for would not the Quakers account it a great Sin and Trespass if any of the Church of England or Dissenter should sit in one of their Galleries where they stand to preach and kneel at Prayer and mend an old Doublet while they are preaching in their Meeting Places Surely they would greatly aggravate it and call it rude and unmannerly and profane Again whereas they query Where dost thou read in the Scripture that Men must do no Work on the first Day of the Week And this Query is made to justifie the Quaker's sitting on the Communion Table to mend an old Doublet on the first Day in time of Divine Service Is not this a great Shame to print and reprint such avowed Profanation of the Lord's Day and Worship also in the Face of a Protestant Nation that zealously profess to be against the Profanation of it and where are standing Laws against the Profanation of it Note here that whereas the Quakers affirm that what they speak and write is immediately and infallibly from God their professed Principle obligeth them to hold that what they speak and write is of greater Certainty and consequently of greater Authority than the Scriptures because they are certain of what they speak and write from the Spirit in themselves but they are not certain of the Writings of the Scriptures as W. P. argues in his Discourse concerning the General Rule They have not the Autographa the Copies differ and so do the Translations but they have their own Autographa and their Books and Writings are from the Original immediately Thus when G. W. sent me his Curse Thus saith the Lord c. and signed G. W. This had more Authority with him than the Scripture by his own Doctrine and if he please let him add simply considered as without the Spirit Proofs on the fourth Head Concerning the Holy Trinity GEorge Whitehead G. W's Truth and Inn. p. 50. in his Truth and Inn. and Jos Wyeth in his Switch pretends That it is not the Doctrine or thing intended that they deny i. e. the Father the Word and Holy Spirit which three are one And saith Jos Switch p. 184. Wyeth We own their Distinction in all the Instances of it recorded in Holy Writ The only thing they pretend to scruple at or deny is the calling them three Persons which they say are not Scripture Terms and they are wholly for keeping to Scripture Terms in Matters of Doctrine But to this I say ' first How many unscripture Terms do they freequently use Where do they find in Scripture the Term immediate Revelation immediate teaching of the Spirit immediate Word which they so commonly use Again where do they find in Scripture That see G. M. p. 324. the Seed to which the Promise of Salvation is is Christ within Several Papers c. p. 47. And that Expression where do they find it in Scripture That the same Spirit takes upon it the same Seed which is Christ now as ever c. That God the Father took upon him Humane Nature That the Spirit is the Rule and many more not only unscripture Terms but contrary to Scripture But why do they call them Three Witnesses as G. W. hath so expresly called them Where do they find them in Scripture so called That Place in John's first Epistle doth not call them Three Witnesses but Three bearing Record or witnessing But it is not only the Words Three Persons wherewith they are offended thâ— unjustly for personal Acts and Properties are given to them and therefore according to plain Consequence from Scripture they may be called Persons but the Doctrine or thing intended they deny for they allow not that they are distinct otherwise than in Manifestation see G. W's Divinity of Christ p. 94. he saith The Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit or the Father Son and Holy Ghost are one and inseparable no where in Scripture called three separate Persons nor finite in Personalities though Three in Manifestation and so testified of as Three Witnesses for the Confirmation of the Gospel Note Seeing G. W. doth not own them to be Three otherwise but in Manifestation this is not only to deny the Names or Words Three Persons but to deny that they were Three from all Eternity or before all Ages for there was no Manifestation either of One or Two or Three from Eternity His calling them Three in Manifestation is to call them three Manifestations and seeing all Manifestation has a Beginning with Time by his Doctrine there were not Father Son and Holy Ghost three any wise distinct from Eternity There was no God the Father from Eternity that did beger nor no Son from Eternity that was begotten nor Holy Ghost that from Eternity did proceed from the Father and the Son by G. VVhitehead's Doctrine And F. Hougil in his Collection p. 308. delivers the same erronious Doctrine He saith That the Holy Ghost is called another than Christ Another is not understood of another Life of another Substance but is understood of another Manifestation or Operation of the same God who subsists in the same Power in which the Father the Son and the Spirit subsist as I said unto thee before Another as to distinguish of the Operation and VVork of the Spirit and of the Son we do not refuse By this Doctrine of F. Hougil they are but distinct Manifestations Operations and Works Now if G. VV. or the Author of the Switch will say that there were three Manifestations Operations or Works in the Godhead from all Eternity It is absurd to suppose such Manifestations beside that they are unscripture Terms the same Arguments that they use against three Persons will as much and indeed much more be of Force against three Manifestations for if the Father be a Manifestation from Eternity of what is he a Manifestation Can he be a Manifestation of himself Or is he a Manifestation of the Son who as they say is a Manifestation Thus one Manifestation would be the Manifestation of another Manifestation but then what would the Holy Spirit be a Manifestation of And seeing in God there are no Accidents these three Manifestations are not three Accidents nor three Subsistences nor three Substances nor three Persons and consequently according to these Men they are nothing at all but their own Inventions But VV. Penn in his Sandy Foundation has not only argued against three Persons but against the Holy Three for he bringeth five Arguments against their being a Holy Three Page 12 13 14. one of which is this in express Words Since the Father is God the Son is God and the Spirit is God which their Opinion necessitates them to confess then unless the Father Son and Spirit are three distinct nothings they must be three distinct Substances and consequently three distinct Gods Now let his Argument be applied to the unscripture Terms three Manifestations and it will have the same Force or rather
greater but indeed it hath none at all against three distinct Persons for there is a plain Distinction of a Medium in created Beings betwixt Substance and Nothing the three Dimensions of a Body Length Breadth and Depth are neither three Nothings nor three Substances the Understanding Will and Locomotive Power of Man's Soul are neither three Nothings nor three Substances and yet they are but one Soul though all Creaturely Similitudes are improper to express this Mystery Beside how could a Manifestation become Flesh or take Man's Nature as the Son did And how could one Manifestation send another or beget another or a third Manifestation proceed from two other Manifestations But whereas Jos VVyeth saith in his Switch p. 184. VVe own their Distinction in all the Instances of it recorded in Holy VVrit In contradiction to this hear F. Hougil in his Collection p. 251. he calls it damnable Doctrine to say That Christ must be distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost Before in God and now from God their Quibble about separate doth not help them for some that have so called them have declared they meant nothing by separate but distinct and now if Jos VVyeth and G. VV. will have distinct to signifie separate seeing they pretend to own the Distinction of the Father and the Son they must own the Separation And whereas the Teachers among the Quakers profess they are not changed in any thing of Doctrine or Practice from what they were from the Beginning for Truth is one say they and changes not and as God is one and Truth is one and changeth not so his People are one Now let us compare the Doctrine of G. VVhitehead what it was in the Year 1659. when he writ his Truth defending the Quakers which he said was written from the Spirit of Truth concerning the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and what it was in the Year 1697 when he wrote his Antidote against the Venome of the Snake In his Truth defending c. printed 1659. in p. 2. he saith VVhat the Scripture saith of the Godhead the Father the VVord and the Spirit which are one 1 Joh. 5. 7. we own but deny the Popish Term of three distinct Persons which you call God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost which tends to the dividing God and to the making three Gods Note here he not only denies the three Persons but the Orthodox and Scriptural Explanation of them of God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost And thou who hast vindicated such a Dream could never prove it by the Scripture when thou wast put upon it And do not you Priests in your Divinity as you call it affirm that a Person is a single rational compleat Substance and differing from another by an incommunicable Property And art thou so blind as to think that there is such a Difference in the Godhead Seeing Christ is equal with his Father who is a Spirit then what incommunicable Property can he differ in from the Father that is not communicable to the one as well as the other Here we see he not only opposes the Terms Three Persons but the Distinction of the Three their incommunicable Properties which are these That the Father begot the Son from everlasting the Son was begot of the Father from everlasting and the Holy Ghost did proceed both from the Father and the Son from everlasting and surely the Father's Property is incommunicable to the Son and so is the Son 's to the Father and the Holy Ghost's Property to both for it cannot be said that the Son begot the Father or that the Son is the Father c. or that the Holy Ghost is either the Father or the Son But now let us hear his late Doctrine in his printed Antidote 1697. p. 139. Though 't is true saith he in one Sense the Father Son and Holy Ghost are not essentially distinct as to their divine Being which is but one they are but one God but in respect to their Properties of Relation as Father Son and Holy Ghost as such they are distinct but not divided nor separate either in themselves or VVork of the old or new Creation First G. VV. should tell us where doth he find in Scripture in express Terms that they are distinct in respect to their Properties of Relation Secondly Whether these Properties of Relation are communicable or incommunicable Properties Surely he must say incommunicable and that he did in his Book Truth defending expresly deny For if he should say these Properties are communicable such as God's absolute Properties are as holy wise good c. then the Son might beget and the Father might be begotten And lastly Seeing he now owns a Distinction of Properties of Relation though in unscripture Terms he must by good consequence own three Persons to be the Subjects of those Properties for no Properties or Predicates or Attributes can be without their proper Subjects for though it is the Father's Property to have begot the Son from everlasting yet the Father is not a Property but the Person or Subject that has that Property Thus we see how Proteus-like G. VV. has changed his Shapes in the Years 1659. and 1697. and yet there is no Shadow of Change in him for all this if we will believe him But further by some of his late Books we shall find him not only owning the Distinction of the three in respect to their Properties of Relation but advanced much nearer so far as to disown his former Opposition to the Terms Three Persons which in his Book called Ishmael that was his jointly with others he had charged his Opponent to have conjured out of one and told him that both they and he are shut up in perpetual Darkness for the Lake and this he doth in two several Books one printed in the Year 1690. called The Christianity of the People commonly called Quakers where he sets down the Words quoted out of his Ishmael more largely the other called Truth and Innocency printed this very Year 1699. where he leaves out the most offensive Words and puts an c. in their room as being I supose ashamed of them and well he might but he is not ashamed to affirm he is not changed in his Faith But let us hear how he excuseth what he writ in his Ishmael that was printed in the Year 1655. Truth and Inn. p. 51. Though his Name is at the Book yet he positively disowns the Words and affirms They are none of his and that he writ not that Part of the Answer to Townsend And in his Book called The Christianity c. above mentioned he saith He looks on the Words as wrong writ or wrong printed and that he raced them out or corrected them long since where he has met with that Answer But is not this a Piece of dull Sophistry to save the Credit of his Infallibility Had he not better more like a Man and a Christian
Fox makes him to have contradicted the Apostle and also the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and judged both himself and them This I think so evident a Proof that G. F. thought himself equal with the Father that neither G. W. nor Jos Wyeth nor any of their Brethren with all their little Craft and Sophistry can clear this Passage from that down-right Blasphemy That G. F. was equal with God for neither the Assembly of Divines at Westminster nor C. W. deny the Equality of the Son and of the Holy Ghost for G. Fox grants they owned it but the Equality which C. Wade cryed against was the Equality of G. F. or any of the Saints with the Father But here we find the Strength of G. Fox's Logick The Son and Holy Ghost are equal with the Father therefore G. F. is equal with the Father the Proof of which Consequence must be one of these two following Assertions the one is That G. Fox thought himself to be the Son of God or such a Son as was equal with the Father the other is That because the Son of God was revealed in G. Fox as he thought that therefore G. Fox was equal with the Father As to the first of these Assertions as it is utterly false that G. Fox was the Son of God to wit the only begotten Son of God the Word made Flesh so the other is utterly a false Consequence that because the Son of God was revealed in him that therefore he was equal with the Father but surely if the Son of God had been revealed in him that Revelation would have taught him not to utter such horrid Blasphemy But that C. Wade did not deny but own as much as the Scripture warranteth That God the Father as also Christ the Son were manifested or revealed in the Saints I shall quote a Passage in his Book being originally the Words of one T. Moor that wrote against the Quakers whom J. Nailer had charged That he would exclude God and Christ out of the World and that he should no more dwell in his People till Doomsday In Opposition to which C. Wade quotes the following saying of T. Moor which he approves pag. 23. of Quakery slain That the Majesty of God whose Throne is in Heaven is in his Inspections Influences and Operation every where and in his gracious and spiritual Presence and manifested Nighness in and through his Son dwelling in Sion even in the Hearts and Societies of his People Now let us hear what Jos Wyeth and G. Whitehead say in Defence of that blasphemous Passage above-mentioned quoted from Saul's Errand to Damascus p. 8. He that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus from the dead is equal with God Jos Wyeth doth plainly justifie it by the like false Consequence as G. Fox made Switch pag. 59. he saith For when Men are guided by the Holy Spirit they are certainly guided by God for the Father Son and Holy Spirit are one God and therefore equal and that which is equal as G. Fox he saith often expresseth it But doth it therefore follow that because the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are equal that therefore he that hath either the Son or the Holy Ghost is equal either with the Son or Holy Ghost or with the Father yet this is Jos Wyeth's blasphemous Consequence to justifie G. F's Blasphemy But G. W. hath found two other Ways to defend the above-said Blasphemy of G. F. in the Supplement to the Switch he saith p. 528. And if any among us have writ of them who are perfect in Christ Jesus being led by his Spirrt as in that Sense equal I understand equal only as like unto God or in Vnion with him being united unto him by his Spirit as he that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit Note first The Word Equal no where that I know either in Scripture or other Books or common Speech in any Language signifieth only as like therefore this is a meer Force put upon the Word and a strained Sense But Secondly That could not be the Sense intended by G. Fox because as I have above shewed in a former Quotation he proves that he is equal with God the Father because the Son and Holy Ghost are equal with the Father Now will G. W. say That the Equality betwixt the Son and the Holy Ghost and the Father is only an Equality of Likeness as to say the Son and the Holy Ghost are only like the Father but are not really equal with the Father This was the Arian Heresie that the Son was like the Father but not equal or of the same Substance with the Father they said he was Homoiusios but not Homouisios But he hath yet another String to his Bow in his Truth and Innocency pag. 10. Therefore the Words He that hath in the said Instance should be left out being contrary to G. F 's and our Principle and to his own very Words and Confession a little before in the same Book quoting Saul's Errand p. 5 6. where G. F. saith It was not so spoken as G. Fox was equal with God but the Father and the Son is one But the Fallacy lyeth here he did not say George Fox to wit the Name George Fox or the outward visible Body that bears that Carnal Name as he somewhere calls it but the new Name that he hath that is the He that is equal with God because that He is the Son and as to what G. W. saith of Union with God that G. F. did not mean Union by Faith and Love but a personal Union appears from G. M. p. 100. He brings in his Opponent saying God dwells not in the Saints as a Personal Union In Opposition to which he answers How comes the Saints then to eat of his Flesh and to be of his Flesh and Bone Note it should be by a personal Union And God dwelling in them and have Vnity with the Son and the Father and to be of his Body which is the Church and Christ the Head Yea he blames his Opponent G. M. p. 258. for saying To say that God is substantially in Man as essentially one with him can be no other but the Man of Sin But whereas G. W. saith He that hath should be left out pray who put them in That they were G. Fox's Words the Book called Saul's Errand affirms if this Liberty be allowed to transpose leave out and add Words in a Sentence nothing so vile and blasphemous or atheistical but may be justified by G. W. who hath used all these three Methods to defend his and his Brethrens vile Errors But let us hear one Passage more of G. F. out of G. Myst p. 299. to let us know what Conceit he had of himself as being more than a Creature he tells That one had raised a grievous Lye against G. F. and said he said he was Christ p. 298. to the End This Man having so charged him and having told him
he had Witness to prove it G. F. told him He was a Judas and he went away and after a while hanged himself and Christ in the Male and in the Female if he speak he was Christ the Seed and the Seed was Christ but he did not speak it as a Creature Note he grants he spoke the Words That he was Christ but he did not speak it as a Creature therefore he thought he was something more than a Creature the Seed in him spoke it which was Christ and that was not a Creature but what Seed was in him or in other Quakers that was not a Creature I cannot find out any other in his Writings but his Soul or invisible Part that he makes to be Christ and a Part of God as will afterwards appear on a distinct Head But he has yet another Defence to save the like blasphemous Saying of F. Howgel They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God in Nature but not in Stature It having been objected against the Quakers that some of them have said They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God To this F. Howgel answers after some foregoing Words F. Howgel's Col. p. 232. He that is born from above is the Son of God and he said I and my Father are one and where the Son is revealed and speaks the Father speaks in him and dwells in him and he in thy Father there is Equality in Nature though not in Stature Here it is a plain Case that F. H. places this Equality in Nature but not in Stature betwixt him that has the Spirit of God who is born from above and God himself for to place it betwixt Christ as he was the Son of God before all Ages and God the Father were to say That the Son is equal with the Father in Nature but not in Stature which has a twofold Error in it first To make a Distinction betwixt God's Nature and Stature Secondly Suppose that Distinction That the Son is equal to the Father in Nature but not in Stature both which are most gross and blasphemous and no less gross and blasphemous it is to affirm That the Saints are equal with God in Nature but not in Stature Now let us hear G. VVhitehead's Defence Truth and Inn. p. 10. The Equality in Nature objected relates to the Divine Nature which the Child of God partakes of in Measure though not in Stature relates to the Child that Divine Nature is one and unchangeable but our participating of it and Growth in it is gradual until all i. e. Christ's whole Church and Body come into the Measure of the Stature of the Fullness of Christ But doth all this Saying of G. VV. prove that the Children of God are equal with God either in Nature or Stature The Saints are said in Scripture to be Partakers of the Holy Ghost are they therefore equal to the Holy Ghost Which yet is the Way of G. VV's reasoning the Equality in Nature he says relates to the Divine Nature but who is it that is equal to God in the Divine Nature but not in Stature was it the Son or Holy Chost that is equal to God in the Divine Nature but not in Stature Nay therefore it must be the Saints or Believers here a Proposition is framed They that have the Spirit of God are equal with God and then this Distinction is given They are equal in Nature but not in Stature This Proposition hath for its Subject They i. e. the Saints or Children of God In all Propositions all the Parts of the Predicate belong to one and the same Subject the which Parts are equal in Nature but not in Stature But it is an unaccountable Liberty that G. VV. takes in his Way of defending these Blasphemies not only to change the Signification of Words from all common Use but the unalterable Rules of right Reason as in the present Case like as if one should say G. VVhitehead is equal to A. B. in Nature but not in Stature Nature relates to G. W. but not in Stature relates to another but who is this other who can tell Or as if one should say G. W. is a Man but not honest Man relates to G. Whitehead but not honest relates to another It is a real Shame that such pittiful Sophistry should be used by G. W. to defend his and his Brethrens vile Errors and Blasphemies whereby he makes himself guilty of them and all to save his and their pretended Infallibility It were much more Manly as well as Christian fairly to acknowledge and retract those most erronious Passages and own their Fallibility and Error and be contented to be lifted among fallible Men for humanum est errare labi decipi and not only so but to be greatly humbled for the Presumption that being Men they should equal themselves to God But the general Conceit of their sinless Perfection as they are a Body of People is such that both G. W. and Jos Wyeth doth justifie W. P's objecting to the Church of England their praying from seven to seventy Lord be merciful to us miserable Sinners G. VV. saith in Truth and In. p. 15. Alas poor Sinners Is not a Sign of Laughter at â—hem but rather of Lamentation and Pity over their miserable Estate who are always 〈◊〉 but not forsaking their Sins The like Answer doth J. VVyeth give in the Note Is not this a plain Evidence of the great Pride that is among the Quakers concerning their sinless Perfection As a Body of People and their great Uncharitableness towards not only the Church of England but all others called Christians throughout the whole World yea all Christians in all Ages and the universal Church of God both under the old and new Testament who always used Confession of Sin and prayed for Forgiveness of Sin find as Christ taught his Disciples to pray daily for their daily Bread so to pray daily for Forgiveness of Sins So under the old Testament there were daily Offerings for Sin and the High Priest however so holy yet offered both for his own Sins and the Sins of the People Doth it therefore follow that their Confessions and Offerings were hypocritical But doth not G. VV. know that as there is a gradual going unto Perfection so there is a gradual forsaking of Sin and a putting off the old Man with his Deeds Must not they who feel themselves wounded with Sin seek for a Cure And should not the diseased come daily to the Phisician till they be cured And as to the Quakers Uncharitableness and G. VV's especially towards all in the Church of England whom he chargeth without Exception that they are still confessing but not forsaking their Sins How can he more prove this Charge against them than his own Society or himself Many both in the Church of England and other Protestants can compare with the best of the Quakers for Holiness of Life and exceed them in many Virtues especially in
to constitute one Christ which is by a miraculous and extraordinary Union that no other Creatures neither Angels or Men are dignified with and though Christ as Man was the Son of God miraculously conceived and born in Time and also as God was by a Generation from Eternity before all Worlds and Times yet he is but one Son of God and because of the personal Union of the Word with his Manhood both as God and Man he is properly the Son of God But there is yet another Fallacy in G. W's Words which is that neither the visible Body nor Manhood that was born of the Virgin was any Part of the true Christ or Son of God and first As to that visible Body of Flesh and Bones he denies that Christ consisted of it I distinguish said he between consisting and having Christ had visible Flesh and Bones but he did not consist of them Christian Quaker p. 139 140. This shews us the very Heart of their Heresie In like manner W. P's Rejoinder p. 299 to 307. W. P. argues for 16. Pages in his Rejoinder against Faldo That Christ never died for they will not have any thing properly to be the Christ but his Godhead which they make to be all one identically and essentially with his Heavenly Mandhood consisting of Heavenly Flesh and Blood that he had from all Eternity Here a Quaker called John Whiting opposed in Defence of W. Penn and said W. Penn did not deny that that outward Person was the Son of God I askt him whose Son was he properly He said The Son of Mary I replied Mary was his Mother but who was his Father properly He said He was conceived by the Holy Ghost I again replied But that 's no Answer to my Question who was his Father Every Son must have a Father and seeing Christ had no immediate Father but God then surely he was properly the Son of God as the Scripture plainly testifieth To this he made no Reply but opposed in Defence of G. W. I having said that G. W. denied that visible Body that hung on the Cross to be any Part of the true Christ I replied I have proved it already by the late Quotation here read wherein he says He denies that Christ consisted of Flesh and Bones I distinguish said he between consisting and having Christ had Flesh and Bones but did not consist of them as a Man has a Coat or Garment but doth not consist of it and that outward Person that suffered at Jerusalem was Christ by a Metonimy saith VV. P. of the thing containing having the Name of the thing contained And at this rate VV. P. himself may be called Christ because he hath Christ in him The Excuse That Christ did not Meerly consist of Flesh and Bones signifies nothing for that was no Part of the Question betwixt G.VV. and his Opponent None ever said That Christ did meerly consist of Flesh Blood and Bones no Socinian will so affirm for that were to say Christ was meerly a Body of Flesh and Bones without a rational Soul whatever hath Parts doth consist of those Parts incompleatly of one or more Parts compleatly of them all The Foundation of the Quakers great Error on this Head lieth here That because Christ was before the Body was therefore that Body is no Part of him which is easily answered thus Christ was before that Body was but he was not compleatly and in all Respects fitted to be the anointed Saviour of the World until the Word was made Flesh i. e. until the Word did take our Flesh and whole Nature into a personal Union with himself the which was necessary to the compleat Performance of his Mediatory Offices of King Priest and Prophet and especially of his Priestly Office And not only G. VV. hath denyed Christ to have any created Body whereof he consists but he hath denyed that he hath any created Soul in his Answer to T. Danson ' s Synopsis p. 18. As to T. Danson's telling of the Son of God's Incarnation the Creation of his Body and Soul the Parts of that Nature he subsisted in c. To this I say if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both created doth not this render him a fourth Person For Creation was in Time which contradicts their Doctrine of three distinct increated coeternal coessential Persons in the Deity seeing that which was created was not so But herein whether doth not his and their Ignorance of the only begotten of the Father and their Denial of Christ's Divinity plainly appear yea or nay VVhere doth the Scripture say that his Soul was created For was not he the Brightness of his Father's Glory and the express Image of his Divine Substance But supposing the Soul of Christ was with the Body created in time I ask if from Eternity he was a Person distinct from God and his holy Spirit without either Soul or Body and where doth the Scripture speak of any Person without either Soul or Body T. Elwood to cover this gross Error of G.VV. in his pretended Answer to my first Narrative saith That G. W. only denyed that Christ had a created Soul as God But this was not the State of the Question for neither T. D. nor any other Man were ever so gross as to affirm that Christ as God had a created Soul And the like Evasion doth G. VV. use himself in his Antidote p. 191. This Question saith he is no Determination that it was or was not Christ as God his Soul was increated as Man his Soul or Spirit was not the Deity but formed and assumed by the VVord But it 's Evident that his accusing T. D. and others of Ignorance for saying it was created determines it sufficiently But as is above said G. W. and his Brethren will have only the Godhead to be the Christ which they call The Heavenly Man having Soul and Body Flesh Blood and Bones uncreated and existing from all Eternity which they call The Seed within them the Seed of the Woman that bruiseth the Serpent's Head which G. F. as is above quoted denyeth to be a Creature What the Seed spoke in him he said he spoke it not as a Creature therefore that Heavenly Man or Seed consisting of Heavenly Flesh and Blood which they say is in them not being a Creature must needs in their Sense be from all Eternity and not from the Beginning of the World only This appears yet more fully from R. Hubberthorn When was that Christ created R. Hub. Coll. p. 49 50. which you say must as a Creature judge the World And if in Mary's Time who was Judge of the World till then Was not the Person of Christ Jesus before the World was Note here he owns Christ to be a Person and by G. W's Argument above mentioned he must being a Person have both Soul and Body before the World was And when had the Man Christ Jesus his Beginning If you can declare it how is
George Keith's FOURTH NARRATIVE OF HIS PROCEEDINGS AT TURNERS-HALL 1699. WE whose Names are under written having at Mr. Keith's Request and by the Allowance of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London carefully examin'd the Quotations of this Narrative do testifie the Faithfulness of them and that they exactly agree with the Books out of which they are taken And as we commend his Integrity in retracting publickly his Errors and his Christian Zeal for the reducing of his Brethren who are yet entangled with them so we hope they will follow his Example and discern the Perniciousness of their Ways and be led by the Grace of God to the Acknowledgment of the Truth and to the Communion of the Church Z. Isham D. D. Rector of St. Botolph Bishops-gate W. Bedford D. D. Rector of St. George Botolph-Lane R. Altham B. D. Rector of St. Andrew Vndershaft Will. Whitfield Rector of St. Martins at Ludgate J. Adams Rector of St. Alban Woodstreet George Keith's FOURTH NARRATIVE OF HIS PROCEEDINGS AT TURNERS-HALL Divided into Three Parts Detecting the Quakers Gross Errors Vile Heresies and Antichristian Principles oppugning the Fundamentals of Christianity by clear and evident Proofs in above Two Hundred and Fifty Quotations faithfully taken out of their Books and read at three several Meetings the 11th the 18th and 23d of Jan. 1699. before a great Auditory of Judicious Persons Ministers and others More particularly discovering the Fallacious and Sophistical Defences of George Whitehead Joseph Wyeth and seven Quakers of Colchester in their late Books on all the several Heads contained in the printed Advertisement To which is prefix'd The Attestation of five Ministers of the Church of England to the Truth of the said Quotations And a POSTCRIPT By GEORGE KEITH LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1700. Advertisement THIS is to signifie that it is my purpose God-willing and by his Assistance to be present at Turners-Hall in Philpot-Lane by Fanchurch-Street in London being our ordinary Meeting-place Licensed by Authority on the Eleventh Day of the Eleventh Month called January in the Forenoon there to detect and discover Gross Errors and Anti-christian Principles plainly repugnant to the Fundamentals of Christianity in the Books of the approved Authors and Writers of the People called Quakers by ocular Inspection presenting them in fair and full Quotations to as many as are willing to be present and make Inspection into them And also to lay open the great Fallacy and Sophistry of George Whitehead and Joseph Wyeth and some of their Brethren at Colchester which they have used in their late printed Defences of their Own and their Brethrens most Erronious Passages contained in their Books in order to Cloak and Hide their Antichristian Principles and vile Errors not only to the great Scandal of all true Protestants in this Nation of whom they pretend to be the more refined Part but of all true Christians any where And I do hereby desire George Whitehead and Joseph Wyeth and their Brethren of the Second Days Meeting at London who have approved their late Books to be present at the said Meeting for which I have Permission by Civil Authority or any others who think themselves concerned at the Time and Place above-mentioned to hear and see out of their own Books their Errors and Fallacies detected who if they have any thing to offer in their own or Brethrens Defence shall be fairly heard The particular Errors that I intend God-willing to discover them guilty of out of their Books and Authors are Concerning their Pretences to Infallibility and sinless Perfection Concerning the Scriptures Concerning the Holy Trinity Concerning Christ his Incarnation his Soul and Body and Blood his coming to Judgment at the Last Day Concerning Justification Concerning the Soul Concerning the Light within Concerning the Resurrection Concerning the outward Baptism and the Supper Concerning doing servile Work on the First Day George Keith London 18th 10th Month 1699-1700 A few Words of PREFACE TO THE IMPARTIAL READERS IMpartial Readers I have these few things to acquaint you with and recommend to your Consideration First that I found just and necessary Cause to recite diverse former Quotations given in my former Narratives and in other Books formerly publish'd against the Quakers Errors to detect the fallacious and sophistical Defences that they have made in their late Books in Vindication of those Quotations to cover their vile Errors Secondly Beside the former Quotations above mentioned I have brought many new Quotations which are neither in my former Narratives nor in any other Books that hitherto have been published against them which obviates the cavelling of the Quakers who would be ready to say There is nothing to be expected of new Matter but what is contained in other Books and which hath been already answered by them The contrary whereof will sufficiently appear to any that shall compare this fourth Narrative with any other Books before this published against them Thirdly Whereas the common Objection of the Quakers is That their Books are neither fully nor fairly quoted To remove the Ground of any such Objection I have got the Attestation of Persons of known Integrity and Judgment to the Truth of them as I got the like Attestation from some the former Year to attest to my third Narrative I have given the Quotations as fully and fairly as is requisite to satisfie any reasonable Persons But the Men I have to deal with for all this will I expect renew their unjust Complaint and will tell their Readers This and the other Passage going before or following should have been inserted in the Quotations whereas the not inserting of them makes not their Cause one whit the worse nor the inserting them makes their Cause one whit the better as could be shewed in many Instances and is shewed in their late Books for when so much is quoted out of any Book that gives the full Sense of the Writer whatever is more is superfluous Note for a Proof on the last Head That the Quakers deny the Moral Law or Ten Commandments to be a Rule to the Christian's Life and thereupon do not blame but justifie doing servile Work on the first Day yea and in the Face of a Congregation while the Minister was preaching See p. 28. of this Narrative G. K. George Keith's Fourth Narrative OF HIS Proceedings at Turners-Hall 1699. For the Detecting the QUAKERS ERRORS The first Part giving an Account of his Proofs on the first four Heads contained in his printed Advertisement viz. Concerning I. Their Infallibility II. Their sinless Perfection III. The Scriptures IV. The Holy Trinity Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the first Head concerning their Infallibility 1. GEORGE Fox Great Mystery pag. 105. For who witness these Conditions that they were in that gave forth the Scriptures They witness Infallibility an infallible Spirit which is now possessed and witnessed among those called Quakers Glory to the Highest for
ever Again a little after So Isay the Devil false Prophets Antichrists Deceivers Beast Mother of Harlots none of these can witness an infallible Spirit But being out of the Spirit that Christ the Prophets and Apostles was in that gave forth Scriptures they are not infallible as they were but with that they are all judged out II. Great Mystery pag. 98. And thou and you all that speak and write and not from God immediately and infallibly as the Apostles did and Prophets and Christ but only have gotten the Words you are all under the Curse in another Spirit ravenned from the Spirit that was in the Apostles Saul 's Errand to Damascus pag. 7. They are Conjurers and Diviners and their Teaching is from Conjuration which is not spoken from the Mouth of the Lord and the Lord is against all such and who are of God are against all such Truth defended by G. F. and Rich. Hubb p. 104. Our giving forth Papers or printed Books it is from the immediate eternal Spirit of God to the shewing forth the filthy Practices of the World's Teachers c. George Whitehead Voice of Wisdom pag 33. his Opponent Th. Danson having said As for our Want of Infallibility 't is no valid Plea against our Ministry G.W. answers His Falshood here appears plainly for they that want Infallibility and have not the Spirit of Christ they are out of the Truth and are fallible and their ministry is not of the Spirit seeing they speak not from the Spirit but from their own Hearts which are deceitful where they want Infallibility so out of the Abundance of the Heart the Mouth speaketh Note Jos Wyeth in his Switch for the Snake p. 87. states the Question concerning their Infallibility fallaciously in three several Particulars 1. That the holy Spirit of God is infallible c. This is no Part of the Controversie 2. That the holy Spirit leads all such who obey him infallibly into all Truth necessary to Salvation This is wrongly stated the true State of the Question being Whether the Holy Spirit leads us into all Truth necessary to Salvation without the external Doctrine externally delivered in the holy Scriptures by preaching and reading and without all external means This they affirm as shall hereafter be proved but this all sound Christians deny who yet grant that all the Faithful are infallibly led into all Truth necessary to Salvation by the infallible Spirit in the Use of the holy Scriptures which contain the infallible Truths of the Gospel 3. That the Ministers who are sent forth in the Work of the Ministry have or may have if they diligently attend to the Voice of the infallible Spirit speaking in them a certain infallible Knowledge and Assurance of the Truth of what they so deliver This also is wrongly stated the true State is not what they have or may have but what they really have in all they preach and write as is clear from the above given Quotations of G. F. and G. W. their great Leaders To say they may have implies that they may not have and in that case they are fallible and so by their own Verdict are under the Curse Conjurers Deceivers Note that their great Teachers and Leaders G. F. and G. W. have taught that the infallible teaching of the Spirit is not by the medium or external Means of the Scriptures and that Faith is not given by the external Word doth appear from their Books 1. G.F. Gr. Myst pag. 350. Ye tell People of an outward ordinary means by which Christ communicates the Benefit of Redemption The means of Salvation is not ordinary nor outward but Christ is the Salvation who is eternal 2. Gr. M. p. 133. His Opponent T. Moor having said The Scripture is the absolute Rule and Medium of our Faith In pag. 134. he answereth The Scriptures is not the Author nor the Means of it nor the Rule but Christ who gives it and he encreaseth it 3. Gr. Myst pag. 243. And the things of the Gospel and of the Spirit are not attained by an external means 4. Gr. Myst pag. 320. His Opponents having said God works Faith in us inwardly by his Spirit and outwardly by his Word He answers Here thou goest about to make the Spirit and the Word not one is not the Word Spiritual and Christ called the Word Gr. Myst p. 168. Them that never heard the Scripture outwardly the Light that every Man hath that cometh into the World being turned to it with that they will see Christ with that they will know Scripture with that they will be led out of all Delusion come into Covenant with God with which they will come to worship God in the Spirit and serve him Note the Quakers that say they are turned to the Light yet are not led out of all Delusion but many of them are under great Delusions and Error concerning the great Truths of the Gospel as doth evidently appear by these and the following Quotations A Quotation being brought out of Gr. Myst in the Snake of the Grass G. Myst p. 213. Switch pag. 79. Thou cast not know the Scriptures but by the same Degree of the Spirit that the Prophets and Apostles had Jos Wyeth saith in his Switch By the Error of the Press the Word ALL is left out For which he quotes Gr. Myst pag. 212. In answer to this hear what G. F. saith in Gr. M. pag. 120. And he that hath found the true Record the Spirit of God with that he shall know ALL the Scriptures and is come within the Book where all things are written and which writes all things forth the Spirit Note G. F. no doubt and G. W. did think they had found the true Record the Spirit c. and therefore they knew ALL Scripture and had the same Degree that the Prophets and Apostles had G. F. G. M. p. 222. The Light c. is the Substance of all Scriptures opens all Scriptures and that all Scriptures ends in Le ts see all Scripture But that the Quotation of the Switch G. M. p. 212. is lamely made the following Words prove that some of the Quakers at least did understand as they thought ALL Scripture The Passage is this But they cannot know all Scriptures but as they vttain to the full Measure of the Spirit of the Prophets and Apostles and to the Measure and Stature and Fullness of Christ And if they do not attain to all this they are not able to know all the Scriptures and the Work of the Ministers of God was to bring People to this to the Measure and Stature and Fullness of Christ. Note that they thought their Ministry had brought some of the Quakers to this we shall see hereafter and no doubt they judged they were come to it viz. G. F. and G. W Gr. M. p. 47. The Light which every one hath that cometh into the World is sufficient to Salvation without the Help of any other Means or Discovery But which
is much more than that of Degrees G. F. tells of them that were come to that which is above Degrees Gr. Myst pag. 281. And the Blood of the Seed it cleanseth from Sin the Power and Stain of it and then the Guilt is gone of it and where this is known the Seed that destroys Death and him that hath the Power of it which is the Devil the Fullness is known which is above Degrees that which Degrees ends in Again G. Myst pag. 318. For who comes to the Spirit and to Christ comes to that which is perfect who comes to the Kingdom of Heaven in them comes to be perfect yea to a perfect Man and that is above any Degree Note by this it appears G. F. thought himself and some others of the Quakers come above any Degree and that is beyond and above the Apostles themselves who were but in the Degrees but they were come to the Fulness it self that is to be equal with Christ himself But let us next hear G. Whitehead 's Excuse of G F's Saying None can understand Scripture but by the same Degree of the Spirit the Prophets and Apostles had In his late Book called Truth and Innocency pag. 19. But if any true Knowledge of the Scripture be received that must be by a Degree of the same Spirit as I suppose the Words before-cited should be so transposed and so intended Note If this Liberty be allowed to transpose Words in a Sentence the falsest Assertions may be made true and the truest made false as Acts 12. It 's said Herod killed James by transposing James killed Herod Is not this a rare Evidence of G. W's Truth and Innocency or rather of his shameful Sophistry But whereas he saith the Words were so intended the above Quotations prove that G. F's Intention was that some of the Quakers and to be sure HE for one were come to the same Degree yea which is more to the Fullness and that is above any Degree But it 's no wonder G. F. thought he was come to such Height of Perfection when he said in his Battle-door All Languages are to me no more than Dust who was before Languages were This Passage Jos Wyeth quotes lamely Switch pag. 149. leaving out the Words which were chiefly offensive who was before Languages were What saith Jos Wyeth to this Snake pag. 85. And why did he not fully quote it as it was objected in the Snake It seems he found Difficulty to give a plain Answer to it therefore made a lame Quotation The like or rather more blasphemous Assertion is in a Book of J. Parnel called The Watcher p. 37. But to the end of all Disputes and Arguments I am come for before they was I am and in the Light do them comprehend and judge to be out of the Light in Babylon c. But here again let us note that the Author of the Switch acts the dull Sophister very manifestly Switch p. 453 465. when on the one hand he seems to be highly pleased with the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Point of Inspiration and saith He is glad that so essential a Truth as is the Inspiration of the holy Spirit is owned by her And on the other hand for blaming the Author of the Snake for his contradicting himself by his approving the Inspirations owned by the Church of England and yet faulting the Quakers Pretences to Inspirations The Author of the Snake had sufficiently cleared this in his Book called the Snake c. pag. 322. what sort of Inspiration the Church of England owned which is that of sanctifying and saving Graces but for the extraordinary and miraculous Inspirations of Prophecy and Tongues she doth not pretend to nor teach that they are commonly given or that they are to be sought there being no need of them The manner of prophetical Inspirations which the Prophets and Apostles had was such as they had given them by the Spirit without all outward teaching of Men or Books and beside this they had the ordinary Inspirations of the Spirit given in the use of the external means in God's ordinary way to wit the sanctifying and saving Graces of the Spirit inspired into them Here is a plain Difference betwixt the Inspirations which the Quakers pretend to given them without the external means of hearing reading c. and the Inspirations given in the use of the ordinary means of the written Word both preached and read that the Church of England lays claim unto which makes the Sophistry of the Author of the Switch very manifest and also his great Injustice to the Author of the Snake so to charge him without ground But let us hear what great matters the Author of the Switch pretends that the Inspirations of the Light within Switch pag. 38. will teach them who attend upon it It will saith he fully teach them their Duty to God and enable them to perform it It will discover to them a System of Principles truly Orthodox with more Certainty than Counsel or Synod can not taught by it for be is indeed a wonderful Counseller It will first fully and truly beyond any Casuist shew unto Man what is his Sin and if Man despile not this Discovery but close with it it will beget in him a Loathing of his Sin and then proceed to work in him a Repentance from dead Works which if unfeigned you see he is very cautious but why If unfeigned Can the Light within work any other Repentance but that which is unfeigned It will go on to sanctifie him and when Man by this Light Spirit or Grace is sanctified it will then witness to his Spirit that he is justified so will Man come truly to be redeemed This he saith in short is the Substance of what hath been by us declared concerning this Divine Light Christ in Man and which is not more than is witnessed of it in the Holy Scriptures Note By this plain Confession we see what sort of System of Divinity the Inspiration the Quakers plead for doth or will give them who attend upon it to wit a-Scheme of Deism or refined Paganism In all this Substance of his whole System not one word of Faith in Christ as he outwardly dyed for our Sins his being the great Sacrifice for the Remission of our Sins by Faith in his Blood outwardly shed But the Inspirations of the holy Prophets and Apostles taught them this Faith and the necessity of it as well as of Repentance for the Remission of Sins And seeing the Quakers Inspiration teacheth them nothing of such a Faith and the necessity of it it is a plain case tho the Quakers pretend to the same Inspirations that the Prophets and Apostles had yet they have them not nay nor the ordinary Inspirations that common true Believers have in and by the means of the external Doctrine contained in the holy Scriptures that lead them to regard Christ outwardly as he was crucified and raised
again and is at the Right Hand of God in our Nature as the great Object of their Faith But this the Inspirations of the chief Teachers of the Quakers have led them not to regard In the whole System of his Orthodox Principles the Substance whereof he tells us he has given there is not one intire Article of the Creed commonly called the Apostles Creed mentioned nay nor so much as implyed And indeed he cannot nor any of his Brethren by any real Evidence convince any Man that their Inspirations have taught them so much as one intire Article of that Creed in the true Sense generally received by true Christians and according to their Principles they must not say that the Spirit has given or wrought the Faith of the Articles of the Creed in them by the medium or means of the outward Word for that is contrary to G. Fox's Doctrine above delivered and as expresly contrary to the Doctrine of G. Whitehead in his Brief Discovery of the dangerous Principles of John Horne G. W's brief Discovery p. 18. pag. 18. who blames J. Horne and T. Moor for having affirmed that the Scriptures are the medium of Faith i. e. the means by which Faith is wrought in Believers There is no such Scripture saith G.W. as saith the Scriptures are the Medium of Faith Note seeing the Quakers have not the Faith of Christ as he was outwardly crucified and died for our Sins and rose again neither by the Light within them nor by the medium of the Scriptures as the Instrument of the holy Spirit as other true Christians have it it is a plain case they have no Faith of it at all other than a meer historical Faith as they have of any common History and indeed many of them have not that G. Whitehead in his Quakers Plainness p. 70. brings a quibbling Distinction betwixt a means and the means he grants The Bible may be a means instrumentally as God bestows a Blessing upon or accompanies the serious reading thereof as it directs to Christ Jesus or to his Light and Spirit which openeth the Vnderstanding in the holy Scriptures And a little before he saith Mark the Difference betwixt a means and the means as between the Bible and Christ that may be a means which is not the means Christ being the absolute way and means by way of Eminency for Man to come to know God But to shew the Fallacy of this Quibble By the means are generally understood the instrumental and subordinate Causes to the principal Agent and Efficient which ought not to be confounded Christ is the Author and principal Efficient of our Knowledge of God and the Bible i.e. the divine Oracles and Testimonies contained therein are the means and to say the means or a means is equivalent among all that know true English as when we say Food and Raiment are the means to preserve our natural Life or a means the Sense is the same But it is proved already out of G. F's Gr. Myst p. 243. that G. F. denyed that the things of the Gospel and of the Spirit are attained by an external means will G. W's Distinction here serve him Will he again distinguish betwixt a means and an external means But let us apply this subtile Distinction of G.W. to the Words of G. F. in Saul's Errand p. 6. who being charged that he said He was the eternal Judge of the World he confesseth it and brings several Proofs as he thinks to prove it as that the spiritual Man judgeth all things and the Saints shall judge the World Now seeing G. W. will needs have a Distinction betwixt a means and the means why not also betwixt a Judge of the World and the Judge yea the eternal Judge of the World as he professeth himself to be It was not enough that G. F. should be a Judge of the World but the Judge yea the eternal Judge of the World and by G. W's Logick G. F. was not a Judge but the Judge by way of Eminency yea the eternal Judge of the World But G. F. after his manner of frequently corrupting the Words of Scripture as well as his Opponents Words doth corruptly and falsly argue from that Scripture 1 Cor. 6. 2. Do ye not know that the Saints shall judge the World Note the Words shall judge in the future which G. F. corruptly applyeth to himself in the present or preterit Tense that he was or is the Judge yea the eternal Judge of the World Lastly To come yet more closely to G. W. himself I will shew you how he denyeth the Scriptures to be a means for the Conversion of Jews and Heathens to the true Faith in Truth defending the Quakers by G. W. qu. 35. pag. 51. And what is that the Gospel must be preached to in the Heathens that will receive it And whether they that preach to Turks and Heathens ought to preach out of a Text and prove their Doctrine by Scripture to them as the Priests do in England yea or nay Note By this Query he not only excludes the Scripture from being the means but a means for converting Turks and Heathens nor will his common Excuse of saying it was but a Query help him This sort of querying being the strongest way of denying or affirming both in Scripture and all other Writings Next let us hear W. Penn 's Confession concerning means in his Key printed 1699. p. 12. pervers 8. The Quakers assert the Spirit of God to be the immediate Teacher and that there is no other means now to be used as Ministry Ordinances c. He answereth They never spake such Language ... for they never denied the use of means but to this Day from the Beginning they have been in the use of them but then they are such means as are used in the Life and Power of God Note with what presumptuous Confidence W. P. dareth to say they never spake such Language when G. F. their great Apostle had plainly said as above-quoted that the things of the Gospel are not attained by AN external means That they have been all along in the use of some means as preaching writing and reading is but to say their Practice contradicts their Principles which is very common to them But to cover their Error their way is to mistate the Question as W. P. doth here which is not whether outward means can truly profit without the inward Aid and Assistance of the Spirit for this is generally granted that they cannot which is equivalent to his Phrase that the means then only profit when used in the Life and Power of God And in very deed their holding the Light within every Man sufficient to Salvation without any thing else as they do commonly teach destroyeth all necessary use of outward means as who should say a Man has that within him that is sufficient to carry him to America without any thing else as Boat or Ship should be understood to say he can walk
on the Sea or flie in the Air to that remote Place The next thing in reference to their Infallibility is their Pretence to the infallible discerning of Mens Hearts without respect to their Works good or bad This is differently stated by them and wherein we shall find a real Contradiction among them G. F. in his Gr. Myst pag. 89. had said Here thou hast shewed that the Quakers have a Spirit given to them beyond all the Forefathers which we do witness since the Days of the Apostles in the Apostacy and they can discern who are Saints who are Devils and who are Apostates without speaking ever a VVord they that be in the Power and the Life of Truth This discerning of Mens Hearts G. VVhitehead had formerly placed upon outward Signs in the Countenances of wicked Men or Women which he still justifieth in his Antitode pag. 69. Proud and haughty Looks wanton and scornful Eyes envious and fallen Countenances are rendred in Scripture as outward Signs or Marks of such wicked Hearts which also the Gift of discerning perceiveth and gives to see many times through such outward mediums Note G. VV. here layeth a great Stress upon outward Signs in the Countenance which he owneth to be outward mediums through which the Spirit of discerning perceiveth and giveth to see Mens Hearts but yet he will not allow the Scriptures to be the medium of Faith so preferreth outward Signs in the Countenance to the Scriptures but then he much throweth down this sort of discerning by Mens Countenances by saying many times for this leaveth their discerning to be many times fallible and though the Scripture and common Experience proveth that the Countenances of some openly vicious and extreamly wicked are Signs of their wicked Hearts yet the Scripture giveth no universal Rule in the Case but giveth us the Command of Christ Isaiah 11. 3. John 7. 24. Judge not according to Appearance but judge righteous Judgment and it was said of Christ He shall not judge after the Sight of his Eyes nor reprove after the hearing of his Ears But G. VV. will not take Christ in the case for his Example but he pleads further That the Gift of discerning of Spirits is given to some Members especially and still is continued in the true Church and from which discerning Satan cannot be hid however he transforms himself Here is another minching of their Infallibility of discerning that it 's given to some Members especially but he doth not allow it to all Members however he seems to plead for all the Ministers having it Truth and Inn. p. 12. for he makes it an Evidence of great Darkness in his Opponents to hold that a Minister that is fallible is in the Spirit a Minister of Christ and yet cannot discern another Man's State or Condition so as to give an infallible Character of him And he contends so earnestly for this infallible discerning in the Church that he saith If there must be no discerning of Spirits no infallible or certain Character to be given of other Men's States or Conditions by an inward Sense or discerning of Spirits then Christ's Sheep may follow Strangers VVolves Dogs c. and so be devoured contrary to his own Doctrine and below the Sense and Instinct of the very Sheep which leads them to shun Dogs and VVolves when they make at them whether they bark or howl or be mute Note By this manner of G. VV's arguing not only the Teachers but all and every one of the People if they be Sheep must have this infallible discerning whereas he pleads for the Ministers having it or some Members so it seems the People must rely on the Ministers discerning by an implicit Faith or if not be in danger of perishing But in plain Contradiction to this Doctrine of G.VV. who pleads for the infallible discerning of Men's Hearts to every Minister let us hear Jos VVyeth who saith Switch p. 95. But though this holy Spirit can discover unto one the Heart and Thoughts of another as of Ananias to Peter Acts 5. yet as that is not usual so neither is it necessary nor is it that which we pretend to nor hath G.F. in the fore-quoted Places pretended to it referring to the above-quoted Passage where he makes this Observation Switch p. 90. VVhich does very plainly shew that G. F. did not attribute this Knowledge or Discerning to the Quakers or any Man but to the Power and Life of Truth where it is manifested This Gloss as it is directly contradictory to G. Fox's Words which say They i.e. the Quakers that be in the Power and Life of Truth can discern so to the Words of G. W. who doth affirm That some of the Members especially have it But both G. F. and G. VV. hath carried this discerning farther than by the outward medium of Men's Looks and Glances so that they can know the inward States of their Hearers without looking to their Faces yea though their Backs be toward them and not only what they are at present but what they have been and shall be from Eternity to Eternity For Proof of this G. F. Gr. M. quotes his Opponents G. M. p. 229. saying VVill a discerning of the Gospel Mysteries prove a Power to discern the State and Condition of Souls what it shall be to all Eternity And after some Words he answers And so who are come into the Bishop Christ they are one Soul they know the Hand of God which the Soul lives in which is the Power and so knows it from Eternity to Eternity And so ye Priests which do not discern the Soul and its State to Eternity and from Eternity ye are not in the Mystery of the Gospel which gives Liberty to it neither have ye it And you five Priests have shamed your selves that do not know the Soul from Eternity to Eternity and on this horrid Presumption that they knew the State of Men's Souls from Eternity to Eternity Rich. Hubberth passes this severe Sentence on his Opponent Truth 's def pag. 92. Thou art ordained of old for Condemnation and for Perdition among the ungodly ones and art a Reprobate And p. 93. So here thou art cursed and cast out eternally Note this was only for his asking What is original Sin And here he speaks of the several States of the Soul as when the Soul is in Death and when it liveth and God hath Pleasure in it By which Soul he must needs understand the Soul of Man for of the Souls of Men his Opponents did speak Next G. VV. in his Truth defending the Quakers hath gone as far as G. F. with respect to his Infallibility in knowing Men's Hearts The Question being put to him in Truth def p. 24. qu. 54. Do not you G. W. blasphemously take to your self an Attribute of God while you pretend ordinarily to know the Hearts of Men. And tell Mr. Townsend of Norwich in the second Page of your Ishmael That the Light of God is
departed from his Conscience He answers I take no Attribute of God to my self but what God hath given me by whose Gift I witness that Promise fulfilled in me ye shall discern between the righteous and the wicked between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not Mal. 3. 18. This arrogant assuming of one of God's Attributes of knowing Men's Hearts being objected against him lately in a printed Sheet called An Account from Colchester c. In another late printed Paper signed by seven Quakers at Colchester called Some Account from Colchester they expostulate the Case with them who made the Objection Is it such an Error to believe or witness the fulfilling of this plain Promise Mal. 3. 18. How do you then believe in Christ in whom all the Promises of God are yea and amen Is the contrary good Doctrine for you our Acculers to hold that ye or Christians shall not return nor discern between the righteous and the wicked c. Do you not thereby prove your selves blind and in Vnbelief Note This in Mal. 3. 18. or any other Place of Scripture proves not that any Men shall have one of God 's Attributes given them to know Men's Hearts which is no where promised but Christ hath taught us to know Men by their Works and Fruits and not by his giving them one of God's Attributes whereby to know Men's Hearts for if they had that they should be as God himself to know without regard to the Fruits But that Place Mal. 3. 18. seems to have a plain Reference to the Day of Judgment wherein the Works of all Men however secret shall be made manifest and yet not by Men's having one of God's Attributes given them even then And as to G. VV's Argument for the necessity of this infallible discerning given to Ministers otherwise Christ's Sheep may follow Strangers and be destroyed This Consequence doth not follow for while they follow the Voice of Christ that is his Doctrine outwardly deLivered in the holy Scriptures and inwardly set home and applied to their Hearts by the holy Spirit they are safe and when they follow not that but Men of false Pretences who bring a contrary Doctrine and yet say they have the infallible Spirit as the Followers of G.VV. and his Brethren do they are in great Danger of perishing and though the true Sheep of Christ shall not finally be deceived nor finally perish yet they at times may be deceived and have been deceived by false Teachers and by none more than such false Teachers who falsly pretend to the Spirit of Christ and yet preach contrary to his Doctrine But that the Quakers did not only pretend to extraordinary Inspirations of the Spirit but to miraculous Operations I shall shew you out of G. F's G. M. p. 254. Some of them having asked the Question VVhether your Baptizers cast out Devils and drink any deadly thing and it not hurt you And whether the House where you meet was ever shaken And where he did give the Holy Ghost to you The Opponent calls this an unlearned Question to which G. F. replies This is to shew that you are not Believers nor in the Power that the Apostles was in Note By this it appears they lay claim to the same Power of working Miracles that the Apostles had as to drink any deadly thing and it not to hurt them and that the House where they meet was shaken I have both heard and seen that some of the Quakers Bodies were shaken in their Meetings but I never heard nor saw that the House where they met was shaken Note while I was giving my Proofs out of G. F. and G. W. their Books concerning their high Pretences to an infallible discerning Men's Hearts a Quaker called Samuel Miller as I am informed a Bricklayer stood upon a Bench and for a further Confirmation said with a loud Voice George I had a Vision concerning thee twenty Years ago that though thou didst preach the Gospel to others thou thy self should be a Cast-away This he gave to corroborate G. F's Pretense of his knowing the State of Men's Souls from Eternity to Eternity But if his and their bare Affirmation must be received for Truth without all external Evidence that I am an Apostate a Cast-away what Man howsoever innocent can escape their uncharitable Censure Another Quaker called Thomas Kent stood up and would have preached telling the Auditory He felt a Fire or Flame burn in his Breast he had a Consciencious Concern upon him but the People forbidding him to preach he cried out The Quotations were false but gave not the least Proof I told them he has been disowned by the Quakers and recorded out of the Unity these many Years for his Drunkenness and opposing G. Fox's Orders so after a short time he was silent Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the second Head concerning their Sinless Perfection IT being objected against G. F. that he had said He was as upright as Christ He answers Saul's Errand p. 11. Thâ—se VVords were not so spoken by me but that as he is so are we in this present VVorld that the Saints are made the Righteousness of God that the Saints are one in the Father and the Son that we shall be like him 1 Joh. 3. 2. And that all teaching which is given forth by Christ is to bring the Saints to Perfection even to the measure of the Stature of the Fullness of Christ this the Scripture doth witness and this I witness where Christ dwells must he not speak in his Temple It having been said by one of G. F 's Opponents G. Myst p. 282 They i.e. the Saints cannot be perfect here or hereafter in Equality but only in Quality G. F. answers Christ makes no Distinction in his Words but saith Be ye perfect even as your Heavenly Father is and be ye merciful as he is and as he is so are we and that which is perfect and merciful as he is perfect and merciful is in Equality with the same thing which is of God and from him G. Whitehead in Defence of this Passage in Truth and In. p. 14. saith Now where 's the Blasphemy pray Was it not Christ's own Doctrine Be ye perfect even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect and Luke 16. 36. Be ye therefore merciful as your Father is merciful Now what Distinction doth Christ make in these Words and Precepts as in point of Purity and where 's the Perfection in Quality granted then and wherein must this Perfection consist Note It was not Christ's Doctrine to be perfect in Equality with God's Perfection for that were to command them to be God himself and though Christ expresseth no Distinction yet it is implied and whereas G. W. pleads for the Saint's Equality with God in point of Purity he is still blasphemous the Saint's Perfection in Quality is not an essential Perfection for what Holiness and Purity they now have they formerly had
by seven Quakers the Passage is this Is the Moral Law or ten Commandments a Rule to the Christian's Life Some Account from Colchester p. 9. to the End or is it not Ans Thou might as well ask if the moral Law as thou callest it be a Rule to Christ For the Christian's Life and Rule is Christ who is the End of the Law for Righteousness who came not to destroy but to fulfil it Note In their Answer they groslly equivocate in taking the Word Christian's Life in another Sense than was meant in the Query and is meant in common Speech By a Christian's Life is meant in the Query and common Speech a Christian's Practice and manner of Life with respect to his Thoughts Words and Actions Now though Christ is called in Scripture the Christian's Life by the Figure of a Metonimy being the Author of their Life yet he is not their Practice or Manner of Life their thinking speaking and acting and whereas they make it absurd to suppose that the moral Law was a Rule to Christ Here they shew their Ignorance and Error for the Man Christ had the moral Law for his Law and Rule and it did oblige him to Obedience and he fulfilled it in his own Person for he was made under the Law and though the Law is not a Rule to the Spirit of Christ in Believers yet it is a Rule of the Spirit whereby he rules them Next they say The said Answer appears not to be intended to make void the moral Law or ten Commandments but the contrary in asserting Christ to be the End of the Law for Righteousness and that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it therefore the Righteousness thereof remains and is binding by the holy Spirit in every true Believer though not under the Law but under Grace which effectually teaches both to deny Vngodliness and worldly Lusts and to live righteously soberly and godly in this present VVorld Tit. 2. 11 12. which answers the Substance and End of the Law Note whereas they say The Righteousness of it remains and is binding by the holy Spirit in every true Believer how is it binding by the Spirit if it be not a Rule to every true Believer Doth the Spirit bind Believers to that which is no Rule or Law Again By their Limitation and Restriction of binding by the Spirit they make the moral Law as it is outwardly delivered in the holy Scriptures to have no Obligation upon Believers at all but only as it is inwardly revealed and given by the Spirit and thus Christ's Prophetical and Kingly Office as he outwardly delivered that Law to us is of no Force by their Answer whereas that Law and all the other Laws of Christ have their binding Authority over Believers from Christ the great Prophet and King and Head of his Church as without them delivered by him to them and sealed by his Spirit in their Hearts and though the Spirit of Christ in Christ himself and in the Prophets and Apostles was a Lawgiver to Men yet the Spirit is not a Lawgiver as in us because his Law is sufficiently given already by Christ and by his Spirit in Christ and in his Prophets and Apostles But the Work and Office of the Spirit in us and all Believers is to perswade us of the Truth and Authority of the Laws of Christ already given to enlighten our Minds to understand them and inwardly to strengthen us by his Grace and gracious Influences and Operations to obey them But to hold that the holy Spirit is any Lawgiver to Believers since the Days of Christ and the Apostles is of no less dangerous Consequence than to overthrow Christianity and introduce Deism and Mahumetism For indeed upon that Pretence the Laws of the Turks Alcoran are set up and by the same Pretence G. F. did throw down Christ's Institutions of Baptism and the Supper and Church-Government by Pastors and Elders and set up Laws and Rules that he pretended to have given him by the Spirit and this was the Pretence of the ancient Montanists Yea W. Penn on this very Pretence rejects Baptism and the Supper affirming That the same Spirit that led the Apostles to reject Circumcision hath led the Quakers to reject the outward Baptism and Supper Lastly whereas they say A Believer is not under the Law but under Grace this doth not justifie their vile Heresie That the moral Law is not a Rule of Life to Christians for though they are not under the Curse and Condemnation of it nor as it is a Law of Works so as thereby to be justified yet they are under it even as outwardly given by Christ and his Prophets and Apostles as a Rule of Life And thus as they disannul and make void the moral Law of the Ten Commandments so all the other positive Laws and Commands of the Gospel making the Gospel nothing but the Light within all Mankind and Gospel Commands nothing but what that dictates though they are not agreed about the Commands of the Light within either their Number or Duration or whether there are any new Commands given in this Age as G. F. pretends was given to him and by him to the Quakers But again How doth it appear that their Answer doth not make void the moral Law or Ten Commandments when they reject the Morality of the fourth Commandment and do not allow that one Day of seven is to be observed and to be sanctified by abstaining from servile Labour and giving that Day to religious Exercise as appears from another Quotation in that called An Account from Colchester taken out of G. W's Truth defending To which they pretend to give answer in that called Some Account from Colchester p. 11. Did that Quaker sin therein or not who brought lately on the Lord's Day an old Doublet into Dr. Gell ' s Church in London and sate upon the Communion Table mending it while the Dr. was preaching the Parishoners forbidding him In their Answer they expostulate with him as if it were Popery 〈◊〉 it a Crime Sin to work upon the Communion Table as if it were a more holy Place than another But though it have no inherent Holiness yet it being dedicated to that Use every sober Christian will say it was a great Sin by diverse aggravating Circumstances as done in Contempt of the Institution of our Lord himself who appointed the Practice of breaking of Bread and that there should be a Table is evident from Scripture that mentions the Table of the Lord. Secondly The doing of it while the Dr. was preaching Thirdly The wilful Offence designedly given to the People present upon Pretence of bearing witness against their Idolatry and idolatrous Practice as the Quakers were wont to censure it Fourthly The doing of it on the first Day of the Week set apart from servile Labour to the Worship of God Fifthly The Breach of that golden Law of Equity Not doing as they would be done by
owned the Person of the Father G. M. p. 247. But thou saith Christ doth not dwell in them personally doth not Christ dwell in his Saints as he is in the Person of the Father the Substance And are not they of his Flesh and of his Bone Again G. Fox G.M. p. 248. owns expresly Christ's Person for first having cited his Opponent's Words It is a false thing to say Christ's Person is in Man in his Answer without finding the least fault with the Term Person he makes Opposition thus VVhich is as much as to say none are of his Flesh or of his Bone nor eat it nor had not his Substance By this it appears that G. F. did not find fault either with the Word Person as belonging to the Father or with Christ's Person but he will not allow them to be two Persons but one Person But if any will say he allowed them to be two Persons then by the Arguments both of G. F. and G. VV. they must be two Gods for if three Persons infer by Argument three Gods by the same Argument two Persons will infer two Gods The above mentioned Words of G. F. in G. M. Doth not Christ dwell in his Saints as he is in the Person of the Father the Substance Jos VVyeth in his Switch recites as quoted out of the Snakâ— Here the Switch finds no fault with G. Fox's owning the Person of the Father which were G. F's own Words but labors to prove that by that spiritual Oneness betwixt Christ and his Followers G.F. did not mean to make the Soul of the same Person and Substance with God which how ineffectual his Labor is in that may be shewn afterwards Note that the Switch doth justifie G. F. his Saying That God the Father did take upon him Humane Nature p. 190. and in Truth 's defence by G. F. p. 85. The Son's Body is called the Father's they are one not two viz. the Son and the Father But here once more on this Head let us take notice of G. VV 's Fallibility and self Contradiction in most evident manner In his Light and Life p. 47. he blames his Opponent VV. B. for these Words following concerning Christ Now as he was God he was Co-creator with the Father and so was before Abraham and had Glory with God before the VVorld was and in this Sense came down from Heaven To this G.VV. replies VVhat Nonsence and unscripture Language is this to tell of God being Co-creator with the Father or that God had Glory with God Doth not this imply two Gods and that God had a Father let the Reader judge Note how he calleth it Nonsence and unscripture Language to say That Christ as God had Glory with God and that he had a Father which is a plain Evidence that G. VV. denied the eternal divine Generation of the Son contrary both to the Nicene and Athanasian Creed and Scripture also But let us see how he excuses himself in his Antidote p. 188. But the Phrase God Co-creator with God I think still implies two Creators and consequently two Gods 'T is not the Particle Co with in this case will excuse the matter for Co or Con is simul together as Co-workers Co-partners which are more distinct Agents than one but the Creator is but one God one VVord one Spirit and so one Creator Note Here we see the Force of G. VV's Argument against Christ the Word being God Co-creator with the Father is that it would infer the Father and the Son to be Co-workers and consequently two Gods This Antidote he writ in the Year 1697. but in the Year 1674. wherein he published his Quakers Plainness in p. 24. he allows the Father and the Son to be Co-workers in the following Words That the Distinction of the Father and the Son is not only nominal as this Opposer implies against us but real in the divine Relation of Father and Son the Son as being the only begotten of the Father and also known as Co-workers in the Order and Degrees of Manifestation and Discovery where it is plain by his late manner of arguing in his Antidote against the Father and the Son being Co-workers that it doth infer two Gods that in his Saying in his Quakers Plainness as above quoted That the Father and the Son are known as Co-workers he has rendred himself guilty by his own Argument of holding the Father and the Son to be two Gods This is not only a Contradiction to himself but a severe Censure on himself that in the Year 1674. he was guilty of Idolatry in holding That the Father and the Son are two Gods Note Reader that the Quakers use to object two things against my charging Contradictions upon G. W. and other their principal Authors First That I have contradicted my self in my former and later Writings To this I have answered What in my later Writings I have retracted of my former Errors is no Contradiction for that 's a Contradiction when a Man holds contradictory Propositions to be both true simul semel without retracting his Errors But what a Man retracts he is no more chargeable with let G. W. and his Brethren retract their Errors and I shall cease to charge them with them or with Contradictions Secondly they object That I may find as many Contradictions in the Scriptures as in their Books Thus we see how they undervalue the Scriptures to be as contradictory as their Authors but I deny there are any real Contradictions in the Scriptures but there are many in the Quakers Authors Again further hear a Quotation out of the Primmer of G. F. junior and S. Crisp p. 24. And they that come to see and know the Son they come to see and know the Father also for the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father as saith the Scriptures and they are called by one Name which is The Word or The Light For the Word is God and Christ is the Word and God is Light and Christ is the Light of the World and the Spirit of Life proceeds from God and Christ who are Light Note Seeing they hold that the Father and the Son are called by one Name which is The Word and that the Father is the Word and the Son is the Word it is evident they make no Distinction betwixt the Father and Son and therefore according to their false Doctrine seeing the Word was made Flesh and the Father is the Word the Father was made Flesh the Father was born of a Virgin the Father suffered Death on the Cross yea the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father which is a plain overturning the great Fundamentals of Christianity yet this Primmer is so highly magnified among the Quakers that almost every Family of them have it to teach it their Children and they call it in the Preface A Fruit of the Plant of Righteousness given forth for the removing the Vse of such Books and Catechisins as
are sprung forth of the corrupt Tree which now is to be burned and its Fruit rejected Now these are all the Books and Catechisms published by any others but themselves Again in p. 23. they say And though some have known him viz. Christ after the Flesh yet henceforth know they him so no more as say the Scriptures of Truth Note Here they pervert the true Sence of Paul's Words as they commonly do in their Books and Preachings giving Paul's Words for a Reason why they do not preach Faith in Christ as he came in the Flesh died and rose again c as necessary to Salvation because say they VVe are no more to know Christ after the Flesh whereas it was the great Subject both of Paul's Preaching and of all the Apostles to wit Jesus Christ as he came in the Flesh died for our Sins and rose again and ascended c. insomuch that they did with one Accord declare That the Gift of the Holy Ghost with all the saving and sanctifying Graces of the Spirit do come to Men by Christ through Faith in him as he came in the Flesh died rose and ascended and that this Faith was wrought in Men by hearing the VVord outwardly preached Again in p. 23. they say Now Children the Scriptures of Truth do declare of God and Christ and the Spirit of Truth which are one but the Scriptures cannot bring you to know God and Christ and the Spirit of Truth And yet they say concerning this Primmer and the Contents of it p. 2. That they are very useful for Children and others to Learn that they may be turned unto the Light which is the Gift of God Here they seem to prefer their Primmer to the Scriptures for they say of the Contents of their Primmer That they are very useful for Children and others to Learn To learn what Surely some Knowledge of God and Christ they will say and yet they will not allow so much to the Scripture and on a diligent Search I find not in all this Primmer one simple Direction to Children and others to read the Scriptures and what they have quoted of Scripture in it is but little and much even of that grosly perverted and misapplied as in p. 44 45. they say They that hear the Light that is in all Men and common to all Men they hear God for God is Light and they that hear God they hear Christ also for God and Christ are one as saith the Scripture and they that hear Christ hear the Author of the true Faith and so hear the Saviour of their Souls and the Light is that Prophet which all that hear not him are to be cut off Here we see how grosly they pervert that Place of Scripture Deut. 18. 15. Acts 3. 22. 7. 37. which is not to be understood of the common Illumination given to all Mankind but of the Man Christ as he outwardly came in the Flesh and did execute his prophetical Office on Earth by preaching and teaching and as he doth now still execute his prophetical Office in his Church by his Word outwardly preached and his Spirit inwardly accompanying it to make it effectual Again p. 82. they run into the same wild Notion that others Familists and mad Enthusiasts run into of the Blood of Christ within them For say they and all wait together in the Light viz. as it is common to all Mankind Infidels Jews Mahumetans Heathens for so they understand it and believe in it that ye may be the Children of the Light and therein watch unto Prayer and one over another and this will beget ye into unfeigned Love and walk in the Light ye will have true Vnity and Fellowship one with another and the Blood which is the Life of Jesus Christ ye will feel cleansing you from all Sin and so ye will come into Vnity with God Note By this it is evident as will more fully appear on a particular Head following that by the Blood which they call the Life of Jesus Christ they meant not his Blood outwardly shed or his Life that he outwardly laid down viz. the Life of his Manhood without us for the Remission of our Sins and cleansing therefrom But according to their usual Cant and Phrase The Blood that is the Life and the Life is the Light within So that they make the Blood the Life and the Light within them to be one and the same thing but neither in this Primmer nor in any other of their Books do I find the least Direction to Faith in the Blood of Christ as it was outwardly shed on the Cross therefore in this Primmer and in their other Books they give Poison to poor Children to suck or receive instead of wholesome Food George Keith's Fourth Narrative OF HIS Proceedings at Turners-Hall 1699. For the Detecting the QUAKERS ERRORS PART II. Containing the Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the fifth Head concerning Christ his Incarnation his Soul Body and Blood And on the sixth Head concerning the Souls of Men. Read at the second Meeting at Turners-Hall January 19. 1699. W. P. in Serious Apology p. 146. saith That the outward Person which suffered was properly the Son of God we utterly deny This is expresly contrary to many Texts of Scripture and to a great Fundamental Article of our Christian Creed yea in a manner it overthrows the whole Christian Creed See the following Scriptures Mat. 16. 13 16. Luke 1. 32. Mat. 14. 33. Mark 1. 1. John 1. 14 34. John 9. 35. 10. 36. Acts 8. 37. Rom. 1. 4. Mat. 27. 54. G.W. in his Truth and Inn. p. 52. excuseth W. P ' s Words thus Here I take him to mean the Son of God in respect to his Divine Being as he is of one Substance with the Father which his Body that suffered Death was not though he was truly the Son of God as he took upon him that Body and as made of a Woman Gal. 4. 4. Being conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary The Fallacy of this is easily detected the Question in Debate betwixt W. P. and his Opponents who were Presbyterian Ministers in Ireland was not whether the Body was the Son of God abstractly considered from the Soul of Christ and his Godhead for no Presbyterian ever held that neither will any Socinian that denyeth the Godhead of Christ say that that meer Body without his created Soul was the Christ or Son of God But the true State of the Question was and is whether he that outwardly suffered Death without the Gates of Jerusalem whom W. P. calls that outward Person in Distinction from the Light within which the Quakers will have to be the whole Christ according to G. Fox's Doctrine was and is not properly the Son of God which all sound Christians say according to Scripture he was and is being both God and Man and yet one Person one Christ one Son of God having his Godhead-Nature and his Manhood-Nature so united as
mean Jesus of Nazareth who is both God and Man the Word made Flesh as is clear from the foregoing Words even Christ crucified as being the Author of those Graces Blessings and Virtues unto all sincere Believers in him by bestowing on them his holy Spirit to indue them with Wisdom and Sanctification and freely imputing his Righteousness that he wrought in his own Person without them for their Justification and Redemption Also David in calling the Lord his Light and Salvation had a Respect to God in Christ even the Man Christ who was to come out of his Loins as the Object of his Faith for Redemption and Salvation But the whole Tendency of W. P's Discourse in that Passage and in other Passages going before and following is to perswade that Men are Christians if they have these moral Virtues without Faith in Christ as he was outwardly crucified for in the Enumeration of these Virtues he has not the least Word of Faith in Christ crucified as necessary to Christianity but pleads for a false Notion of the Christian Faith p. 118. At he that believes in Christ believes in God so he that believes in God believes in Christ Thus making Faith in Christ to be nothing else but a Belief in God as a Creator without any Respect to Christ crucified And p. 119. a little after that scandalous Passage above quoted he saith Christians ought to be distinguished by their Likeness to Christ and not their Notions of Christ which is likewise scandalous as implyâ— That Men may be like Christ without true Notions of him and Faith in him 〈◊〉 Christ Jesus of Nazareth that died and rose again yea he pleads p. 118. That a meer just Man ought not to be excluded the Communion of Christians and that to exclude him is partial and cruel And at this rate professed Infidel Jews and Mahumetans if they be but meer just Men are to be received into Christian Society as good Christians indeed good enough to be Members of the Quakers Church But now let us see how the following scandalous Passages quoted out of G. VV's own Books are defended by the Colchester Quakers in that they call Some Account from Colchester Some Account from Colchester p. 11. When you tell us you have Faith in Christ do you mean Christ whose Person is now ascended into Heaven above the Clouds or do you mean only a Christ within you Ans saith G.VV. Here thou would make two Christs a Christ whose Person is above the Clouds and a Christ within but how provest thou two such Christs VVe have Faith in that Christ that descended from the Father who is the same that ascended far above all Heavens and this Christ we witness in us who is not divided Note in their Vindication of this Passage they say This Answer appears pertinent to detect and reprehend an impertinent and foolish Question which whether it does not imply two Christs let the serious judge from the natural Import and Sense of the Question in the disjunctive Part of it or do you only mean a Christ within you Here their pretended Grammatical Skill of the Term disjunctive fails them To ask the Question disjunctively implies no more two Christs than it implies two George VVhiteheads to ask Is George VVhitehead a Londoner born or a North Country Man born in the North of England this doth not imply two G. Whiteheads But if one should say George Whitehead was born in the North of England some 64 Years ago and since that was born in London this would import two G. Whiteheads very plainly And no less indeed do the Quakers wild Notions that many of them have printed even the Men of great Note among them import not only two Christs but many Christs even thousands and they have no way to extricate themselves of this Difficulty but sophistical Evasions for if ye ask them Was that the true Christ who was born at Bethlehem of a Virgin called Mary above 1600 Years ago and do they believe in that Christ They will tell you yea but they have this sophistical Sense that he was the Light within that Person that was outwardly born who is by a Metonimy called Christ the thing containing for the thing contained See W. Penn's Rejoinder p. 304 305. But that that outward Person was properly the Son of God we utterly deny said W.P. as above quoted But the most true and proper Christ is the Christ born in them and growing up in them from a holy thing or Seed to a Child born and then to the Mighty God which three Steps are orderly set down by W.B. in his printed Collection p. 291. See third narrative p. 37. And he tells who is the Virgin in whom this Child is born not the Virgin Mary but every Quaker who is converted to the Light within And because this Child is not born in them all at once but at different times as they witness the Work of Regeneration and as many as come to witness Regeneration as many regenerated Persons there are in the World as many times Christ is born and though they say Christ is one in all and would defend their so saying by Scripture yet they mean not as the Scripture means for Christ as he is God is the same in all and as he dwells in all the faithful by his Spirit and by Faith yet not so as that Christ is really and truly begotten and born in regenerate Persons without any Alleâ—â—â—y as they hold for they make Christ as both without the Figure and Allâ—â—â—â—â— and Christ as born within c. the Substance and on Supposition that the◠〈◊〉 so many real Births of Christ it is impossible they could be one Christ otherwise than specifically one though consisting of many Individuals as many Individuals of Men are called Man but they are not one numerical Man no more can Christ be one numerical Christ but many if he were really begotten and born in many as they say he is It 's true the Scripture speaks of Christ being formed in Believers but this is a metaphorical Expression and allegory even as the Image of Caesar on Gold or Silver is called Caesar so the true lively Image of Christ is called Christ in true Believers and that is the meaning of Christ formed in Believers so that if they would be content with the allegorical Sense of the Word Christ formed within begotten and born within as sound and sober Christians understand it none would blame them and that they laid no more Stress upon it than they should but the contrary they do so as to make the Christ thus born within the greater Reality and Mystery than Christ born without and to make that inward Birth to have no Dependence on Christ as born without us and as he died for our Sins and rose and ascended into Heaven in the true intire Nature of Man consisting of a created Soul and Body and so as to witness the inward Work of Regeneration to
not witness the Word to be made Flesh once but art one of the Antichrists and Deceivers which John speaks of that are entred into the World which cannot confess Jesus Christ come in the Flesh and therefore thou queriest whether the Word was made Flesh any more or oftner than once Which Query comes from thy dark polluted Mind who is out of the Light And p. 30. And when thou canst witness the Word to be made Flesh once then thou wilt know whether the Son of God was made of a Woman any more or oftner than once But thou art the Dragon that would devour the Man-child which the Woman has brought forth who shall rule all Nations with a Rod of Iron Note some Expositors on the Book of the Revelation have by the Woman understood the Church and by the Man-child the Life of Christ or Christ formed in true Belidvers by way of Allegory and Metaphor only as is above noted but they never understood that Christ strictly speaking without-all Allegory or Metaphor was ever begotten or born in time but once or was ever made of a Woman but once viz. when he was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the Womb of the Virgin and born of her But the chief Teachers among the Quakers such as G. F. G. W. and W. P. and E. B. hath made Christ's Birth of the Virgin Mary and his Death and Sufferings and Blood shed without them the Type and Allegory and Christ born within crucified within them risen and ascended within them the Reallity and greatest Mystery as is above proved Like to this is another Passage in G. Whiteheads Jacob found in a desert Land p. 6 7. And in Simplicity I was made to wait upon God and to endure the Cross of Christ though for a Time and Times the Enmity of the wicked one was strong against me within and without seeking to devour that Seed which thro' the Word of the Lord was begotten in me And the Misteries of God and his Kingdom was revealed in me who brought me out of Darkness through the Wilderness where the Man-child was preserved for a Time and Times and half a Time from the Wrath of the Dragon who would have slain the Man-child But now is he arisen in his Power and Zeal and the Prince of the World is cast out and he is born which is the everlasting Counseller the Prince of Peace quoting in the Margin Isa 9. 6. who hath sent War and the Fire and the Sword into the Earth Note This I find was generally their manner of preaching and writing both at their first Appearance and long after to tell People that Christ was begotten in them born in them crucified dead and buried risen and ascended into Heaven within them and that every one in order to eternal Salvation must know Christ thus begotten and born in them crucified dead buried risen and ascended and this inward Conception and Birth of Christ c. they made the greatest Mistery and Reallity whereof Christ as born without in the Flesh was the Figure and a facile Representation to use W. P's Phrase in the case of what is to be transacted in us thus they did represent the inward Work of Regeneration to be a greater Mistery than God manifest in the Flesh viz. in that Body of Flesh that was born at Bethlehem as W. P. hath expresly affirmed as is above quoted And by this high sublime Doctrine which they gave forth to be given them by immediate Revelation from Heaven though it was no other but what G. F. had from some old Ranters and Familists who had it long before him They did mightily magnifie themselves above all others and cried out against all others as dark ignorant Sots Deceivers and Antichrists who denied Christ come in the Flesh because they did not receive this wild Notion they had got from Ranters and Familists That Christ was born crucified dead buried risen and ascended in them and though while I was with them I was not altogether ignorant that they had such Phrases and Methods of Speech as I had read in some of their Books yet I thought they understood it only by way of Allegory and Metaphor as Origen Augustine c. Some others of the Fathers both Greek and Latine used the like allegorical Phrases and which I my self have partly used in some of my former Books only by way of Allegory and Metaphor But I appeal to all who shall but impartially consider what I have above quoted out of their Books whether they will not judge and say that these Teachers of the Quakers whose Words I have quoted plainly import quite another thing than an allegorical Birth Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ in them even that which is real without an Allegory Metaphor or Figure for as G. F. said in Saul's Errand Christ's Flesh is a Figure and Christ in his People is the Substance of all Figures and consequently of that Figure also Besides if they meant it only by way of Allegory and Metaphor why did they cry out against all others as Antichrists Deceivers blind and dark Sots who did not receive this their Notion but opposed it as antichristian But if they had plainly told that they meant it not otherwise but by way of Allegory and Metaphor I know none that would have opposed them in that case But as in some other things after the Quakers have made a great Compass and yet return to say the same with others from whom they differed so in this very thing after all that G.W. as much as any had formerly contended for Christ begotten and both within suffering within his Blood shed within being a Sacrifice within Men to appease the Wrath of God and giving much more to Christ thus born within suffering within his Blood shed within than to Christ born without this Blood shed without being a Type of his Blood shed within Yet in his Judgment fixed printed 1682. which was 26. Years after his Jacob found in a desert Land printed 1656. above quoted he turns all that he had formerly writ and contended for Christ born within suffering within desiring to be freed from Sin into an Elegancy of Speech the Property and Effect being put for the Cause which is no more nor other than what all Christian Teachers and Expositors affirm For this hear what he saith in answer to his Opponent Jeffery Bullock who charged the Quakers with false Doctrine in saying That God's Appearance is to his Son Jesus Christs and for the begetting and bringing him forth in the Sons and Daughters of Men the which Doctrine said J. B. I do deny To this G.W. after some foregoing Words answereth in his Judgment fixed p. 330. This innocent Birth which God by his Spirit brings forth in the Sons and Daughters of Men who truly believe relate to them and their Souls as begotten and born of the immortal Seed by the living Word so that this Birth is not Christ Jesus What say the
received into the Heart bruiseth the Serpent's Head and because the Seed which cannot be that Body viz. that was outwardly born of the Virgin is Christ as testifie the Scriptures the Seed is one and that Seed Christ and Christ God over all blest for ever But when is it that the Seed in Men is the Mighty God Is it at its first being received into the Heart according to W. P' s Notions Hear himself unriddle the Mistery in his Christian Quaker p. 98. And though particular Persons might arrive at great Attainments even to a beholding the Day of the Seeds compleat Redemption and Conquest over all its Oppressors Mark this G. Whitehead That the Seed which is Christ and God over all is for a time oppressed and suffers under its Oppressors which yet thou hast the Impudence to deny that any of thy Friends use any such Phrase when what was but in Condition of a Seed or new-born Child should become the only Son the wonderful Counseller the Mighty God the everlasting Father and Prince of Peace of the Encrease of whose Government there should be no End as speaks the Prophet yet it is granted through that good Vnderstanding the Lord has given us in these weighty things that the Generality were but weak dark and in Bondage as saith the Apostle under carnal and beggerly Elements not clearly seeing through those outward Services which if I may so speak God held them in Hand with condescending to their Weakness that he might both keep them from gadding after the pompous Invention and idolatrous Worship of other Nations and point out unto them under their great Carnality that more hidden Glory and spiritual Dispensation which should afterwards be revealed to wit the compleat Redemption of the Soul and Reign of the Holy Seed from the Child born and the Son given to the wonderful Counseller the mighty God the everlasting Father and Prince of Peace of the Increase of whose Government there should be no End Note Thus we see he wholly applies that most excellent Prophecy of Isaiah 9. 6. concerning the holy Seed and Child Jesus born of the Virgin whose Name is The Wonderful Counseller The Mighty God c. to a Seed or Principle within which groweth up from a Seed to a Child and from a Child to become the Only Son and so to become the Mighty God which exactly agreeth with that blasphemous Notion of W. Baily in the Collection of his Works p. 292 293. Be thou but the Virgin the Power of the most High shall overshadow thee and that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God this was Christ's Name in the VVomb read within and then had other Names as Jesus and Emanuel But the Virgin is subject to the Power of the Most High where Christ is known to be first a Holy Thing then a Child given and a Son born which is Emanuel God with us a Saviour the wonderful Counseller the mighty God the Prince of Peace Thus we see according to these Men's Doctrine God sows a Seed in Men the which Seed as Men attend to and obey it they are the Virgin in whom this Seed comes to be a Child born and that Child becomes the only Son the wonderful Counseller the mighty God And a Preacher in Pensilvania of the Quakers did illustrate this great Quaker Mistery to another Quaker in Pensilvania who told it me after this manner by this following Similitude A Hen lays an Egg sits and hatches and brings forth a Chick and that Chick becomes a Hen equal to the Mother Hen which I confess is a very plain and intelligible Explication of the blasphemous Notion of G. VV. VV. P. and VV. B. above mentioned Thus God in every regenerate Man begers God and the God begotten is equal in Power and Might to the God that did beget The Quakers Name that gave this Similitude is Jacob Talner a Dutch-man who began to speak at the Beginning of the first Meeting at Turners-Hall but saying nothing pertinent to the purpose and confessing he had no Deputation from any of the Persons properly concerned was desired by the Auditory as well as by me to be silent that the Service of that Meeting might not be hindred I proffered to give him a Meeting at that Place any other Day if he had a mind to dispute but he did not agree to my Proposition This very Person is a frequent Preacher in the Quakers Meetings here in London Note I find in VV P 's Christian Quaker p. 100. that he acknowledgeth that Christ is called Light by a Metaphor And whereas he saith the Light in Men has been resisted grieved and as it were slain The VVord Slain is also metaphorical yet be contends it suffers in Men and hath been deeply wounded in wicked Men yea he makes the Sufferings of Christ's Godhead to have been the greatest p. 102. Nor was his Manhood insensible of it he saith and a little after he saith As outwardly he gave his outward Life for the World so he might inwardly shed abroad in their Souls the Blood of God that is the holy purifying Life and Virtue which is in him as the VVord God and as which he is the Life of the VVorld Thus we see the mistick Notion of the Blood of God For a Close on this Head I shall produce a large Quotation out of Truth 's Defence p. 48. 49 50. giving a plain Contradiction to G. VV. his denying the Word God to be imprisoned or in Bondage c. It having been queried by his Opponent VVhether there be a Possibility to hide Christ the Son of Righteousness quite under a Cloud where be really is G. F. thus answers Thou Enemy of God thou dost hide the Talent in thee under the Clod of the Earth in thee If thou hast an Ear thou maâ—st hear 1 Pet. 3. 19. The Ministers of God they speak to the Spirits in Prison and the Prisoners shall come out of Prison The Son of Perdition is above all that is called God in thee 2 Thess 2. 2. Thou blind Hypocrite was not be in Egypt while Herod was King and out of Egypt have I called my Son saith the Lord VVho hast thou preached all this while Thou art one that keeps the Light in Prison in thee And in Answer to another Question VVhether the Devil is stronger than Christ the Flesh than the Spirit or where dost thou find he was ever a Prisoner in Satan's Chains Ans VVe witness he was in Satan's Chains and is in thee else how could they crucifie him a fresh This with much more after the same Strain is found in the Pages quoted and which was read at the second Meeting Is not this a great Perversion as well as nonsensical Exposition of G. F. on this Place of Peter to prove that wicked Men imprison Christ in them The Spirits in Prison whereof Peter writes in that Place were sometimes disobedient in the Days of Noah
without us is the Allegory of his Blood within so his Blood within is the Allegory of Christ's Blood without this is as great Nonsense as who would say as Hagar and Sarah were an Allegory of the Two Covenants so the Two Covenants are an Allegory of Hagar and Sarah And thus G. W. and his Brethren stand justly charged with Allegorizing away Christ's outward Birth Sufferings Blood Atonement by making them the Allegory of his Birth Sufferings Blood Atonement made within Men tho' they deny not Christ's Birth Death Blood without simply as Historically related yet seeing they deny the Merit and Efficacy of his Death and Blood without and of what he did and suffered without us they are justly charg'd to Allegorize it away that is to make no other account of it than of the History of Hagar and Sarah and other Types Symbols and Allegories of the Old Testament Besides If Men will be wilful denyers of the Historical Truth of Christ's outward Birth Death Burial Resurrection Ascension according to G. W.'s and his Brethren's way and method of expounding Scripture we have no way to convince them of their Error If we bring Isaiah 9. 6. to prove that Isaiah Prophesied of Christ's Birth and that the Child that should be Born should be both God and Man and his Mother should be a Virgin according to Isaiah 7. 14. And if we bring Isaiah 53. to prove that Christ should be wounded for our Sins be killed be buried and make his grave with the wicked or That Christ should suffer without the Camp they may Answer All these and the like places are to be meant not of any Birth Death or Burial of a Christ without us but of Christ Born Slain and Buried in Men and for their Proof vouch G. W.'s Authority and his Brethren's to confirm it who as above-quoted have expounded these places of Christ Born Slain Buried within Men. But if G. W. will say these and other the like places have two meanings one Outward and Literal and the other Inward and Spiritual to this I say First G. W. in his Voice of Wisdom pag 21. hath severely blamed his Opponent T. D. for giving two meanings to one place I agree to the most Judicious and Orthodox Expositors of Scripture that the Scriptures have but one sense or meaning properly and strictly speaking viz. That the thing principally and properly intended is but one and what other senses or meanings may be put upon some places of Scripture besides that is rather an Allusion or Allegory than the real meaning which so far as we have Scripture warrant is allowed as Paul's calling Hagar and Sarah an Allegory but otherwise is dangerous and in the present case is most Heretical as in G. W.'s and his Brethrens making Christ's Birth Sufferings Death Burial without Men the Allegory and his Birth Sufferings Death Burial within the Reality and Substance or thing principally intended in these places of Scripture That the Spirit of God with his sanctifying Gifts and Graces is called Water of Life and Living Waters whereby God doth really Purify and Cleanse the Hearts and Consciences of the Faithful and that this Work of Sanctification is Inward and Spiritual in them is no part of the Dispute or Controversie for this is not only granted but earnestly taught and pleaded for against Pelagians and others who deny it or at least the necessity of such an inward and spiritual Operation Therefore G. W. in this as in most of his late Defences doth purposely mistake the true Case to hide his vile Heresie as if the debate betwixt him and his Opponents were only about the inward Operations of the Spirit of God for the cleansing and sanctifying the Hearts of the Faithful but this is his ordinary Fallacy The true state of the Question then is this Whether there is any Inward Blood or Water that Christ Crucified in Men lets out or is pressed out of him crucified within them that is the Blood of Atonement is the Price and Ransom and Meritorious Cause of the Remission of our Sins is the satisfactory and propitiatory Offering for Sin either in whole or in part Also whether any such supposed Blood or Water or Spirit thus flowing from Christ as Crucified and Wounded within Men is the meritorious and procuring Cause either of Men's Justification before God or of the saving and sanctifying Graces of the Holy Spirit and whether the Gift of the Holy Spirit given to Believers with the sanctifying Graces thereof proceeds from Christ Crucified within having made the Atonement and Satisfaction by his Blood shed within Risen and Ascended within Sitting at the Right Hand of God within Men making Intercession for them or from Christ as he was crucified without us having made the Atonement and Satisfaction without us by his Blood shed without us Risen and Ascended and sat down at the Right Hand of God without us and there Interceding for us This is the true state of the Controversie all true Christians say that all this is from Christ without us as outwardly Born Crucified Risen Ascended from him thus only considered as without us all Believers have the free gift of the Remission of Sins free Justification freely by God's Grace being the real effect of Christ's Purchase and of the Merit of his Precious Blood and also the Holy Spirit with the sanctifying Gifts and Graces thereof inwardly to renew and sanctifie them So that the Work of Christ or of the Spirit in Believers is not at all either in whole or in part to suffer for our Sins or to procure by way of Merit the pardon of our Sins and our Peace and Reconcliation with God for that 's wholly and only done by Christ without us but to work the sincere Faith of all that he hath done and suffer'd for us without us and give us the Spiritual Knowledge and Comfort of it in our Hearts and Souls The Plaister and healing Medicine of Christ's Body and Blood was prepared for us when he gave his Precious Body to be broken for us and his Blood to be shed for us this was once done and is no more to be doue again Christ having once dyed dyeth no more by the one Offering of himself once only offered without us his Soul Body and Blood he hath intirely and completely prepared the wholsom Medicine and Food of Life for us But now the work of Christ and his Spirit in us is to apply it effectually to us that is to enable us effectually to apply it to our selves for our Eternal Health and Salvation to give us a Spiritual discovery and sight of that living Food a Hunger and Appetite after it and to teach us spiritually by Faith to receive it and feed upon it to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood not by the bodily Mouth but by the Mouth of the Soul which is Faith a true and living Faith wrought in us by the powerful Operation of Christ in us or his Spirit
And tho' the Blood of Christ that both justifieth and sanctifieth is without us yet the application by Faith is within both for our Justification and Sanctification Note again That as G. W. doth fallaciously state the Question concerning Men's being Cleansed i. e. Justified and Sanctified by the Blood of Christ as is above-shewed so he argueth most fallaciously for his false Notion of a Blood of Christ within Men to be the Atonement by the merit whereof they are Cleansed from Sin as because the Operation of the Spirit of God is within Men whereby he applieth to them the Merit Virtue and Efficacy of Christ's Blood which application by a Metaphorical Speech is call'd in Scripture A sprinkling the Conscience that therefore the Blood of Christ is Inward which is the like Sophistical and Nonsensical Argument with that of G. F. The Saints eat the Flesh of Christ therefore they have it in them Thus they both argue from a Metaphorical Eating and Sprinkling or Cleansing to a Literal or Material as because what Men eat of Material Food they receive it into them so because they eat Christs Flesh they have it in them and because the Blood of Christ Sprinkles the Hearts and Consciences of the Faithful therefore that Blood is in them not considering the application here both with respect to Eating and Sprinkling is not Material but Spiritual by Faith as Christ hath plainly explained it that to eat Christ is to believe in him to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood is sincerely to believe with the Heart that Christ gave his Body of Flesh to be broken for us and his Blood to be shed for us for the Remission of our Sins and both for our Justification and Sanctification and eternal Salvation Joh. 6. 35. He that cometh to me shall never hunger he that believeth in me shall never thirst and verse 40. This is the will of him that sent me that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life and I will raise him up at the last day Again Whereas they say in that Printed Paper above-quoted signed by G. W. and Thirty more We do highly value his Death Sufferings Works Offices and Merits for the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind That all this is extremely Fallacious doth largely appear from what is above-quoted Do they highly value his Death and Sufferings when some among them have Printed as above-quoted That when they come to the Operation of the Spirit or Light Within them they will cease remembring Christs Death at Jerusalem Do they value Christ's Sufferings and Death c. who deny it to be the Gospel that Christ impowered the Apostles to Preach for which hear what they say in their Book above-quoted call'd A Testimony for the true Christ c. p. 16. Their Opponent they quote saying p. 16. Christ impowered the Apostles to go forth to Preach the Gospel to the ends of the Earth which Gospel was his Sufferings Death and Resurrection Baptizing in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost c. To this they Answer The Gospel which they Preached was Everlasting it was the Power of God to Salvation to as many as Believed both of Jews and Gentiles But were his Sufferings Death c. Everlasting Is this good Doctrine say they So that according to them it is not good Doctrine but bad to Preach Christ's Sufferings Death c. to be the Gospel either in whole or in part for their reason is of equal force against that Doctrine either in whole or in part The Gospel is Everlasting but Christ's Death and Sufferings c. Note the c. which both the Opponent and they add is not Everlasting for that they say was Temporal therefore Christ's Death and Sufferings is not the Gospel and by this their profound Logick or rather beggarly Sophistry nothing is the Gospel but that which is Everlasting i. e. was from Eternity to Eternity and thus according to them nothing is the Gospel but the Light Within because that is Everlasting the Power the Spirit the Light is Everlasting and therefore that only is the Gospel But tho' the Spirit and Power and Light was and is Everlasting yet it was not within them from Everlasting because they were not from Everlasting and therefore by their Logick as the Light or Spirit is in them and as tâ—â— Gift of God to them it is no more the Gospel than Christ's Death and Sufferings c. because they had it not within them from Everlasting if they will acknowledge themselves to be Creatures Created and Made by the Great Creator in Time But they quibble Sophistically upon the word Everlasting for tho' Christ's Suffering and Death were not Everlasting yet both the Merit Virtue and Efficacy of them both for procuring Remission of Sin and the Holy Spirit with the sanctifying Gifts and Graces thereof was from the beginning of the World and will continue to the end of the World yea and to all Eternity and the Doctrine of it in some measure was Preached from the beginning as God revealed it first to our first Parents and then successively to others of his Holy Prophets and was held forth both by Prophecy Promise and Sacrifices to the Faithful Again They are grosly Fallacious when they say in that Printed Paper We do highly value and esteem his Sufferings Death Precious Blood and whole Sacrifice for Sinners Works Offices and Merits for the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind But what do they mean by Christ's Merits Do they mean the Merits of what Christ hath done for them without them suffered without them his Righteonsness without them his Blood shed without them so as thereby to be justified Nay The following Quotations will sufficiently evidence the contrary viz. That not the Righteousness or Merits or Blood of Christ shed without us but the Merits of Christ within them his Righteousness wrought in them his Blood shed within them the Blood of his Divinity or Godhead but not of his Humanity or Humane Blood by which they are justified for further proof of which hear what G. W. saith in his Voice of Wisdom p. 48. where he blames T. Danson and chargeth it on him to be false Doctrine held by him That there were two Righteousnesses of Christ the one without the Saints to justifie them and the other within the Saints that did sanctifie them And in p. 26. he chargeth T. Danson with Ignorance for his asserting two Righteousnesses of Christ the one without us for Justification the other within us for Sanctification And in p. 35. He argueth against Justification by a Righteousness of Christ without us thus If it be the same Christ that justifies and Janctifies then it 's but one and the same Righteousness which effecteth both these in and for the Saints And in p. 19. he expresly defends that Popish Argument used by S. Fisher the very same Argument is used by Bellarmin De Justif That because evil
work by the Spirit 's help that are meritorious of Justification But this will not excuse them from Popery for even Bellarmine a great Popish Author and the other Popish Authors plead only for the merit of such good Works which merit by Condignity as wrought by the help of the Holy Spirit assisting them And his Sophistry is as dull in his drawing an Argument from 1 Cor. 1 30. That Christ is made unto us of God Wisdom and Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption therefore that Believers are justified by an Infinite Righteousness wrought in them and that Christ is formed in them Gal. 4. 19. And thus he will have Christ as held forth in that Text 1 Cor. 1. 30. not to be Christ God-Man without us from and by whom we receive Justification and Redemption and also divine Wisdom and Sanctification by his holy Spirit that he sendeth into our Hearts and by his holy Doctrine outwardly taught us but Christ formed in us he will have to be all this unto us Judgment Fixed p. 330. and Christ formed in us is the Seed and the Seed is God over all blessed for ever as above-quoted both out of G. W. and W. P. But what then is become of his Exposition that he gave in his Judgment Fixed above-quoted That this Birth viz. Christ formed in true Believers is not Christ Jesus for he is that incorruptible Seed and Word of Life which begets forms and brings forth the Soul of Man into his own Nature and Image and so Christ may be said to be formed in us in a Mysterious and Elegant way of speaking the Property and Effect being put for the Cause Thus we see how he wavers to and fro betwixt So and No and No and So sometimes This and sometimes That and sometimes neither This nor That a Phrase that S. F. used to some of his Opponents but very justly apply'd to G. W. But differing senses and meanings are more tolerable for a Man to put on his Words than plain contradictions and especially in Matters Fundamental as these are Next let us hear what W. P. hath said on the Doctrine of Justification and how J. Wyeth in his Switch defends him W. Penn in his Serious Apology p. 148 gives the charge of his Opponent thus That we deny Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us and therefore deny the Lord that bought us W. P. Answers And indeed this we deny and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption which does now deluge the whole World What saith Jos Wyeth that hardy Champion to this Switch p. 238. Yes it is still true and that we do deny and boldly affirm to be the Doctrine of Devils and for our so denying and affirming we have the warrant of Holy Writ wherein is abundantly testifyed of the Spirit of Christ in Man to which he must be obedient in order to his Justification for which he quotes Rom. 3. 24 28. Rom. 5. 1. Titus 3. 7. and concludes then not wholly without us Note Here J. Wyeth acts the dull Sophister as much as his Elder Brother G. W. by perverting the true state of the Question as is their frequent manner The Question is not What is necessary by way of Instrument or Instrumental Application or Preparatory Condition in order to Justification such as Faith and Repentance for such are granted to be necessary in order to Justification as the stretching out the Hand is necessary to receive an Alms or free Gift and the opening the Mouth is necessary to receive Food but the true state of the Question is What is the procuring and purchasing Cause of our Justification before God by way of Merit or the Meritorious Cause of our Justification whether the Righteousness of Christ that he wrought without us by his Active and Passive Obedience above Sixteen Hundred Years ago Yea or Nay If Yea surely that is wholly without us but this says W. P. and J. W. is a Doctrine of Devils and G. W. chargeth T. D. with ignorance and false Doctrine for affirming it as above-quoted and yet it is the very plain Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures Isa 53. 4 5 11 12. Rom. 3. 21 22 23 24 25 28. Rom. 4. 4 11. Rom. 5. 18. Gal. 3. 22. 2 Cor. 5. 21. There are other Arguments which W. P. useth in his Serious Apology some of which I shall mention not to refute them for the least Child in Christianity may do that but to show his Error one of which is Death came by actual Sin not imputative therefore Justification unto Life comes by actual Righteousness and not imputative Another is This speaks Peace to the Wicked Another is Men are Dead and Alive at the same time by this Doctrine Note He perverts the state of the Question his Opponents do not say That Wicked and Unsanctified Persons are justified but if none be justified but who are Perfect vvith a Sinless Perfection and have not the least impurity then neither W. P. nor any Quaker ever vvas or is justified for vvhatever they boast of their Sinless Perfection their vile Errors Pride and Uncharitableness as vvell as other their Imperfections demonstrate the contrary Another of his Arguments is against our Justification by Christ's Righteousness without us Our rejoycing must be in our selves and not in another thus perverting Paul's Words Gal. 6. 4. But let every Man prove his own work and then shall he have rejoycing in himself and not in another But doth this exclude our rejoycing in Christ Jesus our Head who to be sure is another O sad How contrary to this is Philip 3. 3. For we are the Circumcision which worship God in the Spirit and rejoyce in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the Flesh by this Argument of W. P. he for himself and his Brethren whose Faith he pretends to deliver renounces all Rejoycing as well as Faith and Righteousness in Christ without us yea and in Christ within them also for Christ within them if he be within them is Another Dare W. P. or G. W. say Christ in W. P. or G. W. is W. P. or G. W. But whereas G. W. in his Printed Paper above-quoted call'd A Few Positions c. saith We highly do value and esteem his Christ's Sufferings Death Precious Blood and whole Sacrifice for Sinners For a Proof of his Insincerity and Sophistry in this I shall produce some following Quotations what G. W. means by his Precious Blood and whether he put the due value upon Christ's Blood that was outwardly shed or upon another sort of inward Blood I cannot say of his and his Brethrens inventing but what they received from Familists and Ranters tho' they pretend to have it by immediate Inspiration to wit an inward Blood that is the Atonement and Sacrifice for Sin which Blood G. W. will not allow to be the
Blood of Christ's Humanity but of his Godhead G. W. in his Truth Defended p. 66. quotes C. Wade saying The Lord hath Bought us and Redeemed us with the Precious Blood of his Humanity and saith your imagined Christ viz. their Notion of a Christ whose Blood is shed within them never had any Humane Blood to Redeem you with and to prove it he brings 1 Pet. 1. 19. G. W. Answers That Scripture 1 Pet. 1. hast thou perverted as thou hast done other Scriptures to thy own Destruction for there he witnesses to the Blood of the Lamb which Redeemed them from their vain Conversation but doth not tell them of Humane Blood to Redeem them with for that which is Humane is Earthly but Christ whose Blood is Spiritual is Lord from Heaven and he is not an imagined Spirit but a true Spirit And what say'st thou to this Was that Humane Blood which Christ saith Except a Man drink he hath no Life in him and which cleansed the Saints from all Sin who were Flesh of Christ's Flesh and Bone of his Bone Note Thus we see what Blood G. W. esteems the Precious Blood of Christ not his Humane Blood or Blood of his Humanity and that not only he denyeth that we are Redeemed or Cleansed by any Blood of his Humanity but denyeth that Christ had any Humane Blood or Blood of Humanity and giveth his Reason against it That Humane is Earthly but Christ whose Blood is Spiritual is Lord from Heaven But again For a further evidence of his undervaluing the outward Blood of Christ and denying it to be that Blood by which Christ purchased his Church in his Light and Life p. 56. It is confessed saith he that God by his own Blood purchased to himself a Church Acts 20. 28. Now the Blood of God or that Blood that relates to God must needs be Spiritual he being a Spirit and the Covenant of God is Inward and Spiritual Note This Quotation was lately published in the Printed Sheet call'd An Account from Colchester above-mention'd to which Seven Quakers at Colchester have given a pretended Answer call'd Some Account from Colchester c. In their Answer to this Quotation they quibble Sophistically upon the Word Spiritual We would ask these Men say they if God's own Blood be not Spiritual whether it be Carnal and the Blood of his Covenant such also But was not the Blood that was outwardly shed on the Cross which John said he saw and bare Record real material Blood as really as that of other Men And granting it to be Spiritual as Spiritual signifies Holy as a Holy Man is a Spiritual Man and yet is a Carnal Man with respect to his Body of Flesh yet it was Material and Corporal But G. W. by Spiritual meant inward Blood in Men and Women and so expressed it The Covenant saith he is Inward and Spiritual and so is the Blood of it so that Spiritual and Inward are with him Synonymous But for a further Answer they quote a passage in G. W.'s Antidote p. 233 234. where he grants contrary to his former Doctrine That God purchased his Church by Christ's Natural or Outward Blood but not only by that but principally by the Spiritual Blood or Life of Christ Jesus and this Spiritual Blood he holds to be Inward in Men The Blood is the Life and the Life is the Light of Men as W. Bailie phrased it perverting and confounding two sundry Texts of Scripture But the tenor and tendency of G. W.'s former Arguments were altogether against Redemption or Justification by any natural or outward Blood whatsoever for Humane is Natural but Humane Blood G. W. would by no means admit to be the Blood of Christ by which Men are Redeemed So now he will have God's own Blood to be no less than his own dear Son and the Blood to be both Natural and Outward and Spiritual and Inward by which we are Redeemed meaning by Inward Blood his Life Power and Spirit in Men and Women and yet in contradiction to himself he saith God's sparing not his own Son but delivering him up for us all includes the whole Sacrifice of Christ in Soul and Body which were offered Note If Christ's Soul and Body without us were the whole Sacrifice the outward Blood being a part of his Body then his Spirit Life and Light in us is no part of the Sacrifice and yet in contradiction to this in his Light and Life p. 44. He brings several Arguments and Scriptures but all grosly perverted to prove That Christ in us offers up himself a living Sacrifice refering to W. Burnets Book cap. prim p. 31. Where the words are more largely quoted thus out of W. Smiths Primmer We believe that Christ in us doth offer up himself a living Sacrifice unto God for us by which the Wrath and Justice of God is appeased towards us This layeth the whole stress upon Christ within Men being the offering but now G. W. would seem to give one part to Christ without and another part to Christ within Men to be the offering and to the Blood shed without that was Natural and Outward and to the Blood shed within Men that is Spiritual and Inward But then surely he gives very little to the Blood shed without that was but once and was Natural Blood the Blood of the Humanity but he gives very much to the Inward Blood shed within Men which is a more excellent Blood it is the Blood not of the Humanity but of the Divinity and is shed many Thousands yea Millions of times for it is shed in all Men who have lived in several Ages of the World And thus Christ hath offered up himself Inwardly Millions of times and had his Blood inwardly shed to appease the Wrath and Justice of God but this is directly contrary to the Scripture that saith That Christ by one Offering hath for ever perfected them that are Sanctified and by one Offering Heb. 9. 28. 10. 14. once offered not often offered he hath appeared to put away sin and as was Prophesied of him a Body thou hast prepared me not two Bodies or many Bodies And as Christ had not two Bodies to be offered for our Sins Heb. 8. so nor had he two Bloods the Scripture never mentioneth any Blood of Christ but one we no where read in Scripture of the Bloods of Christ plural but of Blood singular And according to G. W. the Blood of Christ in his former Books is but one and that is the Inward Blood the Blood of his Divinity but not of his Humanity yea he hath denyed the Body of Christ to be any part of him whereof he consisteth as above-quoted and consequently nor was the outward Blood shed on the Cross any part of him But suppose it were allowed to call the Spirit of Christ in Believers or the sanctifying and refreshing Influences thereof his Blood by way of metaphor as Wine is call'd in Scripture the Blood of the Grape
the Light within is not sufficient to Salvation or not sufficient without something else the which Proposition seeing he blames as false he must hold the contradictory to be true That the Light within is sufficient to Salvation without any thing else yea G. W. hath granted in his Antidote p. 28. That Christ as outwardly considered is that something else which G. K. meant This is an evident proof beside many others above-given That it is G. W.'s and his Brethren's Principle That the Blood of Christ that was outwardly shed on the Cross is not a meritorious Cause of our Salvation nay not so much as in part and that Faith in that Blood is not necessary for our Justification expresly contrary to Scripture Rom. 3. 25. Hence it is that neither in their Books nor Preachings is any thing generally of this Doctrine Preached That Christ God-Man as without us as he Died for us c. is the object and foundation of our Faith for remission of Sin and for our Justification and eternal Salvation but there is much to be both read in their Books and heard in their daily Preachings against the necessity of any such Faith The farthest that they go at this day is to Preach a little of him Historically and as an Example but to Preach him as without us in the true nature of Man to be the great Object of our Faith Love and Adoration they think is hurtful as above-proved yea W. Smith in his Primmer gives it as a mark of distinction whereby to know true Ministers from false They that are false Preach Christ without and bid People believe in him as he is in Heaven above Jos Wyeth's excuse of this in his Switch p. 220. is extreamly fallacious he thinks he may supply the defect in W. Smith's Words by an Ellipsis telling us The Church hath given abundant encouragement to supply Elliptick defects by her example and practise in the holy Scriptures and what is so familiarly done with holy Writ surely me may do with our Friends Books But to detect this fallacy what Elliptical defects the Church has supplied in some places of the holy Scripture she had ground so to do from other places of Scripture more full that taught her to make that supply but the case is far otherwise here it being so far from being the Quakers way generally to preach Faith in Christ without Men for Salvation that they oppose it and call them Reprobates who profess any such Faith and this their great Apostle G. F. has taught them by his Example so to do in his G. M. p. 248. he saith to C. Wade The Devil was in thee and thou saith thou art saved by Christ without thee and so hath recorded thy self to be a Reprobate and ignorant of the Mystery of Christ within thee for without that thou dost not know Salvation And yet this same C. Wade hath fully owned the Mystery of Christ within Switch p. 205. as above-quoted Jos Wyeth's excuse for G. F.'s saying to C. VVade The Devil was in him He saith Was for his stuffing his Book with Lyes but of this he gives not one Proof though I have given several evident Proofs That G. F. did grosly bely him To the other part of G. F.'s charge Thou art saved by Christ without thee Jos VVyeth Answereth It doth plainly contradict the Doctrine of the Apostle Thus we see what value he and all his Brethren have in whose Name he writes for Christ without us that he saith it plainly contradicts the Doctrine of the Apostle but by his so saying he palpably bewrays his and his Brethrens Infidelity and Heathenism and hath prepared a Rod for his own Back instead of a Switch for the Author of the Snake To suppose that C. VVade meant that he was saved by Christ without him without the inward Operation of Christ by the holy Spirit to Sanctifie him is great injustice done to him for he hath sufficiently cleared himself of that charge as I have above-quoted him But that Faith in Christ without us as he Died for our Sins c. is no part of the Quakers Faith or Systeme of Doctrine is evident from Jos VVâ—â—h's plain confession as above-noted it is none of the Systeme of Principles truly Orthodox or Substance of the Doctrine which the Light within has taught them for he wholly passeth it by p. 38. and yet tells us he has given us the Substance of what the Light within has taught them Besides who will consider W. Smith's Primer out of which the above given Quotation is taken will find that his Words wanted no Ellipsis to explain his sense for he gives it very fully to be his sense that the Light within is the only Foundation and that there is not another see this more largely quoted in my Third Narrative p. 11. Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the following Heads viz. Christ's Coming to Judgment The Resurrection of the Body The Light Within Baptism and the Lord's Supper Eighthly Concerning Christ's last Coming to Judgment G. F. in his G. M. p. 9. quotes J. Bunyan saying That the Place where Christ shall come to Judgment is at the Mount of Olives at the East-side of Jerusalem to this he Answers Thou hast put him far enough off from thee and hast not yet judged thy self and Christ is come to Judgment and so art one of the false Prophets who bids People look for him beyond the Sea lo here lo there but who are come to Christ the Light the Life they need not go forth who abide here are sealed by the Spirit puts not off the good and evil Day Note Waving that Question over what place on Earth Christ shall appear at his last Coming we see here That G. F. opposeth not only to the place of his Coming but to any outward and personal Coming yet to be and chargeth J. B. to be one of the false Prophets for asserting it and saith Christ is come to Judgment as if there were no other for that 's the true state of the Controversie betwixt J. B. and him J. B. did not deny that Christ was inwardly Come to reprove and judge for Sin but he asserted his Coming personally to Judgment without us also G. W. in his Light and Life p. 40. 41. Disputing with W. B. about Christ's outward Coming in his Glorified Body to Judge the Quick and the Dead answereth to the several Scriptures that W. B. brought for Christ's outward Coming at the end of the World and carries them all to his inward Coming already fulfilled such as 1 Thess 4. 15 17. and Acts 1. 9 10 11. Acts 2 32 33 34. Matth. 24. 30. and Verse 26. 14. and opposeth W. B. in his understanding them of his outward Coming in Glory at the end of the World And as to that 1 Thess 4. 17. saith G. W. which W. B. brings to prove that Christ shall come in the latter end of the World from Heaven above the Clouds