in a publick Meeting with Blasphemy for asserting it but whither the Body of Christ now since his Ascension is in all things and every where If not every where then but some where and that some-where is a Local Heaven which W. P. hath said is Mahometan E. Burrough charg'd John Bunnion with Wickedness for saying Christ was in Heaven in our Nature And for the same did G. Whitehead blame John Horn as I have shewn in my Narratives And saith G. W. in his Nature of Christianity p. 41. That Christ existeth outwardly bodily without us at God's right hand What Scripture hath he viz. his Opponent R. G. for these words W. Bailey will have it That Christ ascended into Heaven in no body but what came down from Heaven All which and much more is proved out of my three Narratives the third especially And whereas he saith Let it be never so true it cannot affect the People if not the act of the People the Church of England has Doctors of very differing Sentiments c. I answer what any one of your Teachers have asserted in Print especially it affects your Second days Meeting that licenseth all your Teachers Books and yet profess to be all one and the same in all that ye believe as God and Truth is the same And if the Church of England hath Teachers of different Sentiments in lesser Matters yet not in Fundamentals so far as she knows and if they had and she should know it and not censure them it would affect her From all which it appears that W. P. and his Brethrens Conciseness in their Gospel Truths was on purpose in general Terms to cover their gross Errors And where Men are sound in the Faith and of known Sincerity what is implied in their words may in Charity and Justice be granted but not if they be Insincere and given to equivocate as is the present Case Section 6. His Fallacy in asserting that his owning future Rewards and Punishments in his Sense doth imply his owning the Resurrection of the Dead which it is proved he hath disowned His unjust Offence at the Bishop's Censure of his unsound Notion of the Light within and his uncivil Treatment of the Bishop on that account as if he were a meer Natural Man a Persecuter a Nicodemus in the Knowledge of Regeneration The Bishop's Doctrine of the Light within more sound and intelligible than that of W. P. By W. P 's Definition of Light within and Sight within a Natural Man is capable to understand it though in contradiction to himself W. P 's Ignorance in making the natural rational Faculty to be all the Spiritual Sight even in Regenerated Persons The Bishop's Doctrine of the Light within and Spiritual Sight of regenerated Persons as more sound so more sublime than that of W. P. IN Page 43 he proceeds in the like Fallacy and Equivocation alledging That their acknowledging the future state of the Just and Unjust implys the resurrection of the Dead which as it is true in a Scripture sense it is as false in his sense and in the sense of all others of his Heathen Brethren many of whom professed to believe the immortality of Men's Souls both Greek and Latin yet that profession did not imply they believed the resurrection of the Body either of the Just or Unjust for they generally disbelieved it and opposed the Christians for asserting it And that W. P. himself hath opposed the Resurrection of the Body is above sufficiently proved In his Page 51. and 52. W. P. seems not a little moved with the Bishops saying their discourse about the Light within as far as he can see is perfectly such as we usually call Banter that is when Men have a faculty to speak things seemingly profound but in the end neither themselves nor others can make any distinct Sense of what they have said This Modest Censure of the Bishop upon his discourse of the Light within in his 5th 6th and 7th Sections W. P. calls one of the severest Persecutions This to me saith he is one of the severest Persecutions because Spiritual things are only to be Spiritually discern'd and understood I would fain know saith he how a regenerate Man can possibly make a Carnal Man understand the new Birth yea he chargeth it to look Antichristian as well as unreasonable and he quotes diverse places of Scripture which he at least implicitly levels at the Bishop as if the Bishop were the Unregenerate and Natural Man that because he is so he cannot understand W. P's profound Doctrine of the Light within And the Bishop is he that is born after the Flesh who persecutes W. P. that 's born after the Spirit and his Brethren with Tongue and Pen when he and others such as he can no longer commit violence upon their Persons and Estates and as if the Bishop were a very Nicodemus in the Doctrine of the new Birth All which it plainly appears and much more W. P. indirectly and implicitly levels at the Bishop otherwise why quotes he such places of Scriptures with such large discourses on them if not to point to him and that his want of the new Birth and being but a Natural Man tho' not wanting Academical Learning made him uncapable of understanding W. P's Spiritual Doctrine about the Light within and after his instance of the blindness of the Scribes and Pharisees and the High-Priest of the Jews in not discerning the Messiah when he came he infers let the Bishop also have a care and he further tells the Bishop he should be glad to see the Bishop's evidence for the knowledge of God by the Revelation of the Son of God in his own Soul To give my sense freely so far as I am able to understand the Bishop hath given a better account and evidence of his knowledge in the Mystery of God and of Christ by his Christian Scriptural and sound expressions than W. P. and I suppose in his manner of Life is nothing inferior to him And what evidence of his true knowledge by Internall Illumination or Revelation can W. P. give or has given that the Bishop cannot give yea hath not given in this very case Is it enough for W. P. to say he has it and the Bishop has it not Or wherein do W. P's fruits of a holy Life give more evidence of his knowledge and experience of the new Birth than these of the Bishop I shall first take notice of the Bishop's sound words in giving his sense how the Conscience of Man is enlightned to know and believe aright the Doctrines and Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation Conscience saith the Bishop opened by the holy Spirit under the Ministry of the word Acts 16. 14. does and must take in its Light from holy Scripture quoting Psal 19. 8. Eph. 1. 18. Psal 119. 105. Isaiah 8. 20. Now these things saith he are intelligible this Rule is fixt and certain nothing of which can be said of your Light within
This short discourse of the Bishop gives a more true and intelligible account of the Light within as it is in every true Christian which the Bishop has contained within three lines than W. P's ramble in his Ten pages of his Book and in the many hundred pages of his other Books that he hath scribbled about it to render it intelligible even to natural and unconverted Men for to such he did write as well as unto others and yet now he affirms it is not intelligible to natural Men such as he thinks the Bishop is for want of experience of the new Birth And positively asserts P. 49. that our Natural Rational Faculty is our sight but not our Light that by which we discern and Judge what the Divine Light shews us And in P. 50. he saith The Bishop's Natural Conscience must only mean a Capacity that Man has by Nature that is in his Creation of making a Judgment of himself his Duty and Actions according to the Judgment of God manifested to him by the Light of Christ within Now since W. P. must needs grant that the Bishop suppose but a natural Man as W. P. most uncharitably will needs have him to be has a Natural Conscience and the Natural Rational faculty of the Soul which is the Sight or Eye by which he can discern and Judge what the Divine Light shews him and also that W. P. strongly asserts that all Men have the Divine Light in them and consequently the Bishop must have it also what hinders but that the Bishop should understand W. P's Doctrine about the Light within were it really intelligible seeing by W. P's confession the Bishop has not only the Light within him the same that W. P. hath but the same Sight within him also that is as W. P. defines it the same Natural Rational Faculty and the same Natural Conscience which is the Capacity whereby to see or discern what the divine Light shews Besides it were all to no purpose for W. P. and all the Teachers among the Quakers to preach so frequently to Natural and Wicked Men exhorting them to mind the Light within obey it and give up to its Leadings if they were not capable to understand it as W. P. here saith they are not though in contradiction to his and his Brethrens daily Practise But according to the Doctrine of the Holy Scripture the Spiritual or inward Eye of the Mind of regenerate Persons whereby they discern Spiritual and Divine Objects is not the Natural Rational Faculty or Natural Conscience which all Men though vicious generally have but some more excellent Spiritual Faculty in the Soul superior to the Natural Rational Faculty as the Natural Rational Faculty is superior to the imaginative Faculty the which superior Spiritual Faculty of the Soul above the Natural Rational faculty is shut up or as it were extinct in meer Natural Men until it be opened and awakened in them by the Spiritual Regeneration and new Birth according to Eph. 1. 18. above quoted by the Bishop and Acts 26. 18. and Eph. 5. 8. And how much more agreeable is it to the Holy Scripture to say that true Divine Faith is the Sight of regenerated Persons whereby they look to Christ the great object and Author of it Heb. 12. 2. than that the Natural Rational Faculty is it as W. P. saith it is But by W. P's discourse both here and elsewhere he seems to be as ignorant of the Spiritual Sight of the regenerated Soul as of the Spiritual and Divine Light whereby it is enlightned and the Bishop has given a far more true account of both in three lines than W. P. has done either in this or all his other Books in which succinct and comcomprehensive definition of the Bishop these two things are worthily to be observed the first is that that which makes the Conscience of Man capable to know and believe aright the Doctrines and Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation is that the Conscience be opened by the Holy Spirit for which he citeth Acts 16. 14. How the Lord opened the Heart of Lydia that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul And as by opening of the Heart in Acts 16. 14. is understood a special Illumination of the Holy Ghost by the Lord Jesus Christ given to Lydia whose Heart the Lord thus opened which she had not before notwithstanding of the common Illumination which she had before so no doubt the Bishop hath the same sence of it in agreement with the Doctrine of the 39 Articles of the Church of England that asserteth the necessity of a special Illumination of the Holy Ghost above and beyond the common Illumination given to Mankind in general to give the saving Knowledge and Faith of Christian Doctrine to any who have it But this special Illumination given to Believers only in Christ Crucified W. P. doth not acknowledge he thinks the common Illumination given to Infidel Jews Mahometans and Heathens is sufficient without any thing else or without any superadded Illumination in special for to grant any such superadded special Illumination being necessary to the Faithful would quite overturn W. P's Fabrick of the General Rule of Faith and Life to all Mankind And by this it appears that the Bishop's Doctrine about the Internal Illumination or Manifestation of Christ by the Holy Ghost as it is much more true than that of W. P's so it is much more excellent and sublime plainly distinguishing Christianity from Deism whereas W. P's Doctrine about the inward Illumination doth confound them and make them one and the same thing The second thing that is worthy to be noticed in this succinct and comprehensive Definition given by the Bishop is that the Conscience is thus opened i. e. illuminated and inspired by the Holy Spirit under the Ministry of the Word and so does and must take in its Light from Holy Scripture to wit the Light of the Christian Doctrine which the Conscience receives from the Scriptures instrumentally the Holy Scripture being the Instrument of the Spirit and of his preparing whereby he doth enlighten the Hearts of true Christians both to believe the Truth and understand the depth of the Christian Doctrine Section 7. A further account of W. P 's unsound Notion of the Light within and of the Bishop's sound Notion of it in all the Faithful the Spirits Light within and the Scripture Light without both necessary and well consistent in God's ordinary way of working to beget true saving Knowledge and Faith in Men. W. P. his various and equivocous Sence of the Light within Christ considered as the word God is in and to himself Life and Light essentially but to Men even the best of Men he is Light effectively by his Operations and is so called by a Metonimy We have no immediate Knowledge of the Essence of any Creature nor of the Creator but by his various Operations and Illuminations BUT this manner of receiving Light by means
Opponents as guilty of Blasphemy for denying the sufficiency of the Light within to Salvation without any thing else Seeing that Light within is Christ for it is as much as to say Christ is not sufficient to Salvation And thus some of them have charged me in particular to whom I have answered that seeing Christ is truly Christ without us as well as within us and much more gloriously manifested in the Flesh without us If it is no blasphemy to say Christ without us cannot save us without his being in us as they will readily grant so nor is it Blasphemy to say Christ within us cannot save us without Christ without us And with respect to Christ's inward Teaching and Illumination they grosly and fallaciously prevaricate in stating the question as whither the Light within to wit the Word God is a Light sufficient to Teach or Guide every Man the way to Eternal Salvation Thus they think to have their Opponents every way at a disadvantage and to catch them in their Dilemma if they say Yea the Quakers have gained the point as they imagine If they say Nay they are guilty of Blasphemy against Christ the word God within them as not being sufficient But this Sophistical Dilemma is easily discovered and answered for by the sufficiency of the Light within every Man to guide to Salvation is not meant what Christ the Word God can reveal to and in every Man for who questions that that he can do it abundantly but the true state of the question is What he doth reveal to and in every Man that is or may be a sufficient discovery to him for his eternal Salvation W. P. and his Brethren hold the affirmative the Bishop and all true Christians Yea all but meer Deists hold the Negative viz. That Christ considered as the word God doth not reveal to and in every Man As for example not to any of the Quakers or any others here here in England all that is sufficient to their Salvation by the common Illumination without special superadded Illuminations of Christ by the Holy Spirit that is more excellent than the common in the use of the outward means to wit the Doctrines of the Holy Scriptures outwardly Preached or at leastwise read to us or by us If they say it doth then let them not only tell us but prove to us intelligibly to convince our Natural Rational Faculty which W. P. calleth the Eye or Sight whereby the Soul of every Man is capable to discern what the Light within sheweth that the Light in them by its common Illumination without all outward means of Instruction from or by the Holy Scriptures hath taught them one or more of the Twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed according to the true sense of Scripture and generally received by all true Christians If they confess it hath not taugh them any one of them it evidently follows that they think not any one of them is necessary to their Faith or Christianity i. e. their Deism for Salvation And yet it is strange that W. P. should be so fallacious as as to affirm that the Doctrines of God of Christ of the Holy Ghost of remission of Sin and Justification from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation the Resurrection of the Dead are Fundamentals of the Christian Religion none of which the Light within them without Scripture hath taught him to believe as I think he hath plainly confessed and yet it hath taught him all that is necessary to his Salvation without Scripture he having denyed that the Scripture is the Rule of his or their Faith as touching any of these matters and consequently not so much as the Instrument whereby the Holy Spirit has wrought that Faith in him therefore what Faith he or they have of these things is but Historical and Uncertain and as the old Heavens that must pass away and which hath already passed away from them seeing they pretend they are come to the new Heavens already And yet he is so fallacious to say P. 97. It is generally thought that we do not hold the common Doctrines of Christianity but have introduced new and erroneous ones in lieu thereof This I have sufficiently proved to be true here and elsewhere and so have others done the same But what followeth Whereas saith he we plainly and entirely believe the Truths contained in that called the Apostles Creed Yes say I just so as he may say they plainly and entirely believe the Truths in the Turks Alcoran which may be supposed to have some Truths though many more falsities This saying of his seems to have a mental Reservation as if there were some things in that Creed that were not Truths W. P. would do well to tell us plainly what they are Section 9. Several places of Scripture rescued from his Perversions None are saved by the common discoveries of the Light within without special Revelation and Illumination which yet renders not Salvation impossible to virtuous Gentiles His Ignorance and Error about the Nature of the Light within considered as the Word God In his shewing what the Light within teacheth every Man he leaves out the chief matter that was necessary to his Argument to prove it sufficient without any thing else AND as for the places of Scripture which W. P. hath brought to prove the sufficiency of the Light within with respect to the common Illumination for every Man's Salvation without any super-added special Illumination and all external Light of the Holy Scripture which are these following John 8. 12. John 1. 9 14. Titus 2. 11 12. Eph. 5. 13. John 16. 7. Prov. 1. 20 to 24. John 8. 24. they are all one or two at most excepted that may be understood of the common Illumination as John 1. 9. to be understood of the Special Illumination given to Men under a Gospel-Ministry as is evident by the due consideration of them as for John 1. 9. allowing it to be meant of the common Illumination and diverse other places of Scripture that might be brought to prove that there is such a common Illumination from the word God in all Men as a preparatory Ministration this doth not prove that that common Illumination is sufficient without the special that is given to the Faithful And whereas he saith in his 6th Article or Section of his Gospel Truths They that turn not at the reproofs thereof to wit the Light within with respect to its common Illumination and will not repent and live and walk according to it shall dye in their Sins and where Christ is gone they shall never come Tho' there be a Truth in the words he has here set down yet he quite misapplies that place of Scripture John 8. 24. and fallaciously leaves out the foregoing words which are these For if ye believe not that I am he ye shall dye in your Sins and as it is in v 21. And whither I go ye cannot come by which words it is plainly evident
that the Discoveries that he sets up for are not the same to all Nations and Persons as can easily be proved Ten thousands would break through the Hedge of his General Rule of binding them to the common Discoveries given to all Mankind as most of the People called Quakers do and would highly pretend to new and special Discoveries given to them by the Light within and to none others and the reason they will alledge that it is not given to others is their Unfaithfulness and especially that like Corah they Rebel against their Spiritual Guides and Leaders Thus we may see the great need of an outward Rule and the great Goodness of God that he hath given us one full and perfectly sufficient to be a Rule of our Faith and Life in all necessary Cases And besides If W. P's Argument have any Truth in it it would infer that Christ or the Spirit abstractly considered from all Revelation both Internal and External should be the Rule because he is the Ruler If the Ruler and the Rule must still be one and the same thing then suppose all Revelation Internal as well as External should cease Christ or the Spirit should be the Rule because the Ruler Who sees not the Fallacy and Sophistry of W. P's Argument here Hath not every common Artificer his Rule of Wood or Brass that is not the Man himself but the Instrument that he hath made and prepared for his use The Prophets Rule by which their Faith was ruled in what they Prophecied was not the Spirit but the internal Revelation of the Spirit the Spirit was their Guide and Ruler but not to speak properly their Rule but the Revelation they had or things revealed that was their Rule and so now the external Revelation of the same Truths is the Rule of our Faith whereby to believe them as the Spirit inwardly by his secret Illumination perswades us of their Truth and certainty not by any new verbal Record but by Sealing to the Record outwardly given Section 12. His falsly alledging that he has the first Reformers Fathers and Martyrs on his side viz. That the Scripture is not the Rule of Faith but the Light in every Conscience His Fallacy in this detected in the late Book called The Deism of W. P. and his Brethren c. The Spirits being superior to the Scripture proves not that the Spirit is the Rule of Faith His pretended ground of his pitying the Bishop for his supposed Ignorance Causeless and Fallacious His false Accusation and Charge against the Bishop and Church of England and all Protestant Opponents to the Quakers that they confine the Operations of the Spirit to the first or Apostolical Times That the Ministers among the Quakers are less acted by the Spirit of God in their Praying and Preaching than the Ministers among their Protestant Opponents evidently proved AND this leads me to detect another Fallacy of his which shall be the last I intend to notice though I could detect many more but these I think will suffice to shew how Fallacious he is Let us therefore hear him once more In his Page 106 and 107 after he has most grosly alledged that he has the concurring Testimony and Assent of the best and first Reformers as well as Martyrs and Fathers to confirm his Fundamental viz. That not the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures without but the Light within is the Rule of Faith and Life and that the Light or Spirit within is something at least co-ordinate if not superior and antecedent to the Scripture Which is more saith he than we said before and consequently is the Rule of Faith and Life superior to the Scripture Having in my late Treatise of W. P's Deism rescued the Fathers and first Reformers from his Perversions I shall only now take notice of his fallacious Inference by this his Argument The Light or Spirit within is something superior and antecedent in way of Excellency to the Scripture therefore it is the superior and antecedent Rule above the Scripture the Proposition is granted and I know none that ever denied it to wit That the Spirit which is God is greater and more excellent than the Scripture But then it followeth not that it is the greater or more excellent Rule because properly speaking it is no Rule at all Right Logicians will tell him if he will go and learn of them which it is to be suspected for all that he was a Student at Oxford he has great need to do that things in a different kind are not to be compared If it were asked of W. P. whither a Knife of Gold or a Knife of Steel were the best Knife he would answer surely though Gold is superior to Steel and more excellent yet it is not fit to be a Knife and Men make not the blades of Knives of Gold So though the Spirit be superior to the Revelation of it whither Internal or External yet not the Spirit but his Revelation is the Rule and Internal Revelation was the Rule to the Prophets whereby they believed their Prophecies and what internal Revelation was to them external Revelation is to us though we have not that internal Revelation that they had which was Prophetical and Extraordinary but the Spirit internally by way of Seal Sealing to us the Truth and Certainty of the external Revelation gives us as sure ground for the certainty of our Faith as they had of theirs But this inward Seal of the Spirit is no Rule either co-ordinate with the Scripture or subordinate to it because it doth not propose to us by it self all the things necessary to be believed by us in verbal Propositions as the Seal of a Bond though it is a Proof and Evidence to the Truth of the Bond yet it tells us not the Contents of it And now because the Bishop found fault with his calling the Scripture without and the Illumination of the Spirit within the double and agreeing Record of true Religion as indeed well he might so do in W. P's sense though in a qualified and sober sense it may be acknowledged as perceiving the fallacious sense that W. P. had of those words well observed by the Bishop That they will not believe what Scripture saith except the Light within them dictate the same And yet none of them can justly say that the Light within doth dictate to them by it self one Article of that called the Apostles Creed yea W. P. doth not so much as pretend that it doth to him yet most uncivilly he falls upon the Bishop p. 107 telling him It must be his turn now to pity the Bishop And truly saith he I do it with all my Heart And this it seems in retaliation of the Bishop's tender Expression of his Pitty and Compassion towards some well-meaning Persons among them who are mislead by their Teachers But for what must he needs Pity the Bishop Why for his supposed Ignorance that he will not allow the Spirit to be
Spirit and these three are really one yet in his former Books particularly in his Sandy Foundation never yet retracted by him he hath sufficiently discovered his gross and vile error in that fundamental Doctrine of the Christian Faith thus arguing not only against their being Three Persons but their being Three otherwise than Nominally which was the Sabellian Heresie 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 God's And he bringeth Five Arguments against their being a Holy Three P. 12 13 14. In his Third Section he seemeth to profess his and his Brethrens Faith in Scripture terms But this his professed Faith is quite inconsistent with what he hath delivered in his other Books here he saith That the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among Men and was and is the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth his beloved Son c. who tasted Death for every Man and dyed for Sin that we might dye to Sin But as it hath been above shewed out of his Sandy Foundation he hath argued against any such distinction as of the Father and the Son in the God-head as inferring a plurality of God's and though here he professeth to believe that this only begotten Son dyed for Sin yet in his Serious Apology Page 146 he saith That the outward Person that suffered was properly the Son of God we utterly deny And in his guide mistaken P. 25. Christ Co-essential and Co-eternal with his Father c. of being made Man of his Dying Rising and Ascending into Heaven c. he saith of all this that it is confused Babble and by Rote Canting by paths of vain Tradition and Invention results of Factious and corrupted Counsels And in his Rejoinder to John Faldo Page 299. he plainly denyes that the Body of Christ was any constitutive part of Christ and for seven leaves together contends against John Faldo That Christ did not Dye nor hang on the Cross but only the Body which he will not have to be any part of him To this Doctrine of W. P. doth that of G. Whitehead agree a Man as great or rather much greater among the Quakers as W. P. who saith in his Dipper Plunged P. 13. Jesus Christ God-man is not Scripture Language And in his Christian Quaker P. 140. 141. though he grants that Christ had a humane Body of Flesh and Bones yet he denys that he consisted of it and saith he distinguisheth betwixt Christ's having a Body and consisting of it And in a Book given forth by the Quakers from their second days Meeting whereof G. W. is supposed the Author called A Testimony for the true Christ and his Light in confutation of R. Cobbet printed 1668. They deny the Humanity of Christ as Humanity signifieth the Earthly Nature of Man's Body as coming from Humus the Ground but as Humanity signifies Meekness Gentleness Mercifulness as opposite to Cruelty in this last sence they own Christ's Humanity but deny it in the former which yet is the true sense of Scripture and of all true Christians Section 2. His Fallacy in pretending to own Justification by Christ the Propitiation in Contradiction to what he hath delivered in his Serious Apology and Sandy Foundation and his fallacious way of stating the Doctrine of Justification wherein he misrepresents his Opponents IN his fourth Section as seemingly Orthodox as he professeth himself to be as fallacious and insincere he is seeing he knoweth in his own Conscience that what he hath here delivered is utterly inconsistent with what is extant in his other Books never as yet retracted by him nor doth either he or his Brethren own any change of perswasion from what they had ever since they came under the profession of Quakers but as one of them hath lately said in Print As God is the same and Truth is the same so his People are the same viz. the Quakers I shall first set down his present profession of what he believes concerning Justification as followeth That as we are only Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation and not by works of Righteousness that we have done so there is an absolute necessity that we receive and obey to unfeigned Repentance and amendment of Life the Holy Light and Spirit of Jesus Christ in order to obtain that Remissionand Justification from Sin c. But in contradiction to this see what his Doctrine is in his Serious Apology P. 148. And indeed says W. P. this we deny viz. Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption which does now deluge the whole World Note Reader If according to W. P's former words we Only are Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation and not by works of Righteousness that we have done then it is plainly evident by the same Doctrine that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us for these two manners of Speech are perfectly equivalent viz. That we are only Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the propitiation and that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person wholly without us The word Only plainly importing the Righteousness of Christ Wholly without us unless there be some great fallacy in W. P's words as the sequel will make appear a little after But if we take these two quotations in their genuine Sense the one that we are Justified by the Righteousness of Christ Only i. e. Wholly without us from the guilt of Sin and the other that this we deny i. e. that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils c. it is a perfect inconsistency and contradiction And yet now W. P. doth teach the same Doctrine which formerly he called the Doctrine of Devils without any change of his perswasion as he plainly tells in the conclusion of his Paper This saith he hath all along been the general stream and tendency both of our Ministry and Writings as our books will make appear But what a Forehead of Bras must W. P. have with so great confidence to assert so known an untruth Again the same W. P. in his forecited Serious Apology thus argueth P 148. against Christ's imputative Righteousness Death came by actual Sin not imputative therefore Justification unto Life came by actual Righteousness not imput ative Note Reader If we are not Justified by Christ's imputed which he calls imputative Righteousness as here he asserts
how can this consist with his now saying that we are Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation Again in his Sandy Foundation from P. 24 to P. 32. he pretends to bring arguments from both Scripture and Reason to refute the Justification of impure Persons by an imputative Righteousness I shall quote a few passages out of many to shew the inconsistency of his late and former Doctrine about Justification from the guilt of Sin P. 25. from Ezek. 18. 20 26 27 28. He draws this Argument That the Condemnation or Justification of Persons is not from the imputation of anothers Righteousness but the actual performance and keeping of God's Righteous Statutes or Commandments otherwise God should forget to be equal Again in P. 26. he saith Christ is so far from telling them of their being Justified abiding in his Love by virtue of his Obedience imputed unto them that unless they obey his Commandments and obey for themselves they shall be so remote from an acceptance as wholly to be cast out in all which Christ is but our example Where note Reader the words BUT our example Again in the same Page Nor let any fancy saith he that Christ hath so fulfilled it for them as to exclude their Obedience from being requisite to their acceptance BUT only as their pattern Where note again Reader these words but only as their pattern This is plain Socinianism Again in P. 27. he thus argueth If rejoycing and acceptance with God or the contrary are to be reaped from the Works that a Man soweth either to the Flesh or to the Spirit then is the Doctrine of acceptance and ground of rejoycing from the works of another utterly excluded every Man reaping according to what he hath sown and bearing his own Burden Thus Reader thou seest how earnestly he hath contended against all Justification from the Righteousness of Christ wrought in his own Person without us though in this late Paper of Gospel Truths he seems fully to assert it I shall not need to insist at large to shew his fallacious way of stating the question about Justification by Christ's Righteousness without us and of his reasoning against it As if these against whom he argueth did plead for a Justification or Righteousness of Christ actually imputed to Men wholly unsanctified and remaining altogether in a state of disobedience wherein hemost unfairly represents them But whereas he pleads at such a high rate that none are Justified while having the least Sin or impurity so as that none are Justified but who perfectly in all points without the least sinful defect or imperfection obey the Law of God and come up in their Obedience to the outmost demand of the Law as the whole strain of his Arguments run by this rate of arguing either W. P. and all his Brethren are under a state of Condemnation and the Curse of the Law If they have the least impurity or sinful defect and have not attained a sinless perfection which yet can be proved sufficiently they have not attained and some of them have so much ingenuity in them as to confess they have not yet arrived unto And W. P. would do but equally in the case to tell us whether he is such a Sinless Person that answers every demand of Justice and who in his obedience comes up to the highest perfection of Holiness that the most Holy Law of God doth now at this present require of him If he thinks he is he is miserably mistaken while his sinful Imperfections in his asserting such gross Untruths for Truths and some of them against the Conviction of his Conscience are so manifest that he who runs may read them besides a great vein of Pride Levity and Vanity of Mind and Scornful Disdain that appears running through his pretended Answer to the Bishop of Cork his modest Observations and his most uncivil Language and Epithets he hath used in his former Books never to this day repented of so far as we can understand given by him to his Opponents in his several Books of Controversie whereof the Author of The Snake in the Grass hath given a large Catalogue Section 3. His Fallacy in seeming to own Justification by Christ the Propitiation whereas by Christ the Propitiation he doth not mean the Man Christ without but the Light within His bold attempt in his Sandy Foundation to throw down three great Fundamentals of Christianity viz. The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity The Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and the Doctrine of Justification by Christ's imputed Righteousness His excluding Faith in Christ Crucified from being necessary to Justification and placing it wholly on Repentance and Obedience his agreement with G. W. therein BUT under this seemingly fair acknowledgment of W. P. that we are only justified from the Guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation let us search whither there be not even in this acknowledgment The Snake in the Grass If W. P. remain in his former Perswasion as he affirmeth he doth by his former Books I shall clearly prove that by Christ the Propitiation he doth not mean the Man Christ Jesus as he outwardly suffered Death and the shedding of his Blood outwardly for the Remission of our Sins being the great and only Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of Men and thereby by his most perfect Satisfaction paying to Divine Justice the Debt of our Sins In his Christian Quaker p. 97. he contendeth That the Sacrifices and Lamb in the Passover under the Law were not proper Figures of Christ without but of Christ the promised Seed within One outward thing saith he cannot be the proper Figure of another nor is it the way of Holy Scripture so to teach the outward Lamb shews forth the inward And in Page 145 he saith As the outward Jew had an outward Priest at whose mouth he ought to seek the Law so the Jew inward and Circumcision in Spirit has an inward and Spiritual High Priest the King Ruler Judge Law-giver High Priest Law Rule Temple are all Spiritual i. e. Inward And in his Rejoynder to J. Faldo p. 284. he affirmeth That Christ offers himself in his Children in the nature of a mediating Sacrifice to appease the Wrath of God Again in his Sandy Foundation from p. 16 to p. 24. he disputes against the Satisfaction of Christ giving this Title to his Disputation The vulgar Doctrine of Satisfaction being dependent on the second Person of the imagined Trinity refuted from Scripture to p. 20 and from p. 20 refuted from right reason to p. 24 where p. 17. arguing from Jer. 31. 31 33 34. he saith Here is God's meer Grace asserted against the pretended necessity of a Satisfaction to procure his Remission And p. 18. he argueth thus And forgive us our Debts as we forgive our Debtors Where nothing can be more obvious saith he than that which is forgiven is not paid And if it is our Duty to forgive without a Satisfaction received and that God is
of the written word preached or read which is the Rule of Faith appointed and given us of God for that end and purpose W. P. doth not acknowledge but will needs have it that we receive all our Light from the inward Principle which sometimes he calls Christ at other times the Light of Christ otherwhile as in page 49. a Manifestation in the Soul of Man of Christ the word God the Light of the World c. without all Instrumentality of either the Holy Scriptures or Ministry of Men For to grant any such Instrumentality would quite marr his Notion of the Light within being not only the Guide and Ruler but the Rule it self of Faith and Life to all Mankind and he earnestly opposeth that Faith which is wrought by the outward Ministry of the Word in Preaching or Reading concerning Christ's Death and Sufferings Resurrection and Ascension c. as being but the Historical Faith that must pass away as the old Heavens For if he did grant the necessity of Scripture-Doctrine-Light received from without as well as the necessity of the Spirits internal Light or Illumination in God's ordinary way of working going along with the Doctrine-light of the Scripture there would be no Controversie betwixt the Bishop and him provided he did also grant that there is necessary a special Illumination of Christ by the Holy Spirit to be infused or inspired into the Souls of the Faithful to enable them to take in and understand the Light of the Doctrine of Salvation delivered in the Holy Scriptures Should W. P. own these two great things asserted here by the Bishop the Controversie should be none at all betwixt them but seeing he denies them both and the Bishop affirmeth both the Controversie remaineth great betwixt them and the Bishop hath far the advantage of W. P. that he hath proved his Doctrine from Scripture and thus he fairly distinguisheth Christianity from Deism neither of which W. P. hath done nor ever can do It hath been ordinary in the People called Quakers even their chief Teachers as to deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God so to deny them that is the Doctrine delivered in them to be Light in any Scripture Sense turning all these places of Scripture that mention Light as with respect to Mens Knowledge and Faith to Light within only exclusive of all doctrinal Light of Scripture without as being the Rule of Faith or any necessary means of our Instruction in God's ordinary way of working though it has been God's ordinary way in all Ages by outward means of Doctrine delivered by Men as well as by the Spirits inward Illumination to beget in Men the saving Knowledge and Faith of the things necessary to Salvation the extraordinary Revelation of these Truths without all outward means of Instruction being given only to some singular Persons as the Prophets and Apostles but was never given in any Age to all Mankind nay nor to all the Faithful in any Age for even in the days of the Apostles when Prophetical Inspiration and extraordinary Revelation did most abound in the Church it was not given to all the Faithful but only to some as the Apostle Paul said Do all Prophesie Intimating they did not though a Manifestation of the Spirit was given to every one to profit withall yet that was not the extraordinary Revelation given to the Apostles and Prophets but the ordinary given to the Faithful to enable them to believe and understand what was outwardly taught them by the Apostles and Prophets Words and Writings Having thus taken a view of the Bishop's Christian sound Scriptural Doctrine both of Christ's Light within by the Illumination of the Holy Spirit and of the Scripture Light without as joyntly necessary in God's ordinary way of working to the Faithful the which Scripture Light as in respect of the Doctrine Laws Commands Precepts and Promises of God delivered therein the Bishop hath well proved from Psal 19. 8. Psal 119. 105. Isa 8. 20. and which Scripture-light may in a true sense be called though more remotely the Spirits Light In the next place let us take a view of W. P.'s unchristian and unscriptural Doctrine of the Light within which he saith in his page 48 is with him and his Brethren a Fundamental which one while he calls Christ the Word God another while the Light of Christ a Manifestation in the Soul of Man of Christ the Word God This Light within his great Fundamental as given to all Mankind even to them who have not the Scripture nor any external Revelation of Christ as he outwardly came in the Flesh he will not have it to be the Law of God in the Heart of Man nor the Impressions and Principles which are born and come with us into the World page 50. As the Work is not the Work-man so they are not properly the Light of Christ but the blessed Fruit and Effect of the Light of Christ the word God in Man which shines in the Heart and gives him the Knowledge of God and of his Duty to him so that the innate Notions or inward Knowledge we have of God is from this true Light that lighteth every Man coming into the World but is not that Light if self But why then doth he so confound the Work with the Work-man as one while he tells us the Light within is Christ another while a Manifestation in the Soul of Man of Christ the Word God Is not the Manifestation of Christ in the Soul of Man a Work of Christ How then is it Christ himself the Word God W. P. may remember how his Brother G. W. in his Light and Life recommended by him hath argued against the Body of Christ being Christ for if it were it would have this Sense the Christ of Christ or the Jesus of Jesus which to him is Nonsence Is it not great Nonsence to say The Manifestation of Christ to wit the Act or Effect of his Illumination in the Soul is Christ himself The Body of Christ together with his Soul are constitutive parts of his Manhood Nature personally united to his Godhead and may and do receive the Name of Christ and Jesus as the parts do receive the Name of the whole but the Manifestation of Christ in the Soul of Man is no part of Christ's Manhood nor of his Godhead which hath no parts but is only a Work of Christ in the Soul of Man by which it is enlightned And as the Work supposeth the Work-man or Worker to be present in the Soul to wit Christ considered as the Word God which the Bishop to be sure in the true Sence will acknowledge so the Work-man supposeth the Work as necessary to be wrought in the Soul for Christ as he is the Word God considered simply whither as in himself or as in Men is no Light to Men but as he hath his Work and Operation in them to enlighten them though in and to himself he is Light and Life
superior to the Scripture But this is W. P's Fallacy and Ignorance and not the Bishop's the Bishop owneth with all true Christians the Spirit to be superior to the Scriptures as the Author and Lord of them and who useth them as his Instrument as the Work man useth a Rule or Tool that he worketh withal but the Bishop and all sound Christians think that it is no dishonour to the Spirit to acknowledge the Office proper to him which is to Rule and the Office proper to the Scripture to be the Rule and Instrument in the Hand and Management of the Spirit And thus the Office of the Scripture is a far inferior Office to the Office of the Spirit as the Servant and his Office is inferior to the Master and his Office but to put the Spirit in the Office of the Scripture is to degrade the Master and put him in the Servant's place The last thing I shall notice in this Book of W. P. is not so properly a Fallacy as a down-right open-faced Falshood and false Charge and Accusation against all Protestants whatsoever except themselves who though they affect the Name of Protestants yet for the vast disagreement of Doctrine betwixt them even in Fundamentals deserve neither the Name of Protestants nor Christians so much as at large The Accusation is this Page 97 That the Church of England and Dissenters and generally all Protestants Confine the Operations of the Spirit to the first or Apostolical Times as if these did not want them as much or that Christ would be less Propitious where his Gifts were not less needful This I say is a down-right false Accusation the contrary of which cvidently appears from all the several Confessions of Faith of all the Protestant Churches truly owned to be such and which also appears from the afore-cited words of the Bishop in his Testimony where he owns That Conscience must be opened by the Holy Spirit under the Ministry of the Word citing Acts 16. 14. to take in its Light to wit the Doctrine Instrumentally from the Holy Scriptures Can this be done without an Operation of the Holy Spirit If W. P. say Nay it cannot then his own words are an Evidence against the Falsity of his Accusation Again That he chargeth it on them that Ministers are made such and preach without the Spirit and the People worshipping without the Spirit which is too rash and uncharitable Judgment in him so to affirm without any Caution or Restriction How doth it appear that the Quakers Preach and Pray with the Spirit and all others do not Will the Quakers saying it prove it Or doth the great Noise of their Preaching and Praying by the Spirit from an elevated high-flown Conceit through their Spiritual Pride prove it to be so oft-times where there is greatest noise and shew there is least Reality and Substance Surely if Preaching and Printing more unsound Doctrine than all others do and uncharitable Judgments of them that do really excel them both in Knowledge and Piety be proofs that they are not acted by the Spirit of God commonly in either their Preaching or Praying and who are scarce ever heard to acknowledge their sinful Imperfections or ask Forgiveness of them If these be Marks of Men sensual and not having the Spirit notwithstanding of their Boastings Laodicea and Pharisee like they are abundantly to be found among them It is indeed matter of Regrate and Humiliation that there is so little Preaching and Praying with the Spirit among many of all sorts as the little Success it produceth doth manifest in many places yet blessed be God for what is among many of all the several Churches and were there but more Love and Charity Humility and Self-denial it might certainly be hoped that God would give more of his Spirit And for such a Time I joyn with all sincere Christians both to Hope and Pray G. K. A Synopsis or short View of W. P 's Deism and Scepticism collected out of his Book called A Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Life and Judge of Controversie first Printed in the Year 1673 as an Appendix to his Christian Quaker and Reprinted in this present Year 1699. Compared with some Passages in his other Books With some plain and necessary Consequences naturally flowing from the Positive Doctrine therein delivered by him 1. ALL Mankind hath one General Rule of Faith and Life Page 1 2 3 4 c. 2. This General Rule of Faith and Life cannot be the Scripture because all Men have not the Scripture and because of their uncertainty unless upon the ground of inward extraordinary Revelation and for their Imperfection and many other Reasons given by him in the following Pages to the number of about fourteen 3. The General Rule of Faith and Life must be the Light in every Man's Conscience P. 6 7. 4. The Light in every Man's Conscience is the Rule of Faith and Life not abstractly and seperately considered from the inward Discoveries it giveth but with respect thereunto For without some inward Discovery it teacheth Men nothing and therefore it can be no Rule to any Man but with respect to its inward Discoveries 5. The inward discoveries of the Light within are of two sorts P. 32. the one extraordinary such as were given to the Prophets and Apostles concerning Adam's fall and the extraordinary manifestation of God in the Flesh of that Man called Jesus Christ whom some call the Son of God But that he was properly the Son of God we utterly deny faith W. P. in his Serious Apology P. 146. The other ordinary such as fall within the ordinary discoveries given to all Mankind 6. The Light within is the general Rule of Faith and Life not with respect to these extraordinary discoveries above mentioned P. 32. but with respect to the ordinary discoveries given to Mankind in general universally 7. We have no need that the Light within should give us any of these extraordinary discoveries P. 32. concerning Adam's fall and that extraordinary manifestation of God in the Flesh of that Man improperly called the Son of God and Jesus Christ because the Historical account of these things is extant in Scripture and it not being needful to be given us by any new inward Revelation we may conclude it is not given to any of us it sufficeth we have the Historical account of them given us in Scripture which is sufficient to beget in us a Historical Faith of these things without any new inward Revelation of them such as was given to the Prophets and Apostles 8. The Historical account of these things though it may be called a Historical Rule of the Historical Faith of them yet it cannot be called the Rule of Faith and Life that is necessary to Salvation For as all have not this Historical Faith because the History hath not reached them so to them who have the History the Historical Faith doth not profit them to Salvation but doth far rather hurt