Conscience to appeal to God as one not guilty of such vile Injustâ—ce as that of charging us with false things and refer the Reader to Examine the Quotations when here â—s not one Quotation nor the colour of one that the Quakers did ever thus speak of or render the Holy Scriptures to be of no more Authority then the Fables of Aesop What will not Envy and Wickedness had this Man to say against us Doth this agree with â—is Pretence That all he intended was only our Conviction and Recovery Dial. p. 10. Is it not rather to do us what Injury and Mischief he can by Slanders and Forgeries Tho. Hicks's Charge against Nicolas Lucas viz. That N.L. a Real Quaker was moved to declare his Mind thus to one I know very well Thou mayst burn thy Bible and when that is done thou mayst serve God as well without it and if thou hast a mind to have a Scripture thou mayst write as good a one thy self N. L's Answer follows These words whereof T. Hicks hath thus publickly and positively accused me and that divers times over in his Pamphlet were never spoken by me nor was it ever my Principle Way or Motion to Dis-esteem Undervalue or speak evil of the Holy Scriptures for I really believe that Holy Men of God spake them forth as moved by the Holy Spirit Therefore this Charge against me is an Abominable Lye and Wicked Slander And with a clear Consience I speak it I do neither know nor remember that ever any words past from me whereby Tho. Hicks could so much as colour this Lye and Slander against me And I cannot but look upon my self to be greatly Injur'd and Abus'd by T.H. until he oâ— his Brethren do me Right in this thing in as publick a Manner to the World as he hath done me Wrong Which iâ— they do not I commit my Cause to God to judge between us and clear my Innocency herein London the 29 th of the 3 d Moneth 1673. Nicolas Lucas Whereas Nicolas Lucas was referr'd to Owen Horton and his Wife for Proof of Tho. Hicks's Charge before to whom Nicolas spoke about it and she referr'd her self to Hen. Stout to witness the Charge to which Hen. Stout answers thus viz I Hen. Stout of Hertford never in all my dayes heard Nicolas Lucas speak the Words nor any of the like Import or Tendency as charged on him before nor any Man else before Tho. Hicks that I can call to mind But am satisfied in my Conscience that he hath most grosly Wronged Nicolas Lucas To which I subscribe H. Stout Another Accusation is viz. That S. Eccles discoursing with a Friend of his in London told him The Scriptures were a Lye But that this may appear a very likely Lye against S.E. he adds 'T was replyed Why then dost thou mention them that The Quaker answer'd To silence thee That he should say the Scriptures were a Lye or that he made use of a Lye to silence his Opposer appears a most absurd Slander and where is his Quotation the Reader must examine for Proof Hath he not here Abused his Reader But let S. Eccles's own Words clear him of this Lye and Slander In his Book Mus Lect. he often cites the Scriptures calls them The Holy Scriptures pag. 13. Thou that sayst the Quakers deny the Scriptures belyest the Innocent pag. 20. Do not belye the Scriptures nor the Spirit that gave it forth for Holy Men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost pag. 22 Whereas Tho. Hicks begins his Continuation thus Chr. I have formerly detected you of several Pernicious Opinions concerning the Scriptures the Light Within the Person of Christ and the Resurrection c. I presume by this time you have considered what say you thereunto To this he feigns the Answer thus viz. Quak. I say the Plagues and Judgments of God will follow thee G. Whitehead Rep. I testifie against this as a Fiction for this was not my Answer neither has he referred us to any Quotations of mine though upon this he is pleased to accuse me with Passion Furious Replies and Sarcasms for his own Fiction to which he hath counterfeited my Name I question not but the Judgments of God will follow him and such Forgers and Spreaders of Lyes But that was not my Answer to the said Objection This Dialogue-Man's Liberty in these Forgeries and silly Botcheries is neither Christian nor Civil As to what he sayes pag. 3. I answer 1. That the Life which is the Light of Men John 1. is not a Creature but Divine and of the very Being of God I still affirm and have else-where proved though the whole Essence or Being of God is not contained in Man yet enlightens all Men. And 2. That the Inward Speaking or Living Ministration of the Spirit of Truth is of greater Authority then the Scriptures or Writings in the Abstract 3. S. Crisp doth own the True and Real Christ the Son of the Living God in his Spiritual Divine Being to be without either Beginning Date or End This he hath fully answered else-where 4. That the Soul or Spirit of Man as it relates to the Creaturely Being is a distinct Being from the Infinite Being of God and is not properly a Part of God For he is not divided into Parts or Particles but with respect to its Original Life whereby it immortally subsists we are God's Off-spring and the Breath of Life or Immediate Inspiration of God by which Man became a Living Soul or the Original Life of Man's Soul Of this G.F. spoke when he said Is not that of God which cometh out from God viz. the Breath of Life His words are perverted and mis-cited by T.H. For in another Consideration and State he owns the Infinite Being of God and the Soul or Spirit of Man to be distinct Beings where he speaks of the Soul being in Death in Transgression Man's Spirit Vnsanctified the Soul being in Death Transgressing the Law see Great Myst p. 91. This he could never intend or speak of the Infinite Incorruptible Being of God for that never sinned 5. That G.W. denies the Resurrection of the Body that is of the Dead or any Body at all is false nor is this prov'd against G.W. from his Saying Thou sowest not the Body that shall be it 's raised a Spiritual Body and Flesh Blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God 1. Cor. 15. And T.H. may as well charge it upon the Apostle and upon his Brother Tho. Collier who in his Marrow of Christianity p. 40 94 95. plainly saith The Form in which they shall be raised that is in a Spiritual Form not in a Fleshly c. All Flesh shall be swallowed up in Spirit and our Body shall be changed and made like his glorious Body But Tho. Hicks plainly contradicts him saying That the Apostles and all true Christians say This Body of Flesh and Bones shall rise again Dial. p. 59 60. which he could never yet
Talking the other a Doing Christian I in short argue thus If none can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven but they that do the Father's Will then none are justified but they who do the Father's Will because none can enter into the Kingdom but such as are justified Since therefore there can be no Admittance had without Performing that Righteous Will and Doing those Holy and perfect Sayings Alas to what Value will an imputative Righteousness amount when a poor Soul shall awake polluted in his Sin by the hasty Calls of Death to make its Appearance before the Judgment Seat where 't is impossible to justifie the Wicked or that any should escape uncondemned but such as do the Will of God 2. For not the Hearers of the Law are just before God but the Doers of the Law shall be justified From whence how unanswerably may I observe Unless we become Doers of that Law which Christ came not to destroy but as our Example to fulfil we can never be justified before God wherefore Obedience is so absolutely necessary that short of it there can be no Acceptance Nor let any fancy that Christ hath so fulfill'd it for them as to exclude their Obedience from being requisite to their Acceptance but only as their Pattern For unless ye follow me saith Christ ye cannot be my Disciples And it is not only repugnant to Reason but in this place particularly refuted for if Christ had fulfill'd it on our behalf and we not enabled to follow his Example there would not be Doers but One Doer only of the Law justified before God In short if without Obedience to the Righteous Law none can be justified then all the Hearing of the Law with but the meer Imputation of anothers Righteousness whilst actually a Breaker of it is excluded as not justifying before God If you fulfill the Royal Law ye do well so speak ye and so DO as they that shall be judg'd thereby 3. If ye live after the Flesh ye shall dye but if ye through the Spirit do mortifie the Deeds of the Body ye shall live No Man can be dead and justified before God for so He may be justified that lives after the Flesh therefore they only can be justified that are alive from whence this follows If the Living are justified and not the Dead and that none can live to God but such as have mortified the Deeds of the Body through the Spirit then none can be justified but they who have mortified the Deeds of the Body through the Spirit so that justification does not go before but is subsequential to the Mortification of Lusts and Sanctification of the Soul through the Spirit 's operation 4. Was not Abraham our Father justified by Works when he had offered Isaak his Son upon the Altar Ye see then how that by Works a Man is justified and not by Faith only He that will seriously peruse this Chapter shall doubtless find some to whom this Epistle was writen of the same Spirit with the Satisfactionists and Imputarians of our tâ—me they fain would have found out a Justification from Faith in and the Imputation of anothers Righteousness but James an Apostle of the most high God who experimentally knew what true Faith and Justification meant gave them to understand from Abraham's self-denying Example that unless their Faith in the Purity and Power of God's Grace had that effectual Operation to subdue every beloved Lust wean from every Dallila and intirely to resign and sacrifice Isaak himself their Faith was a Fable or as a Body without a Spirit and as Righteousness therefore in one Person cannot justify another from Unrighteousness so whoever now pretends to be justified by Faith whilst not led and guided by the Spirit into all the Wayes of Truth and Works of Righteousness their Faith they will find at last Fiction Consequences Irreligious and Irrational 1. It makes God guilty of what the Scriptures say is an Abomination to wit that he justifieth the Wicked 2. It makes him look upon Persons as they are not or with respect which is unworthy of his most Equal Nature 3. He is hereby at Peace with the Wicked if justified whilst Sinners who said There is no Peace to the Wicked 4. It does only imply Communion with them here in an Imperfect State but so to all Eternity for whom he justifieth them he also glorifieth Therefore whom he justify'd whilst Sinners them he also glorify'd whilst Sinners 5. It only secures from the Wages not the Dominion of Sin whereby something that is sinful becomes justify'd and that which defileth to enter God's Kingdom 6. It renders a Man justify'd and condemn'd dead and alive redeemed and not redeemed at the same time the one by an Imputative Righteousness the last by a Personal Unrighteousness 7. It flatters Men whilst subject to the World's Lusts with a State of Justification and thereby invalids the very End of Christ's Appearance which was to destroy the Works of the Devil and take away the Sins of the World CHAP. X. Of the Doctrine of Sanctification and Perfection The Ignorance or Malice of T. Hicks Detected OF the Doctrine of Sanctification he has several Vnsanctified Passages though he bestows not much time upon that Important Subject some of which I shall take a little notice of Christ Let us understand your Opinion of Sanctification what it is Out of Ed. Burroughs he answereth himself thus Quak. 'T is Christ Hence we conclude to say Sanctification is Imperfect in this Life is as much as to say Christ is Imperfect To which he replies Christ 'T is true 't is Jesus Christ by his Spirit is the Author and Worker of Sanctification but will it therefore follow that the Work of Sanctification in us is Christ or that this Work is perfect in all its Degrees Now let any tell me wherein T. Hicks could have more grosly mistaken E. Burroughs who frequently insults over the Grave and Labours of that Faithful Servant of the Lord then he has done on purpose I doubt not to insinuate his Belief of the contrary to what he opposed But hear Edw. Burrough's Words at large in Answer to Priest Eaton Thou sayest Sanctification is not Perfect in this Life And the New Man the Spirit or Law of the Mind is that Grace or Imperfect Sanctification Then Christ is not Perfect in this Life for He is made of God unto us Sanctification 1 Cor. 1.30 In this it is evident First That the Priest did not so much strike at the Work done in the Creature as at the Perfection of the Principle by which the Work should be perfected in the Creature 2dly E. Burroughs did not in that place meerly intend the Work of Sanctification but the Author and Worker of it who is oftentimes called by the Name of the Work it self the Cause by the Effect as is plain from the Scripture quoted in which he used but Paul's Words How basely done was it
him into all Truth as he obeyes it Bap. Abel Enoch Abraham Isaac Jacob Noah c. had a Sufficient Rule before the Scriptures were written viz. the Spirit 's Rule God's Speaking and Directions from his own Mouth and that they had a more Infallible Word to waâ—k by then now is to us For 't is possible that some Scriptures may be corrupted having been in the hands of corrupted Men. The Scriptures may be and is corrupted by Man This may be graâ—ted that the Spirit is the Rule Of more Efficacy then the Letter The Spirit is greater then the Letter Jo. Newman's Light Within page 19 20 104 105 106 108 110 112. VIII Qua. 'T is possible for True Believers through the Power and Help of Jesus Christ to attain to such a Perfection in this Life as the keeping the Commandments of God Bap. The Spirit of God assures us that they who are subject to and keep the Commandments of God are the Children of God and they who do not are Lyars 1 John 2.3 4. cap. 5.2 3. Contin p. 61. IX Qua. That Remission and Pardon of Sins past thrâ—ugh the Blood Righteousness of Christ Jesus tâ—e Justification of Persons whether it import the making or declaring them Righteous in Christ by a Living Faith are neither imputed nor reckon'd of God tâ— thâ—m in an Unconverted Unsanctified Disobedient or Ungodly State but to the truly Repentant Converted Believing and Obedient Souls Bap. I know of none that hold Justification of Persons in their Vngodliness We plead not for a Righteousness Imputed to overthrow a Righteousness Inherent or the Exercise of Christian Vertues He that is pardoned were a Sinner till justified not such that remain so being satiâ—fied Contin p. 55 56. The Saints are made the Righteousness of God that is God now as in Christ dâ—â—â—'s and â—â—â—s in the Saints hâ— hâ—â—â—pirit writes his Law in their Hearts makes them Partakers of his own Nature and so goes oâ— in Fulfilling his own Righteousness in thâ—â— For the Righteousness of the Law in the Spirit is fulfilled in us Marrow Christian p. 38. X. Qua. Though the Soul and Spirit of Man be not of God's Divine and Infinite Being but related â—o the Being of Man and as Corruptible hath a mutâ—blâ— Habit yet as we are his Off-spring and Man is the Image and Glory of God the Original â—ife oâ— Soul of the Soul that came from God and is immutable is of his own Being In short God in whom we live move and have our Being is the Life of Lives and Great Soul of Son's and the Soul thâ—t is Saved and United to God doth partake of his Divine Nature and he that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit Bap. The Condescension of God and Christ into the Hearts of his People to woâ—k up his Saints into the sâ—â—â— Nature with himself c. God aâ—d Christ iâ— Holy so his Word is Holâ— and through Faith in tâ—is 〈◊〉 Christians are wrought up into the Nature of it self and into God J. Newman 's Book Light Within p 78 84 87 88. There were the Propeâ—ties oâ— Gâ—â— iâ— some measure imparted to Adam Adam was in the Image of God in respect of Eternity he hâ—d given hâ—m an Everlasting Being Marrow of Christianity pag. 4 5. Christ was both the Power and Wiâ—dom â—f God and as Christ so all the Saints are 〈◊〉 one iâ— thâ—s Wisdom Christ is made unto us Wisdom nâ—t only by wâ—y of Imputation but by the Operatiâ—n of the same â—pirit who dwells as truly in every Believer as in Christ ibid. pag. 34 35. And have not sâ—me of their Brethren confâ—st That there is a kind â—f Infiniteness in the Soul XI Qua. The Children of the Resurrection shall be equal unto the Angels of God in Heaven and their Bodies not Natural Earthly and 〈◊〉 the very Gross Mâ—ttâ—r that nâ—w they are 〈…〉 Celestial Spiritual like uâ—to Chriâ—â—'◠〈◊〉 Body God giveth a Body as it plâ—asâ—th 〈◊〉 in Subjection to whose Good Pleasure we 〈◊〉 quiesce till it be effected as he seâ—th 〈…〉 own Praise Bap. That there shall be a Resurrection of the â—ody at the Last Day is Evident John 5 〈◊〉 11. with 1 Cor. 15. Rev. 20. although 〈…〉 some denyed and by others too caâ—â—lly looke◠〈◊〉 Some thinking that our Bodies of Flesh shall be Raised in the same Form in which it Dyed c. The Form in which they shall be raised that is a Spiritual Form not in a Fleshly It is sown a Natural Body it is raised a Spiritual Body When Christ who is our Life shall pâ—eâ—r we shall appear with him in Glory all Flesh shall he swâ—llowed up in â—pirit and our Bodies shall be changed and made like unto his Glorious Body Marrow of Christianity by T.C. pag. 93 94 95. And those Saints who are alive at the Coming of Christ shall be changed in a Moment in the Twinkling of an Eâ—e 1 Cor. 15.51 52. and so shall be caught up in the Spirit to meet the Lord in the Air 1 Thes 4.17 Ibid. p. 92. XII Qua. The Son of God doth not consist or is not made up of a Humane Body of Flesh Blood and Bones For he was the Word and One in Being with the Father from Everlasting But in the Fulness of Time he took upon him Flesh or that Body prepared for him and being Ascended into Glory his Body is a Glorious Body surpassing all Humane Earthly Carnal and Corruptible Bodies Bap. Christ was a Son by a Spiritual Proceeding and Coming from the Father who was Eternally One in the Father Marrow of Châ— p. 30. Our Bodies shall be changed and made like his Glorious Body Ibid. p. 95. Theâ— shall be raised in a Spiritual Form not in a Fleshly p. 94. The â—on took Flesh upon him the Word took Fleâ—h the Father did prepare him a Body Dialogue p. â—5 4â— and 83. XIII Qua. Christ being so highly exalted and Glorified as it God's Right Hand as he is can be neither Proof nor Argument that he is not iâ— any Man nor that either Christ or God's Right Hand is limited and circumscribed to such Remotâ—ness as not to be in the True Believers to save and uphold their Souls Bap. When a Soul is satisfied from its Vnion with God and its Dwelling in God that all the Administrations and makings forth of God is Love unto it thus it dwells in Love and from hence is filled with Joy It causeth the Soul alwayes to dwell at the Right Hand of God where is Joy and Pleasure for evermore Marrow of Christian p. 28. Christ the Son was Eternally one in the Father so in him all Believers are made by the same Spirit the Adopted Sons of God being made Partakers of the same Divine Nature Marrow of Christian p. 30. Christ dwells Spiritually in all the Saints If Christ be in you you shall be sensible of it Ibid p 31.32 Tâ—is Indwelling of Christ in his People God and Christ cannot be
was Life and the Life was the Light of Men That if the Life was the Divine Essence the Light must be so also for such as the Cause is such the Effect must be Upon which sayes T. Hicks From this kind of reasoning we may conclude not only the Light within but every Creature both Beasts and Trees are God these being Effects of infinite Wisdom and Power Dost thou not Tremble at this Consequence Answ This very thing shews great Dis-ingenuity in T. Hicks That from G. Whiteheads asserting and proving the divine Nature of the Light within he should insinuate that every Measure of Light in Man is whole God and which is yet more gross to conclude from G. Whiteheads saying Such as the Cause is such the Effect must be that Beasts and Trees are God because the Effects of his Power whereas G. Whitehead did not intend it of a meer Potential but Natural Effect that is something resulting from the Nature and not the meer Power of the Divine Life Men are the Natural Off-spring Product of Men but so are not all those other things in the Creation which are notwithstanding the Effects of their Art and Power so that there needs no Trembling at G. W's Blasphemy as he afterwards calls it but better Information to T. Hicks's Ignorance or Rebuke to his wilful Blindness Of this I refer the Reader to G. W's Part of that larger Volum Again G.W. affirm'd it must be God because to deny it so to be was to deny the Omnipresence of God Then it seems says T.H. that the Light within and the Omnipresence of God is one and the same thing with him Is this your Champion May we not conclude the Body of Man as well as the Light within to be God by this Reason Answ By no means and 't is a Shame to hear that a Man pretending to Controversy should ask so ridiculous a Question Is there no Difference betwixt a Man whose Reines are on his Neck following the Lust of the flesh the Lust of the Eye and the Pride of Life and the Light within that T.H. himself acknowledgeth to convince of Sin reprove for it and unto which Man ought to give Attendance Is there as clear a Proof of the Omnipresence of God in the one as in the other I would know who is he that searcheth the Hearts and trieth the Reins and telleth Man his Thoughts do not the Scriptures attribute this to God and that as the most convincing Proof of his Omnipresence And if he doth so search the Hearts and try the Reins let us understand if it be not as the Great Light that enlightneth every Man that cometh into the World since the Scriptures testify that God is Light that every Man is enlightened that God searcheth all Hearts and that what ever doth make manifest is Light Now unless a Man may have his Heart searched his Reins tryed his Deeds manifested judg'd without an inward Light it must necessarily follow that the Light within present with us every where is to us the great Proof of Gods Omnipresence and therefore of God And though every measure of Light distinctly is not that Intire Eternal Being yet we are bold to assert that it is no other then God the Fulness of all Light who searcheth the Heart and tryeth the Reins and telleth Man his thoughts that doth shine into the Inward parts of Man and doth there convince of Sin reprove for it and lead out of it as believed and obeyed And 't is by this Inward Discovery chiefly Men come to know that God is and that he is a Rewarder of them that fear him whence when Men are Innocent it is frequent with them to say being unjustly accused my Heart misgives me not my Conscience doth not condemn me I have good Courage to look my Accuser in the Face A State transcending the utmost Stretch of all T. H's imagined Christianity In short T. Hicks's confident Conclusions against us arise from these Mistakes First He infers from Mans being Ignorant of all he ought to know the Inability of the Light to inform him never considering Man's Obedience or Rebellion 2 ly From Christs being the Light that enlightens every Man every Man 's having the whole Christ in him And thirdly from our asserting God and Christ to be one our Denial of Christs Outward Person and Bodily Appearance at Jerusalem see pag. 3 4 5 6 7 14. of the Dialog and 41 contin of the Dial. with much more of that sort Than which what can be more grosly Injurious to any People Either let him leave of Writing or understand better what he writes against us In short we are willing to let the Controversie ly here that the Quakers own promote and assert that the Life of God which is the Light of Men with which every Man is enlightened is sufficient to everlasting Salvation And Thomas Hicks asserts and promotes that this Life of God which is the Light of Men with which all Men are enlightened is not sufficient to Salvation I am not willing to break my Design of following his Charge and Proofs by much controverting the Doctrine in it self since 't is enough for me to shew that the Doctrines and sayings he fastens upon us and the Proofs he brings to maintain them such are not ours yet I am willing to mention one Passage among several others that if I understand any thing is a grand Contradiction to his Opinion of the Light 's Insufficiency He quotes Stephen Crisp thus If the Light ought to be obeyed then it must be sufficient To which T.H. returns this Answer But I appeal to the Light in thee whether this be not an Insufficient Proof I grant it ought to be obeyed so ought the lawful Commands of Magistrates Parents and Masters yet who will thence infer that therefore they are a sufficient Rule to Salvation Answ This cuts the Throat of his whole Design For by the same Reason that such who obey the lawful commands of Masters Parents and Magistrates are to be reputed good Servants Children and Subjects those who obey the Light are good Subjects Children and Servants to God And if those who so keep the Commandments of Parents Masters and Magistrates escape Punishment and obtain their Good Will Favour and Recompence which is an outward Salvation then those who obey the Light by his Allusion do obtain his Favour Love and Recompence of the Reward of Righteousness which Righteousness that it might be fulfilled in us so obeying and walking after his Spirit was the End of God's giving his Son a Light condemning Sin and that they that walk thereafter might not have Condemnation minding the things of the Spirit of God the Spirit of him that raised up Christ from the Dead the Spirit of Christ Christ in them not minding the Things of the Flesh which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Minding as it may be render'd cannot be subject to the Law of God
such are cleansed from all Vnrighteousness and yet the Light neâ—ther a Rule nor Saving then what else can be either a Rule or Saving But this Light says he could not tell any that Jesus should be born of a Virgin dye for Sinners and rise again But this is so great a Mistake that had he conversed with the Sibylls or other Heathen Writers he might in good part have informed himself to the contrary But here I distinguish of Faith There is an Historical and Saving Faith and there is an Historical and Saving Rule as the Faiths so the Rules differ If T. Hicks sayes that 't is the Scriptures that give the Knowledge of those Transactions I mâ—st then understand him to mean Historically if I assent which is not Saving for then all who believe those things to have been must therefore be saved the contrary to which is daily seen with our Eyes since who believes not that Report among those who are yet in great Wickedness But if we are to penetrate deeper and that T Hicks should hold as he seems plainly to do that what Faith we can have of the most weighty Truths declared of in the Scriptures is from it and not from the Light or Spirit within I must firmly deny it For Faith is God's Gift not the Scriptures Gift No so far is the Scripture from giving Faith that it is God's Spirit alone that gives both to understand and believe them The Scripture tells me of such Prophecies Histories and Epistles and of such Men as Moses Job David Isaiah Matthew Paul and John But what is it that gives me to believe the Things they writ of to be true Is it not the Testimony and most certain Amen in the Conscience and what is that there which seals to those excellent Truths Which way then can the Scripture be a Rule to me in believing the Scripture when that Faith is begotten of God by his Light and Spirit concerning the Scripture If the meer Scripture could give me Faith then it might be allowed to rule my Faith but when God by his Spirit alone begets Faith and without which I can neither understand nor believe the Scriptures tell me If God's Spirit be not the Rule of my Faith what how far and which way I am to believe them or the things believed Certainly they can never be my Rule How far and which way I am to believe themselves who of themselves cannot give me that Faith but it must be wrought by another thing so that what gives to believe rules the Belief and not the Thing believed Therefore the Scriptures cannot be the Rule of Faith Now as to this of Christ's Outward Manifestation I say so far as it is Historical the Scripture is that which furnisheth me with a Belief But I utterly deny that they give to believe it in that deep Sense which may be truly called a Saving Faith The Pharisees had the Scriptures and they pretended to admire Moses and the Prophets yet they crucified Christ and sought to countenance their Murder by Scripture Now had they believed and esteemed the Writings of Moses and the Prophets from an Inward Sence of Gods Spirit which the meer Scriptures could not furnish them with they had rightly understood them and not made so ill an Use of their Historical Knowledge as to crucifie the Lord of Life and Glory This shews that Men may have an Historical Faith and yet not the True Faith nor Knowledge of the Scriptures what then gives to believe aright now why truely that which did then the Light and Spirit of Truth no Man could call Jesus Lord without it that is truly so or upon good ground No Man could confess that Christ was come in the Flesh but whose Spirit was of God yet now nothing is more common yet nothing is more True then that Thousands of them are not of God but lie in Wickedness alienated from the Life of God c. what is the matter then why this Those who then confest that Jesus was come in the Flesh did it by Virtue of an Invisible Sight and through a Divine Illumination in their Souls For impossible had it otherwise been for them in any measure to have seen through the Vail of his Flesh into that Divine Life Power and Wisdom that Vnmeasurably filled it but having some inward Sence and Taste of that most excellent Being that was manifested in and by that bodily Appearance therefore did they confess to it and their Spirits truely reputed by John to be of God And as in that day it was Impossible for any truly and acceptably to confess to Christ without a Discerning given and Faith wrought by the Light and Spirit of God in the Heart which was the saving Faith so is it now equally Impossible for any to believe that Christ appeared and that he spake and did all these great things so as to be benefitted thereby and any wayes accepted of God therein but as the Light and Spirit of Truth open those Things to the Understanding and from a measure of that Divine Life which then immeasurably appeared for we have all received of his Fulness and Grace for Grace true Faith comes to be begotten in that Manifestation and a right Confession unto it In short He that calleth Christ Lord must now as then do it by the Holy Ghost that is from an Experience or Witnessing of his Dominion and Rule which through the Operation of the holy Spirit the Soul is to be subjected to so that who believes more then Historically that Christ came in the Flesh must do it by Virtue of the Divine Light and Spirit who alone gives to relish and savour the Truth Nature and End of that Appearance And though it may be allowed that the Scripture is a Rule respecting the History as it was to those of old in reference to the particular Prophecies fulfilled in Christ's coming yet as there was then a more Inward and Heavenly Sence of Christ which drew many after him and begot deep Faith in him so must there now be a more Inward Spiritual and deep grounded Faith of those things recorded in Scripture of Christs Appearance c. then the meer Letter is able to give And therefore that Light and Spirit which gives that discerning and works that deep Sence and Faith must needs be as well the Rule as Author of it and not the Scriptures For if the Scriptures be the Rule then either of Themselves or by Interpretation If of Themselves then either in their Translations or Originals Not in the Translations unless the Translators had been so inspired that they mist not a tittle which I am sure is not so and consequently none but Schollars have a Rule for the Unlearned are secluded therefore the English Bible is not a Rule If in the Originals of Hebrew and Greek Query In what Copies There are various Lections in Hebrew And for the New Testament so called there are no less then
pleading for a Saving Light the necessity of Obedience to it the Eternal Reward of Life or Death Happiness or Misery as it is conformed to or rebelled against prove our Faith in that Matter to be quite another thing If this be your Champion I dare warrant his own Baseness shall be his own Overthrow we need no more against him then his own Ignorance Malice Lyes Forgeries and Slanders to his utter Confutation in the Minds of all Impartial Persons CHAP. IX Of Justification and something of Satisfaction THe Doctrine of Justification is the next Particular that I am to take notice of He begins with the Quaker thus Pray what is your Opinion of Justification by that Righteousness of Christ which He in his own Person fulfilled for us WHOLELY WITHOVT VS Quak. Justification by the Righteousness which Christ fulfills for us in his own Person WHOLELY WITHOUT US we boldly affirm it to be a Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption which doth now deluge the World Will. Penn Apol. p. 148. This Apology cited was written against a Malicious Priest in Ireland who in a Book by him published not long afore laid it down as Unscriptural and a very heinous Thing in us to deny Justification without any Distinction exprest by the Righteousness which Christ wrought in his own Person WHOLELY WITHOUT US To whom I made the Answer given by T. Hicks And if therein I have crost the express Testimony of the Scriptures let any shew me But if I have only thwarted a most Sin-pleasing and therefore Dangerous Notion let such as hold it look to that He has not offered me one plain Scripture nor the Shadow of a Reason why this Passage ought to be reputed unsound or condemnable If any Living will produce me but one Passage out of Scripture that tells of a Justification by such a Righteousness as is WHOLELY WITHOUT US I shall fall under its Authority but if we only deny Men's corrupt Conceits and Sin-pleasing Glosses and they offer us nothing to our Confutation or better Information we shall not think bare Quotations of our Books to be sufficient Answers But to the end all may understand the Reason of my so Answering that Priest take those short Reasons then rendered with any one of which I am to suppose T. Hicks desired not to meddle First No Man can be Justified without Faith sayes Jenner No Man hath Faith without Works any more then a Body can live without a Spirit sayes James Therefore the Works of Righteousness by the Spirit of Jesus Christ are necessary to Justification Second If Men may be justified whilst Impure then God quits the Guilty contrary to the Scripture which cannot be I mean while in a Rebellious State Third Death came by Actual Sin not Imputative in his sense therefore Justification unto Life comes by actual Righteousness not Imputative Fourth This speaketh Peace to the Wicked whilst Wicked but there is no Peace to the Wicked saith my God Fifth Men are Dead and Alive at the same time saith this Doctrine for they may be dead in Sin and yet alive in another's Righteousness not Inherent and consequently Men may be damned actually and saved imputatively Sixth But since Men are to reap what they sow and that every one shall be rewarded according to his Works and that none are Justified but the Children of God and that none are Children but who are led by the Spirit of God and that none are so led but those that bring forth Fruits thereof which is Holiness 'T is not the Oyle in anothers Lamp but in our own only which will serve our turns I mean the Rejoycing must be in our selves and not in another yet to Christ's holy Power alone do we ascribe it who works all our Works in us All which was not only not answered but not cited by him He brings me in again thus Justification is not from the Imputation of another's Righteousness but from the actual Performing and Keeping God's Righteous Statutes Sand. Found p. 25. To which after this base and disingenuous Citation he returns me this only Answer Is it not written Rom. 5.19 By the Obedience of one many are made Righteous But before I explain the Truth of that Scripture be pleased to hear my Argument as it is laid down in my Book and then give thy Judgment Reader upon the Man The Son shall not bear the Iniquity of his Father The Righteousness of the Righteous shall be upon him and the Wickedness of the Wicked shall be upon him When a Righteous Man turneth away from his Righteousness for his Iniquity that he has done shall he dye Again When the Wicked Man turneth away from his Wickedness and doth that which is Lawful and Right he shall save his Soul alive yet saith the House of Israel The Wayes of the Lord are not Equal Are not my Wayes Equal If this was once Equal it s so still for God is Unchangeable And therefore I shall draw this Argument That the Condemnation or Justification of Persons is not from the Imputation of another's Righteousness but the actual Performance or not keeping of Gods righteous Statutes or Commandments otherwise God should forget to be Equal Therefore how wickedly Unequal are those who not from Scripture Evidences but their dark Conjectures Interpretations of obscure Passages would frame a Doctrine so manifestly inconsistent with God's most pure and equal Nature making him to condemn the Righteous to Death and justifie the Wicked to Life from the Imputation of another's Righteousness A most Unequal Way indeed Where observe that the Answer he makes me give in his Dialogue is delivered by me with an If it be so fetcht expresly from the Text it self so that the Scripture and not W. Penn is most struck at by him However it be he has offered us no Opposition yet but that Passage out of the Romans which will not be found inconsistent with Ezekiel's Testimony on which my Argument was grounded The whole Verse was thus For as by one Man's Disobedience many were made Sinners so by the Obedience of one shall many be made Righteous which if the whole Chapter be well considered is no more then this that as Adam representative of Mankind from whence he had that Name was he by whom Sin entred into the whole World So Christ was He by whose comeing and Obedience Righteousness had an entrance to the Justification of many In short the Work Christ had to do was two-fold 1 To remit forgive or justify from the Imputation of Sin past all such as truely repented believed and obeyed him And 2ly by his Power and Spirit operating in the Hearts of such to destroy and remove the very Ground and Nature of Sin whereby to make an End of Sin and finish Transgression present and to come that is the first removes the Guilt the second the very Cause of It. Now I grant
that God condemn'd and punish'd his Innocent Son for other Folkes Sins that he might be satisfied for pardon he neither could nor would And which is most absurd Christ being this same God he at once makes him the Party satisfying the Party satisfied which is absurd and impossible besides 't is such a Satisfaction as hath paid all Debts past present to come whereby all Inward Righteousness though of Christ's Working is not necessary to Justification in any Kind Secondly He has dealt Injuriously with me and that in two Respects 1. In not stating the Doctrine truly which I opposed and my Words at length that they might speak for themselves But in that case perhaps he thought he should have been oblieged to answer them a thing he every where seems afraid of his Trade â—s Caviâ—â—â—g And 2lâ— In that he brings this Passage which opposâ—d sucâ— a Satisfaction as is said to have paid for Sins pâ—st present and to come to answer a Scripture which concerns Justification and that part of it too which relates to Remission of Sins Insinuating that I make Men's own Works sufficient to Justification in the first sense I mean Remission in the second sense I mean daily Acceptance upon being made Just and lastly that I overturn all the Righteousness Death and Sufferings of Christ whilst in Truth and Sincerity of Soul 1. by Justification not by another's Righteousness WHOLELY WITHOUT I only meant That it was Christ's Righteousness wrought in us and not our own which made Inwardly Just and which gave daily Acceptance and brought into the heavenly Fellowship with the Father and with the Son the Justification then intended by me 2 ly Since God has made his Truth known to me I have ever understood Christ's being offered up to signifie the carrying away of Sin the bearing away of Iniquity that by which God declared Remission and Forgiveness of Sins past to all that repented And this Justification called Rom. 4. ver 5 6 7 8 God 's not Imputing Sin I have ever owned to be the Free Unmerited Love of God to the World And was not that Justification by me spoken of in the Passage cited 3 ly That which I opposed was so rigid a Satisfaction as made it absolutely unavoidable or necessary in God to require a Satisfaction thereby robbing him of the Power of his free Mercy and Loving-kindness to remit and pass by and that Christ did not answer or pay by the Act of his Suffering for Sins past present and to come but as he declared Remission by his Blood for the Sins past of the whole World the beginning of his Work so that he doth by his Power and Spirit subdue destroy and cast out Sin out of the Hearts of all who believe in him whereby their Consciences come to be made pure they sanctified throughout in Body Soul and Spirit which necessitates to Good Life and speaks no Peace to the Wicked in their Wickedness nor yet to the sloathful formal and carnal Professor of Religion Therefore such rage and imagine a vain thing against us That the Consequences of the common Notion of both Satisfaction and Justification are Irreligious and Irrational though what has been said might suffice with Sober and Impartial Readers yet I may anon have further Occasion to prove it In the mean time He tells the World that William Penn in Answer to this Question How did Christ fulfil the Law for Sinners says That Christ fulfilled the Law ONLY as our Pattern or Example S.F. p. 26. In which he has done exactly like himself For if he can find the Word ONLY there or such an Answer to such a Question or the Matter strictly contained in that Question he has not wronged me but sure I am there is no such Question and as sure that the Fulfilling of the Law was not the Subject treated on and very certain that the Word Only was not there therefore a Forger That which I said with the Scripture on which it was grounded follows If ye keep my Commandments ye shall abide in my Love even as I have kept my Father's Commandments and abide in his Love From whence this Argument doth naturally arise If none are truly Justified that abide not in Christ's Love and that none abide in his Love that keep not his Commandments then consequently none are justified but such as keep his Commandments Besides here is the most palpable Opposition to an Imputative Righteousness that may be For Christ is so far from telling them of such a Way of being Justified as that he infoâ—mâ—th them the Reason why he abode in his Father's Love was his Obedience and is so far from telling them of their being Justified whilst not abiding in his Love by Virtue of his Obedience imputed unto them that unless they keep his Commands and obey for themselves they shall be so remote from an Acceptance as wholely to be cast out in all which Christ is but our Example Now that this concerned not the Whole Law Christ came to fulfil The whole Law he fulfilled the place of Scripture quoted the Nature and Matter of the Argument clearly proves Next If Christ had been other then our Example in that case then he should have fulfilled his own Commandments in our stead who from Obeying his Father's taught us our Duty was to obey His. And supposing that he could have kept his own Commandments and obey'd himself for us or in our stead it would have followed 1. That we needed not to have kept them unless they were to be observed twice over And that 2ly in not keeping of them we had been notwithstanding justified from his alone Fulfilling of them unless his Answering them had been Insufficient The first of which if I understand any thing opens a Door to all Licentiousness however Upright some may be in their Intentions to the contrary And the last strikes dead their own Opinion of the Sufficiency of Christ's Personal Obedience to perfoâ—m all needful on our Account From hence he undertakes to charge me with the Merit of Works My words at length are these which he thought good to conceal Was not Abraham justified by Works when he offered Isaac and by Works was Faith made perfect and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for Righteousness By which we must not concâ—ive as do the dark Imputarians of this Age that Abraham ' s Offering Personally was not a Justifying Righteousness but that God was pleased to account it so since God never accounts a thing that which it is not nor was there any Imputation of another's Righteousness to Abraham but on the contrary his Personal Obedience was the Ground of that just Imputation therefore that any should be justified from the Imputation of another's Righteousness not inherent or actually possessed by them is both Ridiculous and Dangerous Ridiculous since it is to say A Man is Rich to
then in Tho. Hicks not only to leave out what the Priest asserted but to misconstrue E. B's Answer and that such Perversion might go the more Unquestionable omit the Insertion of that Scripture in which Christ is by the Aâ—stle said to be made Sanctification to the Saints the mention of which would have given a clear Understanding of E. Burroughs's Answer and broke the Neck of his Ungodly Purpose to misrepresent him We say and it was the Faith and Tendency of the Writings of that Just Man 1. To assert a Perfect Principle of Righteousness and Sanctification which is Sanctification and Perfection in the abstract 2. The Possibility of being Perfectly Sanctified by it 3. That such Sanctification when taken for the Author of it who is the Fountain of all Holiness and Purity is Compleat and Perfect 4. When taken for the Work of the Spirit in the Creature it is first Perfect in Degree only but as the Creature comes into perfect Subjection unto the Spirit and Power of him that raised up Jesus from the Dead which hath wrought that Perfection in Degree he comes to experience that Sanctification throughout in Body Soul and Spirit which the Apostle otherwise minded then T. Hicks prayed the Churches might witness which is that blessed State wherein he that 's born of God SINS NOT Old things are done away ALL IS BECOME NEW No more I but Christ that liveth in me I write unto you Young Men because ye have OVERCOME the Wicked One Be ye Perfect as your Heavenly Father is Perfect unto a PERFECT MAN That the Man of God may be PERFECT The God of Peace make you PERFECT IN EVERY GOOD WORK The God of all Peace make you PERFECT Let us cleanse our selves from ALL FILTHINESS OF FLESH AND SPIRIT Perfecting Holiness in the Fear of the Lord. With many more Places of like Importance But he objects Why doth the Apostle exhort Sanctified Persons to put off the Old Man from Coloss 3.5 If where the Old Man the Body of Sin remains none are Sanctified as saith E.B. This indeed is the Drift of the Man he would be Sanctified whilst Unsanctified as Dangerous as it is Absurd For what thing can be and not be the same thing at one and the same time But I deny they were then Sanctified who stood in need of that Reproof and Exhortation to wit that they should mortifie such Lusts as Fornication Vncleanness Inordinate Affection and Covetousness which is Idolatry Sanctifying such are who are Mortifying but when Sin is not Mortifying none are Sanctifying and where Sin is not Mortified no Man is Sanctified We may easily see what a Church-Fellowship T.H. can allow of and what a Gospel-Sanctification it is he pleads for Can Men be Sanctified and yet so Corrupt If they can tell me in what sense and from what they are cleansed Is this the End of pleading for Perfection in Degree to allow these Abominable Enormities as Church-Infirmities Away for Shame But that a perfect Sanctification is no Heresie suppose they had been Sanctify'd Persons to whom the Apostle wrote which could not be Sanctifying was the most yet since he exhorted them to put off the Old Man which Old Man is the Body of Sin and that when he is off he is not on and that the Apostle exhorted them Not to an Impossible thing I conclude from his Question that a State of Perfect Sanctification is attainable He pretended to correct E. B's Extravagancy but whatever Face he puts upon it this is the Mark he aims at To conclude and sum up his Ungodly Method E.B. speaks of a Perfect Sanctification in Christ T.H. infers that same perfect Sanctification immediately to the Creature not only confounding the Worker and Work the Cause and the Effect about which one piece of Baseness he bestows not a little Pains but suggesting thereby that we deny all Sanctification or Perfection in Degree and that we are as compleatly Perfect as Christ himself Next He leaves out those words that would best explain his Mind And Lastly All his Opposition is because the Quakers are for having Men Sanctify'd before they are Accounted so and New Creatures before they ought to be reputed Good Christians which so directly Vn-churches and Vn-christians T. Hicks that we may well believe it a main Reason for his Implacableness against them CHAP. XI Of COMMANDS MOTIONS and MINISTRY T. Hicks proved Vnjust to us and an Enemy to God's Law Gospel the Quakers and himself HE has not less abused and belyed us in these three Particulars then any thing he has written against us which I shall briefly shew To this Passage in E. Burroughs's Works That is no Command to me which is a Command to another neither did any of the Saints act by a Command that was given to another he thus answers Then that Law which forbids Idolatry Adultery Murder Theft and Bearing false Witness is no Law to you And after having made this indirect Consequence he breaketh forth Impiously Horrid Vngodly Irreverent Patronizers of Blasphemy Countenancers of such Novices Prophane Scribler and abundance more Now though I have said something to this before and have largely vindicated that Passage against J. Faldo yet I cannot well omit touching here upon it the Matter being so aggravated by this disingenuous Person These Commands must either relate to Ordinary or Extraordinary Duty I mean they must either be such Commands as that of Moses 's going to Pharaoh Isaiah's going Naked Jeremiah 's making Yoaks Amos 's going to the Kings's Chappel with many more And here I do affirm with that Faithful Young Man of God that the Command which came to them not coming to another that other Person is not only not warranted but condemnable in an Imitation of any of them If then such Extraordinary Commands as these before mentioned must not be intended then those that are Ordinary and Common to Mankind as Fearing God and working Righteousness towards God towards their Relations both Natural and Civil Now I would ask T.H. if he believes that Idolatry Murder Adultery Theft and Bearing false Witness be not reproved by the Common Light in all Men if not T.H. gives the Lye to all Mankind and his own Books too Nay what is it good for But if they be query If any can confess to one God love his Neighbour be Chaste be Just and speak Truth in his own and Neighbour's Cause without being thereto oblieged by that Light they have Did the Gentiles of old the things contained in the Law without a Word Commandment Law or Light within inducing them thereto I perceive T. Hicks owns no Command in himself against Idolatry Adultery Murder Theft and Bearing false Witness which is to say if the Scripture did not restrain him he should be guilty of all Farewell Grace Spirit Light and all Inward Rule or Judge by which to see taste relish and determine of things But in this Condition
Brother will you Pray No Brother I am not so well able as you are Let Brother such a one Pray he is better gifted for the Work c. Complementing Shifting and at last Praying c. in their own Wills and not in God's Motion This God hates Next Since the Pouring forth of the Spirit is the great Gospel Gift and that the Children of God are to be led by it In what should we more diligently wait for its Heavenly Assistance then in that part of our Duty which we owe to God Is his Worship Spiritual and can we perform it out of the Motion of his own Spirit For what then was his Spirit given Again If Men should pray in a known Tongue much more with the Spirit as the Apostle speaks No Wonder the Professors ask Pardon for their Prayers Indeed God's Spirit gives them to see the Emptiness of their Righteousness and condemns them for it wherfore they are at times dissatisfy'd in them yet they will not learn of him to be guided by him who would cover them with Everlasting Righteousness Blessed would they be if their Minds were stayed in his Counsel But instead thereof T.H. does as good as say that if he should stay till the Spirit moved him he might stay long enough rendring the Spirit Wanting in that for which he was shed abroad in the Heart Because through his Enmity and Darkness hasty Running in his own Spirit he feels it not to lead him else he would never infer from our Asserting the Necessity of the Spirit 's Moving to Right Acceptable Worship that we are acquitted from any Fault in omitting to do that which is Good and the Blame must be laid upon the Spirit But let me ask him Can any Man do Good of himself Surely he will say No. How then shall Man do that Good he ought to do but by the Holy Ghost Canst thou call Jesus Lord by any other Power or Spirit Read the Scriptures What greater Contradiction can there be then to believe Man of himself can do no Good and yet to say he can do it without God's Spirit to incline and assist him thereunto But if the Spirit do not what does Tell me what can tender the Heart prepare the Soul raise the Affections give true Feeling of Wants and help to perform all in that Fear Reverence and deep Sense which becomes all New Covenant Spiritual Worshippers if this cannot or do not Nay what an Affront is it to God since it is to suppose that Man wants him not that his Spirit neither moves to Duty that ought to be performed nor yet condemns for Duty omitted Behold the Impudence of the Man He talks of Gospel Christ the Mysteries of his Glorious Kingdom c. What grosser Opposer of the New Covenant can there be who denies the very Life Virtue and Soul of all true Gospel-Worship and Discipline and without which the otherwise best Christian-Church that ever was would be worse then Legal For they that worship not from the Motions of God's Spirit offer strange Fire set up their own Worship and are Image Makers such ask but they receive not because they ask not aright For if no Man can call Jesus Lord but by the Holy Ghost no Man can pray to the Lord or in his Name without the Holy Ghost yet a Sigh or Groan from its holy Operation that Sacrifice though without Words is manifold more engaging and effectual with the Lord then the most excellent Performance of Man 's own Spirit 'T is the Fear and Heavenly Sense of God in the Soul that recommends the Performance and that the holy Spirit begets And as the Minds of Men and Women are exercised in the Law of this pure and quickening Spirit as it appears in them they shall know the true Worship which stands in Life and Power whose End is Everlasting Peace when the LORD LORD-CRYERS that have Prayed and Preached in their own Wills and Wisdom as well as to their own Ends and Advantages shall be cast out forever with a DEPART FROM ME YE WORKERS OF INIQUITY But there is one Objection taken from my Book called The Spirit of Alexander the Copper-Smith c. which he thinks splits us irrecoverably It runs thus Either there is such a thing as a Christian-Church or there is not if there be then this Church either hath Power or hath not If no Power then no Church If a Body or a Church then there must be a Power within it self to determine To which sayes Tho. Hicks For Christians to plead this who own the Scriptures for their Rule and not the meer Light within the Argument may safely be allowed But you cannot stand by this For will you say what a Man doth without an Inward Motion is accurst and yet disown him for not doing what he is not moved unto But though this be plausible it is no more For the Difficulty remains in Case the Scripture be admitted for the Rule for Instance The Church unto which Tho. Hicks belongs own the Scripture to be the Rule But suppose Tho. Hicks in some one Point believes the Scripture not to intend the same thing the rest of the Church understand it to mean as in Case of Free-Will I query how this Matter shall be reconciled They affirm the Scripture to be the Rule and say This is the true Sense of the Scripture Thomas Hicks also affirms the Scripture to be the Rule but that his Sense is the Mind of the Scripture This occurs almost daily among those who believe the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith Now observe the Parallel The Quakers by the Light within them as their Rule judge that rude Imagination of keeping the Hat on in time of publick Prayer The Anabaptists by the Scripture as their Rule censure Thomas Hicks for upholding a Contrary Sense to the Scripture The Dissenter from the Quakers sayes The Light which he calls his Rule manifests no such thing to him nor doth he believe it to be the Mind of the Light to him Thomas Hicks makes Answer to the Church that by the Scripture he understands quite another thing and the Scripture is his Rule for what he sayes and maintains in the Matter I would ask any Man of Common Sence if the Scripture is not as well set in Opposition to it self by these two Pretenders as the Light within and if the Church of Anabaptists would not therefore doubt the Truth of their Interpretation but proceed to censure Thomas Hicks as a Disturber of their Church in its Doctrine or Discipline by the Introduction of New and Unprofitable Opinions Neither are the Body of the Quakers to question their Judgment given by the Light within as their Rule to be a true and unquestionable Determination against such Alexanders and Enemies to the Peace of their Jerusalem But I would further tell Thomas Hicks that though we renounce all Worship not led to by God's Spirit his Reflection
upon which shewing it to be none of his Faith or Practice and so no Spiritual Worshipper Yet the Men testified against in that Book were such as had been in Unity with us before and in going from that into differing and opposite Practices we imposed nothing upon them but they innovated Vnseemly Customs upon us so that which Thomas Hicks's Conscience had no Mind to observe least he should loose the Force of his Cavil removes it out of the Way Let Thomas Hicks tell me by what other Rule then God's Spirit Men's Spirits and the Inside of their Religion can be tryed relisht or favoured and he doth something The Devil can transform into all Outward Forms and subscribe the best Methodiz'd true Articles that ever were written Who or what shall unmask him God gave us the true Taste Savour and Discerning of that Spirit that leads out several from the Heavenly Unity and from thence we gave our Judgment If Men become darkn'd and led by a Delusive Spirit and call that the Light though it give the Lye to the Light and strikes at the Life they whilst faithful felt among us they must look to that You say Every Man ought to make the Scripture his Rule some that say they do you say do not do you think your Judgment the less valid By no means Neither do We. Will you not desist from censuring those that answer not the Scripture though they fancy that they do Why may not we also by the Light of Christ judge those to be deluded who notwithstanding pretend to be ruled by it Ye turn People to the Scripture and they mistake it We direct People to the Light but they mistake it So that here is the Difference between our Saying that Men should do nothing but what the Spirit requires and your Teaching that Men ought to do nothing but what the Scripture requires For if we disown them for not doing what we know the Spirit requires you daily disown such as do not somethings you suppose the Scriptures do require And as you think the Scripture to mean the same you ever did notwithstanding your Opposers Suggestion we are by you justified in mantaining our judgment against those Pretenders to the Guidance of the Light To conclude I see no Difference between Tho. Hick's saying to me William Penn thou bidst me obey the Light within me and because I do thou disownest me and my saying to him Thomas Hicks thou bidst me obey the Scriptures and because I do thou censurest me This dâ—ives unavoidably to an Infallible Spirit whereby to savour all Spirits Words and Works for the Anointing is Judge and meer Pretenders weaken not its Judgment And till Men come thither their best Duties are Unholy Things indeed Let none fancy an Impossibility of Trying Spirits by that without which it is utterly impossible to try them God's Spirit gives his Children to savour and discern Spiritual Bad as well as Spiritual Good Things It is not unknown to such as are led by God's Spirit of what Nature and to what Tendency such Words or Actions may be It was on this alone and upon no other Foundation the Spiritual Gospel Sound and Heavenly Fellowship stood of old for by One Spirit were the true Christians baptized into One Body O You that are Professors of Religion who in dayes past and years that are gone over your Head Prayed loud and fervently for the Spirit rise not up against it because it stains your Beauty subjects your Wills brings you out of Self and overturns your dead Forms where the Spirit of this World has had its Seat for Ages and in a Mystery insnared and beguiled you But wait upon God in deep Silence to all Fleshly Conceivings and Will-Worships so shall you come to feel God's Pure Quickening Spirit to Inliven Tender and Affect your Hearts in which State one Sigh or Groan is more Valuable then Years of unprepared and unsanctified Will-Sacrifice The next thing aimed at in this Cavil attended with so much Bitterness and rude Language is this that Thomas Hicks being desirous to represent the Quakers to greatest Disadvantage takes not a little Pains to incense Parents Magistrates and Masters against them as Neglecters of all Lawful Commands without an Immediate and Extraordinary Impulse to perform them Were we such Wretches as he would render us we should not deserve to live in Civil Societies What I shall say in our Defence is briefly this 1. The Quakers Principles and Practice have proved themselves consistent with Government because they have encouraged to Good Life Peace and Honest Industry I shall not here seek an Eye for an Eye nor tell any of those Black and Horrible Tragedies that go up and down the World under great Authors Atestations of the People called Anabaptists No I have more regard to the Sincere and Moderate among them though 't is a great Shame to the Profession that T.H. should be suffered among them at least as a Teacher after such Forged Prophane and Abusive Trash which lies more dangerously exposed to the Lash of Story then we do But for this time I spare him yet if he proceeds on this wise against us perhaps â—e may hear further of me and that People to whom he belongs if they take not some other Course with him 2. As to the Commands of Parents I have this to say and that by good Experience of more then one That those who have had Children of our Way though with great Disquiet and not a little Displeasure and Severity against them at the first they have left the World with this Testimony of their Children they never disobeyed them but for Conscience sake and from Threatning them with the Loss of all have become so Affectionate towards them and Confident in them as to entrust them with the Whole of their Worldly Substance 'T is true here and there a Crooked Perverse Professor whose Husbands Wives Children or Servants convinced have the worst of Lives through their extream Opposition and Watching for Evil may perhaps have spy'd an Indiscretion which though against his own Blood or Family his Enmity has aggravated to an Heinous Offence and then it must be given for a Demonstration of the Erroneousness of the Quakers Way But how Just Natural or Conscientious such Proceeding is against such Dissenting Relations or the People they associate with let all Impartial Persons judge This is not doing as they would be dealt by Liberty of Conscience Tyranny and Egyptian Oppressions I ask Would the Anabaptists be thus served concerning their own Proselytes Did they never any of them suffer from their Parents And have not their Parents complained of them And has that been taken by their Church alwayes for sufficient Proof And for the Story of the Woman that went rambling from her Family and Husband bidding him take another Woman c. with some pretending Revelations to refuse just Debts I shall say no more but thus We know of no
cited in Defence of his gross Conceit of the Râ—surrection are either relative of another Matter or directly opposite to and inconsistent with his Assertion 1. And this Mortal shall put on Immortality this Corruptible shall put on Incorruption 1 Cor 15.53 I grant that this implies a Change but I deny that it so much as intimates that Men shall rise with those very Carnal Bodies that were buried No the Apostle not only tells us that the Body sown is not the Body that shall be but that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God vers 50. If the Flesh and Blood be transmuted or changed into no Flesh and Blood I query and I think I may do it safely too Whether It be the same Flesh and Blood that is changed into no Flesh and Blood that is the Body raised O Absurd Dark and Carnal Man Nor am I afraid to tell him that the Scripture cannot rationally be taken strictly as translated neither ought many more for there are certain Figures Modes and Wayes proper to that Language in which this Epistle was written which are to be understood with Allowances for how can the Mortal taken for Mortality and not him who in part is Mortal put on Immortality It is Impossible Can Mortality be cloathed with Immortality then it seems that Mortality is the Person and Immortality the Garment If Thomas Hicks should tell me No it is meant that the Mortal Body should be changed into an Immortal Body it follows that he is gone from the Letter of the Text into an Interpretation as well as that it contradicts his absurd Identity or Sameness of Body If so it is as Lawful for me and more if in the Right to construe It thus That we who are Mortals respecting our Bodies put off the Mortal Part and put on instead thereof Immortality suitable to that weighty Passage of the Apostle Paul For We know that if our Earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a Building of God an House not made with Hands Eternal in Heavens which as directly concludes the Charge not of Accidents but Bodies from an Earthly House or Tabernacle to an Heavenly House or Building as ever any thing can be spoken by Men or Angels To conclude Since Mortality can not properly put on Immortality but Man that is cloathed with Mortality may put off or exchange Mortality for Immortality because otherwise Mortality would have Immortality for its Garment a thing impossible and absurd I do infer that this place yields no Strength at all to Thomas Hicks's gross Apprehension of the Resurrection 2. His next Scripture is that in the Romans But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the Dead dwell in you he that rais'd up Christ from the Dead shall also quicken your Mortal Bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you But this is nothing to T. H's Purpose in the least For the Apostle treats not here of the Resurrection of Dead Carnal Bodies in our Adversary's Sence as the whole Chapter seriously read proves but of the Inward Work of the Spirit in order to the making Man's Body a fit Temple for the holy Ghost to dwell in as he writ to the Corrinthians 3. The third place he brings is out of the Epistle Paul writ to the Philippians He shall change our Vile Bodies Upon which he sayâ—s This cannot be meant of a New-created Bodâ— because such a Body cannot be said to be either Vile or Changed But what makes this for his Conceit Surely nothing For if the Vile Body he changed then it is not that Vile Body therefore not the same Body Again to say that Scripture can't be meant of a New-Created Body because such one can't be said to be either Vile or Changed makes much against him For 1. It is to say that the Body that shall be is Vile else what means his Saying Because such a Body cannot be said TO BE not to have been either Vile or Changed 2. Though the Body That shall be may not be said to be either Vile or Changed yet it may be given of God in lieu of a Vile Body and so the Vile Body Changed for one that is Glorious It was either Ignorantly or Sophistically done in Thomas Hicks to imply That Body that shall be could not be said to be Changed since the Change lies on the side of the Vile Body that is exchanged for a more Glorious Body Therefore all along we must conclude it is not the same but another Body But how Disingenuous is Tho Hicks to repute G. W's Answer in the Apostle's Words a pressing the Metaphor too far and yet by so doing runs himself into this Dark Imagination of a Fleshly Resurrection But Tho. Hicks thinks The Joyes of Heaven Imperfect else I Answer Is the Joy of the Ancients now in Glory Imperfect or are they in Heaven but by halfes If it be so Unequitable that the Body which hath suffered should not partake of the Joyes Celestial Is it not in measure Unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul held by many Baptists or I am mistaken But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Widdow and so in a State of Mourning and Disconsolateness to be without its Beloved Body which State is but a better sort of Purgatory See T.V. and T.D. What made the Apostle willing to be absent from the Body that he might be present with the Lord if such a Dissolution brought Sadness instead of Joy as our Adversaries in the Point of the Resurrection suggest if not boldly affirm In short 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 Joyes of it suite admirably well with such a Resurrection The Reasons I have to give against this Barbarous Conceit I thus Contract 1. Because that the Scripture speaks of a Dissolution and no Resurrection of that which is dissolved being Earthly and Unfit for a Celestial Paradice and therefore holds forth a Building of God and House Eternal in the Heavens 2. If the Body be the same it must have the same Nature otherwise not the same Body But if it have the same Nature it will be Corruptible still Mortal Seeds bring forth Mortal Natures not Immortal Neither can Mortal be Immortal and yet the same Nature as before for that Change made tell me What remains of the Old Earthly Body 3. It makes the Soul Uncapable of Compleat Happiness without a Fleshly Body as if Heaven were an Earthly Place to see walk in and all our Outward Senses to be enjoyed and exercised as in this World though in an higher Degree which I call Mahometism For what Spiritual Happiness the Body now can have
the Eternal Destruction of and Hatred to the greater part of Mankind or the Passing them by with Displeasure for that End Whereas T.H. quotes me for saying That I cannot believe that he Christ hath a Personal Being at the right hand of God without all Men To this he subscribed G. Whitehead Christ ascended p. 18. Those are not my Words he hath falsly cited them but these are mine I cannot believe his Body to be a Carnal Body in Heaven or that he consists of a Carnal Existence See Christ Ascended p. 18. It seems that by Personal Being he means such a Carnal Body but he doth not vindicate his Brother Newman his asserting Christ to be a Body of Flesh and Blood in Heaven a Personal Being at the right Hand of God without all Men remote c. and this to prove that Christ doth not dwell in any Man Which I opposed The â—oâ—ition as Uâ—scriptural the Consequence as false as not only confining and limiting Christ from his Saints but God and his right hand also unto a remoteness from his Temple how then doth his Right Hand save and uphold us In all which thâ—se Baptists shew their too carnal and mean Thâ—ughts of Jesus Christ as in Glory and of God and is right hand of Power wherein they are fully answered as also about Christ's Second Coming to Salvation Christ ascended p. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 and 69 But when T.H. can neither vindicate his Brother Newman's Limitation or Confinement put upon Christ and Gâ—â—'s Right Hand nor answer my Objections against him he Queries viz. Is Christ no â—tâ—â—rw scâ—â— God's Right Hand then as he is in you p. 43. and wiâ—h this agrees the Socinians false Inference drawn from my Words Controversie ended p. 48.49 his Words are It seems then that Jesus Christ is no otherwise in Heaven then he is in the Saints which is as false as his Saying that we do absolutely deny Christ to be a Man p. 47. herein both the Water-Baptist Socinian have drawn a false Inference upon my Objection for though I 〈…〉 that Christs being in Glory at God's râ—â—â—thâ—â—d of Power is no Proof that he is not in Man 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 be proved that God and his right hand are 〈◊〉 only to a remoteness from all Men and so that he is not Infinite God or that his right hand is meerly to be taken Literally as a Man's hand It follows not that I intend that Jesus Christ is not otherwise in Heaven at God's right hand then as in the Saints on Earth for his Exaltation and Glory into which he is ascended not only into the Heavens but far above the Heavens Transcends that Degree attained in these Suffering Earthly Tabernacles his inaccessible Glory is above Men and Angels above all Suffering Natures and Conditions he is made higher then the Heavens in all things hath the Preheminence yet not excluded nor limited from his People so far as they are made capable to receive him nor from being touched with the feeling of their Infirmities And it is said whilst we are at home or Strangers in the Body we are absent from the Lord. 2 Cor. 5. which though it cannot be as remotely separate from his Presence yet in Comparison of that more Full and Glorious Enjoyment that we shall have of him when absent from the Body there is a Degree of Absence while Strangers in the Body howbeit by Faith whereby we now walk we have both a living Knowledge and Enjoyment of him and walk with him being the Sons of God though it appears not what we shall be The Socinian tells uâ— of a Personal Christ Con. End Pag 47. and that the Man Jesus our Lord although he is the Eternal God has in Heaven a place remote from Earth a Humane Body p 49. But doth he believe that Jesus Christ is the Eternal God I cannot think it while he imagins him to be a Personal Christ or Humane Body so â—â—â—â—ted or confined into a Remoteness But seeing these Anabaptists Socinians do so much concur in their opposing us because we cannot own their Limitations and Unscriptural Terms about Christ's Being I ask both the Author of Controversie Ended and Tho Hicks If they really believe that Jesus Christ is a Humane Body of Flesh Blood and Bones and in that Sense a Personal Being not in Man according to J. Newman or that he consists of a Humane Body of Flesh and Bones according to Henry Grigg in his Light from the Sun p. 30 31.33 But is it good Doctrine to say that his Glorious Body that we shall be fashioned like unto is a Humane Body If in thâ—se things they agree as they seem to do then doth it not follow that they must concur in the Consequences viz That though they own three distinct Persons in the Deity yet not Coeternal Persons but that Jesus Christ is a meer Creature a Personal Being or Humane Body of Flesh Blood and Bones and therein limited But if Socinians do not look upon Christ's Personal Being in that gross Sense but rather with respect to his Spiritual Existence then is not Christ confined to a Remoteness from the Saints for they have received of the Spirit of the Son but then what mean these Men by Humane Body in Heaven Is not Humane Body an Earthly Body Hence it seems we must look upon Personal Being as applicable to the Father Son and Spirit in a different Sense viz. 1. To the Being of God 2. To the Being of Christ as a Creature 3. Else to the Body that he took upon him in time whereas Christ the Son of God who took upon him that Body that was prepared for him did pre-exist or was before that Body and therefore he himself consists not of such a Personal Created Being or Humane gross Body as is limitable like our Earthly Bodies the Asserters of a Trinity of three distinct Persons do not call them so many Personal Beings but distinguish the Personallity from the Being and though Christ was made a little lower then the Angels in his Suffering State in the dayes of his Flesh on Earth yet he is above Angels in his Glorified Estate and surely then his Glorious Being and Body must not be inferiour to their's If T.H. would strictly limit us to confess our Creed in his terms 't is meet they should be strictly defined and he to be at some Certainty without varying therein as from Jesus Christ God Man a Person without thee to Jesus Christ hath a Personal Being at God's Right Hand without us I question whether he rightly knows either what Person Being Essence or Substance is In the first he concludes God as well as Man under the Limitation of Person without in the second that Christ hath a Personal Being without us how then doth God and Christ consist thereof or is that Personal Being But if by Personal Being he intends an Intelligent Being or Rational Substance I grant Christ is such a Being
we affirm viz. 1st That Jesus Christ in the Flesh was more thâ—â— a meet Exemple of Holiness 2dly And his Blood was of peculiar Value and Estimation with God Thomas Hicks Proceeds in his Envy and Falshood stiâ—â—â—â— bring our Sufferings into Dis-esteem viz. 〈…〉 People that ever boasted so vainly of their Sufferings 〈◊〉 you do that scarce a Pamphlet can come out from yo◠〈◊〉 but the World must hear of your Brags of this kind Contin p. 6. A manifest and two-fold Falshood for 1st We do not vainly boast of our Sufferings but have rejâ—yced in Christ Jesus that we have been counted worthy to suffer for his Name when you who now enjoy our Prosperity durst not shew your Heads in publick for your Profession or Worship but fled into Corners and Obscurities and your publick Meetings were deserted and put by For thy part T.H. I do not think thou hast much Suffering for Conscience or any for Christ to boast of 2. Scarce a Pamphlet Is also false for many of our Bookes and Papers relate not our Sufferings but other Subjects much less vainly boast or brag thereof But it seems that it both judges and vexes thee and such Creeping Envious Spirits to hear of our deep Sufferings since they have had such a blessed Effect in the Nation as the inclining the Hearts of many to the Living Truth and the Increase of our Number in it Thou T.H. and such Envious Spirits are most quiet towards us when you see us under Persecution and appear most outragious against us when we have Liberty as if you were discontented and perplexed at our Liberties and as desirous of Persecution and Ruin upon us 3. I am not sorry that I was made Instrumental in obtaining the Liberty of some of thy Brethren the Baptists out of Prison the last Somâ—er who among a great Number of our Friends were released though I am but sorrily and badly requited by thee but thou art one of them who art more ready to persecute and scandalize our Sufferings then to suffer or sympathize with them that suffer for Conscience sake but have not some of thy Brethren both commended of our Sufferings and the Service thereof both to themselves and other Dissenters why then dost thou insinuate as if Carnal Interest Wills and Lusts were our chief Motive to suffer God and his Witness in many Consciences will judge thee for this gross Abuse Again T.H. did most falsly insinuate though by way of Query That our Sufferings were only to satisfie our Wills and Lusts and for Carnal Advantage which to excuse he now saith In this I only queried what it should be that doth influence you to suffer forasmuch as you deny that this Body shall rise And G.F. maintains that the Soul is part of God's Being Contin p. 6. 1. To the first I answer that every Seed shall have its own Body as it pleaseth God and every Man shall be reserved spiritually in his own proper Being though not in the gross fleshly Form Is this either to deny the Resurrection or an Eternal Advantage 2. To the second G.F. doth not so speak of the Soul or Spirit of Man nor are his Words directly and truly cited but of the Immediate Inspiration of God or original Life or Soul of Man's Soul by which Man became Living a Living Soul in this he queries Is not that of God which came out from God 3. It s an absurd and most abusive Insinuation that our Sufferings either were or could be for any carnal Advantage or Interest seeing we freely have often offered up our Lives and our All in this World therein 4. It s still a manifest Slander that we deny any Eternal Advantage to Persons after Death neither is it any much less direct Consequence of our saying Not that Body which thou sowest shall be and Flesh and Blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God or That the Body which God giveth shall not be in a Fleshly but in a Spiritual Form as Tho. Collier confesseth dare he say this is to deny any Eternal Advantage But with T.H. This is no more then the Genuine and a direct Consequence of denying the Resurrection of this Body Is it not then the reaping Eternal Advantage must be placed upon this Earthly Tabernacle or Carnal Body though it must be dissolved and no New one to be created according to his former Doctrine Dial. p. 58. O wonderful Philosophy Eternal Advantage placed upon these same Earthly Bodies yet they not to be renewed by Creation after dissolved and turned to Dust and how contrary to the Apostles Testimony is his so much placing Eternal Advantage upon this Earthly disolvable Body see the 2. Cor. 5 1 2 8. Phil. 1.21.23 Our experiencing Christ's second Appearance without Sin unto Salvation in Answer to our Hope and testifying to Eternal Life and Felicity as Inwardly and Spiritually receiv'd by those that now suffer for Christ can be no Denyal of any Future or Eternal Advantage according to his Instance against me p. 7. seeing we know that to live is Christ and to dy is Gain unto us they that walk up to his Light in them here cannot miss of an Eternal Advantage hereafter Our light Affliction which is but for a moment worketh for is a far more exceeding weight of Glory see 2 Cor. 4 10 11. to the end of the Chapter Concerning Justification Imputation and Sanctification p. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 wherein we differ he is fully answered in our Books viz. Divin Chr. Serious Apol. But where he saith viz. I know of none that hold Justification of Persons in their Vngodliness p. 55. Are there not those that hold Justification before Sanctification or in a sinful Estate by a meer Imputatation And those that thus argue for it by the Rule of Contraries As Christ was made to be Sin for us who knew no Sin i.e. by an inherent Guilt or Operations of Sin in him so we are made the Righteousness of God in him they adding as and so as he so we i.e. we are not actually made Righteous by any inherent Righteousness or Holiness of Christ wrought in us any more then Christ was made Sin but reckened Righteous only from his active and passive Obedience without us This Doctrine we have not only opposed but refuted Divin Christ Ser. Apol. The wicked Slander he calls upon us in this is his own T.H. we plead not for a Righteousness Imputed to overthrow a Righteousness Inherent or the Exercise of Christian Virtue p. 55. But do you not oppose a Righteousness inherent as to Justification or deny that those Christian Virtues within are reckoned or esteemed of God unto Justification T.H. 'T is you would separate and divide them not we p. 55. False we make no such Separation between Christ's Righteousness Inherent in us and Justification on the Imputation as ours we experiencing a Participation thereof Christ being made unto us both Righteousness Sanctification Redemption
separate Christ in them the Hope of Glory Newman's Light within p. 81 82 83 86. XIV Qua. That through Faith in the Power of Christ Perfection that is a Freedom from Sin is attainable and comes to be attained in this Life by the Soul that experienceth the Restauration by Christ Bap. If God in his Son draw up the Soul to himself Jo. 6 44. The more Special and Spiritual Condition of Souls thus drawn up to God in Christ is not only a Restauration to the Condition of the first Adam with relation to a Freedom from Sin this every Believer enjoys by Christ a Freedom a Justification from Sin But secondly every Soul drawn â—p out of it self to God is brought into the Condition of the second Adam Marrow Christian p. 29. XV. Qua. That Soul that 's restored unto the New Covenant-Dispensation and come to taste how good he is to partake of his Spiritual Wisdom and Counsel therein doth own and follow this Spirit and the Light thereof as the Chief Rule of Faith Obedience and Worship above the Scripture or Letter and the Spiritual Saving Knowledge of God and Christ therein beyond all Literal Knowledge and Profession of him received from without Bap. This Wisdom namely of the Spirit which is spiritual and heavenly sets the Creature out of himself in the Power of God that Wisdom namely of the Flesh and first â—dam carried on the Creature to the Answering of God in the Letter and yet in all this come sâ—oâ—t This 〈…〉 of the Spirit carries on the Soul where It 〈◊〉 is nâ—â—â—fter the Oldness of the Letter but after the Newness of the Spirit In â— wâ—rd that Wisdom could not helâ— to the Knowledge of God in the Spirit This doth 1 Câ—r 1. Marrow of Christian p. 35. Certainlâ— that â—oul who hath once tasted how Good and how Gracious the Lord is in the Spirit 〈◊〉 never be satisfâ—â— with â— Knowledge of him in the Letter The Knowledge of a Spiritual Vâ—iâ— with God produceth an acting 〈◊〉 and â—â—er the Spirit of God How doth the Creature 〈…〉 work and â—â—ls it self even in the Letter of the Gospel as well as formerly in the Letter of the Laâ— for want of Knowledge of the Vnion in the Spiritual Power of the Lord Marrow p. 44. XVI Qua. Christ's Second Appearance or Coming to the Salvation of them that truly wait and look for him is a Spiritual Appearance or Coming in Spâ—â—â— to sâ—vâ— his People and not in Scripture callâ— a Pâ—â—â—â—â—d or Fleshly Coming nor his Reign a Personal Reign in his Kingdom for 't is a Spiritual Kingdom and his Reign in it Spiritual Bap. Christ's Presence and so his Kingdom will be a Spiritual Presence and not a Personal His Reign in the Latter Dayes will not be Personal but Spiritual Jesus Christ is no more to be known of the Saints after the Flesh therefore his Presence so and his Kingdom will not be a Fleshly or Personal Presence and Kingdom but a Spiritual his Glory Spiritual his Kingdom not of this World c. See the Point argu'd at large Marrow Christian p. 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 to the end of the Section XVII Qua. That there is an Immortal and Incorruptible Seed of the Nature of Christ Jesus to be known in the Soul whereof true Believers come to be born again even by the Word of Life and Power which liveth and abideth forever and so comes Christ to be formed and Spiritually born in them and they to be renewed up into his Nature and Image Bap. Although we have known Christ after the Flesh yet know we him no more why If any Man be in Christ he is a New Creature Christ is formed in him after the Spirit and he comes now to 〈◊〉 a Spiritual Christ within him Marrow p. 55. Faith may be acted not only on Christ's Dying 〈◊〉 the Cross but in Christ's Living in the Soul that is my believing That Christ is Spiritually formed in me as well as that he dyed for me Ibid p. 56. XVIII Qua. We are fully satisfied that God is so far from having absolutely and particularly decreed Men's Destruction from Eternity or designing perpetual and meer voluntary Hatred to particular Persons or with-holding his Saving Grace from them that his Love is in the first place Universal to all Mankind his Grace which brings Salvation hath appeared and is free to all Men till they reject it the Appearance whereof is in and by the Light of his Son in all which is sufficient to leave all the Disobedient without Excuse whereby Men are at sometimes put into such a Capacity as that they may be saved and so receive the Benefit and good End of Christ's Coming Suffering Death and becoming a Ransom for ALL for a Testimony in due time of God's fâ—â—e Love and Grace And with this the General Baptists agree against the Contrary Partial and Pinching Opinion of the Particular Electioners Bap. 1. We believe and are very confident that there is one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things who is the only begotten Son of God whom God freely sent into the World because of his great Love unto the World who as freely gave himself a Ransom for all 1 Tim. 2.5 6. tasting Death for every Man Heb. 2.9 a Propitiation for our Sins and not for ours only but also for the Sins of the whole World 1. Jo. 2.2 2. That God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to Repentance 2. Pet. 3.9 and the Knowledge of the Truth that they might be saved 1 Tim. 2.4 for which End Christ hath commanded that the Gospel to wit the glad Tiding of Remission of Sins should be preached to every Creature Maâ—k 16.15 So that no Man shall eternally suffer in Hell for want of a Christ that dyed for them but as the Scripture saith for denying the Lord that bought them 2 Pet. 2. or because they believe not in the Name of the only begotten Son of God Jo. 3 18. Vnbelief therefore being the Cause why the Just and Righteous God will condemn the Children of Men it follows against all Contradiction that all Men at one time or other are put into such a Capacity as that through the Grace of God they may be eternally saved Joh. 1.7 Act. 17.30 Mark 6.6 Heb. 3.10 18.19 1 Joh. 5 10. Joh. 3.17 See Art 3.4 of Confession of Faith presented to the King subscribed by 46 of them Serious Reader I having diligently traversed the present Controversies between some of these Water-Baptists and us called Quakers have thus far laboured for Quietness and Reconciliation by thus obviously laying down those Principles and Doctrines of ours that have been chiefly struck at by the Dialogue-Man and some others of them together with his and his Brethren's own intermixt Concessions and Assenting to the Truth thereof in most things very nearly concurring in Matter and Substance which while he or any of them otherwhiles oppose and