whole paragraph that it may be seen whether any such thing be so much as deducible from what VV. P. there saith And now let me tell him there needs no carious wire drawing mincing nor mangling as he in p 43. insinuates we should be forced to in our answer to him to manifest his abuse to W. P. in this matter Neither was there any occasion for D. L. to talk of our agreeing upon a consistent Creed but if he write again let it be what is agreeable with honesty and consistent with truth that honest men may stand by him in it In p 4 it should be 7 DL saith v In Dirinity of Christ by G. W. and G. Fox they begin in the Epistle with commanding and charging Professours to bring express scripture for their Doctrine saying Whether do the scriptures speak of three persons in the Godhead in these express words And where doth the scripture speak of a humane nature of Christ in heaven c. A little lower D. L. saith Now may not the Professours say Come G. W. Come Quakers where doth the scripture say the distinction of Father and Son is not only nominal but real He having in p. 4. cited these as G. W 's words Answ We know that those Professors would have tyed our friends up to those very terms of three persons and also human nature of Christ in heaven c. And yet at the same time blamed them for not calling the scriptures the only rule of faith So that since they would needs tye our Friends up to those very words 't was but reasonable they should be held to their Rule to prove them by But as foâ— G. VV.'s saying the distinction of the Father and Son is not only nominal but real I question not if the Father Word and Spirit be owned to be one God but G. VV. will rest satisfied without disiring to impose the words nominal and real on any man though he might use them to satisfie the enquirer But since D. L. would make us beleive he is impartial in relation to G. K why must the Quakers be thus struck at and G. K. passed by in this matter For doth not he in his book called Presbyterian and Independent visible Churches c. p 87 say of the scripture That it is not safe to leave the scripture words and go to words of mans wisdom and thereby declare our faith of Christian doctrine And yet doth not the same G. K make abundant use of other words in managing of Controversy and plead for it too as in his book called Antichrists and Sadducees detected c. in p. 19 Where he saith I see not why I should be so confined to exspres scripture words ' in things that I require no man to own or believe as Articles of faith but leave them to their liberty c. And now I dare say G. VV. and all sensible Friends will say as much The next quotation of D. L.'s I take notice of is out of G. F's Great Mistery p 264 c. cited by him in his p 10 thus Priest sayes A man by his own power cannot get into regeneration for they are dead in sins and trespasses G. F. replies some are sanctified from the womb and some children are holy so all are not dead in sins and trespasses c. Now to this he opposes G VV.'s Divinity of Christ in answer to T. D. p 20 thus G. VV. saies Condemnation â—ame upon all men Death passed upon all men for that all have sinned p 24 Again Christ died for all so all were dead in sins and trespasses c. Answ That some are sanctified from the womb according to G F is but according to scripture see Jerem 1 5 Luke 1 15 and 1 Cor 7 15 And also that condemnation and death came upon all men according to G VV is also according to scripture see Rom 12 18 and so according to D L. may not the scripture be charged with contradiction in that respect as well as G F and G VV Then whereas G F said all are not mark are not which is in the present tense dead in sins and trespasses it doth not at all contradict what D. L produceth as G. VV's that all were dead in sins and trespasses were being the time past tho by the way let the Reader take notice that I can find no such words in the place cited by D. L as G. VV's though I have searched for them For those words of scripture being taken in the strictest sense viz If one died for all then were all dead 2 Cor. 5 14 yet it doth not follow that those which were sanctified from their Mothers womb nor those which were passed from death to life are still dead For as G F's following words are hwich D. L. hath left out and hwich had he inserted them would have better explained G F.'s meaning They that are so are but unbeleivers And where as it is said death passed upon all men it this be to be understood strictly and without any 〈◊〉 how is it said of Enoch That he was translated tha◠〈…〉 not see death Hebr. 11 5. 〈…〉 12 he quotes W P.'s Christian Quaker thus Now nothing can bruise the head of the Serpent but something that is also internal as the Serpent is but if the body oâ— Christ were the seed then could he not bruise the serpents head in all because the body of Christ is not so much as in any one c Whom he would make T. Ellwood to oppose in Foundation of Tythes c p. 2â—8 240 thus Nor do the Quakers ascribe salvation to the following the light within but to Christ Jesus to whom the light leads If any one expect Remission of sins by any other way than by the death of Christ renders the death of Christ useless Answ I do affirm if D L or any other comes to know the serpents head bruised in any measure it must be by some thing internal neither doth what T E. hath said as above any waies contradict it For though we ascribe not our salvation to our own following of Christ who is the â—â—ght of the world according to Tho. Ellwood yet that follows not but thath Christ the Light of the world is he thath bruises the Serpents head and to ascribe our salvation to Christ the light of the world who appears internally in order there to is one thing and to ascribe it to our works which Tho. Ellwood and all sound Friends deny is another thing For allthough the Apostle know nothing by him self which is a large degree of growth yet there by he was not justified 1 Cor 4 4. Nevertheless the same Apostle saith By grace ye are saved and thath not of Your selves it is the gift of God Eph 2 8. Yet this is no contradiction And though the Apostle saith We are reconciled by his death yet he also saith we are saved by his life Rom 5 10 which life is internal For in
SATAN'S HARBINGER ENCOVNTERED HIS FALSE NEWS OF A TRUMPET DETECTED HIS CROOKED WAYS IN THE WILDRNESSE Laid open to the view of the Impartial and Iudicious Being Something by way of Answer to DANIEL LEEDS his book entituled NEWS OF A TRVMPET SOVNDING IN THE WILDERNESSE c. Wherein is shewn How in several respects he hath grievously wronged and abused divers eminent worthy and painfull Labourers in the work of the Gospel in many places by false Citations out of their books and in many other places by perverting their sayings and expressions besides his otherwaies basely reflecting upon several antient Friends by name By C P. And the men of Israel said Have ye seen this man that is come up Surely to defie Israel is he come up 1. Sam 17. 25. Behold he travaileth with iniquity and hath conceived mischief and brought forth falshood Psalms 7. 14. Printed at Philadelphia By Reynier Jansen 1700. THE PREFACE Friendly Reader Although â—â— be true which Solomon saith Eccles. 12 12 Of making many books there is no end and much study is a weariness to the flesh Yet I hope none can justly blame me for publishing this when they seriously consider that the drift of it is only to clear the truth and those many good men grossly as persed from the envious insinuations cast against it and them and the wrong inferences pretendedly drawn from their writings by our present Adversary Daniel Leeds who has hand over head in a very palpable manner to his own shame ventured to abuse our friends at a very shamefull rate not only by wrong meanings put upon their words and doctrines but also by false Citations out of their books thereby endeavouring to make them speak what they never spake nor I beleive ever thought in order to represent them to the people greatly contradictory to one another Of which false Citations I shall in this place produce one and but one referring thee to the following book for a view of many more of them It is in Number 58 where he quotes William Penn his Sandy Foundation p 20 saying W. P. there calls the man Christ The finite impotent Creature Whereas there is no such saying or irreverent expression in the whole book for where W. P. uses the words Finite and impotent Creature The subject he was there treating of plainly shews that he meant it of us sinners that need forgiveness but not of the Man Christ who never sinned Than which what greater abuse could be put upon any mans writings Reader The substance of this book was wrote near two years ago but being backward in my self to appear in print aâ— also the press being long expected here before it came and when come taken up with other important matters intervening occasioned the delay of its publication till now As for the Errours of the press which are many especially in the former part of the book and more especially in one place which is very material to be corrected without which it will read so as will make it look very gross and appear to be false doctrine it is in p. 17 l. 9 where after works sake the Printer hath omitted but for his sake which words are in the written copy by which he printed it I must desire thee Reader upon occasion to take the trouble of â—urning to the Errata where I hope thou wilt find the most material collected The chief occasion of there being so many errours was the Printer being a man of another nation and language as also not bred to that employment consequently something unexpert both in language and calling and the corrector's not being so frequently at hand as the case required all which I desire thou wouldst favourably consider The Intent of publishing this was chiefly to prevent any from being deceived and also to undeceive those that may have been already deceived by this unfair man's abusive book for such it is and as such let it be added to the Catalogue of those many envious and abusive writings that have been sent forth into the world from time to time to hinder the spreading of truth and the progress of Gods people in the way of it all which will surely be accounted for one day and not witstanding all which the truth remains the same and I am satisfied will more and more spread it self and prevail in and upon and the hearts spirits of people notwithstanding the various and restless attempts of its Opposers to hinder it And as the way of its working is to cleanse and purify mankind in soul body and spirit and make them fiâ—â— temples for God to dwell in by virtue of his holyspirit in us and also entitle us effectually to partake of the great and unspeakable benefit that accrues to mankind by that one offering of our Lord Jesus Christ on the tree of the Cross So it is highly necessary that we more and more come to experience this cleansing work to be wrought in us in order to be entituled to those afore said benefits For although our blessed Lord Jesus Christ then offered up himself for the sins of the whole world yet we read of none wbo by that offering are for ever perfected but those who are sanctified Heb. 10 14. Caleb Pusey SATANS HARBINGER ENCOUNTERED c. Before I come to the Book it self I shall touch a little upon the Preface and begin with an expression of Daniel Leeds's which runs thus It is my real belief That the Quakers at first came forth in life and power and made a good beginning Answer Did they so How comes it then to pass that the first Instruments of that good beginning in life and power as G. Fox G. Whitehead E. Bourough R. Hubberthorn Is. Pennington c. and their antient works and Writings must be thus brought upon the stage by this Daniel Leeds himself even in this very book endeavouring thereby to prove their doctrine false inconsistent and little less than a meer heap of confusion Can such things be an effect of life and power And if he say They lost that life and powr again before those books were written It may then be observed how in the same Page he insinuates as if the loosing of it again was through their contending with one another about trifles and Ceremonies instituting this and that order and getting into form c. Whereas it is well known that many of the above named Friends Books were written before the Institution of those Orders as he calls them Besides I find in a Paper entitulad A breif Admonition c. delivered to Friends here at the yearly meeting in the year 1696. Which as I am credibly informed was written by Daniel Leeds there being also the two letters of his name with two letters more subschribed to it after having expressed what an healthy flourishing Country this was about eight years before this passage viz Doubtless it might have so continued if the kernell of life and love had not took wing
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
him was life and the life was the light of men Iohn 1 4. Neither do we read of any whom Christ hath forever pefected but those who are sanctified Heb 10 14. Now thath this doctrine of Christ the seed's bruising the head of the serpent inwardly is owned by D. L's great Friend G K as wel as by W P is clear from his Way cast up p 99. not yet retracted thus expessed Though the outward coming of the man Christ was deferred according to his outward birth in the flesh for many years yet from the beginning this heavenly man the promised seed did inwardly mark inwardly come in to the heart and bruise the head of the serpent Come novv D L if thou art impartial as thou pretendest and art not blinded with partiality and prejudice lay this which thou idly callest a contradiction in VV P. and T E at G K's door also For here he owns the seed which bruises the serpents head to be inward as vvell as VV P and that he owns the very same passage of T E may appear by his bringing those two very quotations to prove his doctine consistent with Friends doctrine in his book called Heresy and Hatred p 9. His necxt lash is upon the matter answered by the foregoing For as Christ the light is the salvation of all that believe according to G F so we ascribe our salvation to him alone according to T E and this is no contradiction Alas poor Daniel How far is he gone in to prejudice and blindness to represent these things as unreconcilable For upon this he calls and cry's out Come let 's see if T Ellwood with al his sophistry and false glosses can reconcile these two assertions Alas poor man does he want to hâ—ve Sophistry and false glosses reconcile sound assertions while he with his pretended motion heavenly counts them contradictions But for the sake of some I shal a little illustrate this matter with this comparison Suppose a subject were sentenced by his Prince to be cast in to prison for some great misdemeanor committed against his person yet the Prince commiserating his pooâ— condition Finds out a way to save him but upon this condition that he humbly and thankfully receive the same and no more live in disobedience to him Now is not his Prince in this case by saving him from his deserved punishment his Saviour though he live for the future in all obedience to his Prince's commands Yet he can not ascribe his being saved from the punishment incurred to any thing but his Princes clemencey and goodness Eveâ— so VVe VVho VVere once dead in our sins and trespasses and had in curred the displeasur of God ascribe our being saved out of that state and from the punishment due thereto to the mercy of God alone through Jesus Christ but not to any of our own works And now I must needs say all this is more than D L's cevill deserved and is indeed more in respect to others than from any hopes I have of it's working much effect upon him I now follow him to his p 14 were he cites Chr Quaker by G VV p. 212 The man's mistaken if he suppose that we plead for the Righteousness of a creature i e Christ as man or man 's own Righteousess wich he himself is enabled to perform as the cause of our justification c To which D L opposes VV P 's Serious Apology p 148. Death came by actual sin not imputative therefore justifcation unto life came by actual Righteousnes not imputative Upon which D L makes this Note whether is the errour of both these â—â— the contradiction greater Answer Whether in this matter the palpable Forgery or ignorance of D L be the greater is not hard to demonstrate for my part I cannot think he can be so ignorant and therefore can count him no less rhan a base Forger thus to foist in words of his own thereby to misrepresent the words of G VV as if when he Speaks of the Righteousness of a creature he meant the Righteousness of Christ as man Which words Christ as man D L hath added for as they are not G VV's words So neither are they coherent vvith the rest of the matter Novv vvhat is this less than forgery and a contrivance to render G W erronious as vvell as inconsistent vvith VV P But to shevv that he is neither I shall transcribe the passage as it is laid dovvn in the book it self that thereby it may be seen Whether G W's errour or D. L's forgery be the greater G W's vvords are thus 4thly The man's mistaken if he suppose that vve plead either-the Righteousness of a creature or mans ovvn Righteousness vvich he himself is inabled to perform as the cause of our justification for Christ that strengthens us or enables us by his povver and spirit dvvelling in us to do the Fathers vvill he is the ground and cause of our justification and in him vvho is the beloved are vve accepted not meerly for our ovvn vvorks or obedience but for his sake vvho vvorketh in us and enables us to do those things vvhich are vvell pleasing in his sight Novv is it not strange that D L should be so infatuated as to abuse and find fault vvith such sound doctrine and so at present I shall leave it as such but the forgery at Daniel Leeds's door and come next to examine vvhether it contradicts W P or not for as he hath not shevvn us vvherein so I cannot see hovv he can find out his pretended contadiction For as G W ovvns not mans ovvn Righteousness vvhich he is able to perform of himself to be the cause of our Justification so neither doth W P. say or ovvn that a man of himself is able to perform that actual Righteousness vvhich is necessary to justification therefore no contradiction But is it not as sound doctrine to say justification comes by actual richteousness as it is to say that Abraham our Father was justified by works when he offered up Isaac his Son James 2 21. Now was not this his offering up his Son an actual work and is not Faith without works dead v 26 And surely a man is not justified by a dead faith Now although a man is said and that in a schriptural sence to be justified by works yet it is not for his works sake who worketh all our good works in us and for us I now must again call upon D L. to be impartial for if W P. be guilty of errour here how can his Friend G K. be sound For it is one of the false doctrins he charges the New England Professours with That justification is only by Christ's righteousness without us imputed to us and received by faith alone and not by any righteousness of god and Christ infused into us or wrought in us see Presbyterian and Independent c. p 204 not yet retracted and in his Looking glass to the Protestants p 31 he saith this
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
mean another thing But what a doltish man is this Is it not common for men yea have not the best of men done it to word a matter other wise and yet intend the very same as they did at first wording Let him see how Luke words the matter in giving account of some of Christ's last words to his diciples where he saith thus And behold I send the promise of my Father upon you but tarry ye in the city of Hierusalem until ye be endued with power sromon high Luke 24 49. Now compare this with the account he gives of the same thing Acts. 14 and see if he do not otherwise word the matter and yet intend the same thing for there he hath it thus And being assembled together with them commanded them that they should not depart from Hierusalem but wait for the promise of the Father which saith he ye have beard of me And many such like instances may be sound in scripture but least D. L. should dislike scripture instances under pretence of their being corrupted I will give him one out of his Friends G. K's late book of Explanations and Retractations not again retracted as I hear of yet let him Look in p. 5. where G. K. saith Though I cite scripture and make use of them in arguing this point yet I can truly say I have not my knowledge from them Note this he cites out of his book entituled Immediate Revelation p. 54. which he here explains by other wise wording the mâ—tter thus Here note I say from them as being the efficient cause c. Now though he here otherwise word the matter yet his intention are still the same For he saith himselfe in the same place What I then hold meaning what he held in 1668 he held in 1697 though he have other wise worded the matter But what Author shall I fetch to convince D. L. better than him self For in this very book of his p. 33 he finding fault with and ridiculing G W about his charging a contradiction upon John Newman saies D L Pray judge if this meaning Newman's assertions â—e any more then to say four pence in one place and a gro at in another Importing that to be one and the same thing and so indeed it is Therefore wether to say four pence in one place be not one way and agroat in another place be not another way of wording the matter and yet intend the same thing We see D. L. has resolved in the affirmative I come next to his p. 25. where he cites G. W. again Divinity of Christ p. 82. in these words while we were sinners Christ died for us it was Christ that dyed To which he sopposes John Whitehead s Refuge Fixed p. 38. thus Nothing that was mortal was called Christ Answ What John Wâ—â—e head wrote he declares twâ—â— as being eclxasive of the soul and spirit of Christ and we know exclusive from the sould and spirit his flesh was called the body of Jesus as it is said Joseph of Arimathea begged the body of Jesus and this was mortal and dyed But as whilst living his Godhead soul and spirit was united to that body so when that body dyed it was called the death of Christ though his Godhead soul and spirit dyed not so that if exclusive there from his body was properly and intirely the Christ then Christ was not from the beginning But we believe according to scripture that Christ was from the beginning and that the Rock that followed Israel in the Wilderniss was Christ 1 Cor 10 4. and yet also according to scripture he took on him the body that was mortal and that which he suffered in that body was also called the sufferings of Christ For as much saith the Apostle then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh c. 1 Pet 4 1. And though the scripture calls it's suffering the death of Christ yet it also implyes that Christ was that day in Paradise Luke 23 43 though that which was mortal was in the grave till three dayes after As to his comparing our Friends writings to those Priests whom Samuel Fisher in his Rusticus p 773. for their inconsistent arguments against our Friends twits with his rounds of No so so no c. I shall only say thus much that I hope I have shewed and yet shall shew here in that there is no comparison to be made between them For the occasion of Samuel Fisher's so treating the priests was the so different terms they at times gave to the light which D L. may disprove if he can whereupon saies S F. One while he calls it meaphorical not proper another while proper not metaphorical one while natural as opposite to civil and not moral spiritual not supernatural another while and in other respects he makes it civil moral and spiritual one while common to all universal but then not saving other while sufficient and saving but then particular only and particular to a few This with much more was what S. F. grounded his No. so so No. c. upon which D L. should not have concealed from his Reader But it is no wonder a man should do so who strives for victory more than truth Again in p 30. 31. he cites G. F's Great Mistery p 289. thus God was in Christ and they are one the Creator the father in the son and the Son in the father and Christ in you and God in Christ the Creator And Quakers Plainness p. 24. by G W The son is co worker with the Father To these he opposes G. W's Light and Life p 47 as follows viz What nonsense is this to tell of God being co Creator with the Father Where upon D. L. makes this Note Does not G. W. here accuse both G. F. and himself also with Non sense for what 's the difference between Co worker and Co Creator Answ As blind as D L. renders me in his p 45. about the Resurrection yet I shal shew him that I can see a great deae of difference may be betwixt a Co worker and a Co Creator For the saints were Co workers together with Christ but surely they cannot be said to be Co Creators with him And though Christ being man as well as God may be said to be Co-worker with the Father yet to tell of God being Co Creator with the Father does as G. W. saies imply two Gods And what G. F. said of Gods being in Christ and they are one the Creator the Father in the son and the Son in the Father c. is true and scriptural and it brings him no waies under accusation of G. W. as this quarrel picker would render him In his p 37. he quotes R. B.'s Apology p 95. in these words viz Wherefore as we believe he Christ was a true and real man so we also believe that he continues so to be glorified in the heavens in soul and body Upon which D. L. notes W. P. saith Christ as
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
we also believe according to scripture that he is within us the hope of glory and that if Christ be not in us we are Reprobates Now whether D. L will reckon the title person without us too low to give to the Christ of God or not yet to be sure it is unscriptural For though it is clear the scripture speaks of Christ in us in more express words than it doth of Christ without us yet we believe him to be without us also But to sum up the matter two omishons of D L's in this quotation out of G W s book manifest his baseness as any intelligent Reâ—daâ— may observe the rectifying of wich by inserting them very much alters the case as â—â— he leaves out the woras without us and 2 dly He makes G. W to say The title person is too low where as his words are The title person is thought too low so that that qualifying word thought being here omitted t is unfarily done of D. L. I come now to his seconâ— Chapterent it used Opposition â—â— Unity and having as I hinted before since I finished my answer to what he calls Contradictions met with G W s â—ook 〈◊〉 The Quakers Plainness I shall examine the use he makes of some of it in the said Chapter In p â—7 48. he brings in G. W laying down some oâ— the Mâ—ggletonians false doctrines and then endeavours to shew that G W holds the same my present business therefore is to shew D L's folly in so doing The first of Muggletons doctrines that he brings out is That death took Christ's soul into it and that Christ's soul dyed when the body dyed Now to shew that we hold the same he turns us to his Numb 37. 38 39 Where saith he they deny the body to be Christ and that it was Christ that dyed And that both body and soul was sacrifized see Numb 42. Answ First If the body was properly the Christ how was it sayd That by Christ God made the Worlds Heb. 1 â— since it was many thousand years after the world was made ere Christ took up that body 2dly If the body was properly the Christ how is it that Christ sayd to the Thief on the Crosâ— To day shalt thou be with me in paradise Luke 23. 43 Since Ioseph begged his body and laid it in a Sepulchre v. 52 53 from whence it rose not until the third day ch 24 v. 6 And as for their saying it was Christ that dyed it is no more than the Apostle saith in express words How that Christ dyed for our esins 1. Cor 15 3 So that D L is as really quarrelling with the scriptures as with us And what if G W declares That Christ's soul was sacrifized doth not Isaiah speak of God's making his soul an offering for sin see ch 53. v 10 What can be a plainer proof Yet it doth not follow that his soul dyed But if D L say otherwise then it is he and not we that holds those Muggletonian doctrines however I am sure we do not And so having done with this I shall pass the rest of this chapter all is it being pretty much of a sort and it being not my intention to answer every paragraph in the book as I have already told my Reader and given him a very good reason too viz because I have not many of the books by me out of which he produces his quotations to examine them by neither would it be necessary if I had since with any unbyassrd persons I must â—eeds have spoiled his credit in laying open the unfairness and forgeries he is guilty of in the beforegoing I shall now proceed to his third Chapter which I find much like his former it being grounded upon his not being willing to distinguish in ascriptural sense between Christ as he was from the beginning and as he came in the body in the fulness of time As for what he here saith of John Whitehead I refer the Reader to Tho. Ellwood's book Called Truth Defended c. p. 124. As for his saying That The true Chrstians believe that the true Christ hath a body of flesh and bones c. To this I answer That how or after what manner Christ's body is now in heaven I shall by no means undertake to determine ' it being I believe a bove the capacity of us Mortals so to do But I shall tell D. L. that he hereby brings his great friend G. K. under his censure of not being a true Christian for G K. expresly saith of Christ's body that It is no more a body of flesh blood and bone but a pure Aethereal heavenly body see Way cast up p. 131 not retracted Then for his bantering W P. about his calling Christ's body holy saying Can this be other than hypocrisy for as is noted at Numb 49 50 he holds the body to be earthly and perishing I would have the Reader note it proceeds from W P's vindicating this saying so Jsaac Peningtons ' That which Christ took upon him was but the garment of our nature which is of an earthly and perishing nature To which I answer That Christ's body was a holy body according to W. P. Surely D. L. will not deny Yet that it was the garment of our nature is not me thinks hard to make out For it is said Heb 2 14 For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same Mark of the same Now how it is the same if not of the same nature for my part I know not though Christ defiled not his nature by sin as we have done ours is Certain and there fore a holy body according to W P Yet in as much as he took on him the seed of Abraham he surely took on him our nature unless the seed of Abraham be not of our nature and that this is the garment which Is. P meant I suppose D. L. will not deny Nay the scripture saith expresly v. 17. In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethern Yet though Christ was in all things made like unto his brethren though he took â—hould of the seed of Abraham and took part of the same flesh and blood with us which flesh and blood of ours is surely of an arthly and perishing nature Yet I utterly deny D L's inference that W P. renders Christ's body earthly and perishing For though he took part of the same flesh and blood with us which flesh and blood of ours as I said is of an earthly and perishing nature yet by the mighty power of God Christ's body was raised from the dead and saw no corruption and so he dieth no more death hath no more dominion over him but he ever liveth to make intercession for us in his soul and spirit and glorious and heavenly body I come next to touch upon one passage in his Chap. 4 where he thinks he hath gotten I know not
many of them as might move the Lord to a farther compassion on them is surely more than this D L knows As for D L's ridiculing G VV. about his prophesie concetning G K. viz And thus saith the Lord because thou hast poured out contempt scorn and reproach upon my servants and people I will assuredly pour out and bring great contempt and scorn upon thee I answer What farther scorn and contempt may yet come upon him than what is already come and manifest to the world even since those words were written by G VV. let time shew and daies to come make yet more manifest For scorn and contempt is certainly come upon him even beyond the conceit which D. L. speaks of And although he may slight what G. W. said of G. K because as he saith it 's The fate of all men less or more yet that 's no more than those might have said whom the Apostle compared to Jannes and Jambres and of whom he said Their solloy should be manifest to all men 2 Tim. 3 9. In his 6. Chapter he flings out his scoffs and taunts about Infallible discerning and in particular reflects upon our Friends about Delaware thar they want this spirit of discerning and to prove it instances the case of Robert Ewer iâ— Now to this I say Though G F. as quoted by him speaks of a Minister of Christ's having an infallible discerning of a mans state and condition Yet he doth not say it is without any respect had to the fruit he brings forth And Christ saith Matt. 7 16 By their fruits ye shall know them So that I do believe to know any mans condition without this token must be an extraordinary and particular gift of God But by the fruits brought forth I do believe according to the words of Christ people may be known and that infallibly too for what is short of that is not properly knowledge but barely conjecture And as for Robert Ewer There was not so near an unity bewixt him and our Friends a considerable time before that business of that Woman at Philadelphia was talked of as D L. may possibly imagine But it is not the Churches place to disown any Member before proof be made of some evil done by him or her and to prove what I say I hope I have an Author very sufficient in D L's eye for it is no less person than his great friend G K. who in his late book of Retractations c. not yet retracted again that I heare of hath it thus in p. 3 We find no warrant from scripture to receive an accusation against any far less a positive judgment without plain evidence of matter of fact against them by credible witnesses c. Well then so far as matter of fact was thus made appear against Robert Ewer he was dealt with according to Gospel order too Bâ—t for D L's telling us of Late ill example of divers of our Preachers especially of their being unlawfully conâ—erned with women He should either have let us know who they were or else have been silent about it for for my part I know them not but do beleive it is a great slander In his p. 64. he banters W P. for saying We ascribe not in fallibility to men but to the grace of God and to men so far as they are led by it Here upon he makes this resiection viz Behould Reader and note this Rhetorick well For are not other Professors yea all men in the world so far infallible as well as Quakers Answ Yes But does not D L. know that there are multitudes of men in the world who are so far from being led by the infallible grace or spirit of God that they make a mock at and deride it and surely such are very far from being infallibly led by it But what need was there for D L. to say as well as Quakers since W P. according to D L's own citation doth not restrict infallibility only to the Quakers but to men indefinitely for saith he and to men so far as they are led by it As for his telling how friends admit none to travel upon Truth 's acount without certificates I think it is very commendable but passing by his mocking viz his saying it is to help our spirit of discerning I take notice of what he saith of G W. quoting him out of Quakers plaâ—nness thus We have a Record in Peoples conscience as if there fore there was no need of a Certificate which he Ishmael like calls a Pocket Record Answ Though he so tauntingly yet groundleslyt represents us to be a sort of people who think greaâ— things oâ— our selves as to our spiritual attainm ants yet I do beleive our Friends do not think they have attained to a greater degree of discerning spirits than the primitive Christians had and the Apostle Paul intimates their approving by their letters such as went to Ierusalem about the Churches service see 1 Cor. 16. 3. And the same Apostle speaking to the Corinthians as though he and Timothy needed nor epistles of commendation to that Church as some others 2 Cor. 3 1 there by intimated that though such very eminent labourers needed not such commendations yet others did And let D. L. observe that though G K. in his late book of Retractations p 3 c saith To know men by their fruits is a gift of the spirit and proceedeth from a true spirit of discerning that is given universally in some measure to all the faithfull Yet it seems he himself must have that which D L. calls A pocket Recerd with him to England and that signed not only by his own faction but also by perhaps D L. knows who besides In p. 66 D L. tells us My old friends oft bless them selves thus viz We are redeemed from a vain life and conversation more than any society in Christendom We are the only Professours of truth c. And saies D L. so saies the Pharisees We are not as other men c. Answ What then though the proud Pharisees were boasters and cryed They were not as other men c. Yet I hope he will not say The saints of old were Pharisees who said We know that we are of God and the whole world lieth in wickedness 1 John 5. 19 Yet there were some amongst them who appeared to be very scandalous in their lives and conversations Neither do we bless our selves as D L. falsly alledges because we are in measure redeemed from a vain life and conversation but it is our very principle which D L. cannot be ignorant of to abase self for ever and only to bless and priase the Lord who through his Son Jesus Christ enables the faithful to perform what is acceptable in his sight The next thing I shall touch at is to make some small reflection upon what he urgeth against us in his 7th Chapter under the head Of the Scriptures though the substance hath been often answered by our friends and
that very fully in these books amongst many others viz The Christian Quaker W. P s. Invalidity Reason against Raling c. so that I shall need to say the less about it yet I cannot wholly pass it by because I have therein an opportunity offered of discovering his folly as well as great envy manifested in his so ridiculously bantering that faithfull labourer in the Lords vineyard G. F. who I believe is now at peace with the Lord where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary be at rest Whom he puts his profane joques upon in P. 74 as if because G. F. said Dust is the serpents meat the Serpent feeds upon dust therefore G. F. meant the Serpent was literally to feed upon lime and stone houses called Churches and thereupon scoffingly queries Had not the Devil need to have strong teeth to gnaw upon steeple houses Answ O gross perverter I remember he tells me in p. 45. that about the Resurrection I carnally apprehend G. K. Now I appeal to every judicious Reader whether I have not more reason to say that D. L. carnally apprehends G. F. For though G. F. tells the world Their church is dust a heap of lime and stone gathered together it is what is true and obvious to every one that hath eyes And though G. F. saies The serpent seeds upon dust and that is also true and according to Scripture which saith Dust shall thou eat all the daies of thy life Gen. 3. 14. Yet that the consequence is that these two expressions according to G. F. must be fulfilled in a literal sense viz that the Devil is to feed on the dust of those sort of walls D. L. may indeed insinuate but I know not who will be so weak as to believe him And now I shall desire the Reader to excuse my stepping back to p. 70 where I find D. L. falsly accusing Tho. Ellwood of belying the Common Creed quoting his Truth Defended p. 70 on this wise viz The common Creed saies he called the Apostles Creed saies Christ was conceived by the holy Ghost Though born of the Virgin vvhere upon D L. saies Now pray search the Common Creed and see if the word though be there to be found Answer These words though born of the Virgin which D L. quarrels with are not laid down by T E as the express words of the Creed but rather as explanatory in order to shew the import thereof which was That though Christ was born of the Virgin yet he was conceived by the Holy Ghost and that therefore his Generation was not by coagulation of and from the properties of man in Mary as had been suggested since Mary had not known man but the holy child Jesus though born of her was conceived by the holy Ghost And I am sure D L. will be hard put to it to prove T E. a lyar in this case he may as well prove the Apostle a lyar in a passage Heb 4 3 where he hath relation to an expression of the Psalmists Psal. 95. 11 viz As he said As I have sworn in my wrath if they shall enter into my rest although the works were finished from the foundation of the World Now these words although the works were finished c. are not the Psalmist's words but the Apostles explanatory of what he had before said in the same verse viz For we which have believed do enter into rest And T E's words were much after the same manner and way of speaking therefore how poor mean and pitiful must it be in D L to employ himself in prying into and poring upon our books in order to find matter against us whilest when he has done all he is able he can produce nothing but such weak and silly stuff As wretchedly fordid and base is he in p. 71 in abusing G W. whom he quotes thus Counter Convert p. 26 We prefer the holy Scriptures saith he before all the Books extant in the world Whereupon D L. infers thus Now observe here hovv G W. carries a double face to deceive his Reader for he does not say that he prefers the book called the Bible before all books extemt c. Answer This is a most wicked and base insinuation as if when G W. mentions our preferring the Scripture he did not thereby intend the Bible I am persvvaded it is not only contrary to D L's beleif but also to his very knowledge Besides though other books are and may be written by the assistance and from the dictates of the Spirit of God yet that doth not hinder the book called the Bible from having the preference all things considered Gold and Silver money are both stamped vvith the Kings Image and superscription and both are allowed by him to be current Coin yet the one is preferible to the other And vvhereas our Friends amongst many other have said that some Scriptures are corrupted yet that hinders not but in the main they are preferible to all other books Gold may have some tincture of a meaner metal in it yet in the main 't is preferible to all other metals Again what a gross inference hath he drawn from the words he quotes as Sam Fisher's viz That were their transcriptions and translations never so certain and entire by answering to the first original Copies yet are not capable to be to all men any other than a Lesbian Rule or nose of wax Whereupon D L. saies Mark how he affirms That if the Scripures were never so true yet they are capable of being no other than a nose of wax Answ Mark how D L. belies his own quotation iâ— his pretendedly marking S F's words for the quotation himself offers saies of the Scriptures That they are not capable to be to all men any other than a Lesbian Rule or nose of wax But in his mark to render S F. odious he makes him affirm â—hey where capable of being no other than a nose of wax Oh Infincere man Can he be so ignorant as not to know the difference betwixt saying The Scriptures can not be to all men of service which was S F's meaning in as much as multitudes of mankind never had heard one word of them and his own saying That they are capable of being no other indefinitely than a nose of Wax Well! upon this perversion of the above quotation D L. comments saying Now I dare affirm there is no sort of people else in Cristendom except Papists will speak thus of the Scriptures But experience tells me That all sensible Christians who protest against this Popish principle cannot but have an evidence in themselves to the worth and purity of the Scriptures c. Answ And what of all this The question is not about what evidence sensible Chistians have of the Scriptures nor whether they are to them as a nose of wax But cheifly about what they are to half the world which have them not And what service they can be of unto such D L. were
as certainly true as he is cofidently false in it As first his affirming that the Quakers searcht the Town for arms this I am credibly informed is false and that it was not the Quakers who did so but others 2. dly Supplied them with guns swords c. This was not likely to be true for though perhaps there might be here and there one that had a fowling piece not that I have cause to suspect that any person furnished them with so much as one yet I question whether they had any swords at all to furnish them with The 3 dly is a third lye For he saith they gave them a Commission which was not so but a Warrant to bring them back to justice in their own way they being nor Friends that went by virtue of that Warrant after them Then he adds and hiâ—ed them for 100 pound Whereâ—â— this was not to neither it is true after the men that followed them were agreed to go and in order thereto were got into the boat Sam. Carpenter to incourage them called to them and promised to give them 100 pound if they would bring back the sloop and men And if Sam. Carpenter was to blame in it why did not G. K. instead of commending him and other's for what they did 〈◊〉 deal of with Samuel about it and say his evil actions iâ— they were 〈◊〉 before him in order to have recovered him 〈◊〉 not a word of that then it was Den Samuel with him man months after that after till he began to differ with seperate from Friends and then Samuel not joyning with him he spared him no more than others Moreover whereas D L said Sam Carpenter paid down the 100 pound and that the Assembly have since voted it a debt of the Province Now this is not so neither for there was no such sum voted but the man will be medling with things he knows nothing of Then as for his saying that it was those whom the Quakers got to gether and furnished with guns and swords and who had Commission and were nired for 100 pound to do it that recovered the sloop here in it as worth one's observation how prettily he contradicts his friend G. K. in the matter who saies It was Peter Boss and one or two more vvith him that retook the sloop having neither gun svvords nor spear see Antichrists and Sadâ—cees detected p. 7. Yet in their Appeal to the Yearly Meeting in 1692 G K among others saith as â— L. here saith as to those vvho took the sloop Thus thoâ—gh they â—oth beâ—n false vvitness yet their witness agrees not together I shall next take notice of a passage of his relating to Tythes which may be seen in his p 107 thus I know none in Christe naâ—â— no not the Priests themselves but they will deny that they take Tythes as Tythes but only as maâ—re 〈…〉 to preaching and not as any other part or the 〈…〉 Answ It may be so For what other part of the Cerimonial Law did Tiths belong to except to give part to the Stranger the Fatherless and the widow tho that part our Priests do not care to perform to be Sure But â—â—ee D. L. says he knows none that say they take Tiâ—â—s as Tiths I shall take Leave to tell him That he seems to have pored so long on G. â—'s Great Mystery c. as to have bemudl'd himself or dull'd his sight else he might have there seen and so have known That the Priests take Tyths as Thyths for which I referr him to the following Passages First in pag. 87. G. F. quotes the expression of a Priest thus The Lord hath given Tyths for the maintenance of the Ministry of this Nation And a littte lower he saith The Priesthood is Changed but not the Tyths abolished by the coming of any Substance Secondly in Pag. 245. he quotes Gawin Eaglesheld Thus The Law is not changed that gave Tyths c. Now I hope from henceforth D. L. may be satisfied That the Priests did not deny their taking Tyths as Tyths Besides to talk of not taking Tyths as Tyths is Just as good sense as to say D. L. dos not tell Lyes as Lyes But it is yet further observable That D. L. ackowledged That Tyhts for the Maintenance for Preaching being part of the Ceremoniall Law and consequently put an end to by Jesus Christ's Offering up himself And that being the chief Cause why our Friends refuse to pay them must needs be an Argument to any sensible Man s understanding That we owne Jesus to be the Christ And we know the Apostle saith The Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a Change also of the Law Heb 7 2. I shall now proceed to his 13. th Chap about Miracles wherein he seems resolved to Act the part of one that would be Retrogade to any thing acted or done by a Quaker especially if he thinks he hath found out a way to redicule it thereof I think I shall not need to say much to it only some passages I shall hint at as followeth He begins his Cavills against some passages in G. F's Iournall to which I need say no more than thus That I am satisfied That where at any time G. F. in his Journal hath mention'd any Miracle which God had wrought by him the Intent was not to set up of applaud the Creature nor to boast of the work but to give the praise and honour to God the Worker to whom it belongs As for what he saith in pag. 110 about G. F's being call'd The Father of many Nations c. I answer thus hath been Answer'd so often already particularly by W. P. in Judas and the Jews c. and in Invalidity c. and that to my satisfaction above twenty years ago that I shall say no more of it in this place than to reâ—er the Reader to the Books for his satisfaction also A little lower in the Same page he Insinuates that G. F. should pretend to the Gift of Tongues to Interpret all Languages which I am perswaded he shall never be able to make appear But if he can let him In pag. 111. He pretends to object something worse against G. F. which take as follows But which is yet worse if true I have seen a sheet called An Essay c. lately put out by one T. C. wherein he shows that G. F. in answering Priests and Professor's Books falsly quoted their Words and perverted them c. Which he would have W. P. to appear and clear G. F. from c. Answ If there be such a Book written by T. C. so accusing G. F. I question not but it is or will be Answer'd in the mean time I will assent to D. L's saying if true it must needs be judged wicked c. But I shall likewise add if it be false the reporting it must needs be wicked in his Author T. C. and Idle and wicked in himself also thus to repeat it only
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
God which raiseth the dead Who delivered as from so great a death and doth deliver in whom we must this he will yet delive us 2. Cor. 1. 8. 9. 10. Yet at last he was put to death at Rome In the next place I shall take some notice of D. L. ◠〈◊〉 In his p. 137. 138. he asks Why this following doctrine so frequently preached formerly by ancient friends is how let fall and nor preached by any of you viz I the Light will overturn nations Kingdome and Gathered Churches c. and citing many books as News out of the North c p 15. I am the same door that ever was says G F the same Christ to day yesterday and forrver c. Answ This is but a meer begging the question For as he hath not proved so I deny that the doctrine of the fight was frequently preached by antient friends in those terms And as for those words in the above cited News out of the North with several others cited â—y him I cannot sufficiently speak to them â—auing not the books and by what is before written it is easy to see that he ought not to be trusted in his quotations he is so exceedingly perfidious in them As a farther confirmation of this charge I shall produce another proof as followeth I happening to have one of the books he cites in the abovesaid page viz G. F's Great Mistery out of which he pretend to produce a quotation thus And tho that same spirit that raised Iesus from the dead is equal with God viz. the holy Ghost see Great Mistery p 66 127 I dilligently searched both those places and do affirm there are no such words to be found in either of them But I find in p. 127 that a Priest charged G F with professing equality with God whereupon G F tells us that the Assembly of Divines in their Catechisia say The holy Ghost is equall in power and glory with the Father Now saies G F every one that comes to witness the son of God and the holy ghost c by your account they witiness that which is equal in power glory with God and that his words were spoken beyond all creatures out of all creatures that he did not say G Fox Now is it not as cleare as the sun that D L hath again grieviously abused both G F also his Reader For it is one thing to witness the holy Ghost wich is equal in power and glory with the Father to be in us according to G F even beyond unterance and another thing to profess our selves equal with the Father Son or holy Ghost either as this abusive D L would render us In p 138 139 he asserts this falshood viz 'T is the faith or belief of all your preachers in general That when you preach or pray 't is not you but Christ in you that prays I prove this to be your belief by these two reasons First You do never in your meetings pray for pardon or forgiviness of sin Not that I have heard in twenty years due attendance for seeing 't is Christ in you that prays there is no need of it he being without sin Answ He may as well charge all those holy men of old who have prayed to God and yet heave not in all their prayers asked pardon for sin with the same as he falsly charges us with here viz with believing that it is Christ in us that prays And in order to prove that what he objects against us was not the common practice of the primitive Church I shall produce an example which at this time occurs to my mind as it is related Acts. 4. 24. to 31. where we find that the Church then assembled together lift up theie voices with one accord in prayer to God in which prayer there is not one word of confession of or begging pardon for sin And if D L be so blind as that he can perceive no difference or distinction to be made between Christ by his spirit helping our infirmitie's in our prayers which we say he doth and without which we cannot pray as we ought see Rom 8 26 and saying that 't is Christ in us that prays which we say not we cannot help it Then what or how due his attendance hath been for twenty years I know not but sure I am I have heard earnest cryes and servent supplications put up to God in our publick meetings for pardon and remission of sins many times in less than ten years His second reason is this You do not pray to Christ becaiuse it being Christ in you that prays it is absurd for Christ to pray to himself Answ This is again a meer begging of the question for we say no such thing as that when we pray 't is Christ prays in us but as above 't is Christ by his spirit that assists his children in their prayers who said Without me ye can do nothing John 15 5. He continues in his p. 139. to cast many unjust reflections upon us in relation to these two heads of not praying for pardon of sins and not praying to Christ at all which is partly answered already but in order to the more full clearing the latter objection I shall take notice of one passage more in the same page After he hath opposed the Apostles Saints and Martyrs to us he concludes that paragraph thus viz Both Apostles and other Christians frequently prayed to Jesus Christ as well as to God the Father Answ This affects not us at all as to what he infinuates that we do not pray to Christ because it is neither against our principle nor practice and if he will not believe us in relation to this assertion yet methinks he might credit his Friend G. K. in the matter who in p. 121. 122. of his Way cast up saith He hath not only himself done so but also hath heard others expresly naming the words Jesus Christ Although saith he when we express not these words yet if we pray by the movings of his liâ—e and Spirit we pray in the name of Jesus c. And he farther saith I have heard expresly such petitions put up in our prayers at our meetings unto Christ as Jesus son of David have mercy upon us O! thou blessed Jesus that wert crucified and dyed for our sins and shed thy pretious blood for us be gracious unto us O! thou our mercifull High Priest whose tender bowels of compassion are not more straitned since thy ascension but rather more inlarged Thou art our Advocate and Mediator in heaven with the Father our merciful High Priess Thou blessed Jesus thou knowâ—st our most secret desires and breathings which we offer up into thee in the inabâ—ngs of thy blessed â—ife and spirit that thou maist present them unto thy Father and our Father that in thee we may be accepted and our services also and for thy sake our defects and short comings our sins and transgressions that we have
committed may be forgiven us These and such like expressions frequently used by us in prayer both in secret and also in publick in our assembly's plainly demonstrate that we worship and pray unto the Mediator betwixt God and man the man Christ Jesus Thus far G. K. All which affords us matter sufficient against D. L. in relation to his false charges and unjust insinuations against us As first Whereas in p. 102 he saith we deny Jesus of Nazareth to be in heaven glorified in the true nature or man Here G. K. saies He hath heard expresly such expressions to Jesus and that they are frequently used by us in prayer as Thou art our Advocate and Mediator in heaven with the Father Our merciful High Priest and which saith he plainly demonstrates that we worship and pray unto the Mediatos betwixt God and man the man Christ Jesus dly 2 That twhen we pray we do not pray to Christ as D. L charges us in his p. 139 Whereas here G. K. confesseth that we frequently pray to Jesus expresly and that as he is in heaven our Advocate and Mediator the man Christ Jesus c. And 3dly That we frequently pray that our sins and transgressions may be forgiven us expresly contrary to what â— L. falsly alledgeth against us in the aforesaid page Now either it is true that G. K. hath heard these expressions and that they have been frequently put up by our Friends in prayer or it is not true If it be true then is D. L. by G. K's own free confession concerning our practice a false accuser of us If ir is not true then will it fall heavily upon G. K. not as a thing that he hath been mistaken about in point of opinion but as a thing he has published against his own knowledge and conscience in pretending that he heard such expressions and that not now and then only but that they have been frequently used in our prayers Neither do I know how G. K. can retract these testimonies concerning our friends when they pray without giving the down right lye to himself For it is not a little otherwaies wording the matter nor pleading a little failure in syntax nor any curious wire drawing neither that will help either of them out at this dead lift As to his charge upon G. W. in p 140. That of late years in answering books he has not taken notice of scarce a twentieth part of a book but onely sends out something and to please people and that they may have something to say when people cry where is the answer to such or such a book I Answer First he should have told us what book that is which G. W. hath given as a full answer to a Book and yet scarce that twentieth part of the book taken notice of or else to be sure he doth nothing to the purpose 2dly There may be the same reason shewed by G. W why he took no notice of many particular pass ages in some certain books which he hath answered as G. K. shewed why he did not answer to many things in Cotton Mather's book see his Serious Appeal p. 8 thus Because Cotton Mather had not distinctly answered my former book against him As also that the said Mather's book was filled with manifest falshoods perversions and abuses sufficiently replyed unto partly by others and partly by me sath he Which may serve for an answer to D. L. in relation to G. W's late answers to Opposers especially Backsliders and Apostates books At the latter end of the book D. L. publishes a letter said to be sent to him by a person of note Now whoever this person of note be as I know not so I matter not but however A person of note I will grant him to be in that he so abominably abuseth both the Quakers and his Reader and like a man infatuated imposeth such palpable falsehoods upon them or which I shall take some notes though he has deprived me of the opportunity of taking a note of his name First That the thoughts of the suddain stop the Philadelphia Quakers met with when they were so not it persecuting G. K. and his friends may in some degree check them and hinder them from doing what otherwaies they would p. 142. 143. Answ 1st That which they call persecution was not so but only a calling them to account for their abuses to Authority here as may be seen in the book called A Modest account c. And 2dly It is false that they met with a suddain stop when they were doing of it For our friends were in the Government move four months after the tryal and fining of G. K. c. In all which time I do not remember that any of them were so much as examined upon any account whatsoever by the Authority of the Place and possibly if they had not given fresh occasion there might have no more â—eâ—n said about it to this day For that business was not so delightfull to those then in Authority as he and others may imagine 2dly He imposes upon his Reader a kind of a miracle in these words Since I was with thee at Burlington in 1692. I have thought that God Almighty was then fitting thee for some purpose because of the suddain and miraculous recovery in great Part of thy speech from the extream impediment of stammering which thou had when I was with thee two years before and I remember I heard thee then say thou hadst it from a Child c. Answ In this observation of this person of note I note two things observable 1st Though I know not that I ever saw D L yet by what I have heard it seems to be the greatest miracle of the two that he should be thus recovered of his flammering tongue and yet his Neighbours and others who often converse with him know nothing of is 2dly After this person had told D L that in this book he had discovered and laid open the Mystery of iniquitâ— more clearly than he had seen it done by any other for which he prayed God of his bounty to reward him c he tells him as above that Since he was with him at Burlington in 1692. he had thought that God Almighty was fitting him for some purpose because of the suddain and miraculous recovery of his speech c. As if God had intended him for some great work to be performed with his tongue Wereas the great work that has appealed whether it â—e the work of God or the Devil let the Reader judge has been the writing of a 〈◊〉 and â—ous and reproachfull books all which might have been done if his speech had been so totally taken â—om him as that he could not have spoken one word 2dly He falsly as well as without proof asserts these falshoods Such things as are indeed fundamentals of the Christian Religion they account niâ—iries circumstantials and smaller matters and care not how confusedly they preach them But what are
were so ignorant that we could not find out these his unfair and unjust dealings For that which G W makes two words of with a right distinguishing stop D L makes but one with a dash between thus God-man without any distinguishing stop as G W hath it thus God-man 4thly False it is that W P as he affirms P 5 says Sandy Foundation p 14. If the only God is the Father and Christ be the only God then is Christ the Father which is ridiculous and shamefull 5thly False it is that W P says according to his quotation p. 6. out of Sandy Foundation p. 22 that Christ could not pay what was not his own debt 6thly False is his assertion in the same page that W P holds that Christ had a debt of his own to satisfy to God 7thly False it is which In p. 14. he pretends to cite out of G W s Christian Quaker p. 212 That we plead for the Righteousness of a creature i. e. Christ as man or man 's own righteousness For there is no such word as Christ as man as I have a fore shown 8thly False it is which he produceth p. 23. as an expression of G W's in his Nature of Christianity p 29 viz Christ has not the body of man 9thly False it is which in the same page he alledges against G W viz that He denies Christ's bodily existence without us 10thly False it is which he offers in p. 37. as W P's Sandy Foundation p 21. Christ as man was finite viz came to an end For these words viz came to an end are not W P's 11thly An abominable falshood it is that in Sandy Foundation p. 20. W P calls Christ The finite and impotent creature see p. 38. and many other places of his book 12thly False it is which in p. 40. he says of W P viz But VV P makes the benefit of his coming to be no more but to shew man more plain what he saw before as through a glass It being also contrary to what he himself hath cited as his words in the same page 13thly False it is which he asserts in p. 102 viz That the Quakers have denyed Jesus of Naeareth 14thly False it is which he affirms in p 139 That we do not pray to Christ and as false That we never in our meetings pray for pardon or forgiveness or sin His Friend G K's acknowledgment concerning us as a fore cited shews the contrary in both respects Thus have I collected some of the pâ—lpable lyes and flaâ—â— hoods he is guilty of as by the books which I have by me cited by him may appear what more there might be found especially if we had all the books he mentions to inspect and examine can only be guessed at at present by what I have 〈◊〉 in those books which I have examined As for what untruths and falsehoods he has in p 94 and 95 told of John Wood the said John Wood's own vindication with certiâ—â—â—tes under his neighbours hands as also his abuses put upon some others of his Neighbours in his own Province of West Jersey in relation to the miâ—â—ating of some publick affairs may be made to appear in their appear colours in their Postscript And now Reader Is it not strange that alter all this D L should be so confident as to call upon Sam. Jeninges John Simcocâ— John Râ—d 〈◊〉 c. to come forth and appoint a publick meeting to prove our charges in the face of the world of their abusing us and our books in falsly citing passages but of the same and wronging their sense Whereas in this very book of his he is guilty of such abundance of it But D. L. rests not here for in p 141 he manifests his impudence yet farther in these expressions Therefore I LL give the world a sign by which they may know that you do not only abuse bely charge us falsly in this case But also that your own consciences tells you that you are guilty of so doing The sign is this If you know and are conscious to your selves that you have and do so bely us c. then you 'll not come forth according to this proposition But if you find you can get the least advantage of us by out witting or otherwaies wording the matter thâ—â— with never so much falsity then you 'll come forth and â—e glad I give you this opportunity And by this sign shall you be proved Answ it is easier to prove this his sign to be a sign of his guilt confidence and impudence than a sign of what he woâ—ld pretend to make out by it for this sign fails in all it s marks as thus â—â— we were guilty of abusing them it doth not at all follow that therefore we would not come forth according to his proposition For the same spirit which leads men to wrong and abuse their neighbours may make â—hem so confident as to come forth with open face to endeavour the justification thereof especially when called upon and when the case is as this is viz that no corporal or peculiary punishment is like to ensue This plâ—inly appeared in the case of Tho. Hicks who though he had so abused the Quakers as is before shewn yet had the confidence to come forth at the first meeting to justiâ—e it 2 dly It like wise appears as plainly in this very case of D L's who not withstanding his many abuses put upon us in this his book yet in the same he hath the confidence to challenge a meeting with us to put us upon proof of what is so plainly made appear above Therefore this is no infallible sign of our being guilty of his charge that we came not forth according to his proposition And then the other part of his sign relating to a supposition of our coming forth is as evidently fallible for we have got not only a little but a great deal of advantage against him and that very simply too not only without any falsity but also without straining matters beyond what they will naturally bear and yet he may see we do not come forth according to this proposition and therefore both his signs are fallible and not to be needed unless it be from them to make an observation how strangely men are infatuated who draw back from and rise up against the truth Well now I shall give D L and the world a plain and argumentative sign whereby he and they may know that he himself hath abused both the Quakers and their books which is this If D. L. have given that for the Quakers words in their books c. in order to render them and their books odious thereby to the world which is not in their he books then he hath abused the Quakers and their books But so hath D L. done as I have herein plainly manifested particularly in the summary collection of his falsehoods Therefore he hath abused the Quakers and their books The first proposition I