Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	person_n	personal_a	union_n	7,677	5	9.6215	5	true

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

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

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

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

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-Godhead-Nature and his manhood-Manhood-Nature so united as

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

Lines immediately going before the Quotation W. Burnet clears the matter That he was not for having People go on Pilgrimage to Jerusalem either for Christ or to Christ W. Burnet in his Capital Principles p. 24. Israel of old he saith were commanded to go up to the literal Temple at Jerusalem to worship but now God's Worshippers may worship him each one in his Respective Place Yea G.W. in his Light and Life takes that to be W. Burnet's Sense That Christ was to be sought and found at such a Distance by Faith and yet he still objects against Christ sought at a Distance without us even by Faith as in Heaven above the Clouds or as he suffered at Jerusalem I ask saith he if the Object or Foundation of the Faith he divided from the Faith From which reasoning it is evident he is against Christ as without us as at a distance either as he suffered at Jerusalem or as he is now in Heaven to be the Object of our Faith And whereas in that called Some Account from Colchester they quote Rom. 10. 6 7 8. and set down the Words at full Length why do they not quote and set down the Words in p. 9 10. That if thou shall confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thine Heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved By all the things that have been objected against G.W. to move him to give some confession of his Faith in the Man Christ as he suffered and rose again without us and is now in Heaven without us in that very created Nature of the Soul and Body of Man he had on Earth as in Union with the eternal Word and that as such he is the great Object of our Faith for Remission of Sin yet he cannot be drawn to it which still shews he remains in his vile Antichristian Doctrine As to his seeming Confession to Christ without in his Supplement to the Switch we shall see ere long in its Place In his Truth and Inn. p. 54. he seeks to excuse W. P's Saying in his Quakerism a new Nick-name p. 6. Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation has been a deadly Poison these later Ages has been infected with G. W's Defence is 'T is making Faith in the History thereof that is in Opposition to his Power and Work in the Soul and to Godly living as is evident in the Place quoted But did I. Faldo W. P's Opponent make Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation in Opposition to his Power and Work in the Soul Nay surely nor did any other of their Opponents teach such Doctrine But this is the common way of G.W. and his Brethren to cloak their own vile Errors they will misrepresent their Opponents Principles It 's sufficiently evident from G. W's Doctrine that he has all along opposed Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation as necessary to Salvation and it will yet further appear Again he excuses W. P's Saying Truth and Inn. p. 55. And since they believe that outward Appearance i.e. of Jesus at Jerusalem they need not preach what is to be main by telling us he means They need not always preach it where it is believed and comesseth all true Quakers own that visible Appearance of Christ Note this is an evidenly apparent Strain W. P's Reason why the Quakers need not preach Christ's outward Appearance as he suffered Death was that it was not to be again which makes it unnecessary to be preached But this Liberty of G.W. and I. Weyeth and others of adding and taking away material Words is so intolerable where the plain Sense will bear no such Addition nor taking away that at this rate nothing so false but shall be made to seem true But why need they not always to preach it Suppose the Quakers believe it do not they preach always the Light within and do not the Quakers generally believe it and divers other Principles they prosess How shall their Children have the Faith of it without preaching Doth the Light within so reach it that they have it without preaching But how do they believe it Only histostically It is no necessary Article of their Faith to be preached or believed to Salvation the Light within is sufficient to Salvation without any thing else The like Fallacy and Sophistry he useth to excuse W. Shewen's Saying Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary but to God the Father all Worship Honour and Glory is to be given But to hide his Fallacy he gives a lame Quotation The Words being Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary nor to Saint nor Angel but to God the Father he saith he knows his Intent was Not to Jesus only as the Son of Abraham But then if the Word Only must be added as explanatory to one Part of the Sentence it must be added to the other Part of the same Sentence and so it will run thus Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David Mary nor to Saint and Angel only but to God the Father all Worship c. Is not this a fair Excuse by which to cover their vile Heresie they will run into Popish Idolatry they are not to give Worship to Saints and Angels only but to God Note G.W. writes this contrary to what he knoweth in his Conscience to be true for he was present at that Meeting in London 1678. where W.S. and others blamed me for praying to Jesus Christ in the Passage above quoted in my Book called The Way cast up c. Beside it was no Part of the Controversie betwixt the Quakers and the Church of England or Dissenters That Christ was to be prayed to only as the Son of Abraham But is G.W. now in good earnest in thus excusing W.S. Is he for giving divine Worship to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary in any respect seeing he hath denied that the true Jesus did consist of a Body of Flesh and Bone or that he hath a created Soul and Body as above quoted But let us once more hear how he excuseth that Passage of W. Penn his Address to Protestants p. 119. Let us but soberly consider what Christ is and we shall the better know whether moral Men are to be reckoned Christians what is Christ but Meekness Justice Mercy Patience Charity and Virtue in Perfection G.W. saith W.P. did not design thereby to lessen the Power or Dignity of Christ who is the Author of these Virtues no more than the Apostles did in saying He Christ is made of God unto us Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption spoken in the Abstract and the Prophet saying God is my Light and my Salvation though God and Christ also be the Author of Redemption and Salvation This is also a sophistical Evasion when Paul said Christ was made of God unto us Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption he meant not the Light within as it is in meer moral Heathens but so W.P. meant 〈◊〉 but Paul did really

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