Banter And why say they must the Felicity of the Soul Depend upon the Body I suppose they mean but in Part as a Widower may have some Happiness tho Great Grief with it But why not upon that Body it had before as well as upon a New Body For let me ask these Quakers who say that the Soul will have a Body in Heaven tho' not the same body it had before will that New Body be any Addition of Happiness or Advantage to the Soul If not To what Purpose is it But if so then is the Soul in an Imperfect State before it gets that Body and all the Quaker Objections Return upon themselves Let them then speak out and own the True Quaker Opinion viZ. That the Soul do's Receive that Heavenly Body Immediately after Death Nay I have heard some say That they had it already and all the Resurrection that ever they expect Indeed they know not what they mean by it and that Heavenly Body which they talk of most of them understand nothing by it but the Soul it self or an Heavenly Frame or Disposition of the Soul which they think they have attain'd already or may be some of them may think they may have it in an Higher Measure after their Death And this is all the Resurrection and all the Heavenly Body that they Mean when they use these Words II. T. E. p. 153. brings in the subject of their Infallibility and stands stoutly by it G. Keith had objected against this out of a Book of G. W's call'd The Voice of Wisdom before mentioned where G. W. Boldly avers p. 33. That they that want Infalâ—ibility they are out of the Truth and their Ministry is not of the Spirit seeing they speak not from the Spirit but from their own Hearts which are Deceitful where they want Infallibility And their Common Salvo to those they would Impose upon That they only Plead for the Infallibility of the Spirit i. e. of God which none ever Deny'd will not do in this Place For p. 32. Danson whom G. W. opposes had put his Objection so Clear as to obviat that Distinction His words are these As for your Participation of the Infallible Spirit if that were granted that Infers not a Participation of the Spirit 's Infallibility As indeed it do's not more than of its Omnipotence Omniscience or any other of the Divine Attributes But G. W. do's violently oppose this and says most ignorantly that This tends to Divide the Spirit from its Infallibility as if such as Partake of the Spirit do not Partake of its Infallibility was there ever such Folly as this Truly I think not nor such Mad Enthusiastical Delusion ever heard of before in the World For they may Pretend to Partake of God's Omnipotence by the same Reason and with as much Justice Was W. P. Infallible in not only saying but Printing it That Christ was born at Nazareth Or if there was an Error in the Press and Nazareth put for Bethlehem from the Likeness of the Words was T. E. Infallible in Printing this over again as before is told without Correcting of it Were these Quakers Infallibly Guided into the Meaning of that Scripture Matth. xi 30. My Yoke is easie and my Burden is Light who quoted it at a Conference before those whom I know as a Proof for their Light within A little Human Learning would have done well here to have understood the Meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text which signifies Light not as oppos'd to Darkness but to Weight of a Burden which common sense much less Infallibility could not have mistaken in this Text. Was William Walker a Great Quaker Preacher Infallible who mistook John xiv 2. In my Father's House are many Mansions for In my Father's House are many Manchets And made the Application what Plenty of Provision was in Heaven fine White Bread little Manchets and Many of them This I have from those who heard him and heard other Quakers Improving upon his Doctrine what Fine Bread there was in God's House In-numerable Instances of the Like Ignorance might be Given and of Lying Prophesies the Rankest Treasons and Blasphemies Pronounced In The Name of the Lord for which I Refer the Reader to The Snake in the Grass where he will find a Plentiful Collection of them and Un-denyably Vouched Now George Fox their First and Great Apostle in his Answer to the Westmorland Petition 1653. p. 5. says All you that Speak and not from the Mouth of the Lord are False Prophets And in his Saul's Errand c. 1654. p. 7. says They are Conjurers and Diviners and their Preaching is from Conjuration that is not spoken from the Mouth of the Lord. If G. Fox told a Lye in this then by his own Rule he was a Conjurer because he spoke not from The Mouth of The Lord. And if he spoke Truth He is as much a Conjurer and all the Quaker Preachers with him who either Preached False Doctrine or Mis-understood or Mis-apply'd any Text of Scripture or any other Man's Meaning of which we have pretty Broad Instances now before us because No Mistake of any sort can come from The Mouth of The Lord. SECT 4. of Christ's Coming to Judge the Quick and the Dead I. GEorge Whitead says as quoted p. 160. Now what is that Glory of the Father in which His Christ's coming is Is it visible to the Carnal Eye And when was that coming to be Is it now to be looked for outwardly But further we do acknowledge the several Comings of Christ according to the Scriptures both that in the Flesh and that in the Spirit which is Manifest in several Degrees as there is a Growing from Glory to Glory But Three Comings of Christ not only that in the Flesh at Jerusalem and that in the Spirit but also another Coming in the Flesh yet to be Expected we do not Read of but a Second Coming without Sin unto Salvation which in the Apostles days was looked for The First Coming of Christ he confesses to be that in the Flesh at Jerusalem The Second be makes to be His Inward Coming into our Hearts which he says was looked for in the days of the Apostles i. e. Christ was so â—ome at that time in their Hearts But the Coming to the Future Judgment he calls the Third Coming and this be Utterly Denys And T. E. Endeavours to support him by Matth. xvi 28. where Christ said That some standing there should not tast of Death till they saw the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom i. e. till the Destruction of Jerusalem which was a Glorious Manifestation of the Power of Christ in Fulfilling those Judgments which he had Threatned upon the Jews And it was likewise a Type of the Final Judgment and Destruction of the World But T. E. knowing nothing of this would understand those Scriptures which speak of Ghrist's coming to Judgment to mean only His Inward Coming in the Heart
but a wrangling Personal Dispute betwixt T. E. and G. Keith about some Papers Exhibited by the one against the other All which I pass over And come to G. Keiths Appendix to his Narrative which T. E. begins there to Consider SECT V. The several Charges in the Appendix THese are some further Instances upon the Four Heads which are the subject of the Narrative And a few other things which come in by the by and might have been spar'd But that this Reply may be Full I proceed to Examin them 1. A Quotation out of G W. is set down p. 198. Wherein he denies either the Soul or Body of Christ to be Human or that he had an Human Nature and he says that the Blood of God with which he purchased his Church Act. xx 28. Was not the Blood of the Human Nature And where doth the Scripture says he call the Blood of God Humane or Humane Nature To this T. E. Answers That Christ was not of a meer Earthly Extraction That there was more of Divinity even in that Body than in the Bodies of other Men. Which none hardly the Socinians will Deny But T. E's Inference is not Good That because Christ's Body had more Divinity in it than other Mens that therefore it was too Heavenly to he call'd Humane or Earthly For the Hypostatical or Personal Union of his Human with his Divine Nature did not Destroy or Swallow up his Humanity as the Eutychians held But his Human both Soul and Body are still and for ever Truly and Properly Humane else he were not Truly and Properly a Man And the not knowing of this has greatly Milled the Quakers Who if they had given themselves but a little to Humane Learning which they despis'd because they had it not and had known the Ancient Heresies which were Condemned by the Church in several Ages they wou'd not have fallen in with so many of them as they have Ignorantly done T. E. Wou'd not have given such an Answer as he do's here That Christ's making his Soul an offering for Sin was true and so it is says he in a Figurative Manner of Speaking Which was the very Words and Excuse of these Primitive Hereticks who said that Christ's Passion was not Real but onely in Appearance to Mens Eyes And if his Body was but a Vaile or Garment wherein he dwelt as the Quakers and Socinians do make it then indeed his sufferings were no other than Figurative or â—alse and he cou'd no more be said to have been Cruciâ—y'd then a Man would be Crucify'd if his Cloak or Garment was Crucify'd And thus it must be if Christ's Humane Nature was not Hypostatically united to his Divine Nature so as both to make but one Person as Soul and Body is in Man For otherwise the Soul cou'd feel nothing or be said to suffer for whatever was done to the Body And T. E's Argument and G. W's which he Recites is most Ridiculous that Christ's Soul was Immortal and cou'd not be put to Death So is every Mans. And when we Kill a Man no body says that we Kill his Soul But as the Separation of Body and Soul is Death to us So it was and us Really to Christ And not onely In a Figurative maâ—ner of speaking as T. E. with the Ancient Hereticks do's contend II. Page 202. There is a Quotation of G. W's brought wherein he denies That there is continual need of Repentance And T. E. Justifies it by supposing that the Quakers are free from all Sin Else there must be Continual need of Repentance I will not Enter now upon their most Exploded Title to a Sinless Perfection having done it sufficiently elsewhere I onely mention this now to shew their Infallible Hardiness in pretending still to it after it has been Expos'd even to Laughter and as many Failings shewn of these Perfect Sinless Creatures as wou'd make any of the Prophane to appear Ridiculous And this Pretence to a Sinless Perfection is not the least Gross of their Imperfections And shews the Excess of their Spirituall Pride For which they may Read their Sentence 1 John 1.8 If we say that we have no Sin we deceive our selves and the Truth is not in us For as Solomon says Prov. xx 9. Who can say I have made my Heart clean I and Pure from Sin III. The next Quotation is p. 202. Where G. W's Perversion of Isa ix 6. Is set down He turns that most Express Prophesy of Christ Viz. Vnto us a Child is â—orn c. To an Allegorical sense of Christ within and his being Born in our Hearts And says that he was thus Born in Isaiah himself who wrote these Words Who had also been as with Child Says he i. e. Of Christ T. F. In Defence of this says p. 203. That this was meant of Both Viz. Of Christ's Outward and his Inward Birth but this is false for the Prophecy was only of his Outward Birth And if it can be turned to the Inward how shall we thereby convince the Jews as to the Outward Christ This Liberty of Interpretation will confound all the Prophesies of Christ in the Old Testament And it is Remarkable that Isaac Penington a Quaker having wrote a Book Intituled Some Queries and Answers of deep Concernment to the Jews and Design'd purposely for Their Conversion do's not through the whole once Name the outward Christ But bids them onely look to their Light within T. E. Quotes a Book of G. Keith's call'd The Rector Corrected p. 30. In Justification of this Exposition of his of Isa ix 6. To mean both the Outward and the Inward Birth of Christ And tho my business is not here to Vindicate G. Keith yet I had the Curiosity to look into that Book of his and find that this Text was not so much as under Consideration or once Nam'd in that place but he was treating there wholly of another Subject and which is no ways Applicable to this IV. The next Quotation is p. 203. G. W. in his Book call'd The He Goats Horn Broken by way of Wittieism upon John Horn whom he Answers p. 33. 34. Charges this among others as an Error in J. Horn Viz. That when Paul saith Christ was seen of him Last 1 Cor. xv 8. He must needs mean it of his Body seen and seen by Bodily sight Which is contrary says G. W. to Gal. 1.16 To this says T. E. that if G. W. had denied that Christ was Bodily seen of Paul that had not Allegorized a-away Christ's Resurrection And this is all he says to it But if Christ was not Bodily seen of Paul then was Paul a false Witness of Christ For in that Place 1 Cor. xv He Names himself among other Witnesses to Christ's outward Resurrection He was seen says St. Paul v. 5. Of Cephas then of the Twelve After that he was seen of above 500 Brethren at once after that he was seeen of James then of all the Apostles and last of all
utter Strangers to the true Principles of the Christian Religion so do's it Deserve an Animadversion which I will spare in this place III. T. E. p. 111. puts the Baptist's Objection against G. W. in these words Now the Quakers would be so far from directing Men to go to the Material Temple at Jerusalem that they make it but a vain thing to look to Jerusalem to the Anti-Type of that Temple viz. to Jesus Christ as he was there Crucified or to that Blood that was there shed for Justification Now says T. E. see the Answer which G. W. gives thus The Quakers see no need of Directing men to the Type for the Anti-Type nor yet to Jerusalem either to Jesus Christ or His Blood And where do the Scriptures say the Blood was There shed for Justification T. E. says in Excuse That there is a Typographical Error in this Passage But do's not Infallibility reach to Writing or Printing as well as Speaking It seems the Quaker Infallibility do's not go throughout But what is this Error Why intread of The Quakers see no need of Directing Men to Jerusalem either To Jesus Christ or His Blood it should have been Either says T. E. For Jesus Christ c. i. e. That Men need not go to Jerusalem For to look For the outward Material Blood which was shed There 1600 Years ago Why was that the Baptist's Meaning T. E. dare not say that The most Superstitious that ever went thither in Pilgrimage never thought any thing so absurd as that 2dly What is the Difference betwixt FOR and TO in this Place To send Men to Jerusalem TO look for Jesus Christ or His Blood or FOR to look for them 3dly Was this Typographical Error ever taken Notice of before No not a word of it though it was Printed in the Year 1663. Were there any Errata of the Press Printed Yes a good many at the End of the Book Was not this among them No. Then surely it was either thought not to be an Erratum or not so Material as Trasmutation for Transmutation and several other Literal Erratas which are there carefully Printed And Trumping it up Now shews the weak Efforts of a Dying Cause like a Drowning Man catching at a Straw which yet do's not save him For as before said this Typographical Error supposing it to be one do's no service at all to his Cause but leaves him just where it found him But what says he to that Expression above quoted Where do the Scriptures say the Blood was there shed for Justification This is a Crabbed Place And though T. E. Repeats it again p. 112. Yet he says not one Word in excuse for it But G. W. lets us see his Opinion fully in the same Book here quoted by T. E. viz. The Light and Life of Christ within Printed 1668. p. 51. where he makes a Dialogue betwixt the Baptist he Disputes against and himself Thus. I ask says G. W. who is He that satisfies and appeaseth God Dischargeth the Guilty and Pays the Debt Bapt. It is the Man Christ Jesus G. W. Whence came He Bapt. God gave Him G. W. And what is this Man Christ Jesus who can Satisfie Pacifie an Infinit God Bapt. He is God-Man born of a Virgin G. W. How would this Divide God and set Him at Distance from Himself Is it good Doctrine to say That God Pacified God when He saw Himself angry For says the Baptist It was God Man that did it Which is all one as to say God Corrected Himself and then He was Mediator to Himself c. Thus G. W. Blasphemously with the Socinians and in their very words Ridicules the Satisfaction of Christ and our Justification by it and shews his utter Ignorance of the true Christian Doctrine Which I stay not now to Dispute My Business being only to Detect these Men That they have Grosly Mistaken it But before I proceed I find my self oblig'd to ask T. E's Pardon For that I said just now while I was considering his page 111. That he Durst not say That the Baptist's meaning against whom he Disputes was to send Men now to Jerusalem to look for the Blood of Christ which was shed There 1600 Years ago as if it were now to be found there And indeed I thought so That neither T. E. or any Man whatever Durst have ventur'd upon a Supposition so Monstrously Absurd But to my great surprize I find reading p. 115. That he Positively and without any Haesitation asserts it That the Baptist did Direct People now to go Thither Jerusalem for it the Blood of Christ there shed or Look thither for it as if it were now to be found there These are his Words I will not take up the Reader 's time to vindicate this Baptist W. Burnet whom T. E. thus accuses but Refer to his Book Intituled The Captital Errors of the People called Quakers Printed 1668. In Answer to which G. W. wrote The Light and Life c. above quoted And it will there appear not only that W. Burnet had no such gross conceit but that he Plainly and Fully Expresses himself to the Contrary viz. That it was the Merit of Christ's Blood and Faith in the Redemption thereby wrought that he contended for and not that the Material Blood which was shed at Jerusalem was Now there to be found But the Quakers oppose the Christian Doctrine and when pinched think to Blind the Eyes of the World by Pretending that they only spoke against such Opinions as never were held and which their Opposers Detest as much as they can do But if they Differ not from us now in Doctrine as they of Late would have us believe Why then do they seperate from us Why have they Branded all other Communions but themselves as in the Apostacy as Conjures Devils c. Have they never understood our Doctrine till Now Then Now tho' Latâ— let them Return IV. The next Quotation objected by G. Keith is out of a Letter of one Solomon Eccles A Great Preacher and Prophet of the Quakers where he said That the Blood of Christ is no more than the Blood of another Saint Which T. E. excuses thus p. 117. But that Blood which he said was no more than than Blood of another Saint was the Blood that was forced out of Him Christ by the Souldier after He was Dead This is a Plain Confession instead of a Defence But hear the Reason he gives for it He makes a Difference betwixt the Blood which Christ shed before His Breath went out which he calls a Voluntary offering of Christ Himself because He was then Alive and betwixt the Blood shed after He was Dead which he calls The Forcible Act of a Souldier i. e. not Voluntary in Christ and so of no more Vertue than the Blood of another Saint This is Horrible Did not Christ Voluntarily Deliver up His Body to the Death and His Blood to be Spilt yet these Men would render His Death
he was seen of me also Now if he was not seen of Paul then was he seen of none of the Rest And so they are all together False-Witnesses As St. Paul makes the Inference v. 15. Yea and We are found False-Witnesses of God because we have Testified of God that he Raised up Christ Whom he Raised not up if so be that the Dead Rise not But T. E. says quite contrary to this Reasoning of St. Paul That tho we shou'd deny that Christ was Bodily seen of Paul yet this wou'd not Allegorize away Christ's Resurrection St. Paul thought that it wou'd totally overthrow it and all our Faith with it And moreover That to deny the Resurrection of one Bodys do's Infer the Denyal of Christ's Resurrection As he Argues ver 12 c. Now if Christ he Preached that he Rose from the Dead 〈◊〉 say some among you that there is no Resurrection of the Dead But now if tâ—ere be no Resurrection of the Dead then is Christ not Risen And if Christ be not Risen then is our Preaching vain and your Faith is also vain You see how these Articles of our Creed the Resurrection of Christ and our Resurrection are linked so closely together that they do mutually suppose one another and taking away of the one do's destroy the other Therefore I do Earnestly Recommend it to the Quakers to Consider from whence they are Fallen how their Error as to our Resurrection has taken away likewise the Resurrection of Christ And the denyal of his outward Resurrection is Rendring our Faith vain and overturning the whole Foundations of Christianity Of which this of the outward Resurrection of Christ was the main Pillar And therefore in the Choice of one to succeed Judas it is said Act. 1.21 That he must be chosen out of those who had been Eye-Witnesses of Christ all along that he might be a Witness with us said the Apostles of Christ's Resurrestion This was the Hinge and very Basis of the Christian Faith Which the Quaker New Light has wholly overturn'd V. Page 204. The Perversion of that Text Isa LIII 9. Is instanc'd He made his Grave with the wicked which R. Hubberthorn of the First Rank of Worthies among the Quakers to favour their Notion of the Inward Christ or Light within Suffering Dying and Rising again in the Heart Corrupts thus He made his Grave in the wicked To this says T. E. First That R. Hubberthorn did not mention Isa LIII As if a Man might not Repeat a Text and that it were not usual without Quoting Chapter and Verse Secondly He says that R. H. was not there treating Of the General Resurrection or the Resurrection of the Body His words are Christ the Seed made his Grave in the wicked and in the Rich in his Death and out of that Grave shall rise with his Body into Everlasting Life And adds If thou canst Receive it thou mayest be satisfied Right If thou canst Receive it There you are pretty secure For who can Receive such Unintelligible Jargon T. E. is desir'd to tell us what they mean by the Christ or Light within Rising out of the Wicked into Everlasting Life But to his Answer He says this was not spoken of the Resurrection whereas it is Plain that it was spoken of the Resurrection and of nothing else Unless he will say that by Rising out of the Grave they do not mean a Resurrection and so give us a New Language and have secret meanings of their own for words that no body may understand them Which I am afraid is the Case VI. Here follows a War about Contradictions in G. W. with which I will not meddle thinking it not worth a Victory to find Contradictions in him But I will onely mark where he discovers his Principles as to Religion As at the end of p. 205 and beginning of p. 206. Did G. W. says T. E ever call or own Christs Body now in Heaven or while it was on Earth to be Terrestrial or of the Earth Then it was not a true Human Body while on Earth or now in Heaven And Christ was not then nor is now Truly and Really a Man But of this enough before VII Page 207. T. E. makes a nice Distinction betwixt Summoning God as a Witness as he words it and declaring such a thing as truth In the Presence of God He says one is an Imprecation especially the words So help me God but that the other is not But when I declare a thing as In the Presence of God is there not an Imprecation Imply'd if I speak False But this touches a sore place of the Quakers For there was nothing wherein they were more Positive than of the Unlawfulness of Attesting God in whatsoever Form in any Worldly business or going beyond plain Yea or Nay And that every such Attestation was by them counted an Oath and utterly Forbidden under the Gospel What! say they in a Treatise of Oaths Presented to King and Parliament 1675. Signed by William Pen George Whitehead and 11 more p. 17. make God the great God of Heaven and Earth our Caution in worldly Controversies as if we â—rou'd bind him to obtain our own Ends It is to make too Bold with him c. And p. 74 putting the Question What shall we say is beyond Yea and Nay Ans Without doubt an Oath And in their Book call'd A Positive Testimony against all Swearing under the Gospâ—â— Printed 1692. p. 23. The Appealing after any manner to God as a Judge or any ways using his sacred Name or Mentioning any thing whereby it may be Imply'd â—s by Heaven Earth c. When Relating onely to Human Worldly and Inferior matters may be Granted to be an OATH And p. 31. How can any Invoke God for a Witness or any other Purpose or any ways Imploy or use his sacred Name for a security in Earthly matters if it was not a PROPER OATH And p. 39. From hence it may be seen an Invincible Reason against Swearing and the Naming or using God's sacred Name any ways to Confirm the Truth of my Speech Relating to Human and Worldly matters And p. 46 47. With what Face or Pretence can any that sincerely Profess Christianity take any Oath or use any Higher Expressions for Confirming Human and Temporal maâ—ters than Christ's Evangelical sentence of Yea Yea and Nay Nay or what is Equivalent thereto And what Christian Men or Magistrates or Powers of the Earth can Lawfully Prescribe or Require more than Christ hath Permitted herein Yet all this Notwithstanding they have the very last Session of Parliament not onely submitted but Imploy'd their Interest to obtain and when opposition was made struggled hard and at last Prevail'd for an Act of Parliament that they shou'd be admitted to use in Temporal Courts and for Worldly matters this Form of giving their Evidence In the Presence of the Almighty God the Witness of the Truth of what I say For they found themselves Pinch'd in their
by God in some Extraordinary manner and in some other way than the strong Impulse of his own Imagination But he was carry'd into this by the Common Track of the Quakers whose constant custom it was and seen in all their Writings to Publish all their Conceits as the Immediate word of the Ever-Living God And as W. P. here to Pawn the very Being of God for the Truth of their Delusions That As sure as the Lord Liveth what they deliver'd shou'd so come to pass And tho such of their Predictions have 1000 times been Defeated and Prov'd False yet this is no Mortification to them But they Persist still in the assurance of their own Infallibility Can such an Instance of strong Delusion be given ever since the World began Pray God to open their Eyes that they may at last Consider of it as they ought And recover themselves out of this Snare of the Devil wherein they are taken Captive by him at his will XIV Page 218. 219. Some Contradictions of W. P. are Disputed which I pass by in this place because their Doctrines is the subject which I now Pursue And wou'd not Interrupt. What follows of T. E's Answer is in Vindication of himself from Charges laid against him by G. Keith Which are for the most part upon the same Heads which have been already Consider'd And his Defence of himself is after the same fashion as he has defended W. P. and G. W. by always Perverting the Question and Imposing False Positions upon his opponents that he may seem to Confute them and hide his own Principles the while Of which method having seen so much before I will to save Repetition but offer you a Taste here to verify the Character I have given of him And to ease the Reader who if he be not already Tyred I am sure I am therefore I shall beg leave to Contract XV. Page 220. 221. The Charge against T. E. is That he deny'd the Blood of Christ which was shed after his Death by the Spear to be any Part of the Sacrifice from this Reason because he said upon the Cross Consummatum est It is finished Whence G. Keith Infer'd That Christ's Death must be excluded by the same Rule because that was after he had said It is Finished No says T. E. That cannot be charg'd upon me because I said that Christ had pronounced It is finished had Bow'd his Head and given up the Ghost before his side was Pierced by the Spear This was onely too free himself from the Consequence of Excluding Christ's Death from being a Part of the Sacrifice which it does not For if It is Finished was meant of the whole Sacrifice then it was Finished before his Death But however T. E. says nothing in Excuse of his Excluding the Blood shed after his Death Therefore that stands still Excluded by him without any Defence And this does exclude the Whole and Intire Sacrifice to which Christ's last Words It is finished are not Extended but only to All that he was to do and suffer before his Death For as the Bodies of the Legal Sacrifices were Burned that is sacrificed and their Blood offered After the Death of the Beasts which were Sacrificed so was it in Christ whom they Frae-figured his Body pierced and his Blood shed after his Death were Truly and Properly a Part of the Sacrifice as much as what he suffered before he Expired And as the Legal Sacrifice was not compleated by the Death of the Beast but by the Burning of it and offering of the Blood afterwards shed And those who Reject That Blood do mutilate his Sacrifice and render it ineffectual to themselves XVI Page 223. T. P. is charg'd with these Words I deny that Christ came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary This takes away the Hunane Nature of Christ T. E. says p. 225. he meant this only as to Christ's Divine Nature Which is Non-sense And none ever said That his Divinity was Generated of the Properties of Man in Mary XVII G. Keith brought a Quotation out of T. E's Truth defended p. 138. wherein he said That Jesus the Saviour was not Created T. E Answers here p. 226. That this Arose from hence that he G. K. wou'd make the Manhood onely to be Christ without the Godhead Which G. K. was far from saying Nay but the page before Viz. p. 225. T. E. owns that G. K. â—ad Confessed not to the Manhood onely but the Godhead and Manhood Vnited Therefore it is plain that T. E. meant to exclude the outward or Created Christ And places all upon the Inward Christ or Light within which he says was not Created i. e. upon Christ as God onely but not Man XVIII This will appear further in what follows T. E. said in the same Book That Christ is the Great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification Chiefly as he is Manifested Inwardly in the Heart This is to Prefer his Inward to his outward Appearance and to his outward Birth Death c. And This is as Absurd says G. Keith As to say the Beams of the Sun that Descend on the Earth are the Chief Cause of the Earths Fruitfulness and not the Sun it self that is in the Firmament T. E. Answers p. 229. As if Christ says he were no otherwise in the Saints than the Sun is on the Earth Viz. by its Beams This shews us the Heart of the Quakers who aâ—â— not satisfied with the Influences and Inspiration of Christ But will have the very Person of Christ within them And acknowledge no other Christ now in being It is the True and Real Heat and Light of the Sun which is convey'd to us in its Beams And it is the True and Real Virtue and Light of Christ which from him in Heaven is convey'd into our Hearts And what more wou'd the Quakers have Nothing less than the very Body and Person of Christ within them This is the Foundation of all the Quakers Errors Whereby they pass over the outward Birth and Sufferings of Christ as so many Facile Representations and Historical Transactions But place all the Merit and Salvation in their own Light within which they think to be the onely True Real Substantia and Personal Christ and that there is none other XIX What follows in the 3 next pages which are the last of T. E's Answer is nothing but some Personal Reflections and Vapourings wherein none but themselves are Concern'd Therefore I leave them Having omitted nothing I think that is Material in T. E's Answer which Concerns the Principles of the Christian Religion which onely are my Concern in this matter otherwise I had neither put the Reader nor my self to any Part of this Trouble Pray God it may Answer the End for which it was Intended that is to Perswade those who wield their Pens amongst the Quakers to Contend no longeâ— for vain Victory or to Buoy up their own Reputations That they wou'd not mis-spend their