unfairly quoted G.F. upon trust leaving out what 's most material both Distinction and Explanation about the Soul or Spirit of man both with Relation to its Creator and to the Creature man being spoken of in both respects by our Friends 1. Where G.F. insists on the Words God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a living Soul It was to this Breath of Life as immediately coming from God that our Friends Words related as his Question plainly shews i. e. Was not that of God and of his Being which came out from God meaning that divine Breath or Spirit of Life by which Man became a Living Soul and from whence came not only Man 's natural Breath and Life but also his spiritual and this does distinguish between the divine Being and the Creature Man and not confound their Beings And for the Soul or Spirit of sanctified Man to center with God this is not to render it the Being of God or God himself We know none professing the true God and Christ so grosly absurd as to say That Man made himself or was his own Maker Saviour or Redeemer 2. Our Friend speaks plainly in the same Book quoted against him Gr. Myst. Fol. 90 91 100. That the Soul should be subject to the Power of God that Christ is the Bishop of the Soul who brings it up into God the Soul being in Death in Transgression Man's Spirit not sanctified c. This could not intend the Being of God for that never sinned though there be something thereof in the Soul even in that reasonable Soul or Spirit of Man which God by his divine Word Breath or Spirit formed in Man Zech. 12.1 and so made Man a living Soul On Jonathan Clapham's Authority and Report R. Hubberthorn is charg'd by this credulous Dr. That he expresly said The Soul was the Being of God Quoting R.H. his Truth and Innocency and Clapham's Discovery Epist. to the Reader for proof How envious and unjust is it thus to condemn Persons upon report of their Enemies who regard not Truth but revenge and perversness as in this We find not in all R.H. his Answer to Clapham any such Expressions as that the Soul of Man was the Being of God but rather the contrary yet that 't is immortal That the first Man Adam was made a Living Soul that the immortal Life in the Soul came from the same Being and so says Clapham that the Soul came indeed from God and is Immortal and that God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a Living Soul that the Soul is to be watched over that Peoples Souls are to be redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb raised up by the Power of God out of Death R.H. his Collect. p. 30.38 How can the Charge before stand with these Passages i. e. That the Soul of Man should be the Being of God and yet to be watched over by his Ministers redeemed by Christ and raised up by his Power That divine Sense which he hath given us would never admit us so to confound the Being of the Creature with the Being of the Creator as to render them both one and the same Being For though the Soul of Man be a Spiritual Being it is not God nor Christ but is saved by him This Adversary by his Instance in his second Charge which he takes upon Trust from our old Adversary Jonathan Clapham his saying that R.H. in his Book against Sherlock p. 30. brings Phil. 2.5 6. To justifie the Quakers Equality to God We look upon this Charge to proceed from meer Malice and as a foul Abuse of R.H. his words for the same Mind that was in Christ to be in us Phil. 2.5 6. was in respect to his Humility and Obedience There 's no mention of the Quakers Equality to God in R.H. his Answer But of Christ being Equal with God on Phil. 2.5 See his Collect. p. 34 Charge 3. Against W.P. and R.H. about the Term Trinity That God is the Holy One c. That few are so blind as either to affirm or believe that there are three Subsistences and but one Divine Being c. Obs. Pray where is the Unchristianity or Antichristianity here If he believes the contrary Viz. That God is not the Holy One that there are three Subsistences or Bottoms in the one Divine Being This appears not to us either consistent with the Holy Scriptures or good Sense See Deut 6.4 Mark 12.29 32. 1 Joh. 5.7 Joh. 10.30 Besides he has dealt very unfairly in this Charge taking no notice either of the Doctrin opposed by our Friendâ— which was that of Three distinâ—t and separate Persons in the God-head which we do not find their own Articles of Religion will warrant nor yet of their Arguments to the contrary See our Friend's Book Divinity of Christ yet the Dr. grants they i. e. the Quakers seem to own the Thing but not the term Trinity he might have added of separate Persons in the Deity because the Father Son and Holy Ghost are One and Inseparable and then his Sentence or Charge against us is because we are not satisfied with those unscriptural Terms of Trinity of Three separate Persons or Subsistences in the God-head and reverently profess the Father Son and Holy Spirit in the words which the same Spirit hath taught us in the Holy Scriptures Thus uncharitable and envious some of the Priests have appeared against us to condemn us as no Christians because we could not in point of our Christian Conscience come under their imposing unscriptural Terms upon us whilst they cannot deny but grant that we own the Thing or Doctrin intended Charge 4 5 6 and 7. Against some of our Friends for manifesting their Dislike of the Terms Human Personal Christ and that he took to himself an Human Soul and some Adversaries terming Christ himself an Human Body and some Friends asserting the Oneness of Christ's Body 1 Cor. 12.20 and his Heavenly manhood and Christ as but one in all his Saints Obs. Here again the Dr. has condemned our Friends as Unchristian about Unscriptural Words and Terms imposed upon us whilst we deny not the Thing it self namely the real Manhood of Jesus Christ as he is compleat Man the Heavenly Man yet his Soul Divine and Body Heavenly Spiritual and Glorious And cannot the Dr. with all his Learning find out an Oneness between Christ in Heaven and his Members on Earth and between his Members or Church on Earth and his glorious Body in Heaven so as to admit his Body in the fulness of it in Heaven and Earth to be but One are not his Members in spiritual Union with him 1 Cor. 12.12 And why the Man should either Antichristian or Unchristian any of our Friends because they think the Term Human too low to give to the Soul of the Messiah whilst he cannot prove it so termed in Holy Scripture we are yet to seek He still imposes without Proof or Demonstration as if his
own bare ipse dixit must bear us all down But note by the way that our Friends questioning the Term human as applied to Christ or to the Soul of Christ is still in honour and respect to Christ they taking the Term as originally relating to the Earth of which Man was made and not opposing it simply as it relates to Mankind nor questioning Christ's being perfect Man in Soul Spirit and Body as well as God over all in respect to his Divine Power and Oneness with the Father but being the Heavenly Man the Lord from Heaven the Question is if Human be not too low a Term for his Soul Charge 8 and 9. Against our Friends E.B.W.P. and F.H. 1 st For asking Where dost thou Read in all the Scriptures that God doth require satisfaction for the Sins of the Elect or laid any thing to their Charge 2 ly For cautioning against saying That God should condemn his innocent Son that he having satisfied for our Sins we might be justified by the Imputation of his Righteousness 3 ly And against F.H. for saying You are only talking of Christ at a Distance and his Righteousness as far from you as betwixt Earth and Heaven and here is your Justification Godâ—s Righteousness in you justifies Obs. Now seeing this our Adversary has put all these Passages under the Title of Unchristianity and Antichristianity charged on the Quakers Ancient Friends May we not justly place the contrary upon him that his Christianity is 1. That God requires satisfaction for the Sins of the Elect and charge them 2. That he did condemn his Innocent Son to satisfie Divine Justice for our Sins and to justifie us by the Imputation of his Righteousness whilst Christ is at a Distance and his Righteousness as far from us as betwixt Earth and Heaven and not in us Now first observe His thus excluding Christ Jesus and his Righteousness and Justification out of his People and so leaving People in their Sins all their days is expresly contrary to Holy Scripture Testimony contrary to the Righteousness of Faith and Testimony thereof say not in thine heart who shall ascend into Heaven that is to bring Christ from above c. Rom. 10.6 7 8. as well as to the Nature Intent and Tendence of Justification Redemption Pardon and Acceptance with God in Christ Jesus See Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the Charge of God's Elect It 's God that justifieth and 1 Cor. 6.11 Such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God and Heb. 13.20 21. Where the Apostle both prayed for their perfection and that God would work in them that which was well pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ our Lord. See also these Scriptures Isa. 26.12 and ch 60.21 Psal. 32.1 2. Rom. 4.6 and ch 8.1 Titus 2.14 and ch 3.3 4 5 6. 2 Cor. 13.5 Rom. 2.13 Heb. 3.14 2 ly To place Man's Justification in a sinful unjust State upon such a kind of satisfaction supposed to Divine Justice that is Vindictive as they call it as by God's condemning his Innocent Son to undergo his Wrath and Punishment due to the Sin of the World in the Sinner's stead as many of our Opposers hold and this seems to be of the same Notion This is to justifie the Wicked and condemn the Just which to do is an abomination to the Lord Prov. 17.15 And thus to render the most dear and innocent Son of God the Subject of his Father's Wrath and of the Execution of his vindictive Justice to indemnifie Offenders continuing in their Sins How can this consist either with Divine Justice it self or with that most glorious Union Divine and Superlative Love that is and ever was between them And though we confess Christ's satisfaction in the Sense that God was always well pleased and satisfied in his dear Son in all he wrought and suffered for Mankind for Man's Redemption yet we find not in Scripture that ever he required such severe and rigid Satisfaction and Payment of our Debts from his Son in our stead or for the Sins of Men and thereby to acquit pardon and justifie the Guilty This Notion or Term Satisfaction and the Understanding of it is confest by Dr. Owen to depend upon some Notion of Law in his Declaration and Vindication and directly opposed and argued against by Dr. Stillingfleet now Bishop of Worcester in his Discourse of the Sufferings of Christ. Page 269 270 271 272 273 275. For he saith It is easie to observe That Socinus his Arguments are levell'd against an Opinion which few who have considered those things do maintain and none need to think themselves obliged to do it which is that Christ pay'd a proper and rigid Satisfaction for the Sins of Men considered under the Notion of Debts and that he pay'd the very same which we ought to have done Charge S.F. In his 9 th Charge again takes upon Trust Clapham's Quotation of a Book Entitled Saul's Errand to Damascus P. 8.9 In these words viz. Christ in the flesh with all that he did and suffered therein was but a Figure and nothing but an Example Obs. We deny these words as a plain Abuse Miscitation and Perversion For in the said Book of Saul's Errand Christ is confest as both the Substance of all Figures Types and Shadows and Example of his People The words are Christ in the Flesh without them is their Example or Figure which is both one as they intended who so writ for his being their Example 1 Pet. 2.21 and 4.1 and 1.15 and John 13.15 are quoted See also Luke 2.31 He was called a Sign Now hence to say he was But a Sign this were a gross Perversion Christ was our Example Now hence to say he was nothing else is an Abuse and alters the Sense as our Adversary has here done upon Trust condemning our Friends as Unchristian c. upon a false Report which is besides all Justice Morality and judicial Proceedings But whether the Word Figure may be in any tollerable sense attributed to Christ is the Question We find in some sense it is with other Words of like Nature and some meaner Characters are given to him as not only Example Figure Form of a Servant Similitude Habit Image c. but he was said to be made Sin and a Curse for us though he knew no Sin nor ever sinned 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13 1 Pet. 2.22 His Humiliation Lowliness and suffering for us did not hinder him of his most excellent Glory and Dignity But to the Point in Hand in Heb. 1.3 The Son of God is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In some rendered Figura Substantiae the Figure of his Substance And Phil. 2.6 7. He took on him the Form of a Servant where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Form or Figure and he was made LIKE unto Men and was found in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
is very plain I believed and therefore I have spoken Psal. 116.10 2 Cor. 4.13 And there were many true Believers before the Scriptures were writ who wanted not a true Foundation or Rule 'T is wonderful strange this old great Doctor should represent such Doctrins as these either Antichristian or Unchristian The Lord teach him better and humble him unto Repentance for his unchristian and uncharitable Opposition Charge 14. Against E.B. for saying All who go before the moving of the Spirit their Prayers Preaching and Ordinances I deny c. We own the immediate Spirit of God which was before the Scripture was written to be the Rule of our Conversation And against G. Keith viz. We are to wait for an immediate Call Motion c. to preach pray or give thanks and forbear till it be given Charge 15. Against being infallibly guided by the infallible Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures and speaking from the Mouth of the Lord. Charge 16. Against that which was spoken from the Spirit of God in any being of as great Authority as the Scriptures or greater and our Friends pretending to speak or write by one and the same Spirit according to measure by which Christ and the Apostles and Prophets spoke Obs. We do not perceive any Antichristianity or Unchristianity either justly chargeable upon these Passages but rather on this Doctor for so judging them all From which it naturally follows 1. That he is for praying and preaching before or without the moving of the Spirit of God and so runs when the Lord never sent him contrary to the true Prophets Christ and his Apostles Doctrin and Christians Practice Jer. 23.21 22. 1 Pet. 4.11 2. He does not own the immediate Spirit of God and Christ to be the rule or guide of his Conversation contrary to Christ and his Apostles Doctrin 3. Nor waiting for any immediate Call or Motion from God to preach pray or give thanks so that he promotes only a Will-Worship which God never accepts 4. Though we always confess the holy Scriptures of the old and new Testament to be given by divine Inspiration and prefer them before and above all other Writings or Books and in no wise question the Truth of them yet we must needs allow the holy Spirit from whence they came the preference and its immediate Teaching and Speaking in the Soul as of greater Efficacy Power and Authority to that Soul than the bare writing or Scripture without or only reading thereof though it contain the same Words immediately taught And so Christ and his Apostles living and powerful preaching in and from the powerful motion of the holy Spirit as being of greater Efficacy Power and Authority than the outward Writing or Scripture it self simply or abstractly considered as distinct from that Spirit tho' the Words preached and the Words written may be the same For the Gospel as livingly preach'd came not in Words only but also in Power and in the Holy Ghost 1 Thess. 1.5 For the real Authority Efficacy and Service the Holy Scripture has upon a Soul is from the holy Spirit or Word of Life giving the true Belief and right Understanding thereof But we may suppose that our Adversary's Charge in this Point is from his not owning the immediate teaching of God or preaching by the immediate motion and guidance of his blessed Spirit in these days but only by Tradition his Acquirement by reading and study of other Mens Works and Lines made ready to his Hand and therefore that he wants divine Power Authority and Efficacy in 's Ministry And then he might be more ingenuous to lay aside his Trade of Preaching and leave the People to read the Holy Scriptures without his meanings or private Interpretations upon them Charge 17. In this he accuses our Paper asserting our Christianity with a Tedious and Obscure Harangue under pretence of enjoying the spiritual Part of Baptism and the Lord's Supper but neither Refutes nor Answers what we have writ in that Case both of our Christian Experience and agreeableness to holy Scripture so the less notice need be taken of his Charge against our Friends for Asserting the Baptism of the Holy Ghost Charge ibid. And that the Bread and Wine being no other than a Figure of a spiritual Thing which is the Substance which being witnessed the Figure or Shadow is not obliging being ended i. e. In the New Covenant Charge 18. Against some of our Friends telling them That they set up their Carnal Ordinances in Christ's stead calling them their Means and not witnessing the immediate Appearance of Jesus Christ in their Souls drawing them in his Life and Testifying against the beggarly Rudâ—ments of the World and their Carnal Observances Obs. What more than a Figure does this Doctor suppose the Bread and Wine which they minister to be in the Sacrament so called Does he think them to be the Substance which is Christ If not then 't was very unadvisedly and uncharitably done to charge our Friends as Antichristian or Unchristian either in this Point for calling the outward Elements of Bread and Wine c. A Figure only as Protestant Martyrs esteemed them Vid. Dr. Cranmer Disp. at Oxford c. 3. v. Mar. In opposition to the Papists affirming them to be the Substance Christ. Let him therefore tell us what he esteems them if not a Figure For the Spiritual Substance is Christ he is that One Bread John 6. 1 Cor. 10. and his Spiritual Baptism is The one Baptism Ephes. 4. and in him the Shadows and Figures are ended Charge 19. About the Resurrection That W.P. said To assert the same Body that falls shall rise is inconsâ—stent with Scripture Reason c. And against another Friend for saying The Seed of God is hid in thee c. Obs. He having not wherewithal justly to charge us with denying the Resurrection it self for that we never did but always believed it of both the Just and Unjust and that they shall come to Judgement every Man for himself Now our Friends are charged because they believe a Spiritual Resurrection in opposition to their Adversary's asserting a Carnal or Sameness of Bodies to rise wherein this Adversary's Charge reflects upon the Apostle's Testimony in this Case as well as on our Friends as Unchristian For the Apostle answers such Fools Questions by way of Allusion plainly And that which thou sowest thou sowest not that Body that shall be c. God giveth it a Body as it pleaseth him and to every Seed his own Body There is a natural Body and there is a spiritual Body 1 Cor. 15. ch and 35 36 37 44 Verses c. Which is no other than what our Friends believe and hold Charge 20. Of Christ's second coming to Judgment against this Question i. e. Where proves he that Christ's second coming without Sin to Salvation is a Personal Coming Obs. And where proves he that it is Unchristian to ask such a Question to any that holds it Or that
THE CHRISTIANITY OF THE PEOPLE Commonly Called QUAKERS Vindicated from Antichristian Opposition I. In a serious Examination of Doctor Ford's Preservative against Quakerism in a large fallacious Scheme Tendered by S.F. D.D. as he stiles himself II. In a brief Answer to Henry Osland's Manuscript against the said People III. In a brief Consideration of an Epistle directed to Friends and Brethren at their next General Meeting in London Signed N.N. but no Name to it Sincerely Tendered in behalf of the aforesaid People and their Ancient Friends by some of them Psal. 35.20 They devise Deceitful Matters against them that are Quiet in the Land LONDON Printed for Thomas Northcott in George Yard in Lombard street 1690. THE CHRISTIANITY OF THE PEOPLE Commonly called QUAKERS Vindicated from Antichristian Opposition In a serious Examination of Doctor Ford's Preservative against Quakerism in a large Fallacious Scheme THE Industrious though fruitless Attempts of this Profound Doctor as he would be esteemed to unchristian or rather Antichristian the People called Quakers especially those of their ancient Friends is in this wise Methodized in three Columns on one large Sheet small Print The first contains a Recital of a Paper Entituled The Christianity of the People commonly called Quakers asserted against the unjust charge of their being no Christians writ by some of the said People by which the said Doctor S.F. saith They seem to be of a New Edition compared with the Vnchristianity or rather Antichristianity of their ancient Friends as he unjustly charges them in his Title set over his two other Columns and yet in contradiction falsly stiles our said Paper a Partial and Fallacious Scheme of their Doctrins Thus his Design appears malicious and uncharitable to endeavour not only to unchristian but to antichristianize an Innocent People that truly fear God and to render them contradictory to their Christianity sincerely asserted by them And whereas contrary to the Title over his first Column which is The Christianity of the People called Quakers over his second and third he has put the Title of the Vnchristianity or rather Antichristianity of the Quakers ancient Friends Hereby its apparent â—â—rst That all those Doctrins are by him rendered Vnchristian Antichristian which he has placed under the same Title and charg'd the Quakers ancient Friends withal in his two last Columns Secondly we may therefore rationally take him as holding the contrary and need give the less Remarks on the Particularâ— where his Unchristian Doctrins and Errors appear most obvious Thirdly most part of his charges are but what some of our old Adversaries and Persecutors have enviously and blindly Objected which long since are answered and the Truth fully clear'd in our Friends Books whereby he seems to have been one of them and since turn'd about from his Presbytery to the now Church of England for his own Interest yet retains his old Enmity And why is he now in 's old Age so disturbed and angry against the Quakers What 's the matter now Is he afraid to lose some of his Benefactors seeing he directs his Scheme to those of his own Neighbourhood and all others who are newly made or endangered to be made Quakers But he takes not the Course to oblige them that mean honestly by his abusing an innocent People in Print Fourthly Many Things are very unfairly and partially Cited by him leaving out the most material which are for Explanation of the Matters charged which we do not find but our Friends Books themselves which he quotes sufficiently and plentifully clear Others he has taken upon Trust against us out of our Adversaries Books without any impartial Enquiry what we could say for our selves or representing our Answers thereto But selfish Temporizers are commonly the most envious and apt to pervert Truth Now let 's examine his severe charge of Vnchristianity and Antichristianity against the Quakers ancient Friends in the several Instances given by him the said S.F. D.D. as he stiles himself that we may see what contrary Divinity he is Doctor of Charge 1. Is against our deceased Friend Ed. Burroughs viz. That God is a Spirit not distinct nor far from living Creatures for in him they live move and have their Beings Observation The Doctor 's deeming this Antichristian is to tell us he believes the contrary i. e. That God is not a Spirit That he is far from living Creatures Distinct or divided from them c. This being in his first Charge may be thought to be his Chief but his Divinity herein is expresly contrary to the Doctrin of our Lord Jesus Christ who Testified that God is a Spirit Joh. 4.24 and please to take the words not distinct to intend not divided or separate as E.B. intended and has explain'd That God is not far from his living Creatures and we see no Reason to render this Doctrin of God's Omnipresence either Antichristian or Unchristian but him to be both who so renders it For doth not God fill Heaven and Earth with his Presence and uphold all Things by the Word of his Power Jer. 23.24 Heb. 1.3 In whose hand is the Soul of every living Thing and Breath of all Mankind Job 12.10 And in him we live move and have our being Acts 17.28 If this Doctor had either known God or his Power and Omnipresence truly or seriously consulted holy Scripture he durst not have rendred such Doctrin either Antichristian or Unchristian Charge ibid. Against E.B. That the nature and glory of the Elect differs not from the nature and glory of the Creator The Elect are one with him enjoying his glory c. Obs. These being also put under the Title Vnchristianity or rather Antichristianity we may take this Doctor as holding the contrary i. e. That the nature and glory of the Elect differs from the nature and glory of the Creator That the Elect are not one with him in his nature that they enjoy not his Glory contrary to Christ's own Testimony John 17.21 22 23. That they all may be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us c. And the Glory which thou gavest me I have given them that they may be one as we are one I in them and thou in me that they may be made perfect in one And see 2 Pet. 1.4 That by these you might be Partakers of the Divine Nature Tho' we be Creatures still yet by the work of God's Grace and making good to us his precious Promises we are in some measure Partakers of his Divine Nature being Partakers of Christ Heb. 3.14 and so far united unto and in Union with him and is not this divine Nature the nature of the Creator Charge 2. Against our ancient Friends G.F. and R. Hubberthorn Of the Soul coming from God and returning to God again as of his Being c. And E. B's saying when dying Now my Soul and Spirit is Centered into its own being with God Obs. Here the Doctor has