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
written Lines of the Prophets are called the Word of the Lord and Joh. 15. 25. there we find the Word written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the written Word which was a short Sentence written in one of the Psalms but G. F. denyeth them to be the written Word G. M. p. 68 319. When Paul bid Timothy preach the Word it cannot be justly thought that he would have him only preach the inward Word or the essential Word or Light within but by the Word he meant the whole Doctrine of the Gospel The Quakers but trifle when they argue the Scriptures are Words and it is a Lye to call Words the Word which is not a Lye but a common Speech used by themselves who call an Epistle a Letter that yet contains many Letters And they do no less trifle when they argue to say the Scripture is the Word is to say the Scripture is Christ as if the Name Word did only belong to Christ whereas the Name Word as well as the Name Light is given both to Christ and other things Christ said to the Disciples Ye are the Light of the World and so said Christ of himself doth it therefore follow that they were Christ They say they call the Scriptures what they call themselves A Treatise but not the Word quoting Acts 1. the former Treatise but in the Greek it is Word the same in Joh. 1. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the former Word where it is plain he calls all the Words written in the Gospel according to St. Luke the Word as each Oration in Isocrates or Demosthenes is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Word Proofs that the Scriptures are not the Rule but the Spirit or Light within as is common to all Mankind G. F. G. M. p. 39 120. and in his G. M. p. 302. he saith The Spirit is the Rule that leads into all Truth so saith Christ Note Here he belyes and wrongs Christ's Words Christ did not say the Spirit is the Rule the Spirit is the Leader who leads us into all Truth by the Line or Rule of the holy Scriptures we not having those extraordinary Leading that the Apostles had Nor is this a meer Strife of Words but a most necessary Controversie which is the Foundation of their Deism and their overthrowing Christiany and yet this very Year they have reprinted W. P's Discourse concerning the general Rule of Faith and Practice who brings fourteen Arguments to prove that the Scriptures are not the general Rule of Faith and Practice to which I have answered in my late Book in Print called The Deism of W. P. c. Three of which Arguments of his are 1. From their Imperfection Switch pag. 46. 2. Their Uncertainty 3. Their Obscurity Yea Jos Wyeth in his Switch chargeth the Scriptures with Vncertainty This is a most dangerous Heresie for by this Principle they are not obliged to believe one intire Doctrine in the Apostles Creed as indeed I could easily prove by their Principles they do not believe one intire Article in that called The Apostles Creed G. F. G. M. saith The Apostle doth not tell us of a Creed but the Pope's Canon Book p. 355. yet the Quakers now say they believe that called The Apostles Creed For seeing by denying the Scriptures to be either the Medium or Rule of their Faith what account can they give for their Faith to believe one peculiar Article of Christianity If they say they have a peculiar Inspiration from the Light within to believe these peculiar Doctrines this in the first place throws down the common Illumination from being the universal Rule for common and peculiar are differing things But next It is a meer Fiction if they should say they have such a peculiar Inspiration without Scripture viz. to believe that Christ was born of a Virgin died for our Sins rose again the third Day W. P. grants the Light within doth not reveal these things to them nor is it needful and he grants the Scriptures are an historical Rule but he will not allow that the Belief of the History of Christ's Birth Death c. is necessary to our Salvation It is none of the absolute Necessaries he saith But they have not only denied the Scriptures to be the Word the Rule the external Medium of Faith but have given them Names of Contempt particularly G. F. who has called them earthly and carnal Death Ink and Paper Dust and Serpents Meat G. F's Truth 's Defence p. 14 102. See several Papers given forth c. p. 45 46. So Dust is the Serpents Meat their Original is but Dust which is but the Letter which is Death so these Serpents feed upon Dust which feed upon all these carnal things and their Gospel is Dust Matthew Mark Luke and John which is the Letter The cursed Serpent is in the Letter R. Hub's Words Truth 's Def. p. 102. Is not this to fright People from reading the Letter to tell them the cursed Serpent i. e. the Devil is in it Their common Defence is that G. F. meant all this of the Ink and Paper but none of all whom he calls Serpents that is the Protestant Churches did ever say that the Ink and Paper was the Gospel they meant the Doctrines and Truths declared by what is writ or printed with Ink on Paper As for the Switch Quotations out of G. M. to prove that some of his Opponents had said The Scripture is God yea the Letter of the Scripture is God Switch p. 15. and for Proof of this he quotes G. Fox G. M. p. 261. who affirmed that one Roger Atkinson affirmed That the Scripture is God but had this been so will that justifie G. F. â—his giving them such opprobrious Names if one or two Particulars did run into one Extream Will this justifie G. F. his running into the other Extream The bending a crooked Plant the contrary way will not serve his turn in this case But that G. Fox his Evidence is not to be trusted in his quoting his Opponents I shall clearly prove G. F. in his Great Mystery p. 247. quotes C. Wade for the same Trespass that he quotes Roger Atkinson for namely that Christopher Wade should affirm That the Scripture Letter was God and Christ for this he quotes his Book called Quakery Slain but no such Passage is to be found in all that Book and C. Wade in another Book of his entituled To all those called Quakers he charges G. F. with a Hellish Lye and Slander for affirming that he called the Letter God and Christ see this last Book of C. Wade p. 7. and compare it with his Quakery slain p. 16. and his Words in that p. 16. being That the Letter of the New Testament or Gospel containeth in it the mediate inspired teaching written VVord of Christ the VVord that was and is God which saith C. VVade is flat contrary to thy Lye And in his last cited Book the said C.
VVade mentions no less than twelve particular Lyes wherewith G. F. had belyed him in matter of fact as to his Quotations all which I have considered and so may others if they have the Books and will find them indeed to be abusive Perversions and Lies of G. F. upon this C. VVade but I shall give only two Instances more that out of the Mouth of two or three Witnesses that is plain matter of fact G. F. is guilty of false Quotations and belying the Innocent and yet these impudent Men will defend his Infallibility one of them is that G. F. in his G. M. p. 246. chargeth C. VVade to say O Luciferian Pride to save Souls to this C. VVade fully and effectually answereth and plainly detects the Lie and Perversion in his second Book where he shews out of the seventh and eighth Page of his Quakery slain that his Words were His crying out against James Milner ' s Luciferian Pride to save Souls as Christ did C. Wade's second Book p. 4. because he pretended himself to be Christ and audaciously took upon him to save Souls as Christ did by his suffering Death and hereupon James Milner did in a juggling manner die and in a juggling inchanting manner with a Knife and a Bason he pretended his Blood was shed to save the Souls of two VVomen this manner of saving Souls only C. Wade blames which G. F. either justifies or renders himself a Lyer by blaming C. Wade See the Places themselves The other Lye and Slander which G. F. is guilty of against C. Wade is that in his G. M. p. 247. he makes C. Wade to say God limits the Supreme Holy One by the inspired Writings of the Apostles but C. Wade's Words were That the Devil limits the Supreme Holy One see C. Wade's second Book p. 5. compared with p. 13. of Quakery slain Note If either the Switch or G. Whitehead could prove the like Perversions and Lies against the Author of the Snake as C. Wade hath here proved against G. F. how would they have sentenced him as indeed they have for things of small moment in comparison of what is here justly proved against their infallible Apostle as they pretend he was G. F But I do not know one Quotation of the Author of the Snake out of their Books wherein he hath in a substantial matter wronged him as G. F. here hath wronged C. Wade not only in these three but many more There yet remains two Quotations out of G. W's own Book called Truth defending the Quakers which he most fallaciously and sophistically endeavours to justifie The Question being put Whether the Quakers did esteem their Speakings to be of as great Authority as any Chapter in the Bible Truth and Inn. p. 16. 'T is answered That which is spoken from the Spirit of Truth in any is of as great Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are and greater This same Quotation is objected in a late printed Sheet called An Account from Colchester where the following Words are set down that G. W. blames the Norfolk Priests for leaving out which he calls the annexed explanatory Words and they are these As Christ's VVords were of greater Authority when he spoke than the Pharises reading the Letter and they in whom that Spirit speaks not are out of the Authority of the Scriptures and their speaking we deny But first These Words are not explanatory but a sophistical Argument to prove the former Assertion for G. VV. argues That because Christ's preaching was of greater Authority than the Pharisees reading the Scriptures that therefore what the Spirit speaks in the Quakers and by them is of greater Authority than the Scriptures which is both a false and foolish Consequence for it supposes that the Spirit of God speaks in the Quakers when they preach or speak in Meetings as it did in Christ and in the Apostles viz. by the same divine Inspiration in kind and manner immediately and infallibly which cannot be granted and the Falsehood of it appears by the many false things that they speak and write contrary to the Scriptures And though he mentions not Quakers yet that he does understand them and none else is clear from his own Words He saith They in whom that Spirit speaks not their speaking we deny This supposeth he grants that the Spirit spoke in some which they did not deny and who were these but the Ministers among the Quakers seeing they deny the Ministry of all others in our Days Next he has an impertinent Question as to the Division of Chapters and Verses Can these Men say that was done by Divine Authority But this is wholly from the purpose Another Evasion is That the Spirit of Truth immediately ministring in Man or by any spiritual Minister is of greater Authority Power or Efficacy than the Chapters are simply considered as without the Spirit But simply considered as without the Spirit is wholly remote from the Question and is no ways to be allowed for any true Vindication because the Spirit doth as truly and frequently accompany the Scriptures when read as when preached or whatever is preached by the Spirit 's Assistance if the Hearers in reading be as sincere as the Hearers in preaching But if the Hearers be careless suppose Men preach by the Spirit it doth not follow that carnal and careless Hearers hear by the Spirit more than that they read or hear what is read by the Spirit But if he will needs have the Words simply and abstractly considered without the Spirit be added to reading let them by the like reason be added to preaching what he adds of Christ and the Apostles living and powerful preaching being of greater Efficacy Power and Authority than the outward Writing or Scripture it self simply or abstractly considered as distinct from the Spirit As it was no Part of the Question nor Answer given by him in Truth 's Defence so it is altogether impertinent But he equivocates upon the Word Authority taking it for the effect it hath on the Hearers but that was not the Sense of the Word Authority in the Question asked but its Sense as it 's generally among all that treat of Scripture Authority above other Writings so taken the Obligation or Right that doth oblige or induce us to believe the Truth of them and that they are of divine Inspiration This is quite another thing than the Effect or Impression that Men feel in reading or hearing them read as well as when preached upon by way of expounding for whether the Effect or Influence and Impression be great or little as it is sometimes great and sometimes little and sometimes perhaps none upon hardned Hearts yet their Authority is still the same neither greater nor less at one time than another The other Quotation is taken out of his Truth defending and is objected against in that called An Account from Colchester to which a pretended Answer is given in that called Some Account from Colchester signed
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
acknowledged his Error than to lay the Fault upon as wrong writ or wrong printed And if he corrected them long since how comes it that he never published his Correction in any of the Books he has published since betwixt the Year 1655. and 1690. containing the space of 36. Years But for evidence against him that he hath not sincerely said That he writ not that Part of the Book it is enough that he owned it and this I can prove that without Exception he owned it to be his jointly with these others who signed it with him as appears from his Truth defending the Quakers p. 1. printed four Years after the Ishmael And he belches out the like antichristian and profane Expressions against the three Persons in the Godhead in Terms equivalent to those in the Ishmael He saith in his first Page in Answer to the first Question Do not you repent for your endeavouring vainly to defend August 29. 1659. in so great a Congregation these Positions printed in a Book writ by George Whitehead He answers for himself and his Brethren thus The Positions we defended are according to the Scriptures of Truth and them we need not repent of These were they contained in that very Book called Ishmael as doth appear out of the Book Ishmael it self here the Book was produced one of which Positions were in asserting the Scriptures or Writing not to be the Word Another was That there is no such Word in the Scriptures as Three Persons in the Trinity but it is a Popish Doctrine as the Mass or Common-Prayer-Book mentions it Fourthly And thou that affirms three distinct Persons in the Godhead art a Dreamer and he that dreams and tells Lies contrary to the Scriptures of Truth which we own he with his Imaginations and Dreams is for the Lake Here it is plain that by his Imaginations and Dreams G.W. meant the Ministers Doctrines of calling the Scriptures the Word and affirming that there are three Persons in the Godhead so whereas he said in his Ishmael Townsend and the three Persons are shut up in perpetual Doctrines Here in Truth defending c. he saith He with his Imaginations and Dreams that is the three Persons is for the Lake Now this is not one whit more sober than his Words in the Ishmael how then is it that G. Whitehead has not found some shift to put this part of his Truth defending upon another Again in his Truth defending c. p. 25. he plainly owns that Book called Ishmael to be his four Years after it was printed and now though in his Truth defending c. he saith That he and his Brethren need not repent of the Positions laid down in that called Ishmael yet now in the Year 1690. in his Christianity he saith He was sorry his Name was to that Paper and yet as before is mentioned in Truth defending p. 1. he saith They need not repent of it Is not this a plain Change in G. W. He need not repent of what was writ and yet was sorry that it was writ Formerly he owned that Book in the Year 1659 and in the Year 1690 He writ not that Part and was sorry it was writ and all this without any Change in his Mind But when People are sorry for what they do we commonly reckon they repent of it This offensive Passage objected against G. Whitehead out of his Ishmael was objected against him by Christopher Wade in his Quakery slain p. 9. printed in 1657. And though G. W. printed against C. Wade in his Truth defending 1659. yet he then took no notice of that Passage to disown it to be his But how is it that G. W. disowns what was written in the Book called Ishmael against the three Persons Doth he now own the three Persons not to be Popish as he formerly charged them Truth def p. 2 Though he has not in the least retracted his abusive and reviling Speeches against this glorious Truth both in the Ishmael and in his Truth defending c. for that would reflect upon his Infallibility yet he would seem now to own the Doctrine of the three Persons since the Act for Toleration came forth for that Act of Toleration does except those who deny in their preaching or writing the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity as it is declared in the Articles of Religion viz. the 39 Articles But that G. W. may have the Benefit of the Act which at present he has not by Law whatever he has by Indulgence he ought also to disown some other abusive Expressions of his and sophistical Arguings he has used in his other Books as particularly not only in his Truth defending c. above mentioned but in his Divinity of Christ signed by the two Letters G. W. see p. 18. he hath these Words As to T. D ' s telling of the Son of God's Incarnation the Creation of his Body and Soul the Parts of that Nature be subsisted in c. To this I say saith G. W. if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both created doth not this render him a fourth Person And as nonsensical and abusive is the reasoning of G. Fox their great Apostle in the Epistle prefixed to the Divinity signed by him and John Stubbs where in the 9th Page of that Epistle they thus argue And he speaks again in his 14th Page of three distinct Persons are one with the Godhead Now Reader is not here four to wit three Persons and the Godhead And thus G. F. and G. W. make no less by their wild and nonsensical Reasonings than five Persons in the Godhead an Absurdity they would fix on the Doctrine of three Persons for by their Arguments the Godhead is the fourth Person and Christ's created Soul and Body is the fifth Do not these Passages require a Retractation and will they say they are Protestants and one with the Church of England in Matter of Doctrine and in the common Principles of Christianity and yet boldly stand in the Defence of those abusive Passages But whereas they argue ad hominem that there must be five Persons if Father Son and Holy Ghost be said to be three Persons seeing G. W. calls them three Witnesses by their nonsensical Argument there must be five Witnesses that bear Record in Heaven viz. the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and the Godhead these are four and the created Soul and Body of Christ that is the fifth But G.W. has a way to evade this last by denying that Christ has any created Soul or Body as in the Words in p. 18. above mentioned doth appear for which I shall have some use hereafter Jos Wyeth in his Switch p. 184. would make his Readers believe It 's only the Word Person they object against as too gross We cannot saith he but think the VVord Person too gross to express them But to detect this Fallacy pray let us take notice that G. F. whom he calls an Apostle has expresly
had only opposed the Doctrine of the glorified Saints in Heaven not being perfect which is a most deceitful Evasion by mistating the Controversie R. Hub. here is not disputing against the Papists who maintain a Purgatory but against a Protestant Author who did hold That all the deceased Saints are perfect with a sinless perfection but it doth not therefore follow that they do not in that sinless state hope for the Resurrection of their Bodies which yet is R. Hubb.'s inference by which he doth plainly discover his and his Brethrens infidelity in that great Article of the Christian Faith viz. the Resurrection of the Body Again in Coll. p. 275. he gives us his sense of the Resurrection The Seeds he saith are but two in the whole World viz. the Seed of the Woman and the Seed of the Serpent having each Seed its own Body and in every one until the one be cast out and every one of these two Seeds in every Man shall arise in its own order the one shall rise unto everlasting Life the other unto Condemnation Christ the Seed made his Grave IN the Wicked and IN the Rich in his Death and out of that Grave shall rise with his Body unto everlasting Life if thou canst receive it thou may'st be satisfied Are not these Words horrid Perversions of Scripture and containing abominable Blasphemy Again G. F. in his Distinction betwixt the Two Suppers p. 20. saith And the Apostle said that there shall be a Resurrection of the Dead both of the Just and Unjust and for Preaching the Resurrection of the Dead namely Christ Jesus he was called in question Acts 24. 15 21. And in p. 21. quoting 2 Tim. 2. 17 18. he saith But Hymenaeus and Philetus concerning the Truth erred who said that the Resurrection was past already such overthrew People from the Faith that stands in Christ who is the Resurrection and the Life through which Faith they attained to the Resurrection and had their vile Bodies changed and made like unto his Glorious Body Note How he perverts the Scripture both in words and sense the Scripture words Who shall change our vile or low Bodies respecting the time to come at the Resurrection of the Dead but he saith they attained the Resurrection and had their vile Bodies changed as a thing already fulfilled Also he makes the Resurrection that Paul Preached in the Acts 17. 18 22. and 23. 6. to be Christ himself perverting our Saviour's words who called himself the Resurrection and the Life to a literal sense which as is obvious to all intelligent Persons contain a figurative sense to wit the metony my of the Cause getting the Name of the Effect as is frequent in Scripture and in all Authors as when God is call'd in Scripture the Saints Hope and Confidence and Salvation i. e. the Author and Cause of their Hope Confidence and Salvation Tenthly Concerning the Quakers Notion of the Light Within THE true Doctrine and Sense of the Light Within as a Divine and Supernatural Gift of God given to all faithful Christians of whom it is truly said as David said concerning himself The Lord is their Light and their Salvation and also that Christ the Eternal and Essential Word who was in the beginning with God and was and is God is that true Light that doth enlighten every Man that cometh into the World even Heathens and all Individuals of Mankind with a common and universal Illumination Discovery and Knowledge of certain moral Principles of Justice and Temperance and also of some general knowledge of God as the great Creator and Ruler of the World and of some general moral Duties towards him as such whether by certain innate impressions preventing the exercise and actings of the rational Faculty or by exciting and awakening the rational Faculty of the Soul as it is enlightned and assisted by God Almighty as the primary Cause and by the works of Creation and of general Providence as secondary Causes whether one or both of these ways is not so necessary at present to determine is a Doctrine well warranted by Scripture and consented unto by the generality of Professors of Christianity and which I not only consent unto but highly value as an excellent Principle labouring daily by the Grace of God practically to improve whatever true Light within I have both Common and Special and I hope ever I shall so do and so I pray that God may enable all and me to do the same But the Quakers Notion of the Light within held in general by them and authentickly received from their Principal Teachers particularly G. F. G. W. E. Bur. and others is extremely contrary to the Holy Scriptures and also to the best dictates of our rational Faculties to which no divine Light either within Men or without Men can contradict To show which hath been a principal part of my business in all the the three Meetings above-mention'd and is the same in all the three Parts of this Narrative the which contrariety I intend to show in a short Scheme of their absurd unscriptural as well as irrational Notions of what they call the Light within which upon due examination will be found to be Darkness and not Light within 1. It 's natural to Man to have a Supernatural Light W. P.'s Prin. Christ p. 15. 2. There is no natural Light in Men Prin. Christ p. 30. There are not two Lights in Men p. 31. Thus he allows no distinction betwixt natural Reason which is a good and true Light and Gift of God to Men and the Light of Faith given to all true Christians and the Light of prophetical Inspirations given to the holy Prophets and Apostles but confounds them by making them all to be one and the same thing whereas they are all very distinct tho' all coming from one Fountain and Author God the Father of Lights 3. Man at his coming into the World hath a Light from Christ which is more than Conscience G. F.'s G. M. p. 209. 4. And seeing the Light is but dim in Heathens and Christians and Prophets and Apostles by Prin. Christ as above-quoted no Man has or ever had any other Light but what he had at his coming into the World 5. The Light within not only true Christians but within all Men Heathens Turks Jews is sufficient to Salvation without any thing else G. W.'s Antid p. 28. Thus the Man Christ without us who is both God and Man and his Death and Sufferings and Blood outwardly shed and Mediation for us in Heaven are all excluded from being so much as concurring Causes of our Salvation 6. The Light within every Man litterally understood without any Metonymy is God Christ the Holy Ghost the Unction or Anointing is blinded in some by the God of this World G. F. News out of the North p. 19. is Crucified Imprisoned Slain in wicked Men and its Blood is shed in them and that is the Blood that they trod under feet see
Could Christ have been said to have been transfigured if his coming in the Flesh had not been a Figure or Example till his Glory was revealed And hast thou not read That he was the express Figure of his Father's Substance instead of which it is translated he is the express Image c. Note This Quotation was objected in a late printed Sheer called An Account from Colchester And a pretended Answer was given to it in another printed Paper signed by seven Quakers of Colchester And the like Answer is given by G.VV. in his Truth and Innocency p. 53. They abuse me still in this saith he it was none of my Assertion That Christ's coming in the Flesh was but a Figure I positively disown these Words as a downright Forgery put upon me Ans How can he in Conscience disown these Words and charge them to be a downright Forgery put upon him when in his Answer to that Charge against R. Hubb he finds no Fault with the Phrase But a Figure but brings two Places of Scripture to justifie it which are most ignorantly and impertinently brought to prove it Why did he not then except against the Word But a Figure But instead of excepting against it he brings two Scriptures to prove the Assertion alledged against R. Hubb the one is That Christ was said to have been transfigured which because it sounded in English like his being made a Figure therefore in his great Ignorance of the Word Transfigured as well as of the Sense intended he thought it was a good Proof that Christ as he came in the Flesh was but a Figure but transfigured there signifies nothing other but transformed the Greek Word has no Relation either to Figure or Example for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Metamorphosed a Word some use in English and what that Transfiguration was Matthew tells us Mat. 17. 2. that His Face did shine as the Sun and his Raiment was white as the Light Now what Relation has this either to Figure or Example in that Sense for which G.W. brought it to prove R. Hubb's Saying Christ's coming in the Flesh was but a Figure Of what was Christ's Transfiguration a Figure Or how was it our Example to follow But that G.W. meant not an Example of Imitation but a Type or Figure that was to vanish or be laid aside is evident from his own Words Could Christ have been said to have been transfigured if his coming in the Flesh had not been a Figure or Example till his Glory was revealed Thus we see how long G.W. thought that Christ's coming in the Flesh was to continue a Figure viz. until his Glory should be revealed to wir by his inward coming into the Hearts of the Disciples which was the Substance of that Figure for thus G.W. and his Brethren argue for the Disuse of outward Baptism and the Supper they were but Figures of the inward Substance and were to continue but until that was revealed so here Christ's coming in the Flesh was but a Figure till his Glory was revealed So whether G.W. makes it Figure or Example he tells us how long it was to be our Figure or Example till his Glory was revealed But taking Example for an Example that we ought to follow in all holy living and walking we shall find the Scriptures set him forth for our Example after his Glory was revealed 1 Pet. 2. 21. Because Christ also suffered for us leaving us an Example that ye should follow his Steps this was after his Glory was revealed in and among the Believers And as the Quakers Reason why they cast off outward Baptism and the Supper is because the Substance is revealed in them whereof they were Figures so for the same reason they think Christ's Death at Jerusalem is not to be minded nor preached because it was a Figure Christ in his People is the Substance of all Figures And his Flesh is a Figure Here Figure in both Places hath the same Signification He doth not say Christ without his People but Christ in his People is the Substance of all Figures And as a Proof of this a Quotation was brought against the Quakers out of one of their ancient Books called The Doctrine of Perfection vindicated So when you come to know this to wit the Operation of Christ or the Light within you will cease remembring his Death at Jerusalem and will come to see how he hath been crucified in you and what it is that hath crucified him Thus we see how according to him Christ's Death at Jerusalem being but a Figure of Christ crucified within the Substance the Use and Remembrance of it ceaseth Is not this horrid Blasphemy Why have they not all this time retracted this To this G.W. answers Truth and Inn. p. 55. I do 〈◊〉 believe this to be justly or impartially quoted let them produce it at large and whose 〈◊〉 it is But the Book being produced it did appear to be justly and impartially â—â—ored and the Book to be a Quakers Book and printed for R. VVilson the Quakers Bookseller at that time the Author's Name is John VVhitehouse who shews how and by whom he was brought over to Quakerism But let us see how that other Place of Scripture brought by G.W. to prove R.H. his Assertion That Christs coming in the Flesh is but a Figure will clear him or rather indeed render him guilty of the same Error with R.H. the Place is most impertinently quoted by G.W. to prove That Christ's coming in the Flesh was either a Figure or Example for us to follow as he would have us to understand him That by Christ's coming in the Flesh his being a Figure that is an Example of our lmitation Truth and Inn. p. 24 25. Heb. 1. 3. Christ is there called The Brigthness of his viz. God ' s Glory and the Express Image of his Person and this G.W. brought to confirm R. H's Assertion telling us from his pretended great Learning that he is the express Figure instead of which he saith it is translated express Image And he is at great Pains to shew that Type or Figure sometimes points at a thing to come sometimes it denotes a present Example and that either of Imitation or of Warning and Caution But how can he make it appear That by the Description given of Christ Heb. 1. 3. his being the express Image of his viz. the Father's Person that Christ is there set forth to be our Example either for Imitation or Caution for he is not there said to be our Example or Image but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in the Greek of the Father's Person or Hypostasis But the Word Character can no wise justly here be understood to be an Example of our Imitation and C.VV. was but idle to render it Figure to quadrate with R. H's Assertion and to make the ignorant think he could mend the Translation but his now turning it to Example makes it Blasphemy as to say
and Christ calleth himself the Vine and Believers in him the Branches yet by no means can the Spirit or influence thereof in Men be call'd the Blood shed for remission of Sin the Blood of Atonement that by way of Merit and Satisfaction to Divine Justice removes the guilt of Sin and makes Peace betwixt God and Men for whatever Sacrifice makes Atonement for Sin must be Slain and the Blood of the Sacrifice shed or poured forth as the Beasts that were offered for Sin under the Law behoved to be Slain and their Blood to be shed which were Types of Christ who was outwardly to be slain and his Blood outwardly shed for without shedding of Blood there is no remission as the Scripture testifieth the which sheding of Blood must be by the Death of that whose Body was to be Slain Now the pouring and shedding of the Spirit of Christ and his Graces and Gracious influences into the Hearts of the Faithful is the effect of Christ's Death without us as he was outwardly Slain and offered up for us by way of Merit and Purchase as it is also the effect of his Mediation and Intercession for us now in Heaven by way of impetration and actual dispensation having received power to give those gifts to Men as he is now at Gods Right Hand in Heaven in his glorified Humanity which he procured and purchased for them when he was upon Earth in his state of Humiliation by the proper Merit of his Obedience both Active and Passive who humbled himself and became obedient unto Death even the Death of the Cross wherefore God hath exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour And therefore it is Coloss 1. 20. that the Blood of Christ by which he made peace for us is called the Blood of the Cross because it was shed and poured forth on the Cross and he is said to have reconciled us in his Body of Flesh through Death all which bespeaks that our Redemption and Reconciliation by way of Purchase and Merit was wholly done and transacted by Christ without us and could not be done within us by way of Sacrifice and Atonement for that required the Sacrifice to be Slain and the Blood thereof to be shed and poured forth But the Authors of this abominable Heresie which teacheth that Christ in Man by his Blood shed in them is the offering for Sin and the Blood thus shed in them is the Blood of Atonement yea the Blood of the Cross within them to make things seemingly consist and hang together they have invented an Inward Crucifixion and Killing of Christ in Men as well as an inward shedding of his Blood in them to answer by way of Analogy to the outward Killing of the Sacrifices under the old Testament But when this Crucifying or Killing of Christ in Men was beside many other questions about the manner of it they are put hard to it to resolve and indeed the resolution of it is impossible for it implys not only manifest contradictions to Scripture but to all true and right Reason as much as the Popish Transubstantiation doth For as nothing can be properly said to have been Killed but what was formerly alive If Christ has been Killed suppose in every Quaker he behoved to be first alive in them and as Christ in the Figure or Type as some of them call him was Born long before he was outwardly crucified for though when he was a Child Herod sought his Life yet by his being taken by his Mother into Egypt he was preserved and this very passage of Christ's being persecuted by Herod soon after he was Born the Quakers have made an Allegory not that the inward is the Allegory of the outward which were somewhat tolerable as some of the Ancients have so Allegorized though some went too far even so but the outward is the Allegory of the inward and as then there passed some considerable space of time betwixt Christ's typical Birth in the outward and his typical Crucifixion so that being about Twelve Years of Age he disputed with the Doctors and about Thirty he began his Ministry wherein he continued for about three Years and a half and then was Crucified after he was Betrayed by Judas denyed by Peter and Sentenced to Death by Pontius Pilate falsly Accused and cruelly Mocked by the Jews all which according to W. P. are so many Facile representations of what is to be accomplished in Men. And I have heard since the difference betwixt the Quakers and me began about Preaching Christ without some of their Preachers in their Publick Meetings Preach a great deal of the History of Christ's Birth Persecution by Herod and the Jews Betrayed by Judas denyed by Peter Sentenced to Death by Pilate and made it all an Allegory of what was to be witnessed within with an Exhortation to Friends to wait to have it all fulfilled and witnessed within them And particularly I heard Jacob Talner the Dutch-man above-mention'd Preach at a Publick Meeting in Philadelphia about the time our differences began there about Christ That Christ must be first Born in us and after that must be Crucified in us c. On which I asked some of their Preachers Were it not better after Christ is Born in Men using their Phrase that Men would not Crucifie him in them but rather that he might live in them For who can Crucifie Christ in Men but they themselves on supposition that he can be Crucified For the Devil cannot do it by himself without Men's consent and concurrence and being the main Actors But G. F. whom J. Wyeth calls the Apostle in this Age hath resolved this Question but whether effectually so as either consistent with Scripture or true and right Reason to which no true Revelation can contradict I leave to the intelligent Christian to judge in a Treatise of his call'd Several Papers given forth for the spreading of Truth one of them bearing this Title Concerning Christ's Flesh which was Offered p. 54. Christ the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World when it began its Foundation then the Lamb was slain then the World was set up in Man's Heart that he did not see the beginning nor the ending of the Works of God Then came their Understandings to be darken'd and Christ ACCORDING TO THE FLESH CRUCIFIED the Lamb Slain that FLESH of his which is a Mystery and when the Jews did transgress the Law of God the Prophets told them they OPPRESSED the Seed as a Cart with Sheaves Note the word Oppressed tho' G. W. is so impudent in his Judgment Fixed p. 322. as to deny that the Seed is Christ and God that is Oppressed That they may come to a thing that 's lower and under and higher and over all and before all that is the Righteousness it self so in this lies the Belief so then in the Life and in the SUBSTANCE and in the end of all Types so through this Flesh he doth reconcile and by the
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
not but God's Perfection is essential to him and so is his Purity his Purity and Perfection is himself and so is not the Saint's Perfection or Purity therefore there is an infinite Distance betwixt God's Perfection and all Creatures Perfection whatsoever Again G. M. p. 197. His Opponent having said He sums up all in this Be ye therefore perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect that is in Quality not in Quantity G. F. answers He that is perfect is perfect as his Heavenly Father is perfect is perfect as he is perfect If thou or any have an Ear to hear let him hear and lay away thy Qualities and Quantities and take the Words as they are and all that are come into Christ are come into Life from the Dust and Ashes and are spiritual Men. Note This he spoke in Opposition to his Opponent his calling Man poor Dust and Ashes here he magnifies himself above Abraham who called himself Dust and Ashes and yet was come into Christ and into his Life The like arrogant Expression he hath in G. M. p. 299. Such as be Saints through the immortal Seed are not Dust and Ashes for the immortal Seed lives and abides and endures for ever A Tittle of the Law is seen not to be broken G. M. p. 310. and this saith he is known in vs. VVho comes to the Kingdom of Heaven in them G. M. p. 281 318. 〈◊〉 to be perfect yea to a perfect Man and that is above any Degree Again Are you not worse than Lawyers and Physicians taking the Peoples Money and yet cannot make them perfect Men G. M. p. 268. Note By this reckoning all the deceased Quakers were perfect with a sinless Perfection before their Decease yea and all they not deceased by G. F's Doctrine above-quoted for in all these Plates G. F. means a sinless Perfection He blames his Opponent for saying One that is in the Kingdom of Grace groaning for Adoption ◠And p. 218. G. M. He will not allow any that 's translated into the Kingdom to have any Members to be mortified He judges his Opponents for saying That Pollution was in the Church and saith That the Church is without Spot or VVrinkle or Blemish on any such thing meaning surely the Quakers Church But that the Quakers Church or Ministry are not all such who are without Spot or Wrinkle or Blemish or any such thing G. VV 's General Epistle which he calls A Christian Epistle to Friends c. sufficiently sheweth in p. 4. He chargeth it upon too many Professors of Truth viz. among the Quakers their Negligence and Vnfaithfulness to Truth in themselves which hath caused a Decay of Love and want of Charity towards others and then instead of humbly waiting and depending upon the Lord some have exaled themselves in a self-will self-conceit and affection to Preheminence in Judgment over others until thereby Divisions and false Separations have been caused and stirred up by them to the great Grief of the Spirits of the upright Such were never throughly subjected into true Humility Mortification true Self-denyal or dying with Christ c. In that called G. Fox's Canons or Orders so did all that Party of the Quakers call them that joined with John Story and John Wilkinson two eminent Preachers of the Quakers in opposing them published by G. F. about the Year 1669 and signed or subscribed only by G. F. Pope-like indeed having this Title Friend's Fellowship must be in the Spirit and all Friends must know one another in the Spirit and Power of God At the Number 9 we have the following Words And also all Men that hunt after Women from Woman to Woman and also VVomen whose Affections run sometimes after one Man and soon after another and so hold one another in Affection and so draw out the Affection of one another and after a while leave one another and go one from another do the same thing these doings make more like Sodom than Saints and is not of God's moving or joining And in Number 10. And Notice be taken of all evil Speakers Backbiters and Slanderers and foolish Talkers and idle Jesters for all these corrupt good Manners And in Number 11. All such as are Tale-carriers and Railers whose VVork is to sow Dissention are to be reproved and admonished And in Number 12. And all such as go up and down to cheat by borrowing and getting of Money of Friends in By-places and have cheated several all such are to be stopped and judged as there is a VVoman tall in her Person freckled in her Face and also one John Harding who are for Judgment and to be condemned And in the Conclusion he sharply reproves them of the Quaker's Society who sit nodding in a Meeting for their Sleeping and Sottishness and Dullness and he saith Therefore be careful and watchful and let it be amended And last of all he adds Let this be read in all your Meetings On this I noted that these and other Faults he chargeth upon many of his Brethren owned to be Quakers evidently prove their visible Church and Society are not such a Church of Christ which he saith is without Spot or VVrinkle as above-quoted and that as a People they are far from that sinless Perfection they commonly boast of on which account they are not known as a People to pray in their publick Meetings for Pardon of Sin and yet where such Faults are were they sincere they would both confess and ask Pardon of God for their Sins I noted also that according to this Injunction these Orders on Canons of G. F. are duly read in their quarterly Meetings both here in Europe and also in America whereof I have been an Eye and Ear Witness But as he hath not in all his Canons enjoined the reading the holy Scriptures nor any Part of them in their Meetings so I said I never heard any Part of Scripture read in any of their publick Meetings either for Worship or Discipline and they cast great Blame on me for my reading some Texts of Scripture in our Meetings at Turners-Hall But let it be further noted that seeing G. F. and G. VV. have so strongly affirmed That the Quakers can give an infallible Character of Men to know who are Saints or Devils without ever speaking a Word what need had G. F. in his Canons to give such a Description of some by Name and Face whereby to know them to be Cheats Surely if they had such an infallible discerning as they pretend they need not to have such outward Characters of Deceivers Note Were not some of these above-mentioned Members of the Quaker's Church and are not such Evils as he has mentioned that were among them Spots and Blemishes and Sins Yea G. VV. doth own in his Voice of VVisdom p. 17. before that State of Freedom from Sin be witnessed There is a Time of Pain in Travel and of suffering in Temptations and Tryals Note do none of these belong to the
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
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
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
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
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
more which might be quoted out of them and others it evidently appears that the greatest things that are written of Christ either by Prophecy in the Old Testament or fulfilled in the New Testament his outward Birth his Incarnation his taking hold not of Angels but the Seed of Abraham his Sacrifice and Offering his Blood Death Burial Resurrection Ascension yea his being tempted by Satan in the World is all applied to the Seed Christ within as the great Mistery of Godliness yea as greater than God manifest in Flesh without as is quoted out of W. Penn and as concerning Christ's Flesh without that 's a Figure but Christ within is the Substance Now to apply all this in way of Allegory to Christ incarnate within the Seed that the Spirit takes hold of to use G. F's Words that looks like an Incarnation of the Holy Ghost in G. F. and his Brethren is too rash and goeth beyond the Bounds of Sobriety But to turn it all to the greatest Reallity and all that 's said of Christ without to be the Allegory and Figure of the Substance within as is effectually proved is a plain overthrowing the Christian Faith But it 's very hard to conceive how this Seed Christ within as G. F. holds it forth was or could be tempted of the Devil to lust after the Creature seeing as he will have it it is no Creature it self can it be supposed that the Devil would or could tempt the Godhead to lust after the Creature and what this Seed can be which G. F. calls Christ that 's buried in the wicked and elsewhere the Spirit and Spirits in Prison yea the Prisoners in Hell that the Quakers have preached to that 's no Creature nor God nor any Part of the divine Essence for that cannot be divided into Parts is unaccountable There yet remains three or four Passages which were objected in a printed Sheet called An Account from Colchester against G. W. and E. B. to which these seven Quakers in Colchester have given their Reply by way of Vindication but all grosly fallacious in that they call Some Account from Calchester as we shall see in what follows It was objected against G. W. out of his Truth defending the Quakers page 65. Christopher Wade affirmeth That our blessed Saviour doth instruct Men to lay fast hold of and to abide in such a Faith which confideth in himself being without Men. To this G. W. answereth That 's contrary to the Apostles Doctrine who preached the Word of Faith that was in their Hearts and the Saints Faith stood in the Power of God which was in them Their Defence is That George White head 's Intent in this Answer was not against C. Wade's excluding Christ's spiritual Appearance and Work of Righteousness out of his Saints by affirming That our blessed Saviour doth totally condomn all such Faith which doth trust that Men are righteous in their own Bodies by what Spirit soever either from Heaven or elsewhere that Righteousness is wrought in Mens Bodies p. ibid. Whereby â—e opposed Christ's Work of Regeneration in true Believers as also his affirming that the true Christ doth prove himself not to be a Spirit To this I say suppose C. Wade had erred on the one hand this doth not justifie this most scandalous Assertion of George Whitehead That it is contrary to Rom. 10. to confide in Christ without Men whereas Rom. 10. 8 9 10. teacheth us That to to believe in Christ without us and so to confess him is necessary to our Salvation It 's observable how both they and G. W. himself waves giving a plain and positive Answer to this great Objection They say indeed in page 21. As there is one Lord Jesus Christ and one true Faith in him this Faith respects Christ both as without us in the Heavens and as he is in the Hearts of his Saints But they do not tell what they mean by Christ as without us in the Heavens not one Word of their Faith in Christ as he is both God and Man and who as Man consisting of a created Soul and Body the same in Nature with the Nature of other Men but without Sin is in the Heavens in our glorified Nature This being the thing that is mainly objected on this Head and which they will not nor dare not give a plain Answer unto nor G. W. either for it will detect his and their gross Error or if they or he give a sound Answer it will prove they are changed and that will reflect on G. W's Infallibility But they grosly abuse C. Wade for his sound Doctrine which G. W. has not fairly nor duely represented for C. Wade in that very Page doth clear himself both against a lying Charge first in G. F. who charged him That he did totally exclude Works without any Distinction G. M. p. 298. And the like false Charge doth G. W. load him with That he opposed Christ's Work of Regeneration in true Believers which is an extremely false Charge against him as he sheweth at length but he did only exclude them from being the meritorious Cause of our Justification and the Foundation of our Faith so that though Sanctification and good Works are necessary and none can be either justified or saved without them yet we must not trust in them nor make a Saviour of them But it 's no Wonder that G. W. blames this Doctrine who in his Voice of Wisdom pleads for the Meritoriousness of good Works in Men as grosly as the grossest Papists yea and much more grosly as we may see in its proper Place But this is G. W. and his Brethrens common Work to misrepresent their Opponents to hide their own vile Heresies And as for C. Wade's saying Christ proved himself not to be a Spirit to wit a meer Spirit as he explains himself he quoted for it Christ's own Words Handle me and feel me for a Spirit has not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have and was not that a sufficient Proof that the Man Christ was not a meer Spirit Proofs on the sixth Head Concerning the Soul Whether the Soul of Man is a Part of God G. VVhitehead is at great Pains in his Truth and Innocency page 7. and 9. to prove that when George Fox said The Soul was a Part of God and of God's Being he did not mean the rational Soul of Man and which he calls the reasonable Soul or Spirit formed in Man but that divine Inspiration or Breath of Life whereby Man became a living Soul as the great and universal Soul of Mankind even the Soul or Life of the Soul as some phrase it And Joseph VVyeth in his Switch page 53. pleads That he meant not That the created Soul was a Part of God and will have it that George Fox held That the Soul of Man was created But none of them give the least effectual Proof out of his Books where George Fox mentions any created Soul to be in Man that is not a
Part of God Their Inferences are weak as That Christ is the Bishop of the Soul The Soul is in Transgression in Death The Soul redeemed rejoyceth in God All this doth not prove that George Fox did hold that the Soul of Man in all these Considerations was not a Part of God For according to him the Soul being a Part of God this part rejoyceth in God the Fulness and God or Christ considered as the Fulness is the Bishop of the Soul that is a Part of him the Soul being like a Drop of Water returning into the Ocean so taught the Ranters and that all Creatures were Parts of God who was the Substance of all things and so saith George Fox expresly Great Mistery page 99. and Edward Burrough see the Collection of his Works pag. 827 828. And George Fox denieth That either Christ or Men have a Humane Soul or that Christ hath either a Humane Soul or Body Great Mistery pag. 99 100. His Objection is idle against Humane as signifying Earthly from Humus the Ground which is but a Cloak to cover his gross Eerror None of his Opponents said the Soul was from the Earth He might as much object against the Language of Scripture that calleth Christ the second Adam the Word Adam signifying Red Earth That the Soul is in Transgression in Death proves not that George Fox did not hold it to be a Part of God for he and other Teachers among the Quakers teach That what they call the Seed Christ is crucified in the wicked and is held in Satans Chains and what are these Chains but Sins as is above proved out of Truth 's Def. p. 49. But for a full and clear Evidence that George Fox did hold the Soul of Man to be a Part of God in answer to Magnus Byne his Book called The scornful Quakers answered Great Mistery p. 90. Is not the Soul without Beginning coming from God returning into God again who hath it in his Hand And in Answer to Jonathan Clapham his Book called A Discovery of the Quakers Doctrine Great Mistery page 100. Is not this that cometh out from God which is in God's Hand part of God of God and from God and to God again which Soul Christ is the Bishop of It is to be noted and well observed that this Opposition that George Fox made to those Men and his other Opponents as Richard Baxter and the five Ministers of New Castle about the Soul which they denied to be a Part of God or without Beginning and he affirmed it was By Opposition to them was not about any divine Soul in the Soul that was the Life or Soul of it as George VVhitehead would have it by which he means God or the Holy Ghost for in all Disputes the Subject of the Dispute is one betwixt the Opponent and the Respondent and though sometimes where the Matter is intricate and nice the Subject is hard to find out and the Opponent may mean one thing and the Respondent another yet in a Case that is clear and easie to be understood as this Case is there can be no Difficulty about the Subject of the Dispute as indeed here there is none which Subject of Dispute betwixt George Fox and his Opponents above mentioned was purely and simply the Soul of Man and not any divine Principle in the Soul As to instance from Magnus Byne the Beginning of this Controversie betwixt Magnus Byne and George Fox about the Soul was by a Question that Magnus Byne put to Thomas Lawson a Quaker which was this see in Magnus Byne The scornful Quaker answered page 103. VVhat is the Soul of Man and the Preciousness of it seeing Christ says It is more worth than all the VVorld To this Thomas Lawson the Quaker answers The Ministers of Jesus who come by the Will of God such know the Soul and watch for the Soul Heb. 13. 17. But thy watching is for the Fliece and art querying what the Soul is which lies in Death and State and Condemnation so long as it lives and the false Accuser lives and it the First-born knows not nor the Preciousness of it who prefers the World and obeys it before the Light of Christ and so sells the Soul for the World as thou dost who professest him in thy Lip-talk but denies him in Practice Ways and Conversation though Christ saith The Soul is more worth than all the World To which Magnus Byne his Opponent thus replieth In all this Answer there is not a Tittle unto-the Question here it appears thy perfect knowledge fails thee Here thou guessest that the Soul is Christ for he is the First-born the Scripture mentions and so according to thy Blasphemy Christ it seems may be damned and cast into Hell for so it is said of the Soul Fear him who is able to cast Body and Soul into Hell See how dark thou art in making no Difference between the Soul and Christ the Soul is indeed a precious thing there is a kind of Infiniteness in it which all the World cannot satisfie and therefore the Man was a Fool that said Soul take thine Ease because thy Barns are full and yet notwithstanding this kind of Infiniteness in the Soul as being restless till it return to God yet it cannot be Infiniteness it self it cannot be the First-born for of whole Man it is said whereof the Soul is the more noble Part VVhat is Man that thou art mindful of him Heb. 2. 6 7. Man you see is inferior unto the Angels much more inferior to the Son of God And farther saith he though the Soul be the Seat of Christ and Christ be hid there as a Treasure in a Field even in the innermost Room of the Soul yet the Soul cannot comprehend the infinite Majesty so Christ in his diviner Essence or Being much less can it be Christ who is God over all blessed for evermore And though there be indeed a blessed Union and Fellowship between Christ and an holy Soul yet still there is a vast Difference between the Essence or being of the Soul and Christ the one being still a Creature and the other the Creator of it Next he comes to give his own Definition of it The Soul saith Magnus Byne is a most noble Power a living Being an Essence that quickens the Body and yet dies not sleeps not when the Body dies and sleeps but returns unto God who gave it This Soul is a little Map of the great World and makes Man a little World for in his Soul is comprehended the Life of Plants the Sense of Beasts the Reason of Men and Angels This Soul quickens and makes Man a living Creature a sensitive Creature a rational Creature After he has described the Soul of Man which he expresly calls a Creature as above quoted in its several Powers and Faculties of the Mind Reason Judgment Will Memory Fancy Appetite and Affections to wit the created Soul of Man He saith God is the Life of
our Life and Soul of our Soul he proceeds very regularly to tell That in this Soul of Man or in the Spirit or Mind of it as the highest Power when it is regenerated and resigned lives the great King manifested here he dwells as in Mount Sion here he delights to be as in his Temple And in this Soul of Man unenlightened and unrenewed Christ lies hid and is as one dead note he doth not say dead as the Quakers say but is as one dead and unsavory unto the Soul and so the Soul is in Darkness Weakness Sinfulness Sorrow Fear Bondage Thus we see Magnus Byne doth so clearly state the Subject of the Controversie betwixt him and the Quakers his Opponents which was the Soul of Man the created reasonable Soul that is neither God nor Christ though he owneth that God and Christ are in the Souls of Men both regenerate and unregenerate but after different Manners that he leaves no room for any of the least Capacity of Understanding to mistake the true Subject of the Controversie and therefore George Fox whom Joseph Wyeth magnifieth as the APOSTLE in this Age could not be such a Sot as not to understand the true Subject of the Dispute which was the Soul of Man the reasonable Soul that which thinks wills loves which dieth not when the Body dieth and which again and again he calleth a Creature and the created Soul distinguisheth it from Christ in the Soul which he saith is the Life of our Life and Soul of our Soul The same Expression used by George VVhitehead in his Truth and Innocency Yet notwithstanding all this clear stating the Subject of the Dispute which was the Soul of Man and not that divine Principle in the Soul George Fox doth make a great Difference with him and sets himself in great Opposition to him and will needs have it That the Soul to wit the Soul of Man which was the only Subject of the Dispute is without Beginning coming from God returning to God again Also he opposeth Magnus Byne's Saying There is a kind of Infiniteness in the Soul viz. with Respect to the Largeness of its Desires which the whole World cannot satisfie as he explained himself but it is not Infiniteness it self which George Fox wrongly quotes by adding the Word IN making him say It is not Infiniteness IN it self which mars the Sense But George Fox in Opposition to M. B. will have the Soul of Man which was the Subject of the Dispute to be Infiniteness it self without Beginning Note Here a Quaker Daniel Philips objected That Disputants might differ about the Subject of the Dispute so as the Opponent might mean one thing and the Respondent another But I answered They might so when the Matter is intricate and obscure by Ambiguities of Words but it could not be so here the Subject of the Dispute being so clearly proposed that none but a Sot or Cheat could or would mistake the Subject which the Quakers will not allow G. F. to be having so great an Esteem of his Wisdom as the Apostle in this Age. And the like is to be said of all the Disputes betwixt George Fox and his other Opponents about the Soul which were only about the Soul of Man and not at all about God or Christ in the Soul for they all did contend there was a real Distinction betwixt the Soul and God or Christ who was in it But George Fox would allow none but still contended That the Soul concerning which they and he disputed was a Part of God without Beginning c. And in his Great Mistery page 91. he blames Magnus Byne for calling the Soul a Creature and saith he is in Babylon and Confusion And in his Dispute with the five Ministers of New Castle Great Mistery pag. 227 228. he saith The Soul whereof Christ is the Bishop is divine and immortal also he most grosly wrongs the five Ministers of New Castle and charges them with holding it to be their own Principle Great Mistery page 227. That the Soul is a Part of the divine Essence And in his Great Mistery page 29. he saith to them And so you five have judged your selves to be Blasphemers who said The Soul was Part of the divine Essence and yet it is Blasphemy to say so This he most unjustly chargeth in them quoting their Book called A Discovery of that Generation of Men called Quakers but in that very Book which was produced and the Words quoted as they are in that Book page 5. the five Ministers deliver it not as any Position of theirs but as one of the Quakers Positions having this Title on the Top Quakers Positions being the third in Number and in all being seventeen That the Soul is a Part of the divine Essence What Excuse can George VVhitehead or any of his Brethren find for this palpable Injustice in George Fox Could he be so sottish as not to distinguish betwixt the five Ministers Positions and what they call the Quakers Positions and which they expresly blame and disown and give their Arguments against And if he was not so ignoratly sottish in the Case what can it be construed but a wilful Lie thus for him to charge them And for a further Confirmation that George Fox did hold That that very Soul of Man which George VVhitehead calls the reasonable and rational Soul Truth and Innocency pag. 7 8 9. and which George VVhitehead confesseth hath sinned doth not sin and is not at any time a sinful Soul consequently is according to him a Part of God I bring a Quotation out of his Great Mistery page 337. George Fox quotes his Opponent saying The Soul of Man is a reasonable sinful Substance To this George Fox answers How can that which is sinful be reasonable And if that which is unsinful be reasonable and sinful be reasonable both then they are one in Vnity The Lord will take the Soul for an Offering for Sin Isa 5. 3. See how thou and the Prophet agrees here But what is that Soul that the wicked is not able to kill Is it not that which God hath in his Hand And this is a Lye to say That which is reasonable is sinful Note how grosly he perverts that Place in Isa 53. 10. When thou shall make his Soul an Offering for Sin This is understood of the Soul of the Man Christ who suffered without us and not of any Soul within us which yet is George Fox's Notion and this very Soul in Men this reasonable Soul George Fox will have it to be the Odering for Sin And because it is so therefore he concludes it is not sinful not capable of sinning yet George Whitehead saith The reasonable Soul is capable of sinning and hath sinned in Men though it never sinned in Christ See how these two Apostles do now contradict one anoother and yet none of them fallible Note again how George Fox thought he put a very puzzling Query to his Opponent to
Works are meritorious of Condemnation therefore good Works wrought by us in the Spirit are a meritorious cause of our Justification But T. Danson doth effectually Answer the Argument by denying the Consequence and that it can have no force unless the good Works we work even by the help of the Spirit Voice of Wisdom p. 36. were in all respects Perfect and Sinless and that we had always perfectly fulfilled the Law from first to last which no Man ever did but Christ And he gives another good reason why he denyeth the Consequence Because the Righteousness which God works in us is but Finite as well as other effects his sense is obvious No Righteousness can Merit our Justification before God but that which is of an Infinite value and therefore the Righteousness of a meer Man had it been Perfect and Sinless from the first moment of his Life to his Death could not be of Merit for the Justification of others and indeed strictly speaking not of Merit for his own Justification he could only have been justified by his own good Works assisted to do them by the Spirit by fulfilling the terms of the Law or Covenant of Works but because Christ was not meer Man but both God and Man therefore his Righteousness and Obedience is of that Infinite Value and Merit that is sufficient for all that lay hold on it for Justification by a true and lively Faith Now to both these good and solid Reasons G. W. Answers most Ignorantly First in asserting That the good Works which we work by the Spirit or which the Spirit works in us are Perfect and are the fulfilling of the Law and therefore deserving Justification but to this I have answered above and discovered his Ignorance see the First Part p. 13. To his 2d Reason G. W. Answers The Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finite but Infinite Voice of Wisdom p. 36. for Christ is God's Righteousness and Christ is formed in us Gal. 4. 19. and so that Righteousness which God works in us by his Spirit is of the same Kind and Nature with that which worketh it for the Saints are made partakers of the Divine Nature Thus we see how he magnifies the Righteousness wrought by the Spirit in Men not only to be Perfect with a Sinless Perfection but DEIPIES it so as to make it equal to God himself arguing that the Righteousness which God works in us is of the same Nature with that which worketh it surely whatever is of the same Nature with God is equal to God yea is God for because Christ as he is the Eternal Word is of the same Nature with God therefore he is equal with God and is God But observe a prodigious Fallacy in G. W. to defend his Blasphemy In his Truth and Innoc. p. 60. in defence of that passage above-quoted out of his Voice of Wisdom he saith My meaning simply of the word Infinite was that God's Righteousness which he effects in us is Everlasting and without end Psal 119. 142. And Christ is said to be of God made unto us Wisdom and Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption 1 Cor. 1. 30. I hope saith he none will deny him to be Infinite or his work of Righteousness and the effect thereof to be quietness and assurance for ever And thus he would heal himself by giving us his sense of the word Infinite that he meant simply that it was Everlasting and without end But to detect this prodigiously dull Sophistry I call it not prodigious for the Wit of it but the Dulness of it the nature of G. W.'s Argument did not only carry the sense of the word Infinite to be endless but to be every way Infinite his Argument being grounded on this That that Righteousness which God worketh in us is of the same Kind and Nature with that which worketh it Now the Nature of God is not only endless but Infinite every way his Righteousness and Holiness not only extendeth beyond all Times and Ages but beyond all Degrees and Measures of Created Perfection But whatever sense the word Infinite may be allowed in other cases to have as to say a Nation is Infinitely Rich as Nahum 3. 9. yet in this case of the Controversie betwixt T. Danson and G. W. the word Infinite can have no such limited or strained sense neither did T. Danson understand it in that sense as only to signifie Endless And G. W. did he know the true Law of Disputants should know That when he answereth to his Opponent's Argument he should take the word of his Opponent in the sense of his Opponent because the force of the Argument lies upon that sense For T. Danson's Argument had not this sense That because the Righteousness that God works in Men is not Endless therefore it is not Meritorious of Justification for granting it to be Endless that is Infinite in G. W.'s sense as the Apostle Paul saith of Charity it never faileth every degree of it is Endless but it will not therefore follow that it is meritorious of Justification because it hath no end of duration for so the Soul it self should be meritorious of Justification because it is Endless yea the Souls of bad Men and Devils are Endless and Infinite in G. W.'s sense do they therefore merit Justification But the force of T. Danson's Argument lyeth in this That Righteousness alone can be meritorious of our Justification before God that is Infinite in Value and Worth that is equivalent and infinitely more than equivalent to the Righteousness not only of all the most holy Angels that never sinned but of all the Men that ever lived or shall live had they by Supposition lived as holily and righteously as the holy Law of God required them to live from first to last yet such a Righteousness as this of all such holy Angels and Men being but a Finite Righteousness with respect to its intrinsick worth and value could not be sufficiently meritorious for the Justification of one Man that has sinned tho' suppose but once all his Life time But because the Righteousness of Christ to wit his most holy and perfect Obedience which he performed without us was not the Righteousness of a meer Man but of him who was both God and Man therefore it is an Infinite Righteousness i. e. of Infinite value before God by way of merit to obtain the Justification of true Penitents and Believers and when sound Christian-Teachers say The Righteousness of Christ which he performed without us for our Justification is an Infinite Righteousness they mean not that it was Physically Infinite but Morally i. e. of Infinite value before God by reason of the Hypostatical Union of the Humane Nature of Christ with the Essential and Eternal Word But G. W. thought to excuse S. F. and himself from the imputation of Popery on the Point of Justification and that very handsomly why because the Quakers say It 's only the works that they
G. W. so to charge W. B. and mistate the Controversie between W. B. and him nothing but deceit it self could invent such a forgery in G. W. as this to charge it on W. B. as if he had either said or thought that the Meritorious cause of Man's Justification was laid by him upon the Act of the Soldier that thrust the Spear into our Saviour's Side for neither did he say it nor can it be gathered from his Words by the least shadow of any just Consequence his Words being thus as G. W. cites them The shedding of the Blood upon the Cross that was let out by the Virtue of the Spear being thrust into his Side was the Meritorious cause of Man's Justification See Light and Life p. 64. The shedding of the Blood c. is the true English of the Latin Words Effasio Sanguinis which being A Noun Verbal hath a Passive as well as Active signification and that W. B. meant it in the Passive signification and not in the Active as with respect to the Soldiers Act is evident from the Words both of Jer. Ives and also of W. B. quoted by G. W. Light and Life p. 64. he quotes Jer. Ives saying My Brother Burnet meant Christ's Passion and not the Act of wicked Men. And again G. W. quotes W. B. saying Yes Brother it is proper to say It was Christ's Act to shed his Blood His meaning is obvious to any impartial Reader that it was Christ's Act freely to give his Blood to be shed for the remission of our Sins as he said himself no Man taketh my Life from me I lay down my Life and I take it up again Without all doubt though Christ was not Active to Kill himself by any Bodily Act of violence that he did to himself yet his giving up his Blood to be shed and his Life to be taken away was a most noble act of his Soul and Will who by a most noble act of Obedience and Resignation to the Will of God for the Salvation of Men gave up his Blood to be shed for that the shedding of Christ's Blood was necessary for remission of Men's Sins and their Justification before God is clear from his own words This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood shed for the remission of the Sins of many and as the Scripture saith Without shedding of Blood is no remission so that had not Christ's Blood been shed Men's Sins could not be forgiven and yet what but deceit it self can infer from this That the merit or stress of remission of Sin or Justification is laid upon the act of the wicked Soldier that thrust his Spear into our Saviour's Side Note again Seeing G. W. hath imposed such a Forgery upon W. B. without any just ground as if he had placed the Merit of Men's Justification upon the act of the wicked Man that thrust the Spear into our Saviour's Side By the like forgery he may charge the Church of England with the same absurdity though most unjustly for in the Prayer immediately before Baptism in the Office of Baptism for those of Riper Years she thus Prays Almighty everliving God whose most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our Sins DID SHED OUT of his most precious Side both Water and Blood and gave Commandment c. Here we see it 's said that Christ SHED OUT of his most precious Side both Water and Blood Can therefore G. W. from thence infer that the Church of England believeth that she layeth the Merit of remission of Sin and Justification upon the act of the Soldier or that Christ by any act of Violence killed himself or commanded others to do it and if no just consequence as this can be gathered out of the Church of England's Words nor can they from the Words of W. B. that are of the same importance But it 's no wonder that G. W. will have the shedding of that Blood which came out of Christ's Side when it was pierced to be only the Soldiers act when T. Elwood in his Truth Defended p. 99. denyeth the Blood that came out of Christ's Side and its shedding after he was Dead to have been to compleat the Offering for this he saith and again repeats the same Words and justifies them in his pretended Answer to my first Narrative p 220 221. This offering up himself and giving himself a ransom for all included all his sufferings both inward and outward and made it a compleat and perfect Sacrifice in which his Blood was comprehended and concerned as well as his Flesh before his Side was pierced by the Spear for he had pronounced that great Word Consummatum est it is finished had bowed his Head and given up the Ghost before his Side was pierced with the Spear This is not only contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England as above quoted in the Office of Baptism but of all Orthodox Christians throughout the World who teach according to Scripture That the Water and Blood that came out of our Lord's Side after his Death was a special part of the Offering as well as his Death and the wounds in his Hands and Feet and the Blood that came out of them before his Death which gross Error of T. Elwood is the Error of the Second Days meeting at London who approved his Book and of G. W. who professeth the same Faith with them is deservedly censured and refuted in Satan disrob'd p. 47. His Body pierced and his Blood shed after his Death were truly and properly a part of the Sacrifice as much as what he suffered before he expired As the legal Sacrifice was not compleated by the Death of the Beast but by the Burning of it and offering the Blood afterwards that was shed and those who reject that Blood do mutilate his Sacrifice and render it ineffectual to themselves Note again How neither G. W. nor the Colchester Quakers in their Some Account c. give any answer to what was objected against him out of his Light and Life p. 61. Though quoted by them p. 15. Where he positively asserts That to seek our Saviour above the Clouds and Firmanent i. e. to pray to him as he is in Heaven without us above the Clouds and Firmament is contrary to the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 10. 6. And to look to the Blood that was shed at Jerusalem for Justification is contrary to Deut. 30. 13 14. and Rom. 10. which seeking or looking to Christ and his Blood as is above-quoted and proved was not by any outward or bodily act but by Faith and yet even such seeking or looking is denyed and opposed by G. W. and his Colchester Quaker Brethren But whereas G. W. doth argue so much and so frequently against that Blood that was outwardly shed by the Spear its being the meritorious Cause of Justification because that Blood is not to be found at Jerusalem for it 's not in being says W. B. as G. W. quotes him
Now in Ver. 15. it 's said That we which are alive and remain unto the Coming of the Lord. Now I ask saith he if they did live and remain to a personal Coming of Christ in the Clouds yea or nay Or can it be reasonably thought to be a Coming that is not yet that they lived and remained unto Note How G. W. here most weakly but very plainly to discover his Infidelity argues against Christ's Coming at the latter end of the World and whereas in my First Narrative I did show That when Paul said We which are alive and remain to the Coming of the Lord he spoke by an Enallage Personae We for They we which remain i.e. such of our Brethren who shall be found alive at Christ's last Coming c. To this T. E. Answers in his pretended Answer to my First Narrative p. 162. Why might not the Apostle speak in the first Person We as supposing that great and extraordinary Appearance and Coming of Christ the certain time of which no Man knew Matth. 24. 36. was so near at hand that it might probably fall out in his Life-time and for this sense he quotes Heb. 1. 2 9 26. 1 Pet. 1. 20. 1 Joh. 2. 18. 1 Cor. 10. 11. 1 Pet. 4. 7. as because the times after Christ came in the Flesh are called the last times that therefore the Apostles thought the end of the World was not far off i. e. in his sense That Paul and the other Apostles thought that Christ would come to Judge the Quick and the Dead before they dyed This gross and absurd sense as it is contrary to G. W.'s words so it renders Paul to have spoke an untruth even by Divine Inspiration for said Paul This we say unto you by the word of the Lord. J. Wyeth in his Switch p. 297 298. and his Brethren their common excuse here and elsewhere that these were but Queries signifie nothing to defend them the very import of these Queries implying a positive denyal See this Fallacy of T. E. more fully detected in Satan Disrob'd being a Reply to his pretended Answer to my First Narrative Again G. W. in Light and Life p. 41. saith But Three Comings of Christ not only that in the Flesh at Jerusalem and that in the Spirit but also another Coming in the Flesh yet to be expected we do not read of but of a Second Coming without Sin unto Salvation which in the Apostles days was looked for And these words of Paul The dead in Christ shall rise first he expounds of an inward Death To this G. W. Answers very fallaciously in his Truth and Innoc. p. 61. But is this to deny or oppose Christ's coming to Judge the Quick and the Dead 'T was never so intended And questioning some Men's carnal Expectations of a fleshly coming of Christ to be seen with their carnal Eyes was this to deny his coming in the Glory of his Father with his Angels to reward every Man according to his works quoting Matth 16. 27. Luke 9. 6. no sure for that 's confessed and undeniable Note His and his Brethren's common evasion to hide their Infidelity is to quibble about the Word FLESH as if their meaning were only to deny That Christ is to Come in a fleshly Body subject to the like Passions it had in his state of Humiliation when upon Earth as Hunger Thirst Pain Death c. But this is no part of the Controversie betwixt the Quakers and their Opponents But why may not Glorified Flesh be taken to signifie Spiritual Flesh as distinct from Mortal Flesh as well as Glorified Body signifies Spiritual Body without any change of Substance But it is evident that G. W. not only denyed that Christ would Come to Judge the World in a Body of natural and passible Flesh but that he would not Come in the same Substance of that Body he had on Earth which was a mortal and passible Body of the same Nature with ours for he makes it most absurd That an earthly Body and an heavenly Body can be the same Substance as above-quoted Now That he denyeth that Christ was in Heaven in a bodily Existence or would come to Judgment as the Son of Mary in a bodily Existence to wit having any thing of that Body which he had on Earth is evident from his Nature of Christianity p. 29. Dâ—st thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee according to thy words p. 30. If thou dost thou may'st look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him Note To excuse his great Infidelity he useth a gross Fallacy in his Truth and Innoc. p. 61. and giving a lame Quotation of his own words This is true in Fact saith he for those very Eyes decay and perish But this was no part of the Controversie betwixt G. W. and his Opponent who did not presume to say or think That Christ's coming to Judge the World in that bodily Existence would be before his Death but the thing earnestly asserted was That Christ as he was now really in Heaven in a bodily Existence at God's Right Hand so he would come in that very bodily Existence to Judge the World for which G. W. doth evidently oppose him as above-quoted The Phrase Thy Eyes will drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance is equivalent to this Thou wilt never see such an Appearance nor any other Man sor thee as that common Phrase at the Greek Calends And whereas he adds And Christ's last Coming in Power and great Glory in his Glorious Body accompanied with his mighty Angels at the Resurrection must be seen with stronger clearer and more celestial Eyes than perishing Eyes Here he still hides his vile Error What are these more celestial Eyes seeing he will not have Christ's Coming to be without Men in a bodily Existence For in his Light and Life he quotes Matth. 16. 27 28. and Luke 9. 26 27. in plain opposition to Christ's outward Coming saying When was that Coming to be Is it now to be looked for outwardly and seeing he is not to Come outwardly but inwardly these celestial Eyes in his sense must be inward Eyes But then how shall the Wicked see him for the Scripture saith Every Eye shall see him even they who have pierced him must they have celestial Eyes wherewith to see him And tho' the Wicked shall not see him in the same manner that the Godly shall see him yet certainly according to Scripture and the Faith of all true Christians all that ever lived as well as they that shall be found alive in the Body at his Coming both good and bad shall see him as an object without them yea Christ told the Chief Priest and the Jews Mat. 26. 64. Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven At which saying the High Priest rent
Baptized and here at London divers of both Sexes who were educated under the profession of Quakers have been lately Baptized and go to Church one of whom is my Youngest Daughter my Elder Daughter having been Baptized above a Year ago so that to my certain knowledge above forty Persons within a few Months past are come off from Quakerism and brought to the Church which gives a good ground of hope that many others will follow which God in his great Mercy grant and prosper my sincere tho' mean Endeavours and Labours and other his Servants whom he has made instrumental in this Work and for the success he has been pleased to give us therein all Glory and Honour and Praise be given to his most worthy Name through Jesus Christ Amen And whereas my adversaries G. W. and other of the Preachers of the Second Days meeting at London had given it as a reason why they would not meet me at Turners-Hall to dispute with me at the former Meetings for the Years 1696 97 98 according to my published Advertisements that they knew none who had been in Unity with them since I came into England who did own me or were in danger by me to be brought off from them that Objection to their Knowledge and full Conviction is now quite removed for both R. Bridgeman and M. Everard besides divers others that might be mentioned were not only in Unity with them since my arrival into England but in great repute among them R. Bridgeman having been but lately a Member of their Men's Meetings at London and one of the Twelve who were entrusted with the receiving and distributing the Money collected for their poor in the City of London and Margaret Everard having for many Years till of very late been received and well owned as a Speaker among them both in City and Country And it is most certain that the Quakers refusing to meet with me at Turners-Hall to answer to the Quotations I produced out of their Books has been a great means to let many of those formerly in Unity with them see their sandy Foundation and the badness of their Cause and will yet be a further means to give many others the like discovery who are dissatisfied with their not appearing either to vindicate their Books and Authors or to acknowledge the great Errors contained in them and publickly to retract them They are indeed brought to a very pinching dilemma if they will not appear in publick view to answer to the charges of the vile Errors and Heresies yea and Blasphemes brought against them by plain Quotations out of their Books presented to the People present by ocular inspection they now see by experience of what is past what the consequence will be even that many of themselves will see they have a bad Cause which because they are not able to defend they find out and devise frivolous excuses why they will not appear And if they will appear there is the like and equal danger that their Errors Heresies and Blasphemies will be detected to their own People as indeed the last Meetings where some of them though none principally concerned did appear have had a good service in some owned by them to give them a discovery of them There remains but two shadows of Reason why they will not appear one is that it is offensive to civil Authority but this is a meer pretence for whatever offence it may be to some particular Persons that may too much favour their errors yet it can be no just offence to Civil Authority there being no Law against it and where no Law is there is no transgression nor can it be supposed that it can offend the civil Authority that such an innocent and probable way to reduce the Quakers from their vile Heresie which God has in measure manifestly blessed with some Success and to bring them to the Church is used to that effect For must not some means be used to reclaim them and what means so probable as this The Act of Tolleration to be sure doth not forbid any by fair Reason and Argument to deal with them for their Convincement and for an Instance that this manner of proceeding is not offensive to Authority I had the leave of the Lord Mayor of London for each of the Meetings I have yet had Their other shadow of Reason is That they think it better to Answer in Print to what is objected against them out of their Books than by Word of Mouth I confess indeed it is the most ready and expedient way for them to hide and cloak their vile Errors and boldly to deny them whenever so justly charg'd with them by their Sophistical Quibling and Evasions and particularly by their boldly asserting the Quotations to be falsely or lamely given when they are ever so truly and fully given which not one of many thousands simply by Reading their pretended Answers and Defences in Print can be able to judge whether the Quotations be true or false perfect or lame because they have not nor can they easily find out the Books out of which the Quotations are taken whereby to compare them and suppose the Books could be found yet few will bestow so much either time or labour to compare them whereas the presenting the Books and the Quotations contain'd in them by Ocular inspection to Persons present saves all that labour and is the surest and readiest way to find out the truth of Matters in point of Truth or Error and whether or not the Quakers are justly charged with those Errors Beside if they think their Answering to the Charges against them by Print be profitable to them had they Truth on their side they would be ready to defend their Principles and Profession both ways that is both by Word of Mouth and also by their Pens for still two ways are better than one if both be proper to the same true end which is the Discovery of Truth and Error But notwithstanding of their brags and telling that they have Answered me from time to time in Print yet this is but an empty flourish divers of my chiefest Books against them for the detection of their Errors they have not given the least Reply unto as my Second and Third Narratives my Book call'd The Quakers Arguments against Baptism and the Supper c. Examin'd and Refuted my Larger and Shorter Catechisms my Book call'd The Deism of W. Penn and that call'd The Fallacies of W. P. and his Brethren c. And tho' T. Elwood Printed a pretended Reply to my First Narrative yet the Answer given to it call'd Satan Disrob'd which hath effectually discover'd the falseness and folly of it hath not received an Answer from them to this Day And their usual way of answering Books writ against them is to Quible and Evade in some few particulars and wholly to pass by the most material things urged against them And yet to boast and brag that they have given a sufficient