Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	father_n	son_n	subsist_v	3,592	5	11.9300	5	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

he had Witness to prove it G. F. told him He was a Judas and he went away and after a while hanged himself and Christ in the Male and in the Female if he speak he was Christ the Seed and the Seed was Christ but he did not speak it as a Creature Note he grants he spoke the Words That he was Christ but he did not speak it as a Creature therefore he thought he was something more than a Creature the Seed in him spoke it which was Christ and that was not a Creature but what Seed was in him or in other Quakers that was not a Creature I cannot find out any other in his Writings but his Soul or invisible Part that he makes to be Christ and a Part of God as will afterwards appear on a distinct Head But he has yet another Defence to save the like blasphemous Saying of F. Howgel They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God in Nature but not in Stature It having been objected against the Quakers that some of them have said They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God To this F. Howgel answers after some foregoing Words F. Howgel's Col. p. 232. He that is born from above is the Son of God and he said I and my Father are one and where the Son is revealed and speaks the Father speaks in him and dwells in him and he in thy Father there is Equality in Nature though not in Stature Here it is a plain Case that F. H. places this Equality in Nature but not in Stature betwixt him that has the Spirit of God who is born from above and God himself for to place it betwixt Christ as he was the Son of God before all Ages and God the Father were to say That the Son is equal with the Father in Nature but not in Stature which has a twofold Error in it first To make a Distinction betwixt God's Nature and Stature Secondly Suppose that Distinction That the Son is equal to the Father in Nature but not in Stature both which are most gross and blasphemous and no less gross and blasphemous it is to affirm That the Saints are equal with God in Nature but not in Stature Now let us hear G. VVhitehead's Defence Truth and Inn. p. 10. The Equality in Nature objected relates to the Divine Nature which the Child of God partakes of in Measure though not in Stature relates to the Child that Divine Nature is one and unchangeable but our participating of it and Growth in it is gradual until all i. e. Christ's whole Church and Body come into the Measure of the Stature of the Fullness of Christ But doth all this Saying of G. VV. prove that the Children of God are equal with God either in Nature or Stature The Saints are said in Scripture to be Partakers of the Holy Ghost are they therefore equal to the Holy Ghost Which yet is the Way of G. VV's reasoning the Equality in Nature he says relates to the Divine Nature but who is it that is equal to God in the Divine Nature but not in Stature was it the Son or Holy Chost that is equal to God in the Divine Nature but not in Stature Nay therefore it must be the Saints or Believers here a Proposition is framed They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God and then this Distinction is given They are equal in Nature but not in Stature This Proposition hath for its Subject They i. e. the Saints or Children of God In all Propositions all the Parts of the Predicate belong to one and the same Subject the which Parts are equal in Nature but not in Stature But it is an unaccountable Liberty that G. VV. takes in his Way of defending these Blasphemies not only to change the Signification of Words from all common Use but the unalterable Rules of right Reason as in the present Case like as if one should say G. VVhitehead is equal to A. B. in Nature but not in Stature Nature relates to G. W. but not in Stature relates to another but who is this other who can tell Or as if one should say G. W. is a Man but not honest Man relates to G. Whitehead but not honest relates to another It is a real Shame that such pittiful Sophistry should be used by G. W. to defend his and his Brethrens vile Errors and Blasphemies whereby he makes himself guilty of them and all to save his and their pretended Infallibility It were much more Manly as well as Christian fairly to acknowledge and retract those most erronious Passages and own their Fallibility and Error and be contented to be lifted among fallible Men for humanum est errare labi decipi and not only so but to be greatly humbled for the Presumption that being Men they should equal themselves to God But the general Conceit of their sinless Perfection as they are a Body of People is such that both G. W. and Jos Wyeth doth justifie W. P's objecting to the Church of England their praying from seven to seventy Lord be merciful to us miserable Sinners G. VV. saith in Truth and In. p. 15. Alas poor Sinners Is not a Sign of Laughter at ●hem but rather of Lamentation and Pity over their miserable Estate who are always 〈◊〉 but not forsaking their Sins The like Answer doth J. VVyeth give in the Note Is not this a plain Evidence of the great Pride that is among the Quakers concerning their sinless Perfection As a Body of People and their great Uncharitableness towards not only the Church of England but all others called Christians throughout the whole World yea all Christians in all Ages and the universal Church of God both under the old and new Testament who always used Confession of Sin and prayed for Forgiveness of Sin find as Christ taught his Disciples to pray daily for their daily Bread so to pray daily for Forgiveness of Sins So under the old Testament there were daily Offerings for Sin and the High Priest however so holy yet offered both for his own Sins and the Sins of the People Doth it therefore follow that their Confessions and Offerings were hypocritical But doth not G. VV. know that as there is a gradual going unto Perfection so there is a gradual forsaking of Sin and a putting off the old Man with his Deeds Must not they who feel themselves wounded with Sin seek for a Cure And should not the diseased come daily to the Phisician till they be cured And as to the Quakers Uncharitableness and G. VV's especially towards all in the Church of England whom he chargeth without Exception that they are still confessing but not forsaking their Sins How can he more prove this Charge against them than his own Society or himself Many both in the Church of England and other Protestants can compare with the best of the Quakers for Holiness of Life and exceed them in many Virtues especially in

acknowledged his Error than to lay the Fault upon as wrong writ or wrong printed And if he corrected them long since how comes it that he never published his Correction in any of the Books he has published since betwixt the Year 1655. and 1690. containing the space of 36. Years But for evidence against him that he hath not sincerely said That he writ not that Part of the Book it is enough that he owned it and this I can prove that without Exception he owned it to be his jointly with these others who signed it with him as appears from his Truth defending the Quakers p. 1. printed four Years after the Ishmael And he belches out the like antichristian and profane Expressions against the three Persons in the Godhead in Terms equivalent to those in the Ishmael He saith in his first Page in Answer to the first Question Do not you repent for your endeavouring vainly to defend August 29. 1659. in so great a Congregation these Positions printed in a Book writ by George Whitehead He answers for himself and his Brethren thus The Positions we defended are according to the Scriptures of Truth and them we need not repent of These were they contained in that very Book called Ishmael as doth appear out of the Book Ishmael it self here the Book was produced one of which Positions were in asserting the Scriptures or Writing not to be the Word Another was That there is no such Word in the Scriptures as Three Persons in the Trinity but it is a Popish Doctrine as the Mass or Common-Prayer-Book mentions it Fourthly And thou that affirms three distinct Persons in the Godhead art a Dreamer and he that dreams and tells Lies contrary to the Scriptures of Truth which we own he with his Imaginations and Dreams is for the Lake Here it is plain that by his Imaginations and Dreams G.W. meant the Ministers Doctrines of calling the Scriptures the Word and affirming that there are three Persons in the Godhead so whereas he said in his Ishmael Townsend and the three Persons are shut up in perpetual Doctrines Here in Truth defending c. he saith He with his Imaginations and Dreams that is the three Persons is for the Lake Now this is not one whit more sober than his Words in the Ishmael how then is it that G. Whitehead has not found some shift to put this part of his Truth defending upon another Again in his Truth defending c. p. 25. he plainly owns that Book called Ishmael to be his four Years after it was printed and now though in his Truth defending c. he saith That he and his Brethren need not repent of the Positions laid down in that called Ishmael yet now in the Year 1690. in his Christianity he saith He was sorry his Name was to that Paper and yet as before is mentioned in Truth defending p. 1. he saith They need not repent of it Is not this a plain Change in G. W. He need not repent of what was writ and yet was sorry that it was writ Formerly he owned that Book in the Year 1659 and in the Year 1690 He writ not that Part and was sorry it was writ and all this without any Change in his Mind But when People are sorry for what they do we commonly reckon they repent of it This offensive Passage objected against G. Whitehead out of his Ishmael was objected against him by Christopher Wade in his Quakery slain p. 9. printed in 1657. And though G. W. printed against C. Wade in his Truth defending 1659. yet he then took no notice of that Passage to disown it to be his But how is it that G. W. disowns what was written in the Book called Ishmael against the three Persons Doth he now own the three Persons not to be Popish as he formerly charged them Truth def p. 2 Though he has not in the least retracted his abusive and reviling Speeches against this glorious Truth both in the Ishmael and in his Truth defending c. for that would reflect upon his Infallibility yet he would seem now to own the Doctrine of the three Persons since the Act for Toleration came forth for that Act of Toleration does except those who deny in their preaching or writing the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity as it is declared in the Articles of Religion viz. the 39 Articles But that G. W. may have the Benefit of the Act which at present he has not by Law whatever he has by Indulgence he ought also to disown some other abusive Expressions of his and sophistical Arguings he has used in his other Books as particularly not only in his Truth defending c. above mentioned but in his Divinity of Christ signed by the two Letters G. W. see p. 18. he hath these Words As to T. D ' s telling of the Son of God's Incarnation the Creation of his Body and Soul the Parts of that Nature be subsisted in c. To this I say saith G. W. if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both created doth not this render him a fourth Person And as nonsensical and abusive is the reasoning of G. Fox their great Apostle in the Epistle prefixed to the Divinity signed by him and John Stubbs where in the 9th Page of that Epistle they thus argue And he speaks again in his 14th Page of three distinct Persons are one with the Godhead Now Reader is not here four to wit three Persons and the Godhead And thus G. F. and G. W. make no less by their wild and nonsensical Reasonings than five Persons in the Godhead an Absurdity they would fix on the Doctrine of three Persons for by their Arguments the Godhead is the fourth Person and Christ's created Soul and Body is the fifth Do not these Passages require a Retractation and will they say they are Protestants and one with the Church of England in Matter of Doctrine and in the common Principles of Christianity and yet boldly stand in the Defence of those abusive Passages But whereas they argue ad hominem that there must be five Persons if Father Son and Holy Ghost be said to be three Persons seeing G. W. calls them three Witnesses by their nonsensical Argument there must be five Witnesses that bear Record in Heaven viz. the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and the Godhead these are four and the created Soul and Body of Christ that is the fifth But G.W. has a way to evade this last by denying that Christ has any created Soul or Body as in the Words in p. 18. above mentioned doth appear for which I shall have some use hereafter Jos Wyeth in his Switch p. 184. would make his Readers believe It 's only the Word Person they object against as too gross We cannot saith he but think the VVord Person too gross to express them But to detect this Fallacy pray let us take notice that G. F. whom he calls an Apostle has expresly

to constitute one Christ which is by a miraculous and extraordinary Union that no other Creatures neither Angels or Men are dignified with and though Christ as Man was the Son of God miraculously conceived and born in Time and also as God was by a Generation from Eternity before all Worlds and Times yet he is but one Son of God and because of the personal Union of the Word with his Manhood both as God and Man he is properly the Son of God But there is yet another Fallacy in G. W's Words which is that neither the visible Body nor Manhood that was born of the Virgin was any Part of the true Christ or Son of God and first As to that visible Body of Flesh and Bones he denies that Christ consisted of it I distinguish said he between consisting and having Christ had visible Flesh and Bones but he did not consist of them Christian Quaker p. 139 140. This shews us the very Heart of their Heresie In like manner W. P's Rejoinder p. 299 to 307. W. P. argues for 16. Pages in his Rejoinder against Faldo That Christ never died for they will not have any thing properly to be the Christ but his Godhead which they make to be all one identically and essentially with his Heavenly Mandhood consisting of Heavenly Flesh and Blood that he had from all Eternity Here a Quaker called John Whiting opposed in Defence of W. Penn and said W. Penn did not deny that that outward Person was the Son of God I askt him whose Son was he properly He said The Son of Mary I replied Mary was his Mother but who was his Father properly He said He was conceived by the Holy Ghost I again replied But that 's no Answer to my Question who was his Father Every Son must have a Father and seeing Christ had no immediate Father but God then surely he was properly the Son of God as the Scripture plainly testifieth To this he made no Reply but opposed in Defence of G. W. I having said that G. W. denied that visible Body that hung on the Cross to be any Part of the true Christ I replied I have proved it already by the late Quotation here read wherein he says He denies that Christ consisted of Flesh and Bones I distinguish said he between consisting and having Christ had Flesh and Bones but did not consist of them as a Man has a Coat or Garment but doth not consist of it and that outward Person that suffered at Jerusalem was Christ by a Metonimy saith VV. P. of the thing containing having the Name of the thing contained And at this rate VV. P. himself may be called Christ because he hath Christ in him The Excuse That Christ did not Meerly consist of Flesh and Bones signifies nothing for that was no Part of the Question betwixt G.VV. and his Opponent None ever said That Christ did meerly consist of Flesh Blood and Bones no Socinian will so affirm for that were to say Christ was meerly a Body of Flesh and Bones without a rational Soul whatever hath Parts doth consist of those Parts incompleatly of one or more Parts compleatly of them all The Foundation of the Quakers great Error on this Head lieth here That because Christ was before the Body was therefore that Body is no Part of him which is easily answered thus Christ was before that Body was but he was not compleatly and in all Respects fitted to be the anointed Saviour of the World until the Word was made Flesh i. e. until the Word did take our Flesh and whole Nature into a personal Union with himself the which was necessary to the compleat Performance of his Mediatory Offices of King Priest and Prophet and especially of his Priestly Office And not only G. VV. hath denyed Christ to have any created Body whereof he consists but he hath denyed that he hath any created Soul in his Answer to T. Danson ' s Synopsis p. 18. As to T. Danson's telling of the Son of God's Incarnation the Creation of his Body and Soul the Parts of that Nature he subsisted in c. To this I say if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both created doth not this render him a fourth Person For Creation was in Time which contradicts their Doctrine of three distinct increated coeternal coessential Persons in the Deity seeing that which was created was not so But herein whether doth not his and their Ignorance of the only begotten of the Father and their Denial of Christ's Divinity plainly appear yea or nay VVhere doth the Scripture say that his Soul was created For was not he the Brightness of his Father's Glory and the express Image of his Divine Substance But supposing the Soul of Christ was with the Body created in time I ask if from Eternity he was a Person distinct from God and his holy Spirit without either Soul or Body and where doth the Scripture speak of any Person without either Soul or Body T. Elwood to cover this gross Error of G.VV. in his pretended Answer to my first Narrative saith That G. W. only denyed that Christ had a created Soul as God But this was not the State of the Question for neither T. D. nor any other Man were ever so gross as to affirm that Christ as God had a created Soul And the like Evasion doth G. VV. use himself in his Antidote p. 191. This Question saith he is no Determination that it was or was not Christ as God his Soul was increated as Man his Soul or Spirit was not the Deity but formed and assumed by the VVord But it 's Evident that his accusing T. D. and others of Ignorance for saying it was created determines it sufficiently But as is above said G. W. and his Brethren will have only the Godhead to be the Christ which they call The Heavenly Man having Soul and Body Flesh Blood and Bones uncreated and existing from all Eternity which they call The Seed within them the Seed of the Woman that bruiseth the Serpent's Head which G. F. as is above quoted denyeth to be a Creature What the Seed spoke in him he said he spoke it not as a Creature therefore that Heavenly Man or Seed consisting of Heavenly Flesh and Blood which they say is in them not being a Creature must needs in their Sense be from all Eternity and not from the Beginning of the World only This appears yet more fully from R. Hubberthorn When was that Christ created R. Hub. Coll. p. 49 50. which you say must as a Creature judge the World And if in Mary's Time who was Judge of the World till then Was not the Person of Christ Jesus before the World was Note here he owns Christ to be a Person and by G. W's Argument above mentioned he must being a Person have both Soul and Body before the World was And when had the Man Christ Jesus his Beginning If you can declare it how is

Christ the only begoten Son of God if he be a Creature Or how can God beget a Creature And if the whole Person of Christ was not before the Barthly Adam how was the Creation made by him or how can he be of the Nature of fallen Adam and not Earthly and defiled and is the Flesh of Christ Heavenly or Earthly or is he Christ without his Flesh Agreeable to this He Goar● Horn p. 11 12. is the Doctrine of both G. W. and E. B. G. Whitehead doth severely blame John Horne and T. Moor for saying That Christ took upon him their Nature And though they did well distinguish betwixt our Nature as in us it is corrupt by Sin since the Fall and as in Christ not corrupt and filthy yet by no means will he allow this Distinction nor will he allow That it 's one and the same Nature in the Gentiles by which they did the things contained in the Law and by which they broke the Law and he makes the sinful Nature and the pure Nature to be two Natures this agrees with G. F's Doctrine afterwards quoted That the Nature in us that doth the Will of God is Christ the Seed but the Nature in us that sinneth is the Devil the Serpent the Lust so that there is nothing in Mens Bodies but Christ or God and the Devil the Serpent Sin and Lust there is no reasonable created Soul in Men that at one time sinneth and afterwards is cleansed from Sin and obeyeth the Will of God yet still remaining one and the same Nature in Essence and Substance Next let us hear E. Bur. in his Collection p. 301. Thou sayest in that Answer that Christ ascended to the Right Hand of the Father in your Nature Mark now thy Nature and your Nature who are one with thee is sinful and wicked and of the Devil for so are all Liers and it is Blasphemy to say sinful wicked devillish Nature such as John Bunnion's is and his Fellows is at the Right Hand of God in Heaven Oh Horrible Again he saith p. 306. That Christ ascended into Heaven in our Nature viz. in his Nature and they that are one with him and he and they are proved to be in corrupt Nature as they will confess it O what Wickedness is it to hold forth That Christ is at the Right Hand of God in sinful Nature as his Words hold forth from his own Mouth Note His Opponent did not say sinful Nature but our Nature But seeing E. B. makes them both one that it cannot be our Nature that Christ hath in Heaven except it be sinful Nature This is to make Sin to be essential to our Nature which is a most vile and gross Heresie and agrees with that above mentioned of G.F. and G. W. That there are but two Natures in Man's Body the one that is divine and of God's Essence that neither doth nor can sin the other of the Devil that sinneth and can do no good So there is no Soul left in Man that is neither God nor the Devil nor any Part of either by these Mens Doctrine But what doth G. W. and his Brethren then say to W. Penn in his Primitive Christianity where he saith p. 85. That we do we bless God religiously believe and confess to the Glory of God the Father and the Honour of his dear and beloved Son that Jesus Christ took our Nature upon him and was like unto us in all things Sin excepted And p. 87. We say that he then overcame our common Enemy foiled him in the open Field viz. at his Death and in our Nature triumphed over him that had overcome and triumphed over it in our Forefather Adam and his Posterity and that as truly as Christ overcame him in our Nature in his own Person c. But possibly some will say W. P. by our Nature did mean the Quakers Nature which is not sinful but not the Priests Nature which is sinful But first was not the Quakers Nature once sinful as really as the Nature of other Men And doth no Sin cleave to the Nature of any Quaker at this Day But secondly W. P. tells us Our Nature which Christ took was that over which our common Enemy had triumphed in our Forefather Adam and his Posterity Now except the Quakers will say They are none of Adam ' s Posterity they must grant that according to W. P. Christ did take not only the Nature of the Quakers but the Nature of other Men which hath been defiled by Sin both in them and us What shall we now say of the great Unity that the Teachers of the Quakers boast of in Doctrine as well as in Spirit Whereas we see that what W. P. owns as a Part of his and his Brethrens Faith and for which he saith They bless God E. Burrough who was owned as a Prophet among them and was in greater Repute and more deserving then than ever W. P. was or now is E. B. hath past Sentence on it That it is horrible Blasphemy For if Christ took our Nature and triumphed over the common Enemy in our Nature surely he rose from the dead in our Nature and ascended into Heaven in our Nature which E. B. hath judged to be Blasphemy and Wickedness Here I asked John Whiting of which of these two Faiths he was whether that of G. W. and E. B. who said Christ was not in Heaven in our Nature or that of W. P. who said Christ took our Nature and triumphed in our Nature He replied He was of the Faith of both By which Answer he made himself very ridiculous and obnoxious to the general Censure of the Auditory who cried out against him as at several other times many cried out at his and his Brethrens Impertinencies and absurd Answers After the same manner doth W. Penn labour to excuse and cloak his and his Brethrens vile Heresie That he who died at Jerusalem was not properly the Son of God as is set down at the End of Truth and Innocency recommended by G. W. And W. P. thinks he has fairly defended himself Truth and Ion. p. 72. by what he formerly said viz. That he that laid down his Life and suffered his Body to be crucified by the Jews without the Gates of Jerusalem is Christ the only Son of the most High God But to assert the Body which suffered and died was properly the entire Son of God this brings him more under the Charge of making him but a meer Man than us who acknowledge him to be one with the Father and of a Nature eternal and immortal But here are two Fallacies one is He that laid down his Life and suffered his Body to be crucified is Christ the only Son of the most High God But by this HE he means only the Godhead or the Word This is the entire Christ by his Doctrine and this HE suffered his Body to be crucified but how was it his Body Not as any Part of the

for would not the Quakers account it a great Sin and Trespass if any of the Church of England or Dissenter should sit in one of their Galleries where they stand to preach and kneel at Prayer and mend an old Doublet while they are preaching in their Meeting Places Surely they would greatly aggravate it and call it rude and unmannerly and profane Again whereas they query Where dost thou read in the Scripture that Men must do no Work on the first Day of the Week And this Query is made to justifie the Quaker's sitting on the Communion Table to mend an old Doublet on the first Day in time of Divine Service Is not this a great Shame to print and reprint such avowed Profanation of the Lord's Day and Worship also in the Face of a Protestant Nation that zealously profess to be against the Profanation of it and where are standing Laws against the Profanation of it Note here that whereas the Quakers affirm that what they speak and write is immediately and infallibly from God their professed Principle obligeth them to hold that what they speak and write is of greater Certainty and consequently of greater Authority than the Scriptures because they are certain of what they speak and write from the Spirit in themselves but they are not certain of the Writings of the Scriptures as W. P. argues in his Discourse concerning the General Rule They have not the Autographa the Copies differ and so do the Translations but they have their own Autographa and their Books and Writings are from the Original immediately Thus when G. W. sent me his Curse Thus saith the Lord c. and signed G. W. This had more Authority with him than the Scripture by his own Doctrine and if he please let him add simply considered as without the Spirit Proofs on the fourth Head Concerning the Holy Trinity GEorge Whitehead G. W's Truth and Inn. p. 50. in his Truth and Inn. and Jos Wyeth in his Switch pretends That it is not the Doctrine or thing intended that they deny i. e. the Father the Word and Holy Spirit which three are one And saith Jos Switch p. 184. Wyeth We own their Distinction in all the Instances of it recorded in Holy Writ The only thing they pretend to scruple at or deny is the calling them three Persons which they say are not Scripture Terms and they are wholly for keeping to Scripture Terms in Matters of Doctrine But to this I say ' first How many unscripture Terms do they freequently use Where do they find in Scripture the Term immediate Revelation immediate teaching of the Spirit immediate Word which they so commonly use Again where do they find in Scripture That see G. M. p. 324. the Seed to which the Promise of Salvation is is Christ within Several Papers c. p. 47. And that Expression where do they find it in Scripture That the same Spirit takes upon it the same Seed which is Christ now as ever c. That God the Father took upon him Humane Nature That the Spirit is the Rule and many more not only unscripture Terms but contrary to Scripture But why do they call them Three Witnesses as G. W. hath so expresly called them Where do they find them in Scripture so called That Place in John's first Epistle doth not call them Three Witnesses but Three bearing Record or witnessing But it is not only the Words Three Persons wherewith they are offended th● unjustly for personal Acts and Properties are given to them and therefore according to plain Consequence from Scripture they may be called Persons but the Doctrine or thing intended they deny for they allow not that they are distinct otherwise than in Manifestation see G. W's Divinity of Christ p. 94. he saith The Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit or the Father Son and Holy Ghost are one and inseparable no where in Scripture called three separate Persons nor finite in Personalities though Three in Manifestation and so testified of as Three Witnesses for the Confirmation of the Gospel Note Seeing G. W. doth not own them to be Three otherwise but in Manifestation this is not only to deny the Names or Words Three Persons but to deny that they were Three from all Eternity or before all Ages for there was no Manifestation either of One or Two or Three from Eternity His calling them Three in Manifestation is to call them three Manifestations and seeing all Manifestation has a Beginning with Time by his Doctrine there were not Father Son and Holy Ghost three any wise distinct from Eternity There was no God the Father from Eternity that did beger nor no Son from Eternity that was begotten nor Holy Ghost that from Eternity did proceed from the Father and the Son by G. VVhitehead's Doctrine And F. Hougil in his Collection p. 308. delivers the same erronious Doctrine He saith That the Holy Ghost is called another than Christ Another is not understood of another Life of another Substance but is understood of another Manifestation or Operation of the same God who subsists in the same Power in which the Father the Son and the Spirit subsist as I said unto thee before Another as to distinguish of the Operation and VVork of the Spirit and of the Son we do not refuse By this Doctrine of F. Hougil they are but distinct Manifestations Operations and Works Now if G. VV. or the Author of the Switch will say that there were three Manifestations Operations or Works in the Godhead from all Eternity It is absurd to suppose such Manifestations beside that they are unscripture Terms the same Arguments that they use against three Persons will as much and indeed much more be of Force against three Manifestations for if the Father be a Manifestation from Eternity of what is he a Manifestation Can he be a Manifestation of himself Or is he a Manifestation of the Son who as they say is a Manifestation Thus one Manifestation would be the Manifestation of another Manifestation but then what would the Holy Spirit be a Manifestation of And seeing in God there are no Accidents these three Manifestations are not three Accidents nor three Subsistences nor three Substances nor three Persons and consequently according to these Men they are nothing at all but their own Inventions But VV. Penn in his Sandy Foundation has not only argued against three Persons but against the Holy Three for he bringeth five Arguments against their being a Holy Three Page 12 13 14. one of which is this in express Words Since the Father is God the Son is God and the Spirit is God which their Opinion necessitates them to confess then unless the Father Son and Spirit are three distinct nothings they must be three distinct Substances and consequently three distinct Gods Now let his Argument be applied to the unscripture Terms three Manifestations and it will have the same Force or rather

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