supposed that nighan hundred of the Anabaptists would clamor together and make a hideous Noise and Bawling to stop him that was about to speak and in such wise were we Beset Interrupted and Hector'd by their Companies in the Galleries and near us upon their Leaders Example insomuch that we must wait a considerable time ere we could be heard The Charge of Shuffling and Bogling at one single Question being afraid c. pag. 12. is unjust and scornfully aggravated for though there was some Intermission before an Answer was given it was not at all out of any Fear or to Shuffle about it but because 1 st It was not W. P's place then to Answer Interrogatories and unscriptural Questions when his Adversaries had given a Charge that we were no Christians and upon the Proof as they pretended instead whereof they fell to Catechising us 2 dly And if we had not at that Time answered one Word to the Question but held them to the Proof of their Charge judicious Auditors would have held us excusable To that of T. H's saying Most of the Particulars he would prove from our Principles and the rest by Testimonies p. 13. he said the rest by Consequence Though here T. H. made a Stop yet W. P. is charged with an Interruption a Lye a Fool and Vnjust when he did not insist on the Matter see their disingenuous Carping and Reviling Whereas many gross things were instanc'd and laid against him wherein he had most falsly and abusively personated us as so speaking and being our own Answers and VVords and our Method and Manner of Reasoning even in many Particulars which he had neither Testimony for nor are they deducible either from our Words or Principles However if he say He will prove them by Consequence this bewrayes his own Falseness in saying They were the Quakers Answers when they were but T. Hicks's Forgeries staâ—â—d in our Name and Person Sect. II. Of the Christ of God c. THat we have denyed Distinctions p. 15. is false for true and reasonable ones we deny not But if our Friends Words have not deceived this Man he saith we own nothing but the Divine Nature to be Christ p. 16. Where proves he these Words to be ours Have we not plainly and often confest also that the Divine Nature or Word cloathed with the most holy Manhood and as having taken Flesh of the Seed of Abraham was and is the Christ Yet we must own that if he was the Son of God before he took Flesh he was Christ with respect to his Divine Nature as proceeding from the Father and that he was the Son of God before is not denyed that we know of in which Respect he was not seen with Carnal Eyes but with Respect to the Body which he took upon him in Time And as for two Natures viz. the Divine and Human united in one Person being the Christ p. 16. Then how consistent with this is it to say that the Human Nature or Christ's Body of Flesh and Blood is Christ p. 17 18. Which is all one as one while to say that Christ is made up of a Divine and Human Nature another while of a Human Nature or Body and yet that Body the Body of Christ. I must confess that if you impose upon us a Creed in such Impropriety of Speech and besides Scripture-Language and Phrase or otherwise unchristian us we must tell you that untill you bring us plain Scripture that saith the Human Nature is the Christ which Phrase some do conscientiously Scruple at least as being too low to entitle to the Christ of God we must rather patiently bear your Censure or Damnation then deviate from Scripture-Language in our Creed which is that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh that he is God Man the Son of God yea and God manifest in Flesh that as Mediator betwixt God and Man he is THE MAN Christ Jesus that Christ's Body of Flesh and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary and that suffered was crucified dyed and rose again the Third Day is called The Body of Jesus this Temple and a Body hast thou prepared me was not this the Son speaking to the Father As for J. Ives's great Question so much insisted on Whether Christ's Human Nature was a Part of Christ p 17. As it was not a Question in Scripture Phrase or Language so it was as abruptly and sillily obtruded begged instead of proving the Charge of our being no Christians As also thus to divine Christ into Parts is a Contradiction to the Human Nature being Christ. Pray you Baptists before you conclude a final Sentence upon us agree upon a consistent Creed that you intend to stand by if you will impose upon us to believe as you believe in Matter and Form upon Pain of Excommunication as Ethnicks or Heathens and finally of Damnation and then we may answer you further as we see Occasion you having already attempted to excommunicate us from among all Christians chiefly about Words wherein as yet you have not stated a plain and congruous Form among your selves And we need not think our selves oblieged further to answer you or defend our selves from your bare Charge of being no Christians until you have given us such a formal Creed and withal explain prove and reconcile these your Terms which you impose question and strive about some of you have endeavourd to tye us up to answer Aye or No unto as about your Expressions viz. Two Natures in one Person the Christ. Christ's Human Nature Part of Christ. The Body that was seen with carnal Eyes the Christ. Christ's Body of Flesh Blood to be Christ or Christ's Person The true Christ a Person without us or a Personal Being without us But let it be further observed that your Brother H. Grigg confesseth of Jesus Christ the Son of God thus viz. That he was of the same Essence or Substance with the Father the holy Spirit and that he had a PERSONAL EXISTENCE or Subsistence before he did assume our Nature c. See here they own a Personal Being of Christ before he assumed our Nature they should have agreed upon the Definition of Words Person and Personal Existence and Subsistence and clearly explain them to us in their Nature and Property as also the Nature and Extent of the Word Human both as they apply it to Body to Nature and as it relates to Man and not darkly and dubiously to impose them upon us in their â—uestions but rather be content with plain Scripture-Language and Words which the Holy Ghost hath taught which it seems these Men are not content with as also appears where W. Penn confest his Belief of Christ to be of the Seed of Abraham yet God over all blessed forever c. This was and is excepted against as not direct to the Question p. 18. Therefore upon their variable Terms about Christ I Propose these few plain Questions seriously
the Old Fancies of Sabellius revived and new vampt not heard of till long after Christ and then quickly exploded the Church about 1400. Years ago pag. 36. I must needs say that as this Accuser's smiting at us is in the dark herein for he does not lay down these old exploded Fancies of Sabellius or tell us particularly what they are but thus in dark general Terms is smiting and squibbing at us and abusing his Readers as if they were all bound to believe his Accusations on his bare Word But what were those Fancies or Opinions of Sabellius and such others that were exploded as Heterodox or Heretical It 's reported That their Books contain many Blasphemies against the Almighty God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and withal much Incredulity touching his only-begotten Son and First begotten of all Creatures and the word Incarnate and senseless Ignorance of the Holy Ghost Euseb. lib. 7. fol. 125. ch 5. As also those that denyed Christ to have been God from Everlasting and affirm'd that by Nature he was but only a bare Man as it is said the Followers of Paulus Samosatenus did Such disapprov'd the Essence and Divinity of Christ which hath been before all Worlds and such as confound the Father the Son and Holy Ghost imagining Three Names in One Thing and in One Person Soc. Schol. l. 2. ch 15. But we are sure that we are clear from all such Opinions as Denying the Deity or Divinity of the Son of God or his being that Word that became Flesh and so from affirming him to be butonly a bare Man As also we never went about to confound the Father and Son truly conâ—â—der'd according to Scripture-Testimony or to deny either the Property Relation Manifestation or Operation of Father or Son though the one Divine Being of Father Son and Holy Spirit from Everlasting we have and must confess Let it suffice that as we confess to the Father's bringing or sending forth the Son both from his own Being and Substance as also to his taking Flesh and the perfect Manhood upon him in due time and that we really believe his Sonship and all this according to Scripture so that he was and is the Christ of God the same yesterday to day and for ever And therefore to compare us with Sabellius or such as before mention'd is very Envious and Unjust But that Baptists have done no less then denyed the Deity of the Son of God or Divinity of Christ appears in what follows John Newman's Argument If Christ as Christ was not from the Beginning then Christ was not the Word from â—he Beginning But Christ as Christ was not from the Beginning Therefore Christ was not the Word from the Beginning pag. 52. of his Book entitul'd The Light Within Mark here Though he grants Christ and the Word to be one and the same yet this Argument denyes him to be either Christ or the Word from the Beginning What was he then He tells us not Doth not this oppose the Divinity of Christ or Deity of the Son of God to affirm that He was neither as Christ nor the Word from the Beginning for The Word was with God and the Word was God And T. Hicks among much more of his idle Quibbling and Opposition thus queries viz. I ask thee if Christ signifie Anointed and God be Christ as thou Quaker affirmest Whether God himself e anointed Dial. 3. pag. 32. Mark here who is the Quibbler irreverently reflecting upon Scripture-Language But unto the Son he saith Thy Throne O God! is for ever a Scepter of Righteousness is the Scepter of thy Kingdom Thou hast loved Righteousness and hated Iniquity Therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee with the Oyl of Gladness above thy Fellows Hebr. 1.8 9. Psal. 45.6 7. But these Baptists are willing to throw off God being Christ with as thou affirmest which is not as they affirm them I ask then If they own that Christ is God Or that as the Son who is God he be anointed as he is the Son And If He was the Son of God and so Christ before his Incarnation or assuming Flesh However these men appear Socinianized now and boggle at this Pre-Existence of Christ and seem to define or limit him only as a Person without us in Flesh yet formerly some of their Brethren have confessed That Christ is God That Christ is call'd the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.17 yea that The Father hath put his Name upon him Exod. 23.21 And that it is the Christ that is there spoaken of is manifest That the Father hath put his Name upon him so far as He is call'd the Father Isa. 9.6 See their Book entitul'd A Way to Zion p. 102. I pass by several Falshoods traducing and canting Language in the said Qu. Quibbles and grant that at length that the Author hath shewn himself more ingenious then in all the Book besides where he concludes thus viz. If I have mistaken thee or any of thy Friends it is not willingly and if thou shewst me honestly wherein I will beg thy Excuse I not pretending to Infallibility my Opinion being still so long as we are men in this Condition Humanum est errare But he should have consider'd this at the Beginning of his Book and have been more submissive and gentle in his Work beeing so subject to Mistake THE Second Treatise Wherein the Forgers Compurgators Are IMPEACHED In a strict Examination of divers Citations and Doctrinal Matters in their Book entituled The Quakers Appeal answered or a full Relation of the Occasion Progress and Issue of a Meeting held in Barbican the 28th of August last past as their Style is Which Meeting was held by the Baptists to clear T. Hicks to charge and insult over the Quakers in their Absence as the Mannagement and Issue thereof hath manifested This is published not only for want of Justice from them but because of the Injustice of those Baptists so deeply concerned for their Brother Tho. Hicks against the People of God called Quakers George Whitehead He looked for Iudgment but behold Oppression for Righteousness but behold a Cry Under Falshood have they hid themselves THE Second Treatise Wherein the Forger's Compurgators are Impeached A Brief Introduction THat these Men who have undertaken to answer our Appeal against Tho. Hicks have pretended very fair in Words is undeniable but how they have performed and answered is already manifest and will further appear in divers Particulars wherein I do complain against them both of their Injustice Partiality and false Testimony and affirm that they have neither approv'd themselves Just Judges nor faithful Witnesses in matters plain and obvious nor yet clear'd T. Hicks In their Title-Page they say Wherein the Allegations of William Penn in two Books lately published by him against T. Hicks were answer'd and disproved This is a manifest Vntruth as any Impartial Eye may see who is willing but to compare this their Barbican Relation styl'd The Quakers Appeal
his Dialogue that they were the Quakers Answers c. but this Writer against us carps and traduces on every slight Occasions Would the Baptists think it fair to be publisht in Print for Lyars Fools and unjust on such an Account But for W.P. his accusing T. Hicks with being both a Lyar and Forger he hath both proved him such an one in his Books and further urged to prove his Charge against him publickly since his Abettors have endeavoured to cover and uphold him But it seems it is the Language Lying and Forgery and Lyar and Forger that is found Fault with here and not the Application thereof when as the Scriptures prove such Language as Thou lovest Lying rather then to speak Righteousness ye are Forgers of Lyes c. See Psal. 52.3 Job 13.4 Joh. 8.55 Rev. 2.2 3.9 21.8 Tit. 1.12 His accusing some of the Quakers with quibling as much about the Word Body as about the Word Christ I look upon it as no better then quibbling against us instead of proving us guilty by plain Scripture for to say the Church of Christ is his Body and that there is one Body and one Spirit and that they that are joyn'd to Christ are Members of his Body this is according to Scripture-Language as also that the Body is one and hath may Members so also is Christ and are not the Saints spiritually united into Christ and unto his spiritual and glorious Body Is Christ Head of his Church in any other Body then that whereof they are Members and united to him And will this admit of Christ's being Head of two separate Bodies or of Three Christs as his stating the Distinction upon G. Keith That Christ was most properly taken for the Divine Nature less properly for the human Nature least properly for the Carkasâ— pag. 28. whereas this is so far from G. Keith's proving Three Christs that the words Human Nature and Carkass were J. Ives's not G. K's as the first is herein granted though G. Keith owns the words Divine Nature Manhood and Body of Christ and confess'd the Name Christ to be given to the Body when crucified and dead though less properly then to the Divine Nature and intire Manhood since that the Son of God was the Christ of God before he took upon him the Body prepared for him as J.I. hath granted in his Book Inocency above Impudency p. 37. By his Argument That Christ is the Son of God Ergo the Son of God is Christ as I answer'd though I could not be heard that the Name Christ was mutually and reciprocally given in Scripture to the Body and Spiâ—it of Christ as Christ dyed and was buried when it was properly the Body of Jesus for his Soul or Spirit was immortal did not dye but was in Paradyse when his Body was buried and that Spiritual Rock which â—ll Israel drank of was Christ. Doth the Scripture herein make Two Christs No sure No more will G.K. his Distinction bear Three Christs in Three dâ—stinct Persons as the Man unscripturally and quibblingly words it pag. 28. And further It is very strange that W. P. in correcting the Baptists and others to set up his own as the True Church must be impos'd upon to produce some of those Gifts or Visible Demonstrations or Eminent Signs as were in the Church in the Apostles Dayes pag. 29. and 9. when as he never made that a Reason or Ground to correct others for want of such Signs as the Gift of Tongues Miracles c. but for some Un-Christian Principle or Practice however in this Case our present Opposers do argue as exactly like the Jesuits Papists against the Protestants for correcting them as if they had serv'd seaven Years at Rome But let it be remember'd how the Baptists themselves were in this manner excepted against after their first Separation from other Churches and gathering into a Church of their own It was objected against them If the Lord be with us where be all those Miracles which our Fathers told us of Where be the Gifts of working Miracles which were in the primitive time c And what Defence did the Baptists make for themselves herein but that the seeking after and Working Miracles in that outward way that is sometimes in Scripture spoaken of and that these men intend is not essential to a Believer and so not to a Church nor an Administrator See p. 69. of their Book entitul'd A Way to Sion by D. King printed at London reprinted at Edinburgh 1656. Also That Miracles did not prove them Disciples That Miracles do not now distinguish a true Church from a false Ibid. p. 135 136. Yet as if they had quite forgotten these things and the Oppositions and Sufferings which they formerly met withal they bring their Adversaries Objections against us And seeing if we should only tell men We are in the Truth the Light within them will testifie to our Way it is demonstrable by the Effects that we have the Spirit and are in the Power of God and that it is within while the Baptists so say they have it as he saith p. 31 32. and that all this will not decide the Controversie or manifest to our Opposer a real Discrimination between us to demonstrate us to be in the Truth Now as we have not this way imposed a Faith upon our Opposers so we shall not thus impose upon either this man or the Baptists but desire he and they may without Prejudice seek and try further and Try all things and hold fast that which is Good and we doubt not but where or in whom the Spirit of Christ lives and rules it will manifest it self by its Fruits for it is Self-Evidencing and will discover who are the Lord 's peculiar People and who not But this Quibbler imposeth upon W. P. to bring something for Proof of his Church which the Baptists nor no False Church can pretend to and produce pag. 30. Though this seems to be a hard Task especially as to what may be pretended yet it is no difficult mater for W. P. and many more to produce or demonstrate some such Effects of that Living Testimony Presence and Power of God among us as no false Church can produce although herein neither W. P. nor any of us will admit of Prejudiced Envious Spirits to be our Judges or Witnesses in these matters but we have a Record in Heaven and also in many Consciences of the blessed Power and Presence of God with us amongst us Turning many from Darkness to Light and from Satan's Power to God And many there are among us gathered out from Baptists and other Churches and Peoples who are Living Witnesses both of the blessed Operation and Effects of the Power and Ministry of Christ Jesus among us which yet if the Baptists should object and say They see no such thing I answer That is because they have not Honestly made Tryal but stood in Prejudice and Gainsaying
as we had been some Time remote from the City And although W. Kiffin left the Meeting before the End thereof he could both be Judge and Witness as well as the rest for him from the Perusal and comparing of his Proofs with the Quakers Books which the rest might have done privately as well now my present Business is to prove them both Vnfair False Witnesses as well as Vnjust Judges even as to Citations as will appear plainly although they would fain have had us acquiesced with their Judgments as being Infallible Judges because appealed to but here it s proved That the Quakers Books do not agree with what T.H. hath laid to their Charge and that all his Quotations are not truly recited out of their Books take these following Instances being compared out of their own Relation aforesaid with what is briefly noted thereupon Sect. I. About the Soul BEcause T. H. hath made a great a doe divers Times about the Soul as charging it as the Quakers Opinion one white that the Soul is God another while that the Soul is Part of God and of God's Being without Beginning and Infinite Dial. 1. p. 16. Dial. 3. p. 2. I shall begin with this where after he hath cited W.P. as charging T.H. with Perversion Iujustice Misciting and Abusing the true Meaning of what is truly cited he here breaks off W. P.'s Words and then faith to his Auditors You hear what W. Penn hath said touching this Charge p. 8. Whereas he hath but cited the Preamble of W. Penn's Answer and left out the very Substance thereof See Reas. ag Rail p. 65. Is this fair Dealing or true to say You have heard WHAT W.P. hath said when they have not heard the very Substance and chief Part of what he hath said in this Case which follows after T. H.'s Citation W. P. thus viz. G. Fox saith thus God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a living Soul and is not this of God of his Being c. and is not This that came out from God Part of God and from God Where nothing can well be clearer then that G. F. intends that Divine Life Power and Virtue by which Adam in Soul and Body came to live to God with other Passages about the Words Breathed Inspired after which he addeth But this Ungodly Person would infer from our asserting That the Breath God breathed into Adam's Soul whereby it liv'd to God was of God's Divine Life That the Soul of Man as a meer Creature or created Capacity is of God's own Being and Substance c. See further Reas. against Rail pag. 66 67. And further let it be observed wherein T. Hicks hath dealt Unfairly by G. F. in this matter Though it be true that G. F. saith That God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a living Soul and askt Is not this which cometh out from God of God being without Beginning Infinis in itself c Gr. Myst. fol. 29 68 90 100. But then T. Hicks having left out those Passages that chiefly explain G. F's Sense in this matter takes it for granted without Distinction that it is our Opinion That the Soul is God as he hath charg'd us and this he hath made one main Reason for his accusing us with Denying all future distinct Beings or Rewards of Men after Death which must procede either from his Mistake or wilful Perversion he taking G. F's Question about the Soul to intend the meer Spirit of Man that God form'd in him or the Soul that is a Reasonable Creature which could not be intended in G. F's Question which concerns that Immediate Breath or Spirit of Life which came out from God by which Man became a living Soul wherein what is more evident then that G.F. doth not at all confound the Being of Man with the Being of his Maker though God may be truly said to be the Being of Beings the Life of Lives so the Soul or Life of Souls even of all Mankind with respect unto this G. F's words appear very plain where he saith God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a living Soul for that which came out from God was the Cause that MAN became ALIVE a living Soul and is not this of God Gr. Myst. pag. 68. See how plain and distinct these words are between That which came out from God and Man himself and whether it was not an Abuse in T. Hicks to leave out those G. F's explanatory words which are in the very same Page that he quotes and misconstrue his Question and Words to another Intention then they will bear while G. F's words relating to that which came out from God do not at all mention Man's Soul or Spirit that I do or can find Although T. H. and his Brethren take Soul in G. F's Question for the Spirit of Man or the Reasonable Creature so far as I can gather as W. Kiffin and the rest do in their Epistle entituled Heart-Bleedings for Professors Abominations and annext unto their Confession of Faith printed 1651. where they have these Phrases viz. The Spirit which God formeth in Man Our Spirit or Soul a Creature The reasonable Soul c. Here they grant man's Spirit or Soul to be the same whereas when G. F. speaks of the Soul in that sense he hath this Phrase The Soul being in Death in Transgression man's Spirit there is not sanctified Gr. Myst. p. 91. These plain words T. H. also hath left out though in the very next page to what he quotes What is more plain then that G.F. could not intend that Soul or Spirit of Man which could be in Death in Transgression to be either God his Divine Life Being or Part of God but of Man only for the Being of God can never be either in Transgression or Corrupted because God is Incorruptible And now from the Understanding that I have of G. F's words about the Soul as in divers places of his said Book He speaks of the Soul as under a two fold Consideration 1st with respect unto that Breath of Life which God breathed into man by which MAN became a living Soul 2 dly with the respect to Man himself as being thereby made a living Soul And of Man as under a three fold Consideration 1. As Man was in the Beginning before the Fall being made Alive a Living Soul by the Breath or Spirit of God 2. To Man faln and in the Fall from God wherein his Soul or Spirit is brought under Death in Sin and Transgression and so is polluted with Sin while Unsanctified 3. To Man as restored and his Soul quickned to God again by the Spirit of Life and so saved by and in Christ Jesus who is the Bishop of the Soul This I do understand and plainly gather from the Tenour of G. F's Words and Answers But sith Thomas Hicks's Charge against the Quakers was that they are No Christians and that one
of his principal Allegations for Proof is that their Opinion is That the Soul is God or part of God and of God's Being without Beginning and Infinite which perversly and darkly he hath drawn from G. F's meer Question as plainly appears before we had need to look the more strictly into the matter Upon which I ask If to put this Question Is not THAT of God and of his Being which came out from God by which Man became a living Soul be an Opinion sufficient to prove Us No Christians Then Whether or no they are Christians who say that the Soul of Man is a Spirit of the NATURE of God which returns to God that gave it And whether this be not as high an Assertion of the Soul of Man as can be supposed G. F. ever asserted And that some Baptists have thus asserted of the Soul see what they say in their own Instances and Words viz. That this is a known Truth that every thing at its Dissolution dissolveth into its first Principles 1. The Springs Rivers run into the Sea from whence they came out Eccles. 1.7 2. The Ice Snow Hail that are congeal'd of Water dissolve into Water and out of Water they are congeal'd again 3. The Light centereth into the Sun which is the Fountain of Light therefore in the Night time it is dark and Moon and Stars give Light as they are aspected to the Sun 4. For Man at his Dissolution 1. The SOUL being a Spirit of the NATURE of God is said to return to him that gave it and the Body being made of the Dust returns to the Dust again Eccle. 12.7 Gen. 3.19 saith God Thou shalt return to the Ground for out of it thou wast taken Thus far Dan. King in his Book entitul'd A way to Sion p. 92. printed at London reprinted at Edenburgh Anno 1656. and highly approved and commended by T. Patient J. Spilsbury W. Kiffin and J. Pierson who in their Epistle dedicatory give this Commendation viz. It hath pleased God to stir up the Spirit of our Brother Dan. King whom we judge a faithful and painful Minister of Jesus Christ to take this Work in hand before us and we judge that he hath been much assisted of God in the Work in which he hath been very painful Observe here how it is affirmed that the Soul is of the NATURE of God and that according to the Instances before of these things that return into their first Principles See now Baptists your own Doctrine about the Soul or Spirit of Man Were you well advised to suffer your Brother so highly to charge and taunt at us about the Soul because of G. F s Question which concern'd the Breath or Spirit of Life from God by which Man became a Living Soul when you tell us plainly that the Soul is a Spirit of the NATURE OF GOD You would take it ill if any should scornfully Dialogue upon you for this as your Brother Hicks hath done upon us for G. F's Question Is not That of God which came out from God c. to wit the Breath or Spirit of Life with whose Words also about the Soul agreeth Wisd. 15.11 Forasmuch as he knew not his Maker and him that â—NSPIRED unto him an active Soul and BREATHED in a Living Spirit See also VAVASOR POWEL'S Concordance about the Soul viz. The Soul is put for the whole Person Acts 2.41 7.14 it is put for Life Isa. 53.12 it is put for Breath Acts 20.10 marg it is put for a Reasonable Creature Gen. 2.7 it is put for GOD HIMSELF Prov. 6.16 marg Hebr. 10.38 I suppose these men are not ignorant both how this Concordance is approved and the Author of it esteemed by them Sect. I. About the Person of Christ. WHereas T.H. to prove the Quakers deny Jesus Christ to be a distinct Person without us quotes these words viz. Jesus Christ a Person without us is not Scripture Language for it quotes Dip. Pl. p. 13. Whereas the Words there are Jesus Christ God-man a Person without thee as in his Dia. 1. p. 9. is not Scripture-Language c. Mark he hath left out the Words GOD MAN in the Citation and in his two last Dialogues likewise Dial. 2. p. 10. Dial. 3. p. 7. So that it appears these Witnesses have either taken this defective Citation upon trust from T. H. and not from their own Sight and Knowledge or else they have knowingly born Witness to this Abuse owned this defective false Citation for a Blind But how comes his Charge now to be so Low against us as only denying Jesus Christ to be a distinct Person without us and he so hard put to it to prove this when before he charged us in these Words viz You reprobate the Scriptures and the Person of Jesus Christ without you Dial. 1. p. 62. O wonderful Impudence and Falshood The Reason of my Answer in this Case before to T.H. as also my owning the Man Christ Jesus as to his Being without us as well as within us is plainly shewn in my Appendix to Reas. against Rail p. 17. my Words being thus viz. Jesus Christ God-man a PERSON without thee which Phrase I did and do say is not Scripture Language but the Anthropomorphites who profess a Personal God denying him to be an Infinite Spirit doth it therefore follow that I deny the Man Christ Jesus in his being either without or within us But T. H's Words God-man a Person without thee equally excluding God under the Limitation of Man and Person without us he is pleased now to leave out the word God-man to accuse us of denying the Person of Christ without us He should have explained what he means by the Word Person for though we are not satisfied with the Words before being unscriptural this is no denying of Jesus Christ in his being either as without us or within us we confessing that he is ascended into Glory far above all Heavens and that he is at the Father's right Hand of Power in his Glorious Being which yet doth not exclude or limit him from being within us And its false that we deny Christ to be a Man His Exaltation and Glory into which he is ascended not only into the Heavens but far above all Heavens transcends that Degree attained in these suffering earthly Tabernacles his inaccessible Glory is above Men and Angels c. Again T. H. hath very unfairly cited but the Beginning of a Sentence of mine leaving out the latter and chief Part thereof viz. at 'T is a Design of Satan to keep Men in carnal Imaginations and dark Thoughts of a Human Personal Christ And here they break off leaving out the following Words of the same Sentence which are Consisting either of Flesh Blood and Bones LIKE THEIRS or of Flesh and Bones without Blood and so of God's right Hand as limited to that Remoteness That they neglect to wait for Christ's inward and spiritual