this cannot be true unless it be the same It that is the same Body which is spoke of in both Branches of the Comparison The Objection is in these words If the It in the Text be not the same Body how can it be callâ—d a Resurrection for that supposeth the same I Answer says Mr. Penn If a thing can yet be the same and notwithstanding Changed for shame let us never make so much stir against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for the Absurdity of it is rather out-done than equallâ—d by this Carnal Resurrection First the Church of Rome owes Mr. Penn thanks for so very kind a Representation of Transubstantiation as to make it stand upon a better foot than the Resurrection of the Body which is an Article in our Creed and receiv'd by the Catholick Church in All Ages Secondly This is answering one Objection with another But Thirdly as to his Objection Cannot he apprehend a thing to be Changed in many of its Qualities and yet remain the same in its Substance For that is the present Question Quite contrary to that of Transubstantiation which supposes a Change of the Substance the Qualities or Accidents remaining the same What does he think Was not Christ's Body Changed in his Transfiguration upon the Mount Was it not therefore the same Body or did Christ take a New Body That wou'd have been Death For after a Soul is Hypostatically that is Personally united to a Body their separation is call'd Death Unless he thinks that Christ took a Body no otherwise than as Angels have done that is not into any Hypostatical Union with his Person but only as a Cloak or a Veil which he might throw off and put on again without any alteration as to his Person And if so then Christ did not die upon the Cross more than upon the Mount that is He only put off that Bodily Garment but that was no Death more than an Angel is said to die when he lays down that Body which he took up only for an occasion But this will be discours'd of more fully in the Section concerning the Divinity of Christ In the mean time let me give an easie answer to the two Verses in the 15th Chapt. of the 1st Ep. to the Corinthians which the Quakers make use of against the Resurrection of the Body One is ver 37. Thou sowest not that Body which shall be The other is ver 50. That Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God Answ Flesh and Blood while Corruptible as ours is in this Life cannot bear the Incorruptible State of Heaven As it is express'd in the same ver in explanation of the Expression Flesh and Blood cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God neither doth Corruption Inherit Incorruption But our Corruptible Flesh will be changed in its Qualities and put on Uncorruptible Qualities and thus the Dead shall be rais'd Incorruptible and we shall be Changed for this Corruptible must put on Incorruption c. ver 53. c. The same Answer will serve ver 37. where the Apostle does Illustrate the Resurrection of our Bodies by the Resurrection of Grain that is sown in the Ground For the Body of such Grain is chang'd in its Qualities but not in its Substance The Grain must die or else it will not Fructifie or Rise again In this Death it loses something as the Husks but it retains the Substance which rises again much alter'd from what it was when it was sown for it rises in the Blade then the Stalk Ears and then the full Grain in the Ear. But to shew that the Substance is not alter'd in all this we find that every Grain rises the same it was sown if you sow Oats you expect not a Crop of Wheat And there is full as much Reason to say that God does Anew Create every year all the Grain that grows in our Fields without any respect to the Grain that was sown or any Natural Production from thence as that we shall receive totally New Bodies without any Relation or any part of the Body that was sown And as to Mr. Penn's mighty Wonder how a thing can be chang'd and yet the same which he cannot comprehend and compares to Transubstantiation it is so far from being any difficulty at all that it proves the thing that is changed to be the same because otherwise It were not changed If George be chang'd in Quality in the State of his Health or in Reputation this is a certain proof that it is the same George still But if William be chang'd this is no change in George So that a thing being chang'd proves it to be the same Nor is the greatness of the Change any Difference as to the sameness of the Person chang'd Death is a great change yet if VVilliam dies it is VVilliam even the same William that liv'd who dy'd and as sure it will be the same who shall rise again tho' undergoing another great change But I am now to tell you a very strange thing which I wou'd not believe when it was told me till I saw it And that is that Mr. Penn does understand that Long and Elegant Description of the Resurrection of our Bodies from the 35 ver of the 15. Chap. of the 1 st Ep. to the Corinthians only of the Spiritual State of the Soul in this Life The Invalidity of John Faldo's Vindication c. 1673. These are his own words p. 373. of his Book Quoted in the Margent and repeating ver 44. It is sown a Natural Body it is rais'd a Spiritual Body c. he adds p. 369. I do utterly deny that this Text is concern'd in the Resurrection of Mans Carnal Body at all I will recite it says he with the five following verses which he there sets down but for Brevity I omit them referring to the Chapter and having repeated them which speak of the Natural and Spiritual Body that the First Man is of the Earth Earthly the Second is the Lord from Heaven and that as we have born the Image of the Earthly that is of Adam in this Corruptible Life so we shall bear the Image of the Heavenly that is at the Resurrection when our vile Bodies shall be made like unto Christ's Glorious Body but Mr. Penn p. 370. having repeated these verses goes on thus I say this doth not concern the Resurrection of Carnal Bodies but the two States of Men under the First and Second Adam Men are sown into the VVorld Natural so they are the Sons of the First Adam But they are Raised Spiritually through Him who is the Resurrection and the Life and so they are the Sons of the Second Adam who came to Raise up the Sons of the First Adam from their Dead to his Living the Natural to his Spiritual Estate But perhaps says he it will be objected that the 47. verse The first Man is of the Earth Earthly and part of the 9. verse We shall also bear the Image of the
be ought to do so and the Light within did not inform his Conscience To which George Replies in these words Did not Christ say that it was hard for him to kick against that that prickt him and was not that within him that prickt him Here is manifest Perverting of Scripture For Christ did not say that it was hard to kick against that that prickt him or that any thing prickt him The words which Christ spoke were these It is hard for thee to kick against the Pricks Acts 9.5 That is against the Power of Christ which wou'd be too hard for him if he strove against it as a Man that kicks against Pricks or Goads of Iron only hurts himself But G. F. Perverts the Text to make it bear this sense that the Pricks here mention'd were nothing else but the Pricks of St. Paul's own Conscience or the Light within his Conscience as the Quakers love to speak But whether there was any thing of this in the Case of St. Paul himself can best tell who said Acts 26.9 I verily thought with my self that I ought to do many things contrary to the Name of Jesus of Nazareth And Chap. 22.3 4. That he was not only fully persuaded but Zealous in the Persecution of the Christians exceeding mad against them Chap. 26.11 Had he then any Pricks of Conscience or of his Light within against the Lawfulness of that wherein he was fully persuaded and Zealous Or cou'd he think verily that he ought to do such a thing if he had had but any the least doubt or surmise against the Lawfulness of it It will be very hard when all this is consider'd to make Sense of the Quaker Notion of the Light within Against which this Instance of St. Paul among many others stands as an irrefragable proof But it is strange that the Quakers shou'd arrogate to themselves such lofty Titles above all the rest of Mankind even to take to themselves the very Attributes of God upon the pretence of this Light within and yet allow that every Man in the World has it as well as themselves Indeed they make a Pretence from this Light within to excuse their Blasphemous pride while they assume all the Worship due to Christ whom they call this Light upon the account of His or Its Inhabitation in them And this was the very Ground and Foundation of all Idolatry viz. the suppos'd Presence or Inhabitation of the Divinity in their Images or in the Sun and other Creatures whom they Worshiped upon that only Pretence and as transferring the Honour to God Residing in them or Represented by them And this very Excuse do the Quakers give here Some of the Quakers Principles Sect. 32. G. Whitehead thus answering the Charge of Idalatry in their Adorations before-mentioned paid to G. Fox And as to his Fran. Bugg's Charge of Idolatries if not Blasphemous Names and Titles given to George Fox how proves he they gave and intended those Names and Titles to the Person of G. Fox and not to the Life of Christ in Him whereof He was a Partaker Innocency against Envy p. 18. This as I said before is the same Excuse that the Heathens and Romans give for their Idolatries Secondly By this Rule Every Quaker may be Ador'd with Divine Honour and all the Attributes of God given to him because of his Light within or the Life of Christ in him Thirdy I will shew in Sect. 17. That they allow of Divine Honour to that Man Christ Jesus upon no other account than as G. Whitehead allows it to G. Fox that is because of the Residing of the Divine Word in Him And they distinguish it from his Person as Here from G. Fox's for as they express it They can never call the Bodily Garment Christ And they do own that the Name Christ does belong to every Quaker as well as to Jesus that is to both only upon the account of the Light within which they call the Divine Word or Christ All which shall be prov'd in its place Let me here only observe what an Uncouth and Preposterous piece of Humility it is to deny the Title or Civility of Master or of their Hat while at the same time they Worship one another with Divine Honour and bestow upon themselves Titles far above what any Angels since Lucifer durst pretend to to be even Equal with God of the same Substance and the fame Soul with Him and grudge not to apply all the Attributes of God to the Light within them and to themselves for its sake Thus transferring the Honour of God unto Themselves SECT XIII Of the Resurrection of the Body THis the Quakers do positively deny Mr. Penn makes Non-sense of it Reason against Railing 1673. p. 138. and worse He compares it to Transubstantiation nay to the Alcoran In short says he if the compleat happiness of the Soul rests in a re-union to a Carnal Body for such it is sown then never cry out upon the Turks Alcoran for such a Heaven and the Joys of it suit admirable well with such a Resurrection If the Reader thinks as I did when I first read this that Mr. P. meant this only of such a gross Conceit of the Resurrection as if our Bodies shou'd be in the same frail condition as now addicted to Sensualities If the Reader think thus as I did for what else cou'd any one think he will be to his astonishment undeceiv'd as I was in reading of what follows 2dly No Christian ever held that there was not a great Change of the Body in its Qualities at the Resurrection It is sown in Weakness in Corruption it is rais'd in In-Corruption and in Power c. And therefore if Mr. Penn meant no more than as abovesaid he wou'd dispute against no Christian But alas as you will find they deny any Resurrection at all of that Body which is sown that they leave wholly neglected for ever in its Dust Some of them suppose a perfectly New Body will be made for the Soul But others that the Soul it self is the Spiritual Body which is mentioned 1 Cor. 15.44 and consequently that there is no other Resurrection than at each particular persons death when the Soul which they call the Spiritual Body is freed from the Natural Body never more to meet again And in consequence of this these believe no General Resurrection no nor some of them any End of the World every Man's Resurrection being as they suppose perfected at his Death But let us return to Mr. Penn. In his Book above Quoted in the Margent Reas against Rail p. 134. he is answering this material Objection That if it be a New Body which is made for the Soul then there is no Resurrection of the Body For that does not rise again which never lay down And when St. Paul says 1 Cor. 15.42 speaking of the Resurrection of the Body that It is sown in Corruption and It is rais'd in Incorruption c.
they shall have sufficient But for the present I do here demand Reparation in the behalf of the Church of England for all the Vile and Scandalous Epithets which the Quakers have bestow'd upon her some of which I have Repeated and indeed upon the whole Catholick Church and upon all the Christian Kings that ever were in the World making them all Apostates and Anti-Christs as above is Quoted out of G. Fox's several Papers c. and likewise in behalf of all the Particular Persons whom they have traduc'd with such Odious and Hell-fetch'd Names hereafter mentionâ—d p. 32. But particularly in behalf of one whom they have most scandalously Robb'd the Person wrong'd is Mr. Selden and the Thief is Francis Howgil in whose Works there is a Discourse against Tythes that is stolen most apparently in whole Paragraphs Verbatim out of Mr. Selden's History of Tythes which I have compar'd It was shew'd to me as a Learned piece of a Quaker but I soon found the Deceit and think it incumbent upon me to Detect it This will let the World see that the Quakers Railing against Learning was only because they themselves had none of it But when they thought that they cou'd make any Advantage by it they wou'd venter even to steal it from others I would now desire the Friends to tell me whether Selden was not Inspir'd as much or rather more than Howgil since Howgil only stole from him And whether this Plagiary Art has not mightily expos'd the Friends assurance of their own Infallibility since they durst not trust to their Light within but come for 〈◊〉 to those whom they had vilify'd and run down as very Anti-Christs and Devils and the Seed of the Serpent Let no Man have the Name of a Minister says G. Fox in his Several Papers before Quoted p. 33 that is made at Schools and Colleges and by the Tongues the Natural But it seems their Ministers may borrow Tongues from those that are bred at Schools and Colleges as the Israelites did Jewels from the Aegyptians But the Israelites did not steal the Aegyptians Jewels They had their good leave before they took them But alas They stole their Gods too These Quakers whether they know it or not have stoln and Improv'd the Ancient most Anti-Christian Heresies Mr. Penn 's Sandy Foundation Printed 1668. is nothing else but the height of Socinianism in the two great Branches of it denying the Trinity and Satisfaction of Christ These are what he call The Sandy Foundation and his whole Book is wrote on purpose and expresly against these The Manichees Eutychians Marcionites and Saturnians said that Christ was a Man only in Appearance but had not properly an Human Body or Soul Thus say the Quakers That he Dwelt only in the Body of that Man Jesus as in a Veil or Garment but took not That Body into his own Person so as to become Hypostatically united to it And if so He was not truly a Man but only in Appearance And agreeing to this the Cerdonites the Eutychians and Manicheeans said that the Passion of Christ was not Real but in Appearance only and outward shew And such it was if according to the Quaker Doctrine His Veil only or Garment was Crucify'd Others taught the Family of Love of late that it was all an Allegory And thus the Quakers most expresly making Christs outward Blood the Type and Figure of inward Blood shed Spiritually in their Hearts making Christ without but the History and their Light within the Mystery or Substance which the Christ without as a History or Shadow of it only pointed But lastly because I must not stay here to Deduce and Compare all their Heresies those Ancient Hereticks the Ebionites and Nazarens from whom our Modern Socinians and from them the Quakers do derive their Doctrine did mightily undervalue the Holy Scriptures Some of them pretended to Mend the Scriptures and did boldly Adulterate them Euseb Hist l. 5. c 28. Theod. Haeret. Fab. l. 2. c. 5. and set up other Scriptures against those receiv'd by the Church And this the Quakers have done beyond any that ever went before them For they have Canonized all and every of their own Writings tho' most Blasphemous and expresly Contradicting one another as has been shewn And none ever have so Contemn'd and Vilify'd the Holy Scriptures as they have done One of their Mighty Prophets before and hereafter mentioned height Solomon Eccles came into the Church at Aldermanbury in London in time of Divine Service all Naked besmear'd up to the Elbows with Excrements and other Quakers did justifie this Beast and said that he might as well come into the Church with that Filth in his Hands as the Minister with a Bible And he was after this very dear to G. Fox and the Companion of his Travels Upon the 10th of August 1681. at the Quaker-Meeting-House in Grace-Church-street one who had a greater Reverence for the Holy Scriptures than the rest brought a Bible with him and before the Meeting was gathered or their Preachers come so that it was no Disturbance to their Publick Service he being in the Gallery read part of a Chapter it was the 14th of St. Luke so nothing particular as to the Quakers that they cou'd take notice of But it was the Bible And that was a sight not us'd to be seen there much less to hear it read which so mov'd their Indignation that one of the Chief of them snatch'd the Bible out of his Hand and notwithstanding of all their Meekness thrust him an Ancient and Grave Man all along the Gallery down several steps Richard Smith was present and will attest it But that this may not seem strange to the Reader he must know that there never was from their first appearing in the World one Chapter of the Holy Scriptures read in any of their Meetings No nor has any of their Preachers that I cou'd hear of to this Day ever recommended the reading of the Holy Scriptures to their People but rather lead them from it as from a Dead Letter which was Hurtful and Pernicious and that they shou'd mind only their own Light within that is to follow their own Imaginations But wou'd not that Argument of minding only their own Light within conclude as much against reading the Letter of the Quaker Writings O no that was far from their meaning For having thus taken the People off from reading or minding the Holy Scriptures the Fetch which the Devil had in this was to substitute the Rankest Poison in lieu of that Heavenly Manna the Scriptures of God And therefore this Grand Deceiver Possess'd the Quakers with that Non-sense as well as Blasphemy That when upon Pretence of the Light within he had drawn them away from reading of the Scriptures yet upon the same Argument he made them Zealous for the Reading and Studying of their own Writings as if the Pretended Sufficiency of their Light within were not as much overthrown by the one
in and see where they are and doth not see how they stand in God's sight Here the Quakers have Excluded all from the Church of Christ from having any Fellowship in the Spirit who have not this Infallible Spirit of discerning every Man's Heart And it is evident as I will shew presently that they did not discern George Keith Francis Bugg and many others whom for many years they own'd as true Quakers and some of them as Ministers among them and boasted a long time in their Gifts and thought them to be Principal Pillars among them whom now they Vilifie as Wicked Apostates And therefore by their own Argument they are Harlotted from the Church of Christ and have no Fellowship in the Spirit Page 33. He that is not infallible in his Council and Judgment and Advice is not he in Error And are they Ministers of Christ that are Fallable Page 105. G. Fox condemns all Protestant Churches as well as the Church of Rome for want of this Infallible Spirit which the Quakers ascribe only to themselves These are his words We says he the Pope and you the Protestants whom he calls Professors are Apostatized from the Infallible Spirit that the Apostles was in In which we are come For who witness these Conditions that they were in that gave forth the Scriptures they witness Infallibility an Infallible Spirit which is now Possessed and Witnessed among those called Quakers Glory to the Highest for ever This is dreadfully Astonishing But I was much more surpriz'd to find the otherwise Ingenious William Penn laugh at his Adversary for not being Infallible There was an Anonymous Book wrote against the Quakers call'd Controversy Ended to this Mr. Penn Reply'd in a Sheet of large Paper in Print which he Entituled A Winding-Sheet for Controversy Ended which bears Date the 16 of the 12th Month 1672. In the first page he catches up the Author whom he calls Henry Hedworth for saying that he had been mistaken in the good Opinion he had before of Mr. Penn's Judgment and Conscience How can he chuse says Mr. Penn who denies Infallibility But if mistaken before why not in the Quakers now And so ad Infinitum being so Fallible And p 3. Sect. 2. He Vindicates what George Fox had asserted of the Quakers Infallibility for having Repeated these words of G. Fox's which were put as an Objection against him How can ye be Ministers of the Spirit and not be Infallible And how can they but Delude the People who are not Infallible He makes this Reply I Answer says he G. F's words stand immovable for ever And he gives this strange Reason to support himself and G. F. For says he He that is a Minister of the Spirit is Infallibly for And in that Ministry is Infallible otherwise the Spirit 's Ministry is Fallible Which is such a Consequence as this that if any Man who is lighted by the Sun stumble or miss his way the fault is in the Sun which shew'd him a False Light What else can be the meaning of that saying that if a Minister be not Infallible then the Ministry of the Spirit is Fallible To make God himself Fallible rather than we shou'd not be Infallible But he comes quite off of this again in the next page and Sect. And this says he Roundly checks his Hen. Hedworth his Opponent saying That I bestow'd 32 pages to prove George Fox's Spirit to be Infallible For that belongs simply to God alone and then those that are led by it which was my Question and in which sense He is and all such persons are Infallible as he himself confesseth page 27. And if be fool'd himself by any other Belief of us before let him look to that Here Henry Hedworth is made Infallible too Whom in this same Winding-Sheet as above Quoted he calls a very Night-Bird and Vagrant Bursten'd with Folly and Revenge a Busie-Body Cavelling Conceited Proud Wrathful Equivocating Slandering Cowardly Man c. all which Epistles and all the rest which the Quakers so Liberally bestow upon their Adversaries may by this Rule belong to George Fox or any other Infallible Quaker Nay the Devil himself is Infallible at this rate for he has his Knowledge as well as Being from God Knowledge is Light and if that Knowledge which comes from God be Infallible then while the Devil follows that Light or Knowledge he must be Infallible And if this be all the Infallibility which the Quakers ascribe to themselves it distinguishes them not from Wicked Men or Devils But sure George Fox meant something more by it when by it he distinguish'd the Quakers from all other sorts of Men and ascrib'd to them an Infallible Discerning Spirit to know the Hearts of Men without speaking ever a word Of which I wish Mr. Penn wou'd afford us I will not say an Infallible but an Intelligible Comment for I protest I say not this out of any Obstinacy or Perverse Temper but to be able to apprehend if possible what these Men wou'd be at For they turn and wind this Infallibility of theirs at such a rate that no Man can I am sure cannot know what they mean by it Sometimes it makes them as Infallible as the Apostles nay as Christ Himself But at other times when they are press'd they bring down this Infallibility to mean nothing in the World that does distinguish them from other Men Tho' it was upon the pretence of this that they did separate them selves from the Church and from all other Men For they said that they ought not to be Subject to nor had need to be Guided by any Church who had an Infallible Guide within their own Breasts that is each Particular Person for himself as before is told But this pretence is now exploded by the Separate Quakers and Explain'd at some turns by the others as above by Mr. Penn to mean just nothing that is nothing which differences them from other Men or any thing New or other than what all Mankind have ever acknowledg'd to wit Thaâ— every Man's Reason Knowledge Conscience Light within or by what ever other Name or Names you may express it was given him by God and so is an Inspiration or Breathing of His into our Soul But this will no more prove it to be Infallible or Sufficient of it self to bring us to Heaven than it will follow that Man cannot die because God Breathes into him the Breath of Life or that he is Omnipotent because his Strength comes from God Omniscence and Infallibility is as much God's Attribute as Omnipotence And the Strength which God has given to our Bodies is as sufficient to climb up to the Skies as the Wisdom or Light which He has given to our Souls was sufficient of it self to have found out the Redemption of Lost Man by the Incarnation and Satisfaction of Christ to God's Justice for our sins or if found out to have paid that Price and to have accomplished that whole wonderful Oeconomy of
Ghost Which is Blasphemy And this must be the consequence if when Christ gave them his Commission to Baptize all Nations the Spiritual and Immediate Baptism with the Holy Ghost be meant and not the Ministerial and Mediate Baptism of Water And as this Outward Baptism with VVater was an Ordinance Instituted as a Means of Grace whereby the Inward Baptism with the Holy Ghost was convey'd it was therefore the Form appointed of Admission into the Society of the Church and thereby giving a Title to all the Privileges and Promises which are annexed to it And likewise it was a Publick and avowed owning of our Christianity Upon all which accounts it was necessary even where the Inward Baptism with the Holy Ghost was already attained As St. Peter said Acts 10.47 Can any Man forbid Water that these should be Baptized who have Receiv'd the Holy Ghost as well as we And St Paul tho' Converted and Instituted immediately from Heaven was Commanded to be Baptized with VVater And it is very observable that among those things wherein St. Paul was Instructed thus Immediately from Christ he tells us 1 Cor. 11.23 That one was the Institution of the Lords Supper Upon which he lays so great a stress that he charges grievous Diseases sent among the Corinthians and Death it self ver 30. and even Damnation ver 29. upon their Neglect and Abuse of this Holy Mystery How then wou'd he have Censur'd the Preaching down this and the other Sacrament of Baptism as Carnal and Hurtful things And let me here seriously mind them and Admonish others how their Neglect of the Outward Ordinances and Signs has lost to them the Reality and the thing signify'd For it had been impossible for any who had been kept in the constant Use and Practice of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to have forgot Christs Outward Dying and shedding of his Blood or to have turn'd it as many of the Quakers have done to mean nothing but his Spiritual Suffering within us and that Himself is nothing else but The Light within us Of this you have seen some proof already but you find more in Sect. 17. I say how cou'd any who frequently us'd to shew forth the Lord's Death by the visible Representation of it in the Sacrament of the Holy Communion by the Bread Broken like his Body and the VVine Powered forth as His Blood was upon the Cross how cou'd any who had practis'd this and seen Persons daily Baptiz'd into Christ 's Death How cou'd such a one ever have so much as Imagin'd How cou'd it ever have come into his Head to Spiritualize away the. Literal Humanity and Sufferings of Christ No It cou'd never have been done But the Enemy having once deluded Men into a neglect of the Outward Signs and Seals Pledges and Means of Grace whereby God Guarded and Fenced the Soul and Spiritual part of his Religion as a Kernel is by the Shell in which it grows the Devil having stoln from us the Body or Outward part of Religion the Soul soon disappear'd and left behind it a noisome Carcass of Religion For Religion can no more live and be preserv'd to us here while we are in the Body without Outward and Corporal Means than the Soul can live to us here while we are upon the Earth without our Body and hence the Corporal Service the presenting our Bodies as a living Sacrifice c. is call'd our Reasonable Service Rom. 12.1 And whoever goes about to separate the Bodily from the Spiritual Worship does as much Murther Religion as he that should separate a Man's Soul from his Body This is so necessary and plain a Truth that those who take upon them to abrogate the outward Institutions of Christ do at the same time Invent and set up others of their own as has been before observ'd Sect. 11. of the Quakers Institution of VVomens Preachings and VVomens Meetings at the same time that they threw off as Carnal the Sacraments of Christ's Institution SECT XV. Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ HErein the Quakers are direct Socinians For they positively deny the Satisfaction And this is no less a distinguishing Doctrine of the Socinians than their denying the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ. Mr. Penn Blasphemes it as both Irreligious and Irrational Reason against Railing 1673. p. 90. 91. 92. 93. His Arguments are the old Socinian Job Trot tho' I believe he knew it not only Good Wits jump'd For in his Invalidity of John Faldo's Vindication c. Printed the same year 1673. p. 413. He vindicates himself from an Imputation he says had been cast upon him for being a Socinian upon occasion of his Book call'd The Sandy Foundation shaken and says That he had not at that time ever read any one Socinian Book in all his Life if so much as lookt into one And if he had known this to have been Socinianism he wou'd not in his Winding-Sheet Printed 1672. have upbraided T. F. and H. H. so often with the reproach of being Socinians Sect. 1. Their belov'd Socinianism Socinian Agency the Spirit of Socinianism try'd according to that Discovery it has made of it self in their Lamentable yet Converted Agent Hen. Hedworth his Grim Socinian Cavils burston'd with Folly and Revenge 2. This Anti-Scriptural Socinian 7 The Scriptures Socinianiz'd 8. This Giddy-headed Socinian c. And yet Mr. Penn does it seems without knowing it perfectly Copy after these Socinians in all his Arguments against the Satisfaction of Christ As that there was no need of any Satisfaction to God's Justice for our sins That it is not call'd Unjust to Forgive a Debt without any Satisfaction thus confounding the Notions of Justice and Mercy for all Forgiveness proceeds from Mercy But Justice cannot Remit the least Farthing Else it were not Justice And what is Inconsistent with the Nature of Justice is Inconsistent with God for God is not only Just but He is Justice it self Justice in the Abstract the Highest and most Adequate Notion of Justice What room then is there for God's Mercy If he be all Justice where is his Mercy Answ God's Attributes do not Fight or Contradict one another They Magnifie and Exalt one another Thus God's Justice is Magnified in that it Exalts Full and Adequate Satisfaction His Wisdom is Magnified in finding out such Means as to do it And his Goodness or Mercy is equally Magnifi'd in affording those Means And all these are fulfill'd to the utmost that is Infinitely in the wonderful Oeconomy of our Salvation by the Satisfaction paid to God's Justice for our sins in the Sacrifice and Death of Christ which because of his Divine Nature was Full and Adequate Satisfaction and by his Human Nature the Satisfaction was paid by the same Nature which offended But upon the Socinian and Quaker Scheme one of God's Attributes must Fight with and Conquer the other one must subdue and beat down the other and his Justice must quit the Field to his Mercy This is
of a Book of theirs Entituled The Sword of the Lord drawn c. Quoted by F. Bugg in his Quakerism withered p. 26. Printed 1694. The Devil was in thee says G. F. to his Adversary Chr. VVade in his Gr. Myst p. 250. thou say'st thou art saved by Christ without thee and so hast Recorded thy self to be a Rebrobate And p. 183. such as have Christ in them they have the Righteousness it self without Imputation the end of Imputation the Righteousness of God it self Christ Jesus And in his Saul's Errand to Damascus p. 14. Christ says he that is The Light within is the Substance of all Figures and his Flesh is a Figure i. e. of their Light within which they make the only Christ F. B's Sheet p. 3. The very Christ of God is within us And the Flesh or Body which Christ â—ssum'd they do not call the Body â—f Christ as a Man's Body is call'd his Body that is as one Person with his Soul both which together make the Man but only as when an Angel assumes a Body he â—akes not that Body into his own Nature so as to be part of his Person but only as a Cloak or a Garment which a Man wears which he may throw off or put on again without any alteration in his Person Nor can such a Garment be call'd the Man So we say the Quakers F. B's New Rome Araign'd p. 24 can never call the Bodily Garment Christ p. 27. For that which be took upon him his Body was our Garment even the Flesh and Blood of our Nature which is of an Earthly Perishing Nature And as a Cloak alters not its Nature but is the same whoever wears it because it does not thereby alter its Nature nor is taken into the Nature of him who wears it so and no more do they make of the Flesh of Christ which they say as above was of an Earthly Perishing Nature And is Perished by their account for they allow not that it was taken up into Heaven Some of them say it vanished or was aninhilated But they have not that I find determin'd Judicially what is become of it And so their Doctors may vary about it But from this account which they give of it they think that the Name of Christ does belong to every one of them not only more than to that Body now but as well as to It while it was upon the Earth and when Christ did Inhabit It. Yea their very words are F. B's New Rome p. 28. Doth not the Name Christ belong to the whole Body and to every Member in the Body as well as to the Head A Quest c. p. 27. and G. Fox says Myst p. 88. Christ is the Elect. Thus Christ is the Elect and the Elect are Christ they make them convertible terms And p. 207. he desputes against this Position That God hath a Christ distinct from all other things whatsoever And says in opposition to it That God's Christ is not distinct from his Saints I shew'd in the last Section that they wou'd not allow God the Father to be distinct from the Son But here is a stretch which far out-does that to shew that there is no stop as in Art so neither in Enthusiasm which indeed is an Art to put upon our selves as well as others They say a Man may tell a Lye so often that he may come to believe it himself at last And a strong Enthusiastick habit may fix a Man's Thought so long upon a beloved Object as to dazle his Understanding and glare so in his Eyes that without considering the grossest Absurdities will go down and the highest Blasphemies gain a pretence even of Piety and Exalted Devotion This is the Devil transform'd into an Angel of Light This is the most Fatal an Irrecoverable State of a Soul when we fall in Love with our Diseases and as in a Calenture mistake the deepest Oceans of Presumptuous Blasphemy for sweet and pleasant Fields of Contemplation and even of Humility and thus mistake Hell it self for our Heaven Who that had not his Head turn'd with such Enthusiastical Delusion cou'd have imagin'd that G. Fox cou'd find no Difference no Distinction at all betwixt Christ and Himself And that Men of Sense shou'd lick up his spittle And it is but consequential to this that all the Divine Attributes shou'd be given to G. Fox as well as unto Christ if there be no Distinction between them then they are the same And I have shewn some Instances Sect. 5. where G. Fox does assume the Stile and Names of Christ to Himself and that others do allow them to him All which is excus'd by Mr. Penn in the XI Chapt. of the Invalidity of Iohn Faldo's Vindication in such a wonderful manner as will leave no Blasphemy or Idolatry in the World without a very fair pretence But I turn from him out of respect to him and invite the Reader to go along with me as a Conclusion to this whole Discourse and take a short view of G. Whitehead's Creed where it relates to some of the particulars before spoke of that especially which is Treated of in this Section SECT XVIII Some Remarks upon George Whitehead's Creed Relating to some of the Particulars before-going IT has been a great and just Complaint against the Quakers that they wou'd never give us any Creed or Summary of their Faith They find fault with others but tell not what they hold themselves They dwell upon Negatives but love not to speak in the Affirmative what they wou'd be at Well! Now G. Whitehead has at last done it in the Introduction to his Innocency Triumphant which he Entitles thus Our Christian Testimony re-assum'd in the Affirmative And so far he keeps pace with the Apostles Creed that he comprises it in just Twelve Articles But alas when you come to consider them they do not go cleverly off from the above-said Damnable Errors of the foregoing Quakers but on the contrary he words his new Confession of Faith in such Dubious and General terms as may indeed at first sight deceive an unwary Reader but yet keeps off contradicting the Heart of the Heresie which he still preserves safe and untouch'd And not only so but often with a slily insinuated Excuse and Defence of it Thus in his 1st Articl he confesses Jesus to be the Christ Even the same Jesus Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary at Bethlehem c. This wou'd seem a plain Confession to the Christ without that it was meant of that Man Jesus Christ and not only of the Light within But then when you consider that as above-said they attribute the Name of Christ to their own Light within and to every one of Themselves as well as unto Jesus Christ then it will appear that this Confession of Whitehead's is a meer Fallacy while it attributes no more to Jesus Christ than to G. W. But let us not wrong honest George He confesses Art 10. in these