G VV. would not have R. Gordon to expect should be as he imagined in his book p 30 viz That Christ as the Son of Mary should outwardly appear in a bodily existence to save But here 's not one word of denying Christ to have the body of man as D L. falsly cites him and sure it 's one thing for Christ to appear to save men by his ingrafted word which is able to save the Soul Iames. 1. 21 which the Quakers press people to come to witness and an other thing to say Christ has the body of man outwardly to come on the last day to reward every man according to his works which the Quakers also believe Then 2 dly in the same page D L. cites the same book in p. 41 thus paraphrasing upon it And in p. 41. he denies Christ's bodily existence without us Answ There is no such word neither But G VV. speaking of R G s pretended adoration and claim of salvation being to Christ only as the son of Mary existing outwardly and bodily without us There upon G VV. saith I ask him if he have so considered God the saviour or the Son from the substance of the Father and then he asks him What scripture proof he hath for Christ's existing outwardly â—odily without us at Gods right hand By all which it plainly appears that G. W. only opposed those terms viz Christ existing outwardly bodily without us because that would seem to exclude his being as he is God and as he is in men and therefore saies to R. G. And is Christ the saviour as an outward bodily existence or person without us distinct from God and upon that consideration to be worshipped as God yea or nay c. Now though G. W. opposes R. G's doctrine of Christ's being or existence to be outwardly and bodily without us yet it does not at all follow from thence that he believes Christ hath not a body that hath a being or existence without us It is one thing to maintain that Christ the Saviour of the World hath a body existing whithout us wich G. W. denied not and another thing to hold or maintain that that bodily existence it self is Christ the saviour of the world which and no less R. G ' s. words seem to import The outward bodily existence of a man cannot be said strictly to be the man for them when it dies and the bodily existence is put off the man would cease to be And where it is said of Christ that he bare oursins in his own body on the three 1 Pet. 2. 24 It might as well be said that the body bare our sins on his own body on the tree So that to conclude I say it is a manifest falsehood in D. L to say that G. W. denies Christ's bodily existence without us Christ's body doth exist without us Yet that bodily outwardly existence is not the Christ without his soul spirit and God head And 3 dly D L. in p. 25 falsly charges VV P. in these words And saies VV P. We deny that person that dyed at Jerusalem to be our Redeemer Referring to VV P s Apology p 146. Answ These are not the words of W P but of his Adversary Jenner cited by W. â— in the aforesaid book Jenner having thrown it upon the Quakers as their principle W. P. in answer thereto calls it a hoâ—râ—d impâ—tation and then acknowledges in these express words That he who laid down his life and suffered his body to be crucified by the Jews without the gates of Jerusalem is Christ the only begotten son of the most high God and though he there denies the outward person that suffered properly to be the son of God yet the stress oâ— the mâ—tte◠〈◊〉 only upon the word outward by which W. P. meant his outward body as is clear from his following words viz A body hast thou prepared me said the son then said W. P. The son was not the body though the body was the sons And if D. L. should say The body was the son theâ— this absurdity will follow viz Christ bare our sins in his own son instead of his own body on the tree And if D. L. say the outward person was properly the son of God and yet will be imparâ—tial then let him fall upon G. K. for asserting That it is not the outward Flesh and Blood that is the man but it is the soul or inward man that dwelleth in the outward flesh or body that is the man most properly such as Christ had from the beginning As his express words are in his Way Cast up p. 102. not yet retracted But whether he will believe his peculiar friend G. K. or not to be sure he has belyed W. P as above is shewn and it is not his pleading â— little failure in Syntax a thing he banteringly accuses G. W. within his book no nor otherwise wording the matter neither will do without an open and free Retraction of these his abuses Furthermore having after I had proceeded a good way in this work met with the book called The Quakers Plainness I have therein found fresh cause to take a little further notice of D. L's perfidiousness which I purpose a little more to detect before I proceed to any other matter see News of a Trumpet Numb 5. where he hath it thus Sâ—ndy Founda p 15 W. P. saith In the fullness of time God sent his son who so many hundred years since in person restified the virtue c. Now to make G. W. coÌ„tradict this he quotes Quakers Plainess p. 24. affirming that G. W. saith The title person is too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God Now Reader that thou may see how unfairly D. L. hath laid down G. W. words taken them as laid down by himself thus That Christ is not a person without â—s p 21. is our doctrine or phrase that I know of or remember only that the title is thought too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God many men having gross apprehensions about the phrase Person without But Christ is confest us both as without us and within us Well Where is the contradiction in all this Why here W. P saies That God sent his son so many hundred years ago in person and G. W saies The title person without is thought too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God Mark person without us was what was thought too low to be spoken concerning the son of God it was not thought too low for it to be said of him that so many hundred year since he appeared in person For it is one thing to say That the son so many hundred years ago appeared in person and another thing to say That the son or Christ of God is a person without us especially when it is spoken in opposition to those who deny him to be within us For though we sincerely believe Christ to be in heaven without us yet
SATAN'S HARBINGER ENCOVNTERED HIS FALSE NEWS OF A TRUMPET DETECTED HIS CROOKED WAYS IN THE WILDRNESSE Laid open to the view of the Impartial and Iudicious Being Something by way of Answer to DANIEL LEEDS his book entituled NEWS OF A TRVMPET SOVNDING IN THE WILDERNESSE c. Wherein is shewn How in several respects he hath grievously wronged and abused divers eminent worthy and painfull Labourers in the work of the Gospel in many places by false Citations out of their books and in many other places by perverting their sayings and expressions besides his otherwaies basely reflecting upon several antient Friends by name By C P. And the men of Israel said Have ye seen this man that is come up Surely to defie Israel is he come up 1. Sam 17. 25. Behold he travaileth with iniquity and hath conceived mischief and brought forth falshood Psalms 7. 14. Printed at Philadelphia By Reynier Jansen 1700. THE PREFACE Friendly Reader Although â—â— be true which Solomon saith Eccles. 12 12 Of making many books there is no end and much study is a weariness to the flesh Yet I hope none can justly blame me for publishing this when they seriously consider that the drift of it is only to clear the truth and those many good men grossly as persed from the envious insinuations cast against it and them and the wrong inferences pretendedly drawn from their writings by our present Adversary Daniel Leeds who has hand over head in a very palpable manner to his own shame ventured to abuse our friends at a very shamefull rate not only by wrong meanings put upon their words and doctrines but also by false Citations out of their books thereby endeavouring to make them speak what they never spake nor I beleive ever thought in order to represent them to the people greatly contradictory to one another Of which false Citations I shall in this place produce one and but one referring thee to the following book for a view of many more of them It is in Number 58 where he quotes William Penn his Sandy Foundation p 20 saying W. P. there calls the man Christ The finite impotent Creature Whereas there is no such saying or irreverent expression in the whole book for where W. P. uses the words Finite and impotent Creature The subject he was there treating of plainly shews that he meant it of us sinners that need forgiveness but not of the Man Christ who never sinned Than which what greater abuse could be put upon any mans writings Reader The substance of this book was wrote near two years ago but being backward in my self to appear in print aâ— also the press being long expected here before it came and when come taken up with other important matters intervening occasioned the delay of its publication till now As for the Errours of the press which are many especially in the former part of the book and more especially in one place which is very material to be corrected without which it will read so as will make it look very gross and appear to be false doctrine it is in p. 17 l. 9 where after works sake the Printer hath omitted but for his sake which words are in the written copy by which he printed it I must desire thee Reader upon occasion to take the trouble of â—urning to the Errata where I hope thou wilt find the most material collected The chief occasion of there being so many errours was the Printer being a man of another nation and language as also not bred to that employment consequently something unexpert both in language and calling and the corrector's not being so frequently at hand as the case required all which I desire thou wouldst favourably consider The Intent of publishing this was chiefly to prevent any from being deceived and also to undeceive those that may have been already deceived by this unfair man's abusive book for such it is and as such let it be added to the Catalogue of those many envious and abusive writings that have been sent forth into the world from time to time to hinder the spreading of truth and the progress of Gods people in the way of it all which will surely be accounted for one day and not witstanding all which the truth remains the same and I am satisfied will more and more spread it self and prevail in and upon and the hearts spirits of people notwithstanding the various and restless attempts of its Opposers to hinder it And as the way of its working is to cleanse and purify mankind in soul body and spirit and make them fiâ—â— temples for God to dwell in by virtue of his holyspirit in us and also entitle us effectually to partake of the great and unspeakable benefit that accrues to mankind by that one offering of our Lord Jesus Christ on the tree of the Cross So it is highly necessary that we more and more come to experience this cleansing work to be wrought in us in order to be entituled to those afore said benefits For although our blessed Lord Jesus Christ then offered up himself for the sins of the whole world yet we read of none wbo by that offering are for ever perfected but those who are sanctified Heb. 10 14. Caleb Pusey SATANS HARBINGER ENCOUNTERED c. Before I come to the Book it self I shall touch a little upon the Preface and begin with an expression of Daniel Leeds's which runs thus It is my real belief That the Quakers at first came forth in life and power and made a good beginning Answer Did they so How comes it then to pass that the first Instruments of that good beginning in life and power as G. Fox G. Whitehead E. Bourough R. Hubberthorn Is. Pennington c. and their antient works and Writings must be thus brought upon the stage by this Daniel Leeds himself even in this very book endeavouring thereby to prove their doctrine false inconsistent and little less than a meer heap of confusion Can such things be an effect of life and power And if he say They lost that life and powr again before those books were written It may then be observed how in the same Page he insinuates as if the loosing of it again was through their contending with one another about trifles and Ceremonies instituting this and that order and getting into form c. Whereas it is well known that many of the above named Friends Books were written before the Institution of those Orders as he calls them Besides I find in a Paper entitulad A breif Admonition c. delivered to Friends here at the yearly meeting in the year 1696. Which as I am credibly informed was written by Daniel Leeds there being also the two letters of his name with two letters more subschribed to it after having expressed what an healthy flourishing Country this was about eight years before this passage viz Doubtless it might have so continued if the kernell of life and love had not took wing
mean another thing But what a doltish man is this Is it not common for men yea have not the best of men done it to word a matter other wise and yet intend the very same as they did at first wording Let him see how Luke words the matter in giving account of some of Christ's last words to his diciples where he saith thus And behold I send the promise of my Father upon you but tarry ye in the city of Hierusalem until ye be endued with power sromon high Luke 24 49. Now compare this with the account he gives of the same thing Acts. 14 and see if he do not otherwise word the matter and yet intend the same thing for there he hath it thus And being assembled together with them commanded them that they should not depart from Hierusalem but wait for the promise of the Father which saith he ye have beard of me And many such like instances may be sound in scripture but least D. L. should dislike scripture instances under pretence of their being corrupted I will give him one out of his Friends G. K's late book of Explanations and Retractations not again retracted as I hear of yet let him Look in p. 5. where G. K. saith Though I cite scripture and make use of them in arguing this point yet I can truly say I have not my knowledge from them Note this he cites out of his book entituled Immediate Revelation p. 54. which he here explains by other wise wording the mâ—tter thus Here note I say from them as being the efficient cause c. Now though he here otherwise word the matter yet his intention are still the same For he saith himselfe in the same place What I then hold meaning what he held in 1668 he held in 1697 though he have other wise worded the matter But what Author shall I fetch to convince D. L. better than him self For in this very book of his p. 33 he finding fault with and ridiculing G W about his charging a contradiction upon John Newman saies D L Pray judge if this meaning Newman's assertions â—e any more then to say four pence in one place and a gro at in another Importing that to be one and the same thing and so indeed it is Therefore wether to say four pence in one place be not one way and agroat in another place be not another way of wording the matter and yet intend the same thing We see D. L. has resolved in the affirmative I come next to his p. 25. where he cites G. W. again Divinity of Christ p. 82. in these words while we were sinners Christ died for us it was Christ that dyed To which he sopposes John Whitehead s Refuge Fixed p. 38. thus Nothing that was mortal was called Christ Answ What John Wâ—â—e head wrote he declares twâ—â— as being eclxasive of the soul and spirit of Christ and we know exclusive from the sould and spirit his flesh was called the body of Jesus as it is said Joseph of Arimathea begged the body of Jesus and this was mortal and dyed But as whilst living his Godhead soul and spirit was united to that body so when that body dyed it was called the death of Christ though his Godhead soul and spirit dyed not so that if exclusive there from his body was properly and intirely the Christ then Christ was not from the beginning But we believe according to scripture that Christ was from the beginning and that the Rock that followed Israel in the Wilderniss was Christ 1 Cor 10 4. and yet also according to scripture he took on him the body that was mortal and that which he suffered in that body was also called the sufferings of Christ For as much saith the Apostle then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh c. 1 Pet 4 1. And though the scripture calls it's suffering the death of Christ yet it also implyes that Christ was that day in Paradise Luke 23 43 though that which was mortal was in the grave till three dayes after As to his comparing our Friends writings to those Priests whom Samuel Fisher in his Rusticus p 773. for their inconsistent arguments against our Friends twits with his rounds of No so so no c. I shall only say thus much that I hope I have shewed and yet shall shew here in that there is no comparison to be made between them For the occasion of Samuel Fisher's so treating the priests was the so different terms they at times gave to the light which D L. may disprove if he can whereupon saies S F. One while he calls it meaphorical not proper another while proper not metaphorical one while natural as opposite to civil and not moral spiritual not supernatural another while and in other respects he makes it civil moral and spiritual one while common to all universal but then not saving other while sufficient and saving but then particular only and particular to a few This with much more was what S. F. grounded his No. so so No. c. upon which D L. should not have concealed from his Reader But it is no wonder a man should do so who strives for victory more than truth Again in p 30. 31. he cites G. F's Great Mistery p 289. thus God was in Christ and they are one the Creator the father in the son and the Son in the father and Christ in you and God in Christ the Creator And Quakers Plainness p. 24. by G W The son is co worker with the Father To these he opposes G. W's Light and Life p 47 as follows viz What nonsense is this to tell of God being co Creator with the Father Where upon D. L. makes this Note Does not G. W. here accuse both G. F. and himself also with Non sense for what 's the difference between Co worker and Co Creator Answ As blind as D L. renders me in his p 45. about the Resurrection yet I shal shew him that I can see a great deae of difference may be betwixt a Co worker and a Co Creator For the saints were Co workers together with Christ but surely they cannot be said to be Co Creators with him And though Christ being man as well as God may be said to be Co-worker with the Father yet to tell of God being Co Creator with the Father does as G. W. saies imply two Gods And what G. F. said of Gods being in Christ and they are one the Creator the Father in the son and the Son in the Father c. is true and scriptural and it brings him no waies under accusation of G. W. as this quarrel picker would render him In his p 37. he quotes R. B.'s Apology p 95. in these words viz Wherefore as we believe he Christ was a true and real man so we also believe that he continues so to be glorified in the heavens in soul and body Upon which D. L. notes W. P. saith Christ as
have life without respect to his dying for us and rising again c. Neither did W. P. So D. L. is here again pinched â—oo hard to squeeze out a Contradiction Again in p 41. he cites W. P's Address to Protestants p 119 Let us saith he but soberly consider what Christ is and we shall the better know whether moral men are to be reckoned Christians What is Christ but meekness justice mercy patience charity and virtue in perfection Upon which D. L. makes this note viz Tho W. P. allegorizes Christ and makes him nothing but virtues yet his Brother G. W. tells W Harwoth as above that Christ is something else viz a man consisting of spirit soul and body the same body as dyed c. Answ The more wickedly done then of D. L. in his p 23. very falsly to accuse G. W. of saying Christ has not the body of man yet now rather than he will want any thing that may make up his pretended contradiction to W. P he now freely assents that G W. owned Christ to have both spirit soul and body which surely make up a compleat man And W P's enumerating what Christ is as to virtues and that he has all those virtues in perfection does no waies deny him to be a man consisting of body soul and spirit according to G. W No it was only to shew that those who are in measure thus Christ like qualified are not to be denyed all share in Christianity as the book plainly shews And though he saies What is Christ out meekness justice c. denies him not to be a man consisting of spirit soul and body any more than Paul's saying Who then is Paul and who is Apollo but ministers mark but ministers by whom ye believed Cor. â— 5 denies him self to be a Tent maker Acts 18. 3 But D L s design is for mischeif and he veâ—â—ures to act it at what â—ate he pleaseth In p. 44 he qâ—otes The Christiâ—n Quaker by G W p 375. as follows viz That this thâ—â—â— tends to 〈◊〉 and to make men Atheists viz other mens self confidence in asserting things contrary to reason and manifest experience and in particular in their affirming that these self same terrestrial bodies of flesh and bones shall be made spiritual immortal and incorruptible T is true says G W Hen More had finer and more excellent notions about the Resurrection than many other learned men and aimed at the truth and spirituality there of from the vision of the holy men recorded in the scriptures And then in order to make G W. oppose him self as he would seem to suppose he offers a quotation out of p. 372 of the same book viz this manner viz G W. cites H More about the Resurrection saying Flesh and blood can not in herit the kingdom of God and I think saies he there is the same reason of flesh and bones viz. I understand natural flesh and bones not glorified Thus he cites G W. and then adds this Note G W. commends this notion of H More as savouring of truth and spirituality and yet renders those Atheists that believe the same for H More does not here deny the Resurrection of the same body that dyeth only understands it must be glorified Answ Here he has abused G VV. by leaving out the last part of his words for after the words immortal and incorruptible G VV. adds and yet the same for matter and substance which words he has skipt over I suppose because they did not suit his purpose Then he saith in his note G W. commends this notion of H More as savouring of truth and spirituality Whereas G VV. says no such thing of him as appears by Daniel Leeds own quotation before produced It is true he said he had siner and more excellent notions and aimed at the truth c. Which much differs from savouring of it a man may aim at a thing which he may never come so near to as to â—iâ—e of or savour And where as he saith H More does not deny the Resurrection of the same body that dyeth Neither doth he shew that G. VV. does so it s true G. VV. seems to oppose the notion of the self same terrestrial body of flesh and bones being made spiritual immortal and incorruptible and yet he the same for matter and supstance â— as now they are which last words and yet be the same for matter and substance D L. has very unfairly left out to pervert G W's real intentions Besides how doth it appear that Henry More doth not deny the Resurrection or the same body that dyeth Hear what G W. hath cited out of his works in p. 373 of the Christian Quaker viz I dare challenge him to produce any place of scripture out of which he can make it appear that the mystery of the Resurrection implies a Resuscitation of the same numerical body The most pregnant of all is Job 19 which later Interpreters are now so wise as not to understand at all of the Resurrection The 1 Cor. 15 that chapter is so far from asserting this curiosity that it plainly says it is not the same body but that as God gives to the blâ—des of corn grains quite distinct from that which was sown so at the Resurrection he will give the soul a body quite different from that which was buried as different as a spiritual body is from a natural body or an heavenly from an earthly Thus far Henry More as cited by G W. in the said Christian Quaker Now how far H M. doth own or deny the Resurrection of the same body that dyeth may be easily guessâ—d at not witstanding D L's confident assertion that he doth not deny it And now having traced and detected this dis ingenious unfair envious and conceited man through the divers quotations before specified wherein he would charge our Friends with contradictions I think this sufficient with any reasonable man to invalidate the credit of the resâ— Neither in deed have I all the books he offers his pretendedly contradictory quotations out of to examine and he having justly forfeited his credit in divers passages before mentioned I think it not worth my while to set pen to paper to enervate those suppositions citations wherein his stained reputation must be relied upon for the faithful quoting thereof I shall therefore only further take notice of three very obvious abuses put upon G W. and W P as a corrobocrating proof of my above charge and then leave this chapter of pretended contradictions and proceed to the next The st in his â—3d page and is this G VV's Nature of Christianity p. 29 Christ has not the body of man Answ Now as there is no such word so neither can any such thing be justly deduced from what G VV. there wrote that subject of which he treated in that place being not at all wether Christ had the body of man or not but about the manner of his saving and justfying men which
man was finite viz. came to an end But here R. B. says he continues a real man in soul and body and so is not finite And then D. L. says Chuse which of these you will believe Answ Not D. L. to be sure That Christ continues a real man c. is true according to scripture as well as according to Robert Barclay But that therefore he as man is not finite it follows not For D. L. continues to be a real man for ought I hear yet he is finite But to be sure R. B's meaning was that Christ as man was to continue without end Well the same is believed likewise concerning the Saints yet are they finite for all that But whereas D. L. tells us that W. P. saies Christ was finite viz came to an end it is a great abuse upon W P and great untruth in D L for W P hath no such words vis came to an end as D L wickedly renders it to insense the world as â—â— W P believed that the man Christ was come to an end An Abominable Forgery I come In The last paragraph I conviected D L of a great forgery and now in this I am about to convict him of another as great In his Number 58 he cites G VV's Divinity of Christ p 27 thus The God whom we serve and believe in is infinite the only wiâ—e God and nothing relating to him or his being finite Against which he brings VV P thus Sandy Foundation p 20 VV. P there calls the man Christ The finite impotent creature Answ I must needs desire the Reader to take notice of the greate heat D. L. hath imposed upon him and the great abuse he hath put upon VV. P here in in saying that he calls the man Christ The finite and impotent creature and there upon in divers places bestowing his discanting sort of vaunts and taunts upon W. P. after such a rate as if he had a sicence to abuse men at pleasure As first in the same page he saith Here I cannot but take notice that though VV P. blasphemously calls the Man Christ the finite impotent creature c. And in p. 39 he speaks again of VV P's calling Christ's whole man the finite impotent creature And in p. 39. he speaks again of W P's calling Christ's whole man the finite impotent creature And a little lower he ironically hath it thus The man Christ must be called The finite impotent creature by this high and elevated dust and as his W. Penn. Nay he is so fond of the lye that when he comes to p. 24. he hath it again thus I cannot but mind VV P's devised distinction and unscriptural expression if it were no worse in calling the man Christ The finite and impotent creature c. Now Reader do but behould how this D L. has made a man of straw and then fights with it For I do affirm there is no such saying or irreverent expression in the whose book as that the man Christ is a finite and impotent creature No neither expressly nor implicitely nor so much as consequentially By which it may be clearly enough seeâ— that D L. was not influenced to this work by a Moâ—ion heavenâ—y and well would it have been for him if he said no more in the case than what by a little otherwise wording matter he could have made out to have been in the main at least the truth But Alas poor Daniel The case is otherwise with him for no otherwise wording the matter will do here he can do no less in justice than according to the example of his friend G K. who has retracted wil out cause to openly and freely retract it he having so much cause so to do or else it wil assuredly lye hard at his door and likewise prove as hard to make good his assertion in the close of his preface that his proceeding here in viz in his book were good and sincere Well in p 140 he again cites G F's Great Mistery p 222 thus Priest sais Christ is without the saints in respect of his bodily presence G F. answers How then are they of his flesh and bone And the D L. brings in VV P. thus Christian Quaker p 9â— The body of Christ is not so much as in any one Upon which D L. notes That VV P. is still clashing against G F al most on every hand Answ It is clear that the body meant by VV P. was the visible body of flesh and blood c. in which sense I can hardly beleive D L. thinks that G F meant that that visible body is in us however G F's following words shew that purport of this passage to wit And eat his flesh and drink his blood and how have saints his mind and spirit and he with them and they with him and sit with him in heavenly places and he is the head of the Church How then is he absent c. Thus G F by which it appears to me that the reason of this his answer was because the Priest would not allow that Christ was in us by reason his bodily outward presence is absent from us Besides G F did but query and G K saith in his Truth Defence p 59 That to query a thing will not conclude the Questionist doth positively affirm or deny In the same page he offers a quotation out of W P s Rejoynder p 13 viz That Christ his coming was but mark but to bring the World to a more improved knovvlege and large enjoyment of that divine povver vvisdom life and righteousness vvhich former ages had comparatively but an obscure sight and imperfect sense of To oppose vvhich he cites Truth 's Principles by I Crook If Christ had not dyed man must have perished in sin this being the vvay found out by God to recover him Upon vvhich D L notes Here 's one Christian he grants the merit of Christ's coming and death But W. P makes the benefit of his coming to be no more but â—o shevv man more plain vvhat he savv before as through a glass c. Answ O strange Hovv soon has D L forgot himself For in his quoting W P he makes him to ovvn and assert that Christ's coming was as vvell to bring the World to a more large injoyment of life mark enjoyment of life as vvell as power and Rightousness But in his Note she saith W P makes the benefit of his coming to be no more mark no more but to shew man more plain what he saw before c. As if there vvere no difference betvveen seeing and enjoying I think vvhat W. P said in the matter is very comprehensive as to the end of Christ's coming to vvit to give the World a more clear knovvledge of him and to cause us to enjoy life by him For I am come saith Christ that they might have life and that they might have it more abundantly Iohn 10. 1â— And surely Christ did not intent by this that we should
we also believe according to scripture that he is within us the hope of glory and that if Christ be not in us we are Reprobates Now whether D. L will reckon the title person without us too low to give to the Christ of God or not yet to be sure it is unscriptural For though it is clear the scripture speaks of Christ in us in more express words than it doth of Christ without us yet we believe him to be without us also But to sum up the matter two omishons of D L's in this quotation out of G W s book manifest his baseness as any intelligent Reâ—daâ— may observe the rectifying of wich by inserting them very much alters the case as â—â— he leaves out the woras without us and 2 dly He makes G. W to say The title person is too low where as his words are The title person is thought too low so that that qualifying word thought being here omitted t is unfarily done of D. L. I come now to his seconâ— Chapterent it used Opposition â—â— Unity and having as I hinted before since I finished my answer to what he calls Contradictions met with G W s â—ook 〈◊〉 The Quakers Plainness I shall examine the use he makes of some of it in the said Chapter In p â—7 48. he brings in G. W laying down some oâ— the Mâ—ggletonians false doctrines and then endeavours to shew that G W holds the same my present business therefore is to shew D L's folly in so doing The first of Muggletons doctrines that he brings out is That death took Christ's soul into it and that Christ's soul dyed when the body dyed Now to shew that we hold the same he turns us to his Numb 37. 38 39 Where saith he they deny the body to be Christ and that it was Christ that dyed And that both body and soul was sacrifized see Numb 42. Answ First If the body was properly the Christ how was it sayd That by Christ God made the Worlds Heb. 1 â— since it was many thousand years after the world was made ere Christ took up that body 2dly If the body was properly the Christ how is it that Christ sayd to the Thief on the Crosâ— To day shalt thou be with me in paradise Luke 23. 43 Since Ioseph begged his body and laid it in a Sepulchre v. 52 53 from whence it rose not until the third day ch 24 v. 6 And as for their saying it was Christ that dyed it is no more than the Apostle saith in express words How that Christ dyed for our esins 1. Cor 15 3 So that D L is as really quarrelling with the scriptures as with us And what if G W declares That Christ's soul was sacrifized doth not Isaiah speak of God's making his soul an offering for sin see ch 53. v 10 What can be a plainer proof Yet it doth not follow that his soul dyed But if D L say otherwise then it is he and not we that holds those Muggletonian doctrines however I am sure we do not And so having done with this I shall pass the rest of this chapter all is it being pretty much of a sort and it being not my intention to answer every paragraph in the book as I have already told my Reader and given him a very good reason too viz because I have not many of the books by me out of which he produces his quotations to examine them by neither would it be necessary if I had since with any unbyassrd persons I must â—eeds have spoiled his credit in laying open the unfairness and forgeries he is guilty of in the beforegoing I shall now proceed to his third Chapter which I find much like his former it being grounded upon his not being willing to distinguish in ascriptural sense between Christ as he was from the beginning and as he came in the body in the fulness of time As for what he here saith of John Whitehead I refer the Reader to Tho. Ellwood's book Called Truth Defended c. p. 124. As for his saying That The true Chrstians believe that the true Christ hath a body of flesh and bones c. To this I answer That how or after what manner Christ's body is now in heaven I shall by no means undertake to determine ' it being I believe a bove the capacity of us Mortals so to do But I shall tell D. L. that he hereby brings his great friend G. K. under his censure of not being a true Christian for G K. expresly saith of Christ's body that It is no more a body of flesh blood and bone but a pure Aethereal heavenly body see Way cast up p. 131 not retracted Then for his bantering W P. about his calling Christ's body holy saying Can this be other than hypocrisy for as is noted at Numb 49 50 he holds the body to be earthly and perishing I would have the Reader note it proceeds from W P's vindicating this saying so Jsaac Peningtons ' That which Christ took upon him was but the garment of our nature which is of an earthly and perishing nature To which I answer That Christ's body was a holy body according to W. P. Surely D. L. will not deny Yet that it was the garment of our nature is not me thinks hard to make out For it is said Heb 2 14 For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same Mark of the same Now how it is the same if not of the same nature for my part I know not though Christ defiled not his nature by sin as we have done ours is Certain and there fore a holy body according to W P Yet in as much as he took on him the seed of Abraham he surely took on him our nature unless the seed of Abraham be not of our nature and that this is the garment which Is. P meant I suppose D. L. will not deny Nay the scripture saith expresly v. 17. In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethern Yet though Christ was in all things made like unto his brethren though he took â—hould of the seed of Abraham and took part of the same flesh and blood with us which flesh and blood of ours is surely of an arthly and perishing nature Yet I utterly deny D L's inference that W P. renders Christ's body earthly and perishing For though he took part of the same flesh and blood with us which flesh and blood of ours as I said is of an earthly and perishing nature yet by the mighty power of God Christ's body was raised from the dead and saw no corruption and so he dieth no more death hath no more dominion over him but he ever liveth to make intercession for us in his soul and spirit and glorious and heavenly body I come next to touch upon one passage in his Chap. 4 where he thinks he hath gotten I know not