since Christ as he is God dweller in us according to Scripture and as he is man he dwelleth in us according to G K. as he is God and man is he not the whole Christ Yet that he doth so dwell in us as that the whole fulness of the Godhead and manhood is contained in men I believe neither G. F. nor G. K. did own any more than W P. Besides
be impartial here in Does he not know that where VV. P denies it as a payment of a debt it is in the Presbyterian rigid sense to wit That man having transgressed the righteous law of God and so exposed to the penalty of eternal wrath it 's altogether impossible for God to remitt or forgive without a plenary satisfaction and that there was no other way by which God could obtain satisfaction or save men than by inflicting the penalty of infinite wrath and vengeance on Jeuss Christ the second person of the Trinity who for sins past present and to come hath wholly born and paid it to the offended infinite justice of his Father see W. P 's very words Sandy Foundation p. 16 of which I shall speak more when I come to his Numb 30 But as to Christ offering up in us by which the wrath of God is appeased to us VV P expleans in the next paragraph to wit that Christ offers himself in his children in the nature of a Me diatory Sacrifice And further saith Christ as a Mediator can atone in the consciences of his People at what time they fall under any miscarriage if they unseignedly repent according to 1 John 2 1 2. c. Now it is one thing to appease the wrath of God or man in a Mediatory way and quite another thing to pay the debt that 's due in such a strict sense as aforesaid So that though W P denyed such a satisfaction to be made in one book yet he did neither expresly nor consequently own it in the other therefore no contradiction Now whereas D L. askes How many thousand offerings this new Scripture makes of Christ as many Saints so many times Christ offers himself up a Sacrifice For this I shall refer him to his great Friend G K for satisfaction if any thing besides abusing the Quakers will satisfie him see G K's VVay Cast up not yet retracted where in p 157 158 he holds that Christ is a Mediator in the Saints and that his Spirit as man prayeth and maketh intercession on to God in the Saints and cites Rom 8 for it Now dare D L. say that the praying of Christ is not an offering and living Sacrifice to God and G K. saith Christ hath done so from the beginning by whom the children of God in all ages have received grace from God And in p 109 G K. tells how Paul Preacht Christ to the Galatians in the time of their Heathenism cruicified in them and cites Gal 3 5 6 Now let G. K. tell D L. how many crucifyings of Christ there is so many heathen so many times Christ crucified But I say again prejudice blinds man Well now to make G F contradict W P in this matter in his Numb 30 he quotes Great Mistery p 63 thus Christ gave himself his body for de life of the world he was the offering for the sins of the Whole world and paid the debt and made satisfaction To which he implicitely opposes W P. as before to wit that a satisfaction is totally excluded and what is forgiven is not paid Answ What G F. said was in answer to a Priest that said Every man should not have his sins pardonned Which G. F. did not deny but told how Christ gave himself an offering for the sins of the World and that he had enligthned every man coming into the World that all through him might believe and which was enough to shew that though all man had not their sins pardonned yet all were put into such a capacity as that they might have their sins pardonned in as much as Christ had offered himself for all which many of the Professors at that time dinyed and which offering the Father was well pleased with and satisfied in and so in that sence he made satisfaction according to G. F. which W P. in that very book viz Sandy Foundation p 32 did really own viz That Christ in life doctrine and death fulfilled his Fathers will and offered up a most satisfactory Sacrifice but not said he to pay God or help him as being otherwise unable to save men So that here we find W P. owns Christs satisfaction as wel as G F. therefore still their faces look not contrary rightly understood as D L. would and does represent them Well but G F. saies Christ paid the debt and W P. saies what is forgiven is not paid Now to this I say That Christ paid the debt so far as that in a scriptural sence the Father for his sake was satisfied and well pleased whit it on our account is true For he gave himself a ransom for all 1 Tim. 2 6. this is Scripture But that God could not pardon except he was fully paid the debt by a plenary satisfaction made by another and which was what W. P. did deny is unscriptural For it is said Micha 7 18 VVho is a God like unto thee that pardoneth iniquity and in Exody 34. 6 7. The Lord God mercifull and gracious long suffering and abundant in Goodness and Truth keeping mercy for thousands forgiving iniquity ' transgressions and sin So that it is not rational to say that a Transgressor is pardohned and yet the transgression fully satisfied for by another who the Presbiterians said was the second Person in he Trinity For then mankind would be obliged only to the second person because the first was fully paid and it was only against this Notion that W. P's struck and I do not see that he contradicts G. F. in it unless the scripture contradicts it self for the scripture abundantly speaks of Gods forgiving us and â—ardoning our sins according to W. P. and the scripture saith also in plain words that Christ bath redeemed us and given him self a ransom for all and in this sense it is according to G. F. viz made satisfaction His Numb 55 being to the like effect which the foregoing I account sufficiently answered by what I have alredy said upon this subject I shall now take notice how in many places of his book he idly and sillily slants at G. W. about these words of his viz. I may see cause otherwaies to word the matter and yet our intentions be the same for which he cites Counterfeit Convert p 72 and then he cries out in p. 21 Is this like the antient simplicity of a Quakers Pray who knows when such a man is sincere or how to â—eleive him in what he saies that thus hides his meanings saies one thing an means another Answ Truly I think D. L. hath not been enviously poring all this while in our Friends books for nothing Pray who but a man mâ—dled in his senses would make such a palpably ridiculous use of G P's innocent words As if to say I may se ecause other wise to word the matter and yet intend the same thing be equivalent which D L's application viz to say one thing and mean another For since he G W intends the same thing how does he
have life without respect to his dying for us and rising again c. Neither did W. P. So D. L. is here again pinched â—oo hard to squeeze out a Contradiction Again in p 41. he cites W. P's Address to Protestants p 119 Let us saith he 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 Upon which D. L. makes this note viz Tho W. P. allegorizes Christ and makes him nothing but virtues yet his Brother G. W. tells W Harwoth as above that Christ is something else viz a man consisting of spirit soul and body the same body as dyed c. Answ The more wickedly done then of D. L. in his p 23. very falsly to accuse G. W. of saying Christ has not the body of man yet now rather than he will want any thing that may make up his pretended contradiction to W. P he now freely assents that G W. owned Christ to have both spirit soul and body which surely make up a compleat man And W P's enumerating what Christ is as to virtues and that he has all those virtues in perfection does no waies deny him to be a man consisting of body soul and spirit according to G. W No it was only to shew that those who are in measure thus Christ like qualified are not to be denyed all share in Christianity as the book plainly shews And though he saies What is Christ out meekness justice c. denies him not to be a man consisting of spirit soul and body any more than Paul's saying Who then is Paul and who is Apollo but ministers mark but ministers by whom ye believed Cor. â— 5 denies him self to be a Tent maker Acts 18. 3 But D L s design is for mischeif and he veâ—â—ures to act it at what â—ate he pleaseth In p. 44 he qâ—otes The Christiâ—n Quaker by G W p 375. as follows viz That this thâ—â—â— tends to 〈◊〉 and to make men Atheists viz other mens self confidence in asserting things contrary to reason and manifest experience and in particular in their affirming that these self same terrestrial bodies of flesh and bones shall be made spiritual immortal and incorruptible T is true says G W Hen More had finer and more excellent notions about the Resurrection than many other learned men and aimed at the truth and spirituality there of from the vision of the holy men recorded in the scriptures And then in order to make G W. oppose him self as he would seem to suppose he offers a quotation out of p. 372 of the same book viz this manner viz G W. cites H More about the Resurrection saying Flesh and blood can not in herit the kingdom of God and I think saies he there is the same reason of flesh and bones viz. I understand natural flesh and bones not glorified Thus he cites G W. and then adds this Note G W. commends this notion of H More as savouring of truth and spirituality and yet renders those Atheists that believe the same for H More does not here deny the Resurrection of the same body that dyeth only understands it must be glorified Answ Here he has abused G VV. by leaving out the last part of his words for after the words immortal and incorruptible G VV. adds and yet the same for matter and substance which words he has skipt over I suppose because they did not suit his purpose Then he saith in his note G W. commends this notion of H More as savouring of truth and spirituality Whereas G VV. says no such thing of him as appears by Daniel Leeds own quotation before produced It is true he said he had siner and more excellent notions and aimed at the truth c. Which much differs from savouring of it a man may aim at a thing which he may never come so near to as to â—iâ—e of or savour And where as he saith H More does not deny the Resurrection of the same body that dyeth Neither doth he shew that G. VV. does so it s true G. VV. seems to oppose the notion of the self same terrestrial body of flesh and bones being made spiritual immortal and incorruptible and yet he the same for matter and supstance â— as now they are which last words and yet be the same for matter and substance D L. has very unfairly left out to pervert G W's real intentions Besides how doth it appear that Henry More doth not deny the Resurrection or the same body that dyeth Hear what G W. hath cited out of his works in p. 373 of the Christian Quaker viz I dare challenge him to produce any place of scripture out of which he can make it appear that the mystery of the Resurrection implies a Resuscitation of the same numerical body The most pregnant of all is Job 19 which later Interpreters are now so wise as not to understand at all of the Resurrection The 1 Cor. 15 that chapter is so far from asserting this curiosity that it plainly says it is not the same body but that as God gives to the blâ—des of corn grains quite distinct from that which was sown so at the Resurrection he will give the soul a body quite different from that which was buried as different as a spiritual body is from a natural body or an heavenly from an earthly Thus far Henry More as cited by G W. in the said Christian Quaker Now how far H M. doth own or deny the Resurrection of the same body that dyeth may be easily guessâ—d at not witstanding D L's confident assertion that he doth not deny it And now having traced and detected this dis ingenious unfair envious and conceited man through the divers quotations before specified wherein he would charge our Friends with contradictions I think this sufficient with any reasonable man to invalidate the credit of the resâ— Neither in deed have I all the books he offers his pretendedly contradictory quotations out of to examine and he having justly forfeited his credit in divers passages before mentioned I think it not worth my while to set pen to paper to enervate those suppositions citations wherein his stained reputation must be relied upon for the faithful quoting thereof I shall therefore only further take notice of three very obvious abuses put upon G W. and W P as a corrobocrating proof of my above charge and then leave this chapter of pretended contradictions and proceed to the next The st in his â—3d page and is this G VV's Nature of Christianity p. 29 Christ has not the body of man Answ Now as there is no such word so neither can any such thing be justly deduced from what G VV. there wrote that subject of which he treated in that place being not at all wether Christ had the body of man or not but about the manner of his saving and justfying men which
G VV. would not have R. Gordon to expect should be as he imagined in his book p 30 viz That Christ as the Son of Mary should outwardly appear in a bodily existence to save But here 's not one word of denying Christ to have the body of man as D L. falsly cites him and sure it 's one thing for Christ to appear to save men by his ingrafted word which is able to save the Soul Iames. 1. 21 which the Quakers press people to come to witness and an other thing to say Christ has the body of man outwardly to come on the last day to reward every man according to his works which the Quakers also believe Then 2 dly in the same page D L. cites the same book in p. 41 thus paraphrasing upon it And in p. 41. he denies Christ's bodily existence without us Answ There is no such word neither But G VV. speaking of R G s pretended adoration and claim of salvation being to Christ only as the son of Mary existing outwardly and bodily without us There upon G VV. saith I ask him if he have so considered God the saviour or the Son from the substance of the Father and then he asks him What scripture proof he hath for Christ's existing outwardly â—odily without us at Gods right hand By all which it plainly appears that G. W. only opposed those terms viz Christ existing outwardly bodily without us because that would seem to exclude his being as he is God and as he is in men and therefore saies to R. G. And is Christ the saviour as an outward bodily existence or person without us distinct from God and upon that consideration to be worshipped as God yea or nay c. Now though G. W. opposes R. G's doctrine of Christ's being or existence to be outwardly and bodily without us yet it does not at all follow from thence that he believes Christ hath not a body that hath a being or existence without us It is one thing to maintain that Christ the Saviour of the World hath a body existing whithout us wich G. W. denied not and another thing to hold or maintain that that bodily existence it self is Christ the saviour of the world which and no less R. G ' s. words seem to import The outward bodily existence of a man cannot be said strictly to be the man for them when it dies and the bodily existence is put off the man would cease to be And where it is said of Christ that he bare oursins in his own body on the three 1 Pet. 2. 24 It might as well be said that the body bare our sins on his own body on the tree So that to conclude I say it is a manifest falsehood in D. L to say that G. W. denies Christ's bodily existence without us Christ's body doth exist without us Yet that bodily outwardly existence is not the Christ without his soul spirit and God head And 3 dly D L. in p. 25 falsly charges VV P. in these words And saies VV P. We deny that person that dyed at Jerusalem to be our Redeemer Referring to VV P s Apology p 146. Answ These are not the words of W P but of his Adversary Jenner cited by W. â— in the aforesaid book Jenner having thrown it upon the Quakers as their principle W. P. in answer thereto calls it a hoâ—râ—d impâ—tation and then acknowledges in these express words That he who laid down his life and suffered his body to be crucified by the Jews without the gates of Jerusalem is Christ the only begotten son of the most high God and though he there denies the outward person that suffered properly to be the son of God yet the stress oâ— the mâ—tte◠〈◊〉 only upon the word outward by which W. P. meant his outward body as is clear from his following words viz A body hast thou prepared me said the son then said W. P. The son was not the body though the body was the sons And if D. L. should say The body was the son theâ— this absurdity will follow viz Christ bare our sins in his own son instead of his own body on the tree And if D. L. say the outward person was properly the son of God and yet will be imparâ—tial then let him fall upon G. K. for asserting That it is not the outward Flesh and Blood that is the man but it is the soul or inward man that dwelleth in the outward flesh or body that is the man most properly such as Christ had from the beginning As his express words are in his Way Cast up p. 102. not yet retracted But whether he will believe his peculiar friend G. K. or not to be sure he has belyed W. P as above is shewn and it is not his pleading â— little failure in Syntax a thing he banteringly accuses G. W. within his book no nor otherwise wording the matter neither will do without an open and free Retraction of these his abuses Furthermore having after I had proceeded a good way in this work met with the book called The Quakers Plainness I have therein found fresh cause to take a little further notice of D. L's perfidiousness which I purpose a little more to detect before I proceed to any other matter see News of a Trumpet Numb 5. where he hath it thus Sâ—ndy Founda p 15 W. P. saith In the fullness of time God sent his son who so many hundred years since in person restified the virtue c. Now to make G. W. coÌ„tradict this he quotes Quakers Plainess p. 24. affirming that G. W. saith The title person is too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God Now Reader that thou may see how unfairly D. L. hath laid down G. W. words taken them as laid down by himself thus That Christ is not a person without â—s p 21. is our doctrine or phrase that I know of or remember only that the title is thought too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God many men having gross apprehensions about the phrase Person without But Christ is confest us both as without us and within us Well Where is the contradiction in all this Why here W. P saies That God sent his son so many hundred years ago in person and G. W saies The title person without is thought too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God Mark person without us was what was thought too low to be spoken concerning the son of God it was not thought too low for it to be said of him that so many hundred year since he appeared in person For it is one thing to say That the son so many hundred years ago appeared in person and another thing to say That the son or Christ of God is a person without us especially when it is spoken in opposition to those who deny him to be within us For though we sincerely believe Christ to be in heaven without us yet
Minister If any man speak saith the Apostle let him speak as the Oracles of God 1 Pet 4 11 then to be sure it must be from the Spirit of God which is Infallible And as God's Spirit is Infallible so are it's teachings and guidings Now that G K as well as G W c hath wrote in defence of Infallibility is clear for in his Book Intiâ—â—led Divine immediate Revelation c p 13 not retracted we have it thus We place not an absolute Infallibility upon any person or persons whatsoever but we say the spirit of God in all it's Leadings Teachings and Motions is Infallible and men onely Conditionally so far as they receive and are in unity with those Leadings Teachings and Motions are Infallible We say further that every True Christian hath an Infallible Knowledge and Faith of all such things as are absolutely necessary to salvation But as to other things he may Err if he be not watchful to follow the Infallible Guidance of God's holy Spirit But if this Author thinketh he has no Infallible Faith or knowledge of any point of Doctrine he is a mere sceptick and unbeliever for all true Faith is Infallible That which is allible is but mere Opinion and Conjectural Likewise in his Help in time of Need he saith Are not ye as bad meaning as had as the Papists who openly affirm that ye are hot led by the Infallible Spirit and consequently not by the spirit of God Now here we see that G K ownes Infallibilias well as Friends viz. So for as they are led by the spirit of God and no Farther And if D. L. be as Iâ—pâ—rtiall as he pretends to be since he hath in his p. 62. and 64. so much ridicul'd W. P. about this very matter which is exactly according to G. K's own sentiments in the point how can he let G. K. escape his censure or else send to him to retract it But doubtless he had better let it alone least by undertaking to mend one hole he make two For in the Retractation Book it self G. K. saith He is no sceptick in Religion but that he and all sincere Christians hath an Infallible Faith and perswasion in things Relating to the Fundamentall and Essential Doctrines of Christianity In his foresaid p. 129. He offers a quotation out of Win P's Rebuke to twenty one Divines p. 22. thus We are horribly abused in saying We pretend all our Ministers to be Infalible Now I am sure D. L. hath horribly abused W. P. in this matter for he hath left out the explanatory part which is this We ascribe not an Infallibility to men but to the Grace of God and to men so far as they are Led by it Tho I want severall of the Books quoted by him in that part under the Head of Temporizing Yet I shall speak a little to it to show what a medling Man he is He begins it with a Passage he says to be Geo. F's taken out of a paper Intituled To the Parliament of the Comon Weal c. Thus Let all those Abey Lands that are given to the Priests be given to the Poor of the Nation To which he opposes a Passage out of W. P's Preface to his Perswasive to Moderation Thus Far be it from me to solictit any thing in diminution of the Just rights of the Church of England Let her Rest protected where she is Answer I cannot see how G. F's Advice to the Parliament about bestowing abby Lands upon the Poor of the Nation of W. P's moderation in not soliciting for any Diminâ—tion of the Church of Englands Just Rights can he said to be either 〈◊〉 or Contradictory For vnless he can prove all those Abbey Lunds that were given to the Priests either in the year 1659. the time of the Date of that Book or before to be it that time the just Rights of the Church of England it will not do any of his business at all For the Church of England hath her Rights in such suspects derived from the Authority of the Nationâ— And so that which may be termed her Rights under one Authority may not under another for I suppose they are not nâ—red any to 〈◊〉 as Alterable as the then present Authority still pleased Else how should they be now Imagin'd to be one Church of England's Rights and not Rather the Church of Romes Besides how comes W. P's moderation toward the Church of England to be Construâ—d Temporizing under the Reign of a Popish Prince He proceeds to Cavil against W. P. and offers a Quotation out of England's Interest Pag. 36. in these words We say Holy Writt is the Declared Fundamental Law of Heaven whereupon D. L. says Note how W. P. Conâ—ounds himself or deceives his Readers or both for in his Rejoynder as aforesaid he takes up severall pages â—â— prove the Scripture Corrupt and uncertain so much slighting it that he terms it J. Laldo's uncertain Word of God pag. 39. and yet here calls it The Declared Fundamental Law of Heaven Answer What W. P. saith in Englands present Interest as here cited by D. L. is either true of false if D. L. will say it 's false he Contradicts the Protestant part of the Christian World who hold and have declared holy Writt to be the outward Rule both of faith and Life and if D. L. says it 's true then he says as W. P. says besides W. P. did not lay it down as his own Judgment onely but as the belief of the Protestants in General whom he was then personating in opposition to the Popish Arrogancy of Assuming a Power to impose upon People in points of Religion tho' Contrary to Scripture and Reason And whereas W. P. says some scriptures are Corrupted Let D. L. deny that if he can his friend G. K. ownes it as I have allready shewn but who vnless a prejudic'd Adversary would find fault with two such Expressions which he himself cannot deny to be true and almost all Christendom do own and yet surely they do not mean that corrupt part to be either holy Writt or the Fundamental Law of Heaven But how D. L. comes to be so sensless as to bring in this under the head of Temporizing I must Confess he is wiser than I or I beheve himself either that can tell Next in his page 131. he cites an Epistle of E. Burroughs bearing date 1661. as follows Keep close to the Lord and to the measure of himself made manifest in your own hearts for unto that you are directed in the beginning and in it is your safety and preservation to the end but says D L afterwards W P controules this plea of E. B. in his Brief examination pag. 11. saying The Enemy Is at work to scatter the minds of Friends by that loose plea viz. what hast thou to do with me leave me to my freedom and to the Grace of God in my self c. Answer To keep Close to the Lord and to the measure
of himself in our hearts according to E. B. is too good Counse to be disputed against But now here we may see what need there is of having the Books on both sides to examine D. L's quotations by for who not knowing the occasion of W. P's Writing thus as D. L. has Cited him but would have thought he had thwarted E. B. Now tho' I have not the Book by me yet I pretty well remember the Subject of it which was to shew what was real spiritual Liberty and what was then onely pretended as such and was Chiefly levelled against a Faction stirred an at that time by John Story and John Wilkinson who did not onely oppose the Women in their Meetings of Service which D. L. saith are certainly of service p. 66. in deeds of Charity and Hospitality but also to escape sufferings would Drop the Testimony that they came forth with in the beginning which as D. L. saith was in Life and Power Now as some of old â—urned the Grace of God into Laâ—civiousness Jude 4. so these turned from that grace which had called them and brought them forth in life and power in the beginning and 〈◊〉 the liberty of the spirit 〈◊〉 libertiâ—◠〈…〉 in the flesh of shunning the cross and 〈…〉 which they came forth in when they came forth in life and power much like those with whom Paul was excercised when he thus expostulated with the Galathians viz. Are ye so foolish having 〈…〉 made perfect by the flesh Have ye◠〈…〉 in vain Gal. 3. 3. 4. And although Pauâ— commended the beleivers to God and the word of his grace Acts 20. 23 telling them it was able to build them up and to give them on inheritance among all them which are 〈◊〉 Yet he did not think that inconsistent with his telling this Church who seemed to lean to circumcision on the account of avoiding persecution see ch 5. v. 11. If ye be circumcised Christ shalt profit you nothing v 2. For he was so Zealous in the case as to say I would they were evencut off which trouble you v 12. Now might they not have said to Paul Thou hast commended us to the grace of God Iames hath sold us The engrasted word is able to save our souls Iames 1. 21 and Iohn saies The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you ye need not that any man teach you But as the same anointieg teacheth you of all things 1 Iohn 2. 27. Canst not thou therefore leave us to our freedom therein It may be we think it best to be circumcised c. But can any think that such a kind of a plea would have recommended them any thing the more to the Apostles as men of truth and of a found mind Surely no It is true Paul told them â—e have been called unto liberty but he also added further Use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh Gal. 5 13. And that hath been our Friends care with those people for which they have made so much a do In p. 135 he finds fault with some Quakers for praying for King Iames with is so far from being condemnable that it is very agreeable to the Apostles exhortation 1 Tim. 2. 1. 2 That inpplications prayers invercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men For Kings and for all that are in Authority But no doubt in his fancy to hit the Quakers home he saies As affectionate as they were to King Iames they could not by their prayers mark how he scoffs at prayers help him in those troubles that followed nor did they by their spirit of discerning tell him of it before hand c. Answ A very foolish observation and a sort of an Athelstical taunt I do tell him that as the Quakers are no unseemly boâ—ssers of what they can effect by their prayers neither is it my design to compare them with the Apostles Yet this scoffing reâ—â—ction may if he dare make so bold with them as well affect the Apostes as the Quakers who prayed for Kings and all that were in Authority and exhoâ—â—â—d the beleivers so to do and yet how many troubles did the â—â—ings and Governours in their daies undergo and perhaps many â—imâ—s it might be for their good too Then â—s for a spirit of discering I deny that ever it was the Quakers principle or indeed that they are so conceited as to Imagine much less to declare that they can alwaies discern beforehand what particular troubles Kings and Princes or any others shall meer with in this world To pray for them is but our Christian duty but as for what troubles they may here after meet with God who only is omni scieâ—t knows and none else unless at any time he is pleased to reveal it to any particular person or persons But to bring the matter a little the more home upon D. L. I shall produce an example of one of his great friends applicable to this case which take as follows I remember when a paper was published by Authority at Philadelphia to shew among other things that G K had traduced the Magiâ—â—racy and Authority of this place we were told that G K went on the same day to the Barbadoes house where amongst a mixt Auditory he read an answer pulickly to the said paper and when he had done possibly that he might be thought not to disown Authority went to prayer wherein he prayed for King William and Queen Mary Now what would he or others have said if we had flouted at him as D L does at us and told him that by all his prayers he could not help the King and Queen out of the great troubles which they were then and continued many years after to be involved in nor could he tell before hand of the Queens death c. But thanks be to God he hath tought us better ways to answer those who oppose the truth than such sorroy ones as this our Adversary makes use or against us He proceeds thus But rather that he was secure and got through all his troubles Answ By what D. L. himself hath cited of their words it pleanly appears that it was only such troubles as he had then already met with particularly in Scotland And thogh they might use the words all his troubles that does not alwaies conclude past present and to come neither did it at all in this case any more than Paul's saying after he had mentioned the troubles he had met with at Antioch â—conium and Lystra thus But out of them all the Lord delevered me doth imply that he should meet with more Furthermore the Apostle speaking of the troubles he met within Asia saith For we would not Brethren have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia that we were pressed our of measure above strength in so much that we despaired even of life Buâ— we had the sentence of death in our selves that we should not trust in our selves but in