Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	child_n	father_n	son_n	6,646	5	5.2190	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47145	George Keith's Fourth narrative of his proceedings at Turners-hall divided into three parts : detecting the Quakers gross errors, vile heresies, and antichristian principles, oppugning the fundamentals of Christianity, by clear and evident proofs (in above two hundred and fifty quotations) faithfully taken out of their books, and read at three several meetings, the 11th, the 18th, and 23d of Jan., 1699 before a great auditory of judicious persons, ministers, and others, more particularly discovering the fallacious and sophistical defences of George Whitehead, Joseph Wyeth, and seven Quakers of Colchester, in their late books on all the several heads contained in the printed advertisement : to which is prefix'd, the attestation of five ministers of the Church of England, to the truth of the said quotations, and a postcript [sic] / by George Keith.; Fourth narrative of his proceedings at Turners-Hall	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1700 (1700)	Wing K167; ESTC R2430	153,412	130

owned the Person of the Father G. M. p. 247. But thou saith Christ doth not dwell in them personally doth not Christ dwell in his Saints as he is in the Person of the Father the Substance And are not they of his Flesh and of his Bone Again G. Fox G.M. p. 248. owns expresly Christ's Person for first having cited his Opponent's Words It is a false thing to say Christ's Person is in Man in his Answer without finding the least fault with the Term Person he makes Opposition thus VVhich is as much as to say none are of his Flesh or of his Bone nor eat it nor had not his Substance By this it appears that G. F. did not find fault either with the Word Person as belonging to the Father or with Christ's Person but he will not allow them to be two Persons but one Person But if any will say he allowed them to be two Persons then by the Arguments both of G. F. and G. VV. they must be two Gods for if three Persons infer by Argument three Gods by the same Argument two Persons will infer two Gods The above mentioned Words of G. F. in G. M. Doth not Christ dwell in his Saints as he is in the Person of the Father the Substance Jos VVyeth in his Switch recites as quoted out of the Snak● Here the Switch finds no fault with G. Fox's owning the Person of the Father which were G. F's own Words but labors to prove that by that spiritual Oneness betwixt Christ and his Followers G.F. did not mean to make the Soul of the same Person and Substance with God which how ineffectual his Labor is in that may be shewn afterwards Note that the Switch doth justifie G. F. his Saying That God the Father did take upon him Humane Nature p. 190. and in Truth 's defence by G. F. p. 85. The Son's Body is called the Father's they are one not two viz. the Son and the Father But here once more on this Head let us take notice of G. VV 's Fallibility and self Contradiction in most evident manner In his Light and Life p. 47. he blames his Opponent VV. B. for these Words following concerning Christ Now as he was God he was Co-creator with the Father and so was before Abraham and had Glory with God before the VVorld was and in this Sense came down from Heaven To this G.VV. replies VVhat Nonsence and unscripture Language is this to tell of God being Co-creator with the Father or that God had Glory with God Doth not this imply two Gods and that God had a Father let the Reader judge Note how he calleth it Nonsence and unscripture Language to say That Christ as God had Glory with God and that he had a Father which is a plain Evidence that G. VV. denied the eternal divine Generation of the Son contrary both to the Nicene and Athanasian Creed and Scripture also But let us see how he excuses himself in his Antidote p. 188. But the Phrase God Co-creator with God I think still implies two Creators and consequently two Gods 'T is not the Particle Co with in this case will excuse the matter for Co or Con is simul together as Co-workers Co-partners which are more distinct Agents than one but the Creator is but one God one VVord one Spirit and so one Creator Note Here we see the Force of G. VV's Argument against Christ the Word being God Co-creator with the Father is that it would infer the Father and the Son to be Co-workers and consequently two Gods This Antidote he writ in the Year 1697. but in the Year 1674. wherein he published his Quakers Plainness in p. 24. he allows the Father and the Son to be Co-workers in the following Words That the Distinction of the Father and the Son is not only nominal as this Opposer implies against us but real in the divine Relation of Father and Son the Son as being the only begotten of the Father and also known as Co-workers in the Order and Degrees of Manifestation and Discovery where it is plain by his late manner of arguing in his Antidote against the Father and the Son being Co-workers that it doth infer two Gods that in his Saying in his Quakers Plainness as above quoted That the Father and the Son are known as Co-workers he has rendred himself guilty by his own Argument of holding the Father and the Son to be two Gods This is not only a Contradiction to himself but a severe Censure on himself that in the Year 1674. he was guilty of Idolatry in holding That the Father and the Son are two Gods Note Reader that the Quakers use to object two things against my charging Contradictions upon G. W. and other their principal Authors First That I have contradicted my self in my former and later Writings To this I have answered What in my later Writings I have retracted of my former Errors is no Contradiction for that 's a Contradiction when a Man holds contradictory Propositions to be both true simul semel without retracting his Errors But what a Man retracts he is no more chargeable with let G. W. and his Brethren retract their Errors and I shall cease to charge them with them or with Contradictions Secondly they object That I may find as many Contradictions in the Scriptures as in their Books Thus we see how they undervalue the Scriptures to be as contradictory as their Authors but I deny there are any real Contradictions in the Scriptures but there are many in the Quakers Authors Again further hear a Quotation out of the Primmer of G. F. junior and S. Crisp p. 24. And they that come to see and know the Son they come to see and know the Father also for the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father as saith the Scriptures and they are called by one Name which is The Word or The Light For the Word is God and Christ is the Word and God is Light and Christ is the Light of the World and the Spirit of Life proceeds from God and Christ who are Light Note Seeing they hold that the Father and the Son are called by one Name which is The Word and that the Father is the Word and the Son is the Word it is evident they make no Distinction betwixt the Father and Son and therefore according to their false Doctrine seeing the Word was made Flesh and the Father is the Word the Father was made Flesh the Father was born of a Virgin the Father suffered Death on the Cross yea the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father which is a plain overturning the great Fundamentals of Christianity yet this Primmer is so highly magnified among the Quakers that almost every Family of them have it to teach it their Children and they call it in the Preface A Fruit of the Plant of Righteousness given forth for the removing the Vse of such Books and Catechisins as

And tho' the Blood of Christ that both justifieth and sanctifieth is without us yet the application by Faith is within both for our Justification and Sanctification Note again That as G. W. doth fallaciously state the Question concerning Men's being Cleansed i. e. Justified and Sanctified by the Blood of Christ as is above-shewed so he argueth most fallaciously for his false Notion of a Blood of Christ within Men to be the Atonement by the merit whereof they are Cleansed from Sin as because the Operation of the Spirit of God is within Men whereby he applieth to them the Merit Virtue and Efficacy of Christ's Blood which application by a Metaphorical Speech is call'd in Scripture A sprinkling the Conscience that therefore the Blood of Christ is Inward which is the like Sophistical and Nonsensical Argument with that of G. F. The Saints eat the Flesh of Christ therefore they have it in them Thus they both argue from a Metaphorical Eating and Sprinkling or Cleansing to a Literal or Material as because what Men eat of Material Food they receive it into them so because they eat Christs Flesh they have it in them and because the Blood of Christ Sprinkles the Hearts and Consciences of the Faithful therefore that Blood is in them not considering the application here both with respect to Eating and Sprinkling is not Material but Spiritual by Faith as Christ hath plainly explained it that to eat Christ is to believe in him to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood is sincerely to believe with the Heart that Christ gave his Body of Flesh to be broken for us and his Blood to be shed for us for the Remission of our Sins and both for our Justification and Sanctification and eternal Salvation Joh. 6. 35. He that cometh to me shall never hunger he that believeth in me shall never thirst and verse 40. This is the will of him that sent me that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life and I will raise him up at the last day Again Whereas they say in that Printed Paper above-quoted signed by G. W. and Thirty more We do highly value his Death Sufferings Works Offices and Merits for the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind That all this is extremely Fallacious doth largely appear from what is above-quoted Do they highly value his Death and Sufferings when some among them have Printed as above-quoted That when they come to the Operation of the Spirit or Light Within them they will cease remembring Christs Death at Jerusalem Do they value Christ's Sufferings and Death c. who deny it to be the Gospel that Christ impowered the Apostles to Preach for which hear what they say in their Book above-quoted call'd A Testimony for the true Christ c. p. 16. Their Opponent they quote saying p. 16. Christ impowered the Apostles to go forth to Preach the Gospel to the ends of the Earth which Gospel was his Sufferings Death and Resurrection Baptizing in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost c. To this they Answer The Gospel which they Preached was Everlasting it was the Power of God to Salvation to as many as Believed both of Jews and Gentiles But were his Sufferings Death c. Everlasting Is this good Doctrine say they So that according to them it is not good Doctrine but bad to Preach Christ's Sufferings Death c. to be the Gospel either in whole or in part for their reason is of equal force against that Doctrine either in whole or in part The Gospel is Everlasting but Christ's Death and Sufferings c. Note the c. which both the Opponent and they add is not Everlasting for that they say was Temporal therefore Christ's Death and Sufferings is not the Gospel and by this their profound Logick or rather beggarly Sophistry nothing is the Gospel but that which is Everlasting i. e. was from Eternity to Eternity and thus according to them nothing is the Gospel but the Light Within because that is Everlasting the Power the Spirit the Light is Everlasting and therefore that only is the Gospel But tho' the Spirit and Power and Light was and is Everlasting yet it was not within them from Everlasting because they were not from Everlasting and therefore by their Logick as the Light or Spirit is in them and as t●● Gift of God to them it is no more the Gospel than Christ's Death and Sufferings c. because they had it not within them from Everlasting if they will acknowledge themselves to be Creatures Created and Made by the Great Creator in Time But they quibble Sophistically upon the word Everlasting for tho' Christ's Suffering and Death were not Everlasting yet both the Merit Virtue and Efficacy of them both for procuring Remission of Sin and the Holy Spirit with the sanctifying Gifts and Graces thereof was from the beginning of the World and will continue to the end of the World yea and to all Eternity and the Doctrine of it in some measure was Preached from the beginning as God revealed it first to our first Parents and then successively to others of his Holy Prophets and was held forth both by Prophecy Promise and Sacrifices to the Faithful Again They are grosly Fallacious when they say in that Printed Paper We do highly value and esteem his Sufferings Death Precious Blood and whole Sacrifice for Sinners Works Offices and Merits for the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind But what do they mean by Christ's Merits Do they mean the Merits of what Christ hath done for them without them suffered without them his Righteonsness without them his Blood shed without them so as thereby to be justified Nay The following Quotations will sufficiently evidence the contrary viz. That not the Righteousness or Merits or Blood of Christ shed without us but the Merits of Christ within them his Righteousness wrought in them his Blood shed within them the Blood of his Divinity or Godhead but not of his Humanity or Humane Blood by which they are justified for further proof of which hear what G. W. saith in his Voice of Wisdom p. 48. where he blames T. Danson and chargeth it on him to be false Doctrine held by him That there were two Righteousnesses of Christ the one without the Saints to justifie them and the other within the Saints that did sanctifie them And in p. 26. he chargeth T. Danson with Ignorance for his asserting two Righteousnesses of Christ the one without us for Justification the other within us for Sanctification And in p. 35. He argueth against Justification by a Righteousness of Christ without us thus If it be the same Christ that justifies and Janctifies then it 's but one and the same Righteousness which effecteth both these in and for the Saints And in p. 19. he expresly defends that Popish Argument used by S. Fisher the very same Argument is used by Bellarmin De Justif That because evil

are sprung forth of the corrupt Tree which now is to be burned and its Fruit rejected Now these are all the Books and Catechisms published by any others but themselves Again in p. 23. they say And though some have known him viz. Christ after the Flesh yet henceforth know they him so no more as say the Scriptures of Truth Note Here they pervert the true Sence of Paul's Words as they commonly do in their Books and Preachings giving Paul's Words for a Reason why they do not preach Faith in Christ as he came in the Flesh died and rose again c as necessary to Salvation because say they VVe are no more to know Christ after the Flesh whereas it was the great Subject both of Paul's Preaching and of all the Apostles to wit Jesus Christ as he came in the Flesh died for our Sins and rose again and ascended c. insomuch that they did with one Accord declare That the Gift of the Holy Ghost with all the saving and sanctifying Graces of the Spirit do come to Men by Christ through Faith in him as he came in the Flesh died rose and ascended and that this Faith was wrought in Men by hearing the VVord outwardly preached Again in p. 23. they say Now Children the Scriptures of Truth do declare of God and Christ and the Spirit of Truth which are one but the Scriptures cannot bring you to know God and Christ and the Spirit of Truth And yet they say concerning this Primmer and the Contents of it p. 2. That they are very useful for Children and others to Learn that they may be turned unto the Light which is the Gift of God Here they seem to prefer their Primmer to the Scriptures for they say of the Contents of their Primmer That they are very useful for Children and others to Learn To learn what Surely some Knowledge of God and Christ they will say and yet they will not allow so much to the Scripture and on a diligent Search I find not in all this Primmer one simple Direction to Children and others to read the Scriptures and what they have quoted of Scripture in it is but little and much even of that grosly perverted and misapplied as in p. 44 45. they say They that hear the Light that is in all Men and common to all Men they hear God for God is Light and they that hear God they hear Christ also for God and Christ are one as saith the Scripture and they that hear Christ hear the Author of the true Faith and so hear the Saviour of their Souls and the Light is that Prophet which all that hear not him are to be cut off Here we see how grosly they pervert that Place of Scripture Deut. 18. 15. Acts 3. 22. 7. 37. which is not to be understood of the common Illumination given to all Mankind but of the Man Christ as he outwardly came in the Flesh and did execute his prophetical Office on Earth by preaching and teaching and as he doth now still execute his prophetical Office in his Church by his Word outwardly preached and his Spirit inwardly accompanying it to make it effectual Again p. 82. they run into the same wild Notion that others Familists and mad Enthusiasts run into of the Blood of Christ within them For say they and all wait together in the Light viz. as it is common to all Mankind Infidels Jews Mahumetans Heathens for so they understand it and believe in it that ye may be the Children of the Light and therein watch unto Prayer and one over another and this will beget ye into unfeigned Love and walk in the Light ye will have true Vnity and Fellowship one with another and the Blood which is the Life of Jesus Christ ye will feel cleansing you from all Sin and so ye will come into Vnity with God Note By this it is evident as will more fully appear on a particular Head following that by the Blood which they call the Life of Jesus Christ they meant not his Blood outwardly shed or his Life that he outwardly laid down viz. the Life of his Manhood without us for the Remission of our Sins and cleansing therefrom But according to their usual Cant and Phrase The Blood that is the Life and the Life is the Light within So that they make the Blood the Life and the Light within them to be one and the same thing but neither in this Primmer nor in any other of their Books do I find the least Direction to Faith in the Blood of Christ as it was outwardly shed on the Cross therefore in this Primmer and in their other Books they give Poison to poor Children to suck or receive instead of wholesome Food George Keith's Fourth Narrative OF HIS Proceedings at Turners-Hall 1699. For the Detecting the QUAKERS ERRORS PART II. Containing the Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the fifth Head concerning Christ his Incarnation his Soul Body and Blood And on the sixth Head concerning the Souls of Men. Read at the second Meeting at Turners-Hall January 19. 1699. W. P. in Serious Apology p. 146. saith That the outward Person which suffered was properly the Son of God we utterly deny This is expresly contrary to many Texts of Scripture and to a great Fundamental Article of our Christian Creed yea in a manner it overthrows the whole Christian Creed See the following Scriptures Mat. 16. 13 16. Luke 1. 32. Mat. 14. 33. Mark 1. 1. John 1. 14 34. John 9. 35. 10. 36. Acts 8. 37. Rom. 1. 4. Mat. 27. 54. G.W. in his Truth and Inn. p. 52. excuseth W. P ' s Words thus Here I take him to mean the Son of God in respect to his Divine Being as he is of one Substance with the Father which his Body that suffered Death was not though he was truly the Son of God as he took upon him that Body and as made of a Woman Gal. 4. 4. Being conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary The Fallacy of this is easily detected the Question in Debate betwixt W. P. and his Opponents who were Presbyterian Ministers in Ireland was not whether the Body was the Son of God abstractly considered from the Soul of Christ and his Godhead for no Presbyterian ever held that neither will any Socinian that denyeth the Godhead of Christ say that that meer Body without his created Soul was the Christ or Son of God But the true State of the Question was and is whether he that outwardly suffered Death without the Gates of Jerusalem whom W. P. calls that outward Person in Distinction from the Light within which the Quakers will have to be the whole Christ according to G. Fox's Doctrine was and is not properly the Son of God which all sound Christians say according to Scripture he was and is being both God and Man and yet one Person one Christ one Son of God having his Godhead-Nature and his Manhood-Nature so united as

In the 4th Article of that Paper sign'd by G. W. I quoted these words The Divinity and Humanity i. e. Manhood of Christ Jesus that as he is true God and he is most glorious Man our Mediator and Advocate we livingly believe and have often sincerely confessed in our Publick Testimonies and Writings On this I noted That whatever seeming Confessions they have given in their publick Testimonies to this and other Doctrines yet seeing they have contradicted them most evidently in their printed Books and will not allow that they are chang'd in any one of their Principles they do Fallaciously and put a Cheat upon the Members of Parliament and the whole Nation A Quaker reply'd Dost thou think that the Members of Parliament are not more Wise than to suffer themselves to be cheated by the Quakers I answer'd It is one thing for the Quakers to put a Cheat upon them it is another thing for them to be cheated by them a Cheat may be put on Men and yet they not receive it I hope they are so wise as not to be deceived by them Some of the Quakers objecting That this tended to Persecution so to represent them I answered it tended to no Persecution being to rescue such from those Errors who were corrupted by them and prevent their further spreading and would they take my advice I would shew them a way to secure the Toleration unto them and that is by a free and plain Retractation of their gross Errors And for an evidence of their fallacious way of Speaking and Writing besides what was quoted and proved at the former Meeting to prove them grosly Erroneous concerning Christ his Humanity and Incarnation his Soul Body Flesh and Blood I brought a Quotation out of that call'd A Testimony for the true Christ printed 1668 and given forth as in the Title-Page from some of them call'd Quakers In page 4. As he speaks of Humane with relation to Nature and Body it hath relation to the Earth or Humus the Ground of which Man was made which the first Man is of not the second tho' he was really Man too but Humane or Humanity in the other sence with relation to Gentleness Mercifulness and the like this we know was and is in the Image of God in which Man was made and his Gentleness Kindness Mercifulness c. is manifested in Christ who is the Image of the invisible God and First-Born of every Creature which Image is not earthly for that must be put off but heavenly and so to be put on by all that come to know the Glory of the terrestrial in its place and the true and real Humanity as oppos'd to that Cruelty Envy and Inhumanity which is got up in Man since the Fall so that Humanity and the Unreasonableness of Beasts are two things Note Thus we see how they own Christ's Humanity not in the sence of Scripture and of all sound Christians viz. That the Word did take the real Nature of Man consisting of Soul and Body into a Personal Union with himself his Divinity and Humanity being two Natures distinguished in him but not divided and that he took a Body of Flesh and Blood the same in Nature with ours even our earthly Nature like to us in all things but without Sin but this they plainly deny That Christ had Humanity as it signifies Earthly but they tell in what sence they mean his Humanity viz. as it signifies Gentleness Mercifulness as oppos'd to Cruelty Envy and the unreasonableness of Beasts in which sence they may affirm all this of Christ's Divinity and Godhead That his Godhead is Humane i. e. Gentle Merciful Kind and yet believe not one tittle of Christ's Humanity as the Scripture holds it forth that is that he was really made of a Woman and had his Flesh of her Substance but this they not only here deny but G. F. expresly denyeth That Christ's Body was Earthly or of the Earth G. M. p. 322. He quotes his Opponent saying That Christ had and hath a Carnal Body A Carnal and Humane Body united to his Divinity In opposition to which he saith And Carnal Humane is from the Ground Humane Earthly the first Adam's Body and Christ was not from the Ground let all People read what thou say'st but he was from Heaven his Flesh came down from above his Flesh which was the Meat his Flesh came down from Heaven Again He quotes his Opponent saying That the Flesh of Christ is not in them he answers The Saints eat his Flesh and they that eat his Flesh hath it within them Again He quotes his Opponent That there is as much difference between a Body and a Spirit as there is between Light and Darkness he Answers Christ's Body is Spiritual and that which is Spiritual does not differ from the Spirit and so there is a spiritual Body and there is a natural Body and there is a spiritual Man and there is a natural Man and each hath their Body Note He plainly here denies a difference or distinction between Christ's Body of Flesh and his Spirit for he saith The Saints eat his Flesh and they that eat his Flesh hath it in them Now what Flesh can they have of Christ in them but what is merely Spirit whereas his Opponent and all Christians when they speak of Christs Flesh they meant a real Body as real as the Body of any other Man And whereas G. F. saith Christ's Flesh was not from the Ground or Earth the Scripture saith no such thing but the contrary that he did partake of the same Flesh and Blood with the Children wherefore he is not asham'd to call them Brethren * Heb. 2. 11 14. G. F. doth both Ignorantly and Fallaciously play and quible about the Word Carnal against his Opponent who said Christ had a Carnal Body he Answers Carnal indeed is Death saith the Scripture but here he belyes the Scripture it saith not the Carnal Body is Death but to be Carnally-minded is Death Could G. F. be so sottish as not to distinguish between a Carnal Body and a Carnal Mind His Opponents who said Christ had a Carnal Body united to the Divinity they meant not Carnal as it signifies Vicious or Corrupted but as it signifies Material i. e. a real Body as real a Bodily Substance as any other Man hath and tho' Christ's Body now in Heaven is a Spiritual Body yet it is a Body still and the same Body in Substance it was on Earth And when it was on Earth it was both a Material Body and yet in a sense a Spiritual i. e. a pure immaculate Body without all stain of Sin a most holy Body and in the like sense it might be said even when on Earth it was a heavenly Body to wit as opposed to sinful corrupt and tainted with Sin and not only so but in respect of its miraculous Conception by the Holy Ghost and the holy and heavenly Virtues it was endued with above the

Body of Adam in Innocency And thus the comparison is made betwixt the First Adam and the Second the first Man even as he was in Innocency is of the Earth Earthly his Body was Created or Made by God Almighty but was neither so wonderfully framed nor endued with such excellent Virtues as our Lord's Body was Tho' the Substance of both was the same in Specie or Kind yet the difference was great both in the manner of Production and the Virtues and Properties wherewith Christ's Body was endued above Adam's Body and chiefly in respect of the Hypostatical and Personal Union betwixt Christ's Body or Flesh and the Eternal Word Eternally Begotten of the Father It was an old Heresie of the Manicheans That Christ's Body that was Born of the Virgin had no part of her Body but did penetrate her Body as the Beams of the Sun penetrate Christal and did entirely come from Heaven which Heresie was reviv'd by Meno a Dutch-man but is effectually and solidly refuted by Calvin in his Institutions lib. 2. c. 13. And as to the Quakers arguing from 1 Cor. 15 47. The first man of the earth earthly the second Man the Lord from heaven that therefore his Body had not an earthly Substance which is the same Argument Manicheus used of old Calvin answereth solidly thus Manicheus aereum fabricatur Corpus quia vocetur Christus secundus Adam de Coelo Coelestis at neque illic essentiam corporis Coelestem inducit Apostolus sed vim spiritualem quaed Christo diffusa nos vivificat Sect. 2. i.e. Manicheus maketh him viz. Christ to have a Body of Air because he is call'd the Second Adam from heaven heavenly But neither doth the Apostle there infer that the Essence of his Body is heavenly but that there is a spiritual Virtue which being diffused from Christ doth quicken us Again Whereas G. W. saith Art 7. of that Paper Our really Believing and Confessing the Lord Jesus Christ his Passion Sufferings Death Atonement and Reconciliation made for us and his Resurrection Ascention and Glorification as without us according to Scripture cannot be to allegorize these away as if only transacted within us as we have been unduly accused for they were really done and transacted without us by our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ tho' our true knowledge of the Power and Effect of his Resurrection and Fellowship of his Sufferings and our being conformable to his Death must be experienc'd within us if ever we live and reign with him And in their Paper annexed Art 2. they say we sincerely Believe and Confess that Jesus of Nazareth who was Born of the Virgin Mary is the true Messiah the very Christ the Son of the Living God to whom all his Prophets gave Witness And we do highly value his Death Sufferings Works Offices and Merits for the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind together with his Laws Doctrine and Ministry Note That all this seemingly fair Confession cannot but be judged extremely Fallacious seeing they will not Retract any of their former assertions expresly contradictory to the same as is in great part already proved out of the above-given Quotations How do they sincerely Confess that Jesus of Nazareth who was Born of the Virgin Mary was the very Christ the Son of the Living God seeing they profess to be of one Faith with W. P. who saith That that Outward Person that Suffered at Jerusalem was properly the Son of God we utterly deny as above-quoted And to be of E. B.'s Faith who denyeth that Christ is in Heaven in our Nature And of G. F.'s Faith who denyeth That Christ's Body was from the Earth But yet more fully to detect their Fallacies Whereas G. W. saith Their really Believing and Confessing Christ's Passion Sufferings Death Atonement and Reconciliation made for us c. cannot be to allegorize these away as if only tranfacted within us as we have been unduly accused To detect his Fallacy here Note I know none that accuse them for holding that Christ's Birth and Death was only transacted within them they grant that a Man call'd Jesus of Nazareth was outwardly Born and Suffered Death but some of the chief of them have said That that Man was not properly the Christ nor Son of God but was by the metonymy of the thing Containing for the thing Contained so called so W. P. as above-quoted Next they make his being outwardly Slain and his Blood outwardly Shed and what was outwardly transacted by him both Actively and Passively a Figure of what he was to do and suffer in Men of his inward Crucifying his Blood inwardly Shed his Burial Resurrection and Ascension within them These outward transactions saith W. P. are so many facile representations of what was to be accomplished in Men as above-quoted and G. W. beside the Proofs already given out of his Books to that Effect he hath lately affirmed in his * Antidote p. 39. Antidote against the Venom of the Snake Printed in the Year 1697 That that Blood of his viz. Christ's outward Blood as well as the Water that came out of his Side with it had an ALLEGORICAL and MYSTERIOUS SIGNIFICATION as well as an Outward and Literal even of the Spiritual Blood and Water of Life which Christ our High Priest Sprinkleth and really Washeth our Hearts and Consciences withal which we hope no sensible Soul will say is an Outward or Literal Sprinkling or Washing but an Inward and Spiritual Note When we charge G. W. and his Brethren with Allegorizing away Christ's Birth Passion Death Burial Resurrection Blood Atonement and Reconciliation made for us c. the sense is obvious which is this That tho' they grant that a Man called Christ was outwardly Born Dyed had his Blood shed c. yet all this was an Allegory and had an Allegorical Signification of Christ truly and really without an Allegory Born within them Crucified and Dead within them his Blood shed within them Buried Risen Ascended within them Atonement Reconciliation made within them Now that this is so we have G. W.'s plain Confession in the Words just now quoted So that according to him Christ's Sufferings without his Blood shed without is the Allegory or Allegorical Signification of Christ's Sufferings within of his Blood shed within the Atonement made within as Hagar and Sarah who were real Women yet as Paul hath declar'd they are an Allegory of the Two Covenants and Types or Figures of them and as far short of the things signified by them as the Type is short of the Substance or thing signified for that is the true definition of an Allegory Where one thing is expressed and another thing is understood Now if Christ's Birth Sufferings Blood c. without Men be an Allegory or Allegorical Signification of Christ's Birth Sufferings Blood shed and sprinkled within Men that Within must be the Reality or Excellent thing signified or typified by the outward but both cannot be the Allegory as to say that as Christ's Blood

work by the Spirit 's help that are meritorious of Justification But this will not excuse them from Popery for even Bellarmine a great Popish Author and the other Popish Authors plead only for the merit of such good Works which merit by Condignity as wrought by the help of the Holy Spirit assisting them And his Sophistry is as dull in his drawing an Argument from 1 Cor. 1 30. That Christ is made unto us of God Wisdom and Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption therefore that Believers are justified by an Infinite Righteousness wrought in them and that Christ is formed in them Gal. 4. 19. And thus he will have Christ as held forth in that Text 1 Cor. 1. 30. not to be Christ God-Man without us from and by whom we receive Justification and Redemption and also divine Wisdom and Sanctification by his holy Spirit that he sendeth into our Hearts and by his holy Doctrine outwardly taught us but Christ formed in us he will have to be all this unto us Judgment Fixed p. 330. and Christ formed in us is the Seed and the Seed is God over all blessed for ever as above-quoted both out of G. W. and W. P. But what then is become of his Exposition that he gave in his Judgment Fixed above-quoted That this Birth viz. Christ formed in true Believers is not Christ Jesus for he is that incorruptible Seed and Word of Life which begets forms and brings forth the Soul of Man into his own Nature and Image and so Christ may be said to be formed in us in a Mysterious and Elegant way of speaking the Property and Effect being put for the Cause Thus we see how he wavers to and fro betwixt So and No and No and So sometimes This and sometimes That and sometimes neither This nor That a Phrase that S. F. used to some of his Opponents but very justly apply'd to G. W. But differing senses and meanings are more tolerable for a Man to put on his Words than plain contradictions and especially in Matters Fundamental as these are Next let us hear what W. P. hath said on the Doctrine of Justification and how J. Wyeth in his Switch defends him W. Penn in his Serious Apology p. 148 gives the charge of his Opponent thus That we deny Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us and therefore deny the Lord that bought us W. P. Answers And indeed this we deny and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption which does now deluge the whole World What saith Jos Wyeth that hardy Champion to this Switch p. 238. Yes it is still true and that we do deny and boldly affirm to be the Doctrine of Devils and for our so denying and affirming we have the warrant of Holy Writ wherein is abundantly testifyed of the Spirit of Christ in Man to which he must be obedient in order to his Justification for which he quotes Rom. 3. 24 28. Rom. 5. 1. Titus 3. 7. and concludes then not wholly without us Note Here J. Wyeth acts the dull Sophister as much as his Elder Brother G. W. by perverting the true state of the Question as is their frequent manner The Question is not What is necessary by way of Instrument or Instrumental Application or Preparatory Condition in order to Justification such as Faith and Repentance for such are granted to be necessary in order to Justification as the stretching out the Hand is necessary to receive an Alms or free Gift and the opening the Mouth is necessary to receive Food but the true state of the Question is What is the procuring and purchasing Cause of our Justification before God by way of Merit or the Meritorious Cause of our Justification whether the Righteousness of Christ that he wrought without us by his Active and Passive Obedience above Sixteen Hundred Years ago Yea or Nay If Yea surely that is wholly without us but this says W. P. and J. W. is a Doctrine of Devils and G. W. chargeth T. D. with ignorance and false Doctrine for affirming it as above-quoted and yet it is the very plain Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures Isa 53. 4 5 11 12. Rom. 3. 21 22 23 24 25 28. Rom. 4. 4 11. Rom. 5. 18. Gal. 3. 22. 2 Cor. 5. 21. There are other Arguments which W. P. useth in his Serious Apology some of which I shall mention not to refute them for the least Child in Christianity may do that but to show his Error one of which is Death came by actual Sin not imputative therefore Justification unto Life comes by actual Righteousness and not imputative Another is This speaks Peace to the Wicked Another is Men are Dead and Alive at the same time by this Doctrine Note He perverts the state of the Question his Opponents do not say That Wicked and Unsanctified Persons are justified but if none be justified but who are Perfect vvith a Sinless Perfection and have not the least impurity then neither W. P. nor any Quaker ever vvas or is justified for vvhatever they boast of their Sinless Perfection their vile Errors Pride and Uncharitableness as vvell as other their Imperfections demonstrate the contrary Another of his Arguments is against our Justification by Christ's Righteousness without us Our rejoycing must be in our selves and not in another thus perverting Paul's Words Gal. 6. 4. But let every Man prove his own work and then shall he have rejoycing in himself and not in another But doth this exclude our rejoycing in Christ Jesus our Head who to be sure is another O sad How contrary to this is Philip 3. 3. For we are the Circumcision which worship God in the Spirit and rejoyce in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the Flesh by this Argument of W. P. he for himself and his Brethren whose Faith he pretends to deliver renounces all Rejoycing as well as Faith and Righteousness in Christ without us yea and in Christ within them also for Christ within them if he be within them is Another Dare W. P. or G. W. say Christ in W. P. or G. W. is W. P. or G. W. But whereas G. W. in his Printed Paper above-quoted call'd A Few Positions c. saith We highly do value and esteem his Christ's Sufferings Death Precious Blood and whole Sacrifice for Sinners For a Proof of his Insincerity and Sophistry in this I shall produce some following Quotations what G. W. means by his Precious Blood and whether he put the due value upon Christ's Blood that was outwardly shed or upon another sort of inward Blood I cannot say of his and his Brethrens inventing but what they received from Familists and Ranters tho' they pretend to have it by immediate Inspiration to wit an inward Blood that is the Atonement and Sacrifice for Sin which Blood G. W. will not allow to be the