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
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
G. F. answer to the Priest was but by way of query which does not alwaies conclude a judgement For when Christ asked the Pharisees what think ye of Christ whose son is he they said unto him The son of David Christ answered by way of query How then doth David in spirit call him Lord Matt. 22. 42 43. Now by this his answer Christ did not deny himself to be the Son of David for that would have contradicted the scripture which calls him the son of David c. Matt. 1 1. And so G. F's asking a question cannot be said to be a denyal of W. P's assertion therefore no contradiction I come now to his p 17 18 to what he cites from G. F about the soul To which I say 1st It hath been often answered by our Friends particularly G. W. and W. P. 2dly Though D. L. slights their answers counting them fallacious c. Yet his peculiar Friend G. K. hath but in the year 1692 vindicated both G. F. doctrine about the soul and also W. P's answers to the Professours about the very same subject of G. F.'s which D. L. cites see his Serious appeal p 60 not yet retracted where it may be seen that what D. L. calls in G. W. and W. P. Fallacious equivocation his Friend G. K. calls a Sufficient vindication Now what curious wire drawing will D L. use here to clear himself from contradicting his great Friend G. K. But since among so many learned and Wise men there have been so many opinions about the Soul unless he could define better than other folks what the Soul is and what the Breath of life is which God breathed into man by which he became a living Soul his raking up seeming contradictions about it tends to no bodies profit that I know of As fot what he tells us of the Raniers saying The Soul is a part of God therefore to talk of going to hell is an idle story is very idle in D. L. to cite For I do believe as man continued a living soul to God by vertue of that life which God breathed into him and as he is restored thereto again by Christ in that state Hell is not his portion Yet till then the Soul is not living to God but death and hell is it's poâ—tion for the Soul simply is one thing and its being a living soul to God is surely another thing In p 18 19 he cites G F again thus Great Mistery p 205 and p. 63. The Saints came to se the end of Sabbaths and New-Moons and witnessed the body Christ before the day was made for the body is the light of the world the body is the life given for the life of the World in whom there is rest Christ gave himself his body for the life of the World he was the offering for sin Now D. L. to make W. P. contradict G F quotes out his Serious Apology p. 146 as follows But that the outward person that suffered was properly the Son of God We utterly deny A Body best thou prepared me said the Son sot he Son was not the Body though the body was the Son's Upon which saies D L. Let W P. reconcile these and also tell us who is the Father of that outward person Answ Easily reconciled For as W P. denies the outward person to be properly the son of God so G F's words as here laid down by D L do import the same For he being there answering a Priest who was mightily crying up the outward Sabbath which according to scripture was a shadow of things to come Coll 2. 16 17 derected him to Christ the substance or body of that shadow and said the body is the life of the world and the light of the world c. Now what is this to W P's saying The outward person is not properly the son of God For surely the body which is the substance of the shadowy things under the law is Christ indefinitely which G F. calls the light of the world c. But what W P. meant was restricted to his outwatd visible person only which surely none will say that that of its self was properly the light and life of the world so that what W P. and G. F. both do say is true and therefore no contradiction And doth not D. L. know that the words body of Christ have various significations in scripture As first his Church is called his body Coll 1. 18. The bread of the passover is called his body by Christ him self Matt 26 26. And that which suffered on the cross was also his body Again the substance of shadowy ordinances which is Christ is called the body which was the body in G. F's sence in this place mentioned by D. L. And where as D. L. would know of VV. P who is the Father of that outward person I presuming that VV. P hath matters of more weight to exercise him self in than to answer such sort of cavilling folks shall therefore undertake to tell him and that according to scripture He was the son of David Matth. 1. 1 and as Paul said to the Romans 1 3 He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh which was the outward person VV. P. meant Well! but how was he the son of God why the next verss shew viz And dedared to be the son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness c. And now I cannot but often observe how D. L. by his striking thus against the Quakers does often hit his Friend G. K. a greivous box on the ear for in The VVay cast up p. 104. G. K. saith He was the son of Mary David and Ahraham according to the flesh but according to his heavenly nature even as man he was the son of God And in p. 102 he saith It is not the outward flesh and blood that is the man but it is the sould or inward man that dwelleth in the outward flesh and blood that is the man most properly such as Christ was from the beginng Surly now if D L. be impartial he must take in in G. F's errours in his next anniversary book D. L. falls upon VV. P. again p. 19. quoting his Reason against Railing p. 91 as follows Forgive us our debts as we forgive our Debtors were saith he nothing can be more obvious than that which is forgiven is not paid and if it is our duty so forgive without a satisfaction received and that God is to forgive us as we forgive them then is a satisfaction totally excluded Now to make as if he contradicts him self he cites Rejoynder p. 284. where saith D. L. VV. P. cites and defends We believe that Christ in us doth offer up a living sacrifice to God for us by which the wrath of God is appeased to us Where upon saith D. L. Note a self contradiction for in the one he totally excludes a satisfaction and in the other he grants it Answer Can D. L.