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
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
owned the Person of the Father G. M. p. 247. But thou saith Christ doth not dwell in them personally doth not Christ dwell in his Saints as he is in the Person of the Father the Substance And are not they of his Flesh and of his Bone Again G. Fox G.M. p. 248. owns expresly Christ's Person for first having cited his Opponent's Words It is a false thing to say Christ's Person is in Man in his Answer without finding the least fault with the Term Person he makes Opposition thus VVhich is as much as to say none are of his Flesh or of his Bone nor eat it nor had not his Substance By this it appears that G. F. did not find fault either with the Word Person as belonging to the Father or with Christ's Person but he will not allow them to be two Persons but one Person But if any will say he allowed them to be two Persons then by the Arguments both of G. F. and G. VV. they must be two Gods for if three Persons infer by Argument three Gods by the same Argument two Persons will infer two Gods The above mentioned Words of G. F. in G. M. Doth not Christ dwell in his Saints as he is in the Person of the Father the Substance Jos VVyeth in his Switch recites as quoted out of the Snakâ— Here the Switch finds no fault with G. Fox's owning the Person of the Father which were G. F's own Words but labors to prove that by that spiritual Oneness betwixt Christ and his Followers G.F. did not mean to make the Soul of the same Person and Substance with God which how ineffectual his Labor is in that may be shewn afterwards Note that the Switch doth justifie G. F. his Saying That God the Father did take upon him Humane Nature p. 190. and in Truth 's defence by G. F. p. 85. The Son's Body is called the Father's they are one not two viz. the Son and the Father But here once more on this Head let us take notice of G. VV 's Fallibility and self Contradiction in most evident manner In his Light and Life p. 47. he blames his Opponent VV. B. for these Words following concerning Christ Now as he was God he was Co-creator with the Father and so was before Abraham and had Glory with God before the VVorld was and in this Sense came down from Heaven To this G.VV. replies VVhat Nonsence and unscripture Language is this to tell of God being Co-creator with the Father or that God had Glory with God Doth not this imply two Gods and that God had a Father let the Reader judge Note how he calleth it Nonsence and unscripture Language to say That Christ as God had Glory with God and that he had a Father which is a plain Evidence that G. VV. denied the eternal divine Generation of the Son contrary both to the Nicene and Athanasian Creed and Scripture also But let us see how he excuses himself in his Antidote p. 188. But the Phrase God Co-creator with God I think still implies two Creators and consequently two Gods 'T is not the Particle Co with in this case will excuse the matter for Co or Con is simul together as Co-workers Co-partners which are more distinct Agents than one but the Creator is but one God one VVord one Spirit and so one Creator Note Here we see the Force of G. VV's Argument against Christ the Word being God Co-creator with the Father is that it would infer the Father and the Son to be Co-workers and consequently two Gods This Antidote he writ in the Year 1697. but in the Year 1674. wherein he published his Quakers Plainness in p. 24. he allows the Father and the Son to be Co-workers in the following Words That the Distinction of the Father and the Son is not only nominal as this Opposer implies against us but real in the divine Relation of Father and Son the Son as being the only begotten of the Father and also known as Co-workers in the Order and Degrees of Manifestation and Discovery where it is plain by his late manner of arguing in his Antidote against the Father and the Son being Co-workers that it doth infer two Gods that in his Saying in his Quakers Plainness as above quoted That the Father and the Son are known as Co-workers he has rendred himself guilty by his own Argument of holding the Father and the Son to be two Gods This is not only a Contradiction to himself but a severe Censure on himself that in the Year 1674. he was guilty of Idolatry in holding That the Father and the Son are two Gods Note Reader that the Quakers use to object two things against my charging Contradictions upon G. W. and other their principal Authors First That I have contradicted my self in my former and later Writings To this I have answered What in my later Writings I have retracted of my former Errors is no Contradiction for that 's a Contradiction when a Man holds contradictory Propositions to be both true simul semel without retracting his Errors But what a Man retracts he is no more chargeable with let G. W. and his Brethren retract their Errors and I shall cease to charge them with them or with Contradictions Secondly they object That I may find as many Contradictions in the Scriptures as in their Books Thus we see how they undervalue the Scriptures to be as contradictory as their Authors but I deny there are any real Contradictions in the Scriptures but there are many in the Quakers Authors Again further hear a Quotation out of the Primmer of G. F. junior and S. Crisp p. 24. And they that come to see and know the Son they come to see and know the Father also for the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father as saith the Scriptures and they are called by one Name which is The Word or The Light For the Word is God and Christ is the Word and God is Light and Christ is the Light of the World and the Spirit of Life proceeds from God and Christ who are Light Note Seeing they hold that the Father and the Son are called by one Name which is The Word and that the Father is the Word and the Son is the Word it is evident they make no Distinction betwixt the Father and Son and therefore according to their false Doctrine seeing the Word was made Flesh and the Father is the Word the Father was made Flesh the Father was born of a Virgin the Father suffered Death on the Cross yea the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father which is a plain overturning the great Fundamentals of Christianity yet this Primmer is so highly magnified among the Quakers that almost every Family of them have it to teach it their Children and they call it in the Preface A Fruit of the Plant of Righteousness given forth for the removing the Vse of such Books and Catechisins as
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
departed from his Conscience He answers I take no Attribute of God to my self but what God hath given me by whose Gift I witness that Promise fulfilled in me ye shall discern between the righteous and the wicked between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not Mal. 3. 18. This arrogant assuming of one of God's Attributes of knowing Men's Hearts being objected against him lately in a printed Sheet called An Account from Colchester c. In another late printed Paper signed by seven Quakers at Colchester called Some Account from Colchester they expostulate the Case with them who made the Objection Is it such an Error to believe or witness the fulfilling of this plain Promise Mal. 3. 18. How do you then believe in Christ in whom all the Promises of God are yea and amen Is the contrary good Doctrine for you our Acculers to hold that ye or Christians shall not return nor discern between the righteous and the wicked c. Do you not thereby prove your selves blind and in Vnbelief Note This in Mal. 3. 18. or any other Place of Scripture proves not that any Men shall have one of God 's Attributes given them to know Men's Hearts which is no where promised but Christ hath taught us to know Men by their Works and Fruits and not by his giving them one of God's Attributes whereby to know Men's Hearts for if they had that they should be as God himself to know without regard to the Fruits But that Place Mal. 3. 18. seems to have a plain Reference to the Day of Judgment wherein the Works of all Men however secret shall be made manifest and yet not by Men's having one of God's Attributes given them even then And as to G. VV's Argument for the necessity of this infallible discerning given to Ministers otherwise Christ's Sheep may follow Strangers and be destroyed This Consequence doth not follow for while they follow the Voice of Christ that is his Doctrine outwardly deLivered in the holy Scriptures and inwardly set home and applied to their Hearts by the holy Spirit they are safe and when they follow not that but Men of false Pretences who bring a contrary Doctrine and yet say they have the infallible Spirit as the Followers of G.VV. and his Brethren do they are in great Danger of perishing and though the true Sheep of Christ shall not finally be deceived nor finally perish yet they at times may be deceived and have been deceived by false Teachers and by none more than such false Teachers who falsly pretend to the Spirit of Christ and yet preach contrary to his Doctrine But that the Quakers did not only pretend to extraordinary Inspirations of the Spirit but to miraculous Operations I shall shew you out of G. F's G. M. p. 254. Some of them having asked the Question VVhether your Baptizers cast out Devils and drink any deadly thing and it not hurt you And whether the House where you meet was ever shaken And where he did give the Holy Ghost to you The Opponent calls this an unlearned Question to which G. F. replies This is to shew that you are not Believers nor in the Power that the Apostles was in Note By this it appears they lay claim to the same Power of working Miracles that the Apostles had as to drink any deadly thing and it not to hurt them and that the House where they meet was shaken I have both heard and seen that some of the Quakers Bodies were shaken in their Meetings but I never heard nor saw that the House where they met was shaken Note while I was giving my Proofs out of G. F. and G. W. their Books concerning their high Pretences to an infallible discerning Men's Hearts a Quaker called Samuel Miller as I am informed a Bricklayer stood upon a Bench and for a further Confirmation said with a loud Voice George I had a Vision concerning thee twenty Years ago that though thou didst preach the Gospel to others thou thy self should be a Cast-away This he gave to corroborate G. F's Pretense of his knowing the State of Men's Souls from Eternity to Eternity But if his and their bare Affirmation must be received for Truth without all external Evidence that I am an Apostate a Cast-away what Man howsoever innocent can escape their uncharitable Censure Another Quaker called Thomas Kent stood up and would have preached telling the Auditory He felt a Fire or Flame burn in his Breast he had a Consciencious Concern upon him but the People forbidding him to preach he cried out The Quotations were false but gave not the least Proof I told them he has been disowned by the Quakers and recorded out of the Unity these many Years for his Drunkenness and opposing G. Fox's Orders so after a short time he was silent Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the second Head concerning their Sinless Perfection IT being objected against G. F. that he had said He was as upright as Christ He answers Saul's Errand p. 11. Thâ—se VVords were not so spoken by me but that as he is so are we in this present VVorld that the Saints are made the Righteousness of God that the Saints are one in the Father and the Son that we shall be like him 1 Joh. 3. 2. And that all teaching which is given forth by Christ is to bring the Saints to Perfection even to the measure of the Stature of the Fullness of Christ this the Scripture doth witness and this I witness where Christ dwells must he not speak in his Temple It having been said by one of G. F 's Opponents G. Myst p. 282 They i.e. the Saints cannot be perfect here or hereafter in Equality but only in Quality G. F. answers Christ makes no Distinction in his Words but saith Be ye perfect even as your Heavenly Father is and be ye merciful as he is and as he is so are we and that which is perfect and merciful as he is perfect and merciful is in Equality with the same thing which is of God and from him G. Whitehead in Defence of this Passage in Truth and In. p. 14. saith Now where 's the Blasphemy pray Was it not Christ's own Doctrine Be ye perfect even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect and Luke 16. 36. Be ye therefore merciful as your Father is merciful Now what Distinction doth Christ make in these Words and Precepts as in point of Purity and where 's the Perfection in Quality granted then and wherein must this Perfection consist Note It was not Christ's Doctrine to be perfect in Equality with God's Perfection for that were to command them to be God himself and though Christ expresseth no Distinction yet it is implied and whereas G. W. pleads for the Saint's Equality with God in point of Purity he is still blasphemous the Saint's Perfection in Quality is not an essential Perfection for what Holiness and Purity they now have they formerly had
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
is no Sin and who is in him sins not who put an End to the many things that must end and change Thus we see his and his Brethrens Presumption who plainly declare they were got beyond James and all the Faithful to whom he wrote those Words and he chargeth both James and all the Faithful to whom he wrote all these Words with a horrid Falshood that they were not come to the one thing to wit to Jesus Christ And if none are come to Christ or in Christ but who are perfect with a sinless Perfection as G. W. doth here argue then young Believers and Converts who are travelling towards Perfection are not in Christ nor come to Christ because they have not that sinless Perfection which is both a most false and most comfortless Doctrine and injurious to all young Christian Converts at least and may be thought by young Quaker Converts injurious to them also Note while the Proofs were reading out of the Quakers Books for their sinless Perfection a Quaker supposed to be John Whiting said George if Men are not perfect before Death when are they made perfect It must be either before Death or after Death I answered In the instant of Death and that is neither before Death nor after Death as if one should ask when did Peter and other deceased Saints put off the earthly Tabernacle whether before Death or after Death The Answer is neither before nor after but at the Instant of Death But let us hear yet somewhat more of G. F's great Conceit of his and his Brethrens Perfection even in Equality with God himself Abrief Discovery of the Threefold State of Antichrist G. W's brief Discovery p. 15. printed 1653. he being charged with saying That he was as upright as Christ he answers these Words were not spoken by me but that as he is so are we in this World that the Saints are made the Righteousness of God that the Saints are one in the Father and the Son that we shall be like him and that all teaching which is given forth by Jesus Christ is to bring up the Hearers to Perfection even to the Measure Stature and Fullness of Christ this the Scripture witnesseth and I witness fulfilled in me Note this is more than what is in Saul's Errand above-quoted for there the Words of Scripture are kept to that mention the Measure of the Stature of the Fullness but here it 's far beyond what is written in Scripture that he was come not only to the Measure but to the Stature and Fullness of Christ and what is this but to be equal with Christ and God Saul's Errand p. 13. G. F. He that is perfectly holy is perfectly just where this is revealed there needs no Addition for the Man of God is perfect This will yet more fully appear by the following Quotations In Truth def by G. Fox and R. Hubb page 65. a Query being proposed by the Opponent Who is like to be the Man thou speakest of he that saith he is equal with God and Christ or he that preacheth Christ the Head The Answer is Here in this Question thou openly shewâ—d by self 〈…〉 the Mind the Apostles had for saith he I would the some Mind were in you that was also in Christ Jesus who thought it no Robbery to be equal with God and yet made himself of no Reputation Philip. 2. 5. And here thou hast shewed thy self that thou hast neither the Mind of Christ nor his Apostles but art an Antichrist and an Enemy against them that witness these things which the Apostle said I would that ye were of the same Mind And again the Apostle saith Our Fellowship is with the Father and the Son 1 Joh. 1. 3. Again in his G. Mystery p. 248. he quotes but very lamely and corruptly C. Wade in his Book Quakery Slain He denies the Son of God to be revealed in Man only by Adoption and cries against Equality with the Father Here before I give you G. F's Answer I shall give you C. Wade's Words as they stand in his Book to which he answers C. Wade's Words in his Quakery slain are these p. 23. G. Fox in the 8. pag. of Saul's Errand affirmeth That he that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus Christ is equal with God and the Saints have the same Spirit in Measure for God's Spirit is but one And G. Fox saith in pag. 11. That he is a Saint Thus he would again prove That he a poor wicked Creature is equal with God the Creator and if so then G. Fox is the Creator of G. Fox and the whole World and he intimately claimeth Christ's Equality with God by his perverted citing of Philip. 2. 6 7. Now in Opposition to G. F's affirming He was equal with God C. Wade in his pag 24. saith The Scripture saith that even the Saints themselves are not God's Sons otherwise but by Adoption only by Christ note that you Quakers not as being Christ as you foolishly fancy but by Christ for it 's written Having predestinated us unto the Adoption of Children by Jesus Christ Eph. 1. 5. See this confirmed Gal. 4. 5. Rom. 8. 23. and Creature adopted Sons cannot be equal with their Heavenly uncreated Father who vouchsafeth by free Grace by and in his Son Christ to adopt them to be his Sons in Acceptation only Neither can any Creature adopted Sons be equal with God's only begotten Son the Creator of all adopted Sons and all other things both in Heaven and in Earth also This is the true and full Quotation out of C. Wade his Quakery slain In Opposition to which sound Doctrine of C. Wade G. Fox thus answers G. M. p. 248. Ans And that is contrary to the Apostle who had the Son of God revealed in him and the Assembly of Divines gave forth a Catechism which Children old and young was to learn and said The Holy Ghost and Son was equal in Substance and Power and Glory with the Father What Then all that have the Son and the Holy Ghost hath that which is equal in Power and Glory with the Father In this thou hast not only judged thy self but all the Assembly of Divines at Westminster 1649. Note G. Fox here doth not quote the Page of C. Wade's Book as frequently he doth not throughout his G. Myst give his Opponents Pages of their Books which it seems was in Design that his unfair Quotations might not be so easily found out Now observe whereas G. F. brings C. Wade crying against Equality with the Father we see by the Quotation given what Equality with the Father C. VVade cries against to wit not the Equality of Christ the only begotten of God with the Father for that he expresly affirms by saying That Christ God's only begotten Son is the Creator of all things but the Equality that C. Wade cryed against was the Equality of G. Fox and Creature adopted Sons with the Father and for his so saying G.
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
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
Christ the only begoten Son of God if he be a Creature Or how can God beget a Creature And if the whole Person of Christ was not before the Barthly Adam how was the Creation made by him or how can he be of the Nature of fallen Adam and not Earthly and defiled and is the Flesh of Christ Heavenly or Earthly or is he Christ without his Flesh Agreeable to this He Goarâ— Horn p. 11 12. is the Doctrine of both G. W. and E. B. G. Whitehead doth severely blame John Horne and T. Moor for saying That Christ took upon him their Nature And though they did well distinguish betwixt our Nature as in us it is corrupt by Sin since the Fall and as in Christ not corrupt and filthy yet by no means will he allow this Distinction nor will he allow That it 's one and the same Nature in the Gentiles by which they did the things contained in the Law and by which they broke the Law and he makes the sinful Nature and the pure Nature to be two Natures this agrees with G. F's Doctrine afterwards quoted That the Nature in us that doth the Will of God is Christ the Seed but the Nature in us that sinneth is the Devil the Serpent the Lust so that there is nothing in Mens Bodies but Christ or God and the Devil the Serpent Sin and Lust there is no reasonable created Soul in Men that at one time sinneth and afterwards is cleansed from Sin and obeyeth the Will of God yet still remaining one and the same Nature in Essence and Substance Next let us hear E. Bur. in his Collection p. 301. Thou sayest in that Answer that Christ ascended to the Right Hand of the Father in your Nature Mark now thy Nature and your Nature who are one with thee is sinful and wicked and of the Devil for so are all Liers and it is Blasphemy to say sinful wicked devillish Nature such as John Bunnion's is and his Fellows is at the Right Hand of God in Heaven Oh Horrible Again he saith p. 306. That Christ ascended into Heaven in our Nature viz. in his Nature and they that are one with him and he and they are proved to be in corrupt Nature as they will confess it O what Wickedness is it to hold forth That Christ is at the Right Hand of God in sinful Nature as his Words hold forth from his own Mouth Note His Opponent did not say sinful Nature but our Nature But seeing E. B. makes them both one that it cannot be our Nature that Christ hath in Heaven except it be sinful Nature This is to make Sin to be essential to our Nature which is a most vile and gross Heresie and agrees with that above mentioned of G.F. and G. W. That there are but two Natures in Man's Body the one that is divine and of God's Essence that neither doth nor can sin the other of the Devil that sinneth and can do no good So there is no Soul left in Man that is neither God nor the Devil nor any Part of either by these Mens Doctrine But what doth G. W. and his Brethren then say to W. Penn in his Primitive Christianity where he saith p. 85. That we do we bless God religiously believe and confess to the Glory of God the Father and the Honour of his dear and beloved Son that Jesus Christ took our Nature upon him and was like unto us in all things Sin excepted And p. 87. We say that he then overcame our common Enemy foiled him in the open Field viz. at his Death and in our Nature triumphed over him that had overcome and triumphed over it in our Forefather Adam and his Posterity and that as truly as Christ overcame him in our Nature in his own Person c. But possibly some will say W. P. by our Nature did mean the Quakers Nature which is not sinful but not the Priests Nature which is sinful But first was not the Quakers Nature once sinful as really as the Nature of other Men And doth no Sin cleave to the Nature of any Quaker at this Day But secondly W. P. tells us Our Nature which Christ took was that over which our common Enemy had triumphed in our Forefather Adam and his Posterity Now except the Quakers will say They are none of Adam ' s Posterity they must grant that according to W. P. Christ did take not only the Nature of the Quakers but the Nature of other Men which hath been defiled by Sin both in them and us What shall we now say of the great Unity that the Teachers of the Quakers boast of in Doctrine as well as in Spirit Whereas we see that what W. P. owns as a Part of his and his Brethrens Faith and for which he saith They bless God E. Burrough who was owned as a Prophet among them and was in greater Repute and more deserving then than ever W. P. was or now is E. B. hath past Sentence on it That it is horrible Blasphemy For if Christ took our Nature and triumphed over the common Enemy in our Nature surely he rose from the dead in our Nature and ascended into Heaven in our Nature which E. B. hath judged to be Blasphemy and Wickedness Here I asked John Whiting of which of these two Faiths he was whether that of G. W. and E. B. who said Christ was not in Heaven in our Nature or that of W. P. who said Christ took our Nature and triumphed in our Nature He replied He was of the Faith of both By which Answer he made himself very ridiculous and obnoxious to the general Censure of the Auditory who cried out against him as at several other times many cried out at his and his Brethrens Impertinencies and absurd Answers After the same manner doth W. Penn labour to excuse and cloak his and his Brethrens vile Heresie That he who died at Jerusalem was not properly the Son of God as is set down at the End of Truth and Innocency recommended by G. W. And W. P. thinks he has fairly defended himself Truth and Ion. p. 72. by what he formerly said viz. That he that laid down his Life and suffered his Body to be crucified by the Jews without the Gates of Jerusalem is Christ the only Son of the most High God But to assert the Body which suffered and died was properly the entire Son of God this brings him more under the Charge of making him but a meer Man than us who acknowledge him to be one with the Father and of a Nature eternal and immortal But here are two Fallacies one is He that laid down his Life and suffered his Body to be crucified is Christ the only Son of the most High God But by this HE he means only the Godhead or the Word This is the entire Christ by his Doctrine and this HE suffered his Body to be crucified but how was it his Body Not as any Part of the
Lines immediately going before the Quotation W. Burnet clears the matter That he was not for having People go on Pilgrimage to Jerusalem either for Christ or to Christ W. Burnet in his Capital Principles p. 24. Israel of old he saith were commanded to go up to the literal Temple at Jerusalem to worship but now God's Worshippers may worship him each one in his Respective Place Yea G.W. in his Light and Life takes that to be W. Burnet's Sense That Christ was to be sought and found at such a Distance by Faith and yet he still objects against Christ sought at a Distance without us even by Faith as in Heaven above the Clouds or as he suffered at Jerusalem I ask saith he if the Object or Foundation of the Faith he divided from the Faith From which reasoning it is evident he is against Christ as without us as at a distance either as he suffered at Jerusalem or as he is now in Heaven to be the Object of our Faith And whereas in that called Some Account from Colchester they quote Rom. 10. 6 7 8. and set down the Words at full Length why do they not quote and set down the Words in p. 9 10. That if thou shall confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thine Heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved By all the things that have been objected against G.W. to move him to give some confession of his Faith in the Man Christ as he suffered and rose again without us and is now in Heaven without us in that very created Nature of the Soul and Body of Man he had on Earth as in Union with the eternal Word and that as such he is the great Object of our Faith for Remission of Sin yet he cannot be drawn to it which still shews he remains in his vile Antichristian Doctrine As to his seeming Confession to Christ without in his Supplement to the Switch we shall see ere long in its Place In his Truth and Inn. p. 54. he seeks to excuse W. P's Saying in his Quakerism a new Nick-name p. 6. Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation has been a deadly Poison these later Ages has been infected with G. W's Defence is 'T is making Faith in the History thereof that is in Opposition to his Power and Work in the Soul and to Godly living as is evident in the Place quoted But did I. Faldo W. P's Opponent make Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation in Opposition to his Power and Work in the Soul Nay surely nor did any other of their Opponents teach such Doctrine But this is the common way of G.W. and his Brethren to cloak their own vile Errors they will misrepresent their Opponents Principles It 's sufficiently evident from G. W's Doctrine that he has all along opposed Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation as necessary to Salvation and it will yet further appear Again he excuses W. P's Saying Truth and Inn. p. 55. And since they believe that outward Appearance i.e. of Jesus at Jerusalem they need not preach what is to be main by telling us he means They need not always preach it where it is believed and comesseth all true Quakers own that visible Appearance of Christ Note this is an evidenly apparent Strain W. P's Reason why the Quakers need not preach Christ's outward Appearance as he suffered Death was that it was not to be again which makes it unnecessary to be preached But this Liberty of G.W. and I. Weyeth and others of adding and taking away material Words is so intolerable where the plain Sense will bear no such Addition nor taking away that at this rate nothing so false but shall be made to seem true But why need they not always to preach it Suppose the Quakers believe it do not they preach always the Light within and do not the Quakers generally believe it and divers other Principles they prosess How shall their Children have the Faith of it without preaching Doth the Light within so reach it that they have it without preaching But how do they believe it Only histostically It is no necessary Article of their Faith to be preached or believed to Salvation the Light within is sufficient to Salvation without any thing else The like Fallacy and Sophistry he useth to excuse W. Shewen's Saying Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary but to God the Father all Worship Honour and Glory is to be given But to hide his Fallacy he gives a lame Quotation The Words being Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary nor to Saint nor Angel but to God the Father he saith he knows his Intent was Not to Jesus only as the Son of Abraham But then if the Word Only must be added as explanatory to one Part of the Sentence it must be added to the other Part of the same Sentence and so it will run thus Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David Mary nor to Saint and Angel only but to God the Father all Worship c. Is not this a fair Excuse by which to cover their vile Heresie they will run into Popish Idolatry they are not to give Worship to Saints and Angels only but to God Note G.W. writes this contrary to what he knoweth in his Conscience to be true for he was present at that Meeting in London 1678. where W.S. and others blamed me for praying to Jesus Christ in the Passage above quoted in my Book called The Way cast up c. Beside it was no Part of the Controversie betwixt the Quakers and the Church of England or Dissenters That Christ was to be prayed to only as the Son of Abraham But is G.W. now in good earnest in thus excusing W.S. Is he for giving divine Worship to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary in any respect seeing he hath denied that the true Jesus did consist of a Body of Flesh and Bone or that he hath a created Soul and Body as above quoted But let us once more hear how he excuseth that Passage of W. Penn his Address to Protestants p. 119. Let us but soberly consider what Christ is and we shall the better know whether moral Men are to be reckoned Christians what is Christ but Meekness Justice Mercy Patience Charity and Virtue in Perfection G.W. saith W.P. did not design thereby to lessen the Power or Dignity of Christ who is the Author of these Virtues no more than the Apostles did in saying He Christ is made of God unto us Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption spoken in the Abstract and the Prophet saying God is my Light and my Salvation though God and Christ also be the Author of Redemption and Salvation This is also a sophistical Evasion when Paul said Christ was made of God unto us Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption he meant not the Light within as it is in meer moral Heathens but so W.P. meant 〈◊〉 but Paul did really
Quaker Zealots to this flat Denial of his own and his Brethrens former Doctrine and yet this without any Change in him he is the same infallible G. W. still for he is that incorruptible Seed and Word of Life which begets Forms and brings forth the Soul of Man into his own Nature and Image and so he renews his own Image in Man that believes in his Power and so Christ may be said to be formed in us as in a misterious and elegant way of speaking the Property and Effect being put for the Cause for Christ in himself hath all Power in Heaven an Earth given to him and it hath pleased the Father that all Fullness should dwell in him Again in Judgment fixed p. 322. We deny the Doctrine that the Word GOD is in Bondage or Captivity in the Sons and Daughters of Men but only that there is a Seed of God and of Christ that is opressed and suffers in many by reason of Transgression A Seed of God is commonly our Phrase and Terms in this case And p. 124. These are certain Allusions and Elegancies Note this is expresly contradictory to what he hath frequently printed in his other Books particularly to what is at great length quoted above out of his He-goat◠Horn p. 8. and his Brief Discovery p. 21. where he calls the Seed that suffers within People and that desires to be freed from Sin Christ and the Lamb that was slain that is worthy to receive Power and Wisdom and Riches and Strength and Honour and Glory and Blessing Now if by Christ the Lamb that was slain within the Seed that suffers within and desires to be freed from Sin c. G. W. does not mean Christ really and strictly speaking but will have it to be a misterious and elegant way of speaking the Property and Effect being put for the Cause so that by the Seed Christ in Men according to his Explication in Judgment fixed just now given he meaneth only the created Souls of Men as begotten and born of the immortal Seed then how will this agree with his making the created Soul as begotten and born of the immortal Seed to be the Lamb that was slain who is worthy to receive Power and Riches and Wisdom and Strength and Honour and Glory and Blessing Rev. 5. 12. which is a Doxology of divine Praise and an Act of divine Worship given to that Lamb by Angels and Saints and seeing according to G. W's Explication here given in his Judgment fixed the Seed that is born in them suffers in them slain in them is neither God nor Christ and yet had divine Worship and Honour given thereto by Angels and Saints It follows that according to G. W. divine Adoration is due to regenerated Souls of Men or at least to something in the Souls of regenerated Men that is neither God nor Christ but a meer Creature which is abominable Idolatry and yet justified here by G. W. in his Judgment fixed compared with his He goats Horn. I cannot understand how G. W. can clear himself here unless he should tell us of another elegant way of speaking that is to give to this Allegorical Christ Jesus born within them the Lamb that was slain within them an allegorical divine Adoration and Worship and that it was only this allegorical divine Adoration that the Saints and Angels gave to this Lamb slain within Men Rev. 5. 12. But how nonsensical and idle any such Gloss would be I need not shew and yet I suppose it is the best he can find But again that not only a Seed of God suffers in Men by their Sins but that God and Christ as God suffers in Men by their Sins in plain Contradiction to what he has delivered in his Judgment fixed is evident from his Divinity of Christ p. 55. 5◠where he hath these following Words in Opposition to T. Vincent who had affirmed That Christ as God did not suffer but only as Man VVhereas saith he T. V. had affirmed That Christ as God could not suffer As to his saying That God cannot suffer is in one Sense not true though he intended as to Death yet the Spirit of God hath suffered and hath been grieved by Man's Transgressions And for this he cites Isa 63. 10. Amos 2. 13. Hos 11. 8 9. Psal 95. Gen. 6. 6. Psal 78. 40. Isa 1. 7 13. and Isa 43. 24 25. Note Here the State of the Controversie betwixt G. VV. and T. V. was not about a metaphorical suffering of God but a real which is here affirmed by G. VV. in Contradiction to what he has said in his Judgment fixed as above quoted And because G. VV. in his Judgment fixed p. 322. blames Jeffery Bullock for his dealing unfairly and fallaciously with charging it on the Quakers for preaching and printing That the Seed Spirit Word or God is both in Prison Bondage and Captivity and to be quickned raised c. withal adding That the said J. B. hath not produced any Book of ours or our Friends wherein this Doctrine is printed Surely G. VV. had a very treacherous Memory or writ this against his own Conscience seeing he had writ so expresly himself in his former Books as is above quoted out of his He-goats Horn his Brief Discovery and his Divinity of Christ all which were in print before J. B. gave this Charge against them And as to his Distinction betwixt God or Christ and a Seed of God or Christ that is oppressed and suffers in Men by their Sins as if it were not either God or Christ that thus suffers in Men by their Sins this is contradictory to G. W's own former Doctrine who brought Amos 2. 13. to prove that God suffers in Men by their Sins viz. not metaphorically by that Figure commonly called Anthropopathia but really which was the only State of the Controversie Behold I am pressed under you as a Cart that is full of Sheaves Now seeing this must be understood literally and strictly according to G. W. it must be a very great Suffering that he thinks God suffers in Men by their Sins that may be said to amount to an Oppression which yet he denies is applicable to God in his Judgment fixed And seeing the Seed within that is slain he would have it in his He-goats Horn to be the Lamb that was slain Rev. 5. 12. to whom the Angels gave divine Worship he must needs own that Seed to be Christ and that Christ to be God and consequently not only that God suffers in Men by their Sins but is slain in them or else confess Idolatry to be lawful But that the Seed that is within Men that W. Penn will have to be the promised Seed of the Woman that bruiseth the Head of the Serpent is Christ and God over all blessed for ev̄er more Take his express Words in his Christian Quaker p. 97 98. The Seed of the Promise is an holy and spiritual Principle of Light Life and Power that being
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