Reader If thou wondreâ— at the length of our answer to this particular truely the dread of the great God hath been here in upon our soules and we thinke no time or paines too much to vindicate the honour of our dread Lord and his Sonne Jesus Christ remembring that his glory he will not give to any other Position 2. That there is no distinction of Persons in the God-head Except Against our proofe for this Nayler objects That such a Position is not in Sauls Errand to Damascus and sayes we have not any proofe for what we here accuse of Reply 1 That George Fox in Sauls Errand to Damascus pag. 12. being asked Whether there be one individuall God destinguished into Father Sonne and holy Ghost Answered It was but a busie minde so to aske c. so little respect he hath to that saving mystery of the Trinity this that Booke will witnesse And that we had reason to inferre this Position to be a principle of their way will thus appeare 1. If Nayler had taken notice of our Booke he might have considered these words immediately following With other assertions of the same kinde knowne to some of us Now had he considered this he might have seen that we did not gather that this denying of the Persons c. was their Principle onely from what Fox layes downe in Sauls Errand to Damascus pag. 12. but from that of Fox together with other assertions of the same kinde knowne to some of us We know it to be ther Principle by comparing that expression of Fox with what our selves did know from others of them those truths compared were our proofe of that assertion as the Reader will presently fully see 2. Had we had no other ground but that expression of Foxes when he sayes It s a busie minde to enquire c. this had been enough For certainely if Fox thinke it to be a busie minde to enquire it its cleare he doth not beleeve it himselfe as he would not have it to be a matter of any others Faith 3. But thirdly Doth he say we have not any proofe for what we here accuse of Let both him and all men know that we have not charged that assertion on them without sufficient evidence Tomlinson an eminent man in that way in his Book called A Word of Reproofe to the Priests pag. 4. line 20. boldly affirmes the spirit to be no other but Christ himselfe in flesh Is not this to deny the Trinity and take away the distinction of Persons in the God-head 2. One of us doth know this was the Principle of Mr. Taylour Coll. Benson c. and so it was not asserted without reason and their owne spirits and consciences will beare me witnesse W.C. 3. A godly Minister in Westmoreland wrote to us that one of his charge being perverted to become a Quaker affirmed that there was one God bâ—t no such thing as a distinction of Persons in the God-head and spoke many words passionately against it And now whether there is not just cause to charge them with maintaining this blasphemy will be fully manifest and how unâ—ighteously Nayler hath so reviled us upon this account But we leave him to the Lord to rebuke Position 3. That the soule is a part of the Divine Essence Excep To that we layd downe as to the proofe and confutation of this Nayler onely replyes What the soule is you know not who live in the fall and are vaine contenders and pleaders for sinne and so goes on grossely rayling Reply For the proofe the e set downe let the Reader observe that he doth not in the least deny it though it be a blasphemous Principle W. C. And one of us doth still affirme that he was an eare witnesse of it Secondly Here we might very well expect that sith he could not deny our proofe he shâ—uld answer to our confutation of that blasphemy Against which we have given six reasons but instead thereof he falls a rayling as if a Rabshakehs spirit were divine Rhetoricke And what sayes he He sayes We know not what a soule is and that we pleade for sinne c. and seeke gaine from our quarâ—ers c. This is hâ—s answer to our arguments We shall not trouble the Read â— with answering their scandals and revilingâ— bâ—t sâ—â— the eâ—ample of Christ before our eyes 1 Pet 2.23 who whâ—n he was reviled reviled not againe Position 4. That Christ is in every man and in the reprobates he is held under corruption Excep 1 To this Nayler answers thus When will you cease to adde your lyes to slander withall Reply We admire how the man can have so much impudence to charge lyes upon us When as first within six lines Nayler himselfe confesseth that he said That if an Indian were there he should witnesse against him viz. W. C. for affirming that Christ did not dwell in the Indians that never heard the Gospel For the said W. C. did he not thinke the conscience of Iames Nayler feared durst appeale to himselfe whether that discourse was not about every mans having a light within them and that light to be Christ so that he cannot but remember that he affirmed Christ to be a light within the very Indians Secondly Nay further lines 16. 17. Nayler most ignorantly reasons that Christ is in the most vile in the World else he cannot judge them Certainely had the man any sparke of conscience or ingenuity left he durst not in the same page and with the same breath deny and affirme the same Doctrine Excep 2 But oh thou full of all subtilty Did I say that Christ in the reprobates is held under corruption let all that were there be witnesse against thee Reply 1. In our proofe there is no such thing layd to Naylers charge For that Position of theirs as we layd it consisteth of two parts and Nayler might clearely have seen that he is brought onely as a proofe to the first part of it viz. That Christ is in every man for all he is charged with is that he extended the in-dwellings of Christ to Indians and therefore it shares but of the fulnesse of his gall thus to poure it out without cause The proofe of the second part viz. that Christ in the reprobates is held under corruption we layd downe in our second proofe in a Letter of Iohn Audlands to Edward Briggs which Letter Nayler doth not deny For having told him he was damned yet he also tells him that he crucifieth Christ within him c. What is this but to affirme Christ under corruption But to make this further cleare this Nayler himselfe in Edward Briggs his house used this expression Father rayse up thy owne Sonne from under bondage as we have it from his testimony under his hand in a certificate dated Ian 14. 1653. And to put it yet out of all possibility of denyall that the jugling of these men may further yet appeare in denying their owne Principles We
mayst observe he answers nothing and thereby see the spirit of those men that doe stop their eyes against the plainest light but he that hardeneth his heart shall not prosper Position 13. That the Scriptures are not the Word of God but a Declaration of the conditions of them that spoke them forth He answers nothing according to his custome to our arguments nor excepts against our proofes but labours to confirme the Position Excep 1 Christ is the Word now if the Scriptures be the Word then there is two Words of God now prove that in Scripture or that the Letter is â—aked the Word in plaine words Reply 1. That Christ is the Word is plaine Iohn 1. and who knoweth it not The essentiall and declarative Word not all one 2. That the will of God contained in the Scripture is the Word of God is as plaine besides the Scriptures we named â—n the Perfect Pharisee pag. 24. Marke 7.13 Luke 11 28. Rom. 10.17 Iohn 12.48 we shall adde these Luke 8.11 the Seed is the Word of God ver 12. then commeth the Devill and taketh the word out of their heart least they should beleeve and be saved can the Devill take Christ out of their hearts 1 Thes 2.13 When yee receaved the Word of God which you heard of us yee received it not as the Word of Men but as it is in truth the Word of God c. This was the Word which the Apostles spake yea received it which cannot be meâ—nt of Christ he should have said yee received him not as the word of men but as it is in truth the word of God This is so plaine a case we shall not trouble thee further And here thâ—u mayst observe there are two words of God the essentiall and 〈◊〉 declarative and wonder the man should be so weake as to bid 〈◊〉 produce Scripture to prove this when the Scripture is so full of it to any that doth but reade it Excep 2 The Apostle calls what he wrote a Declaration 1 â—ohn 1.2.3 Reply How doth this prove the Scriptures are noâ— the word of God nay doth it not fully prove the contrary for that which he declares was what he had heard of the Lord Iesus Scriptures not onely a declaration of the conditions of Saints Againe we doe owne the Scriptures to be the declarative Word of God or a declaration of the minde of God but we say the Quakers doe destroy the Scriptures Divinity and authority when they call them onely a declaration of the conditions of them that spoke them forth For as we prâ—ved before 1 They shall be then no foundation for the Faith of Saints for one mans condition is not the foundation of another mans Faith 2. The Scripture shall have no authority over the soule of any but he that is in the same condition and hath experienced it contrary to Iohn 2.4 8. this is the reason why Nayler sayes they are not commanded to forbear to weare shâ—oes in his Book p. 21. if they were they should as well as they are commanded not to sâ—lute whereas that command if it be in any part binding Luke 10.4 requires both but this will tell thee what is meant by their calling Scripture a speaking forth of the Saints condition viz. it shall have no authority over them further then they list or have an impulse on their spirits or they practice for both the commands are of equall authâ—rity yet he denyes they are commanded one of them nay they are both in the same verse Luke 10.4 Yea 3. This destroyes the divine authority of all Historicall and Propheticall Scripture which could not be the Saints conditions when thâ—y spoke them as also threatnings and promises c But see this at large Perfect Pharisee pag. 24.25 We sha l say but this 1 Iohn 5.16 There is a sinne unto death I doe not say that you should pray for it was this Iohns condâ—â—ion when he spake it did he exper ence in his heart that he had sinned to death 2 Pet. 2.22 The Dog is returned to his vomit c. was this the condition of Peter that spoke it but we are ashamed of this wickednesse and folly of these men Excep 3 VVhereas you say it cannot be understood to be the word Christ that came to the Prophets Samuel Ieremy c it seems your understanding is not with the Apostle who saith It was the Spirit of Ch i st that was in them 1 Peter 1 11 and you say what Christ and his Apostles Preached c. was not Christ the Father or Spirit when as the Scripture saith Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost 2 Pet. cap. 1 ver 21. Reply The Quakers grossâ— confounding of Christ with the written VVord 1 Consider Reader how grossely he abuseth and perverts the Scripture to prove that the words that they spoke were Christ and the spirit because it is said These holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost What a grosse and blasphemous conâ—ounding is here of the word that those men spoke and the holy Ghost that moved them to speake making the word spoken by a finite creature to be the everlasting spirit the holy Ghost The words were committed to Paper and Inke Rev. 1. Heb. 2.2 engraven in Tables 2 Cor. 3.7 Isay 30 8. write it before them in a Booke note it in a Booke c. can this be Christ or the Spirit of God and yet these are the things which they were moved of the holy Ghost to write Who knoweth not that it was the spirit of God that moved them to write that revealed the things they were to publish to the world but were those things that the holy Ghost moved them to write were those things Christ were those things the spirit What a miserable ignorance or judiciall blindnesse is this which certainely the righteous judgement of God hath given up this Generation of people to because they received not the truth in the love thereof that they might be saved Position 14. That the Spirits are not to be tryed by the Scriptures c. This Position is not denyed by Nayler we proved it from three testimonies and Nayler in his answer addes his owne defence thereof without exception against any of our proofes VVe shall take his arguments for defence thereof in order Excep 1 The infallible spirit which is the originall of all Scriptures is the tryall of all spirits and that spirituall man judgeth all things and by that spirit the Saints was to judge of all spirits and gave those up to Sathan that was for that end as is plaine 1 Cor. 5 4. Reply 1 The spirit not to be set in opposition to Scripture The force of this argument by which he would prove that spirits are not to be tryed by Scripture lyeth thus The infallible spirit is the tryall of all spirits therefore spirits are not to â—e tryed by Scriptures To
which we reply That this is no consequence at all and shall demonstrately prove it from these severall arguments 1. To set the minde and will of the spirit in opposition to the spirit it selfe can be no Gospel argument For the Scriptures are the infallible will of the spirit layd downe as the rule of Saints beleeving judging and walking What a reproach had it been when the spirit of God sent the Prophets to reveale his will or when Jesus Christ sent the Iewes to search the Scriptures what a reproach had it been to the living God for them to have answered We will not be judged not will we judge of spirits or doctrines by that Word or Scripture we will stand to the judgement of the spirit it selfe opposing the spirit it selfe to its owne will How wicked a thing had it been in them and how ridiculous an answer is this in Nayler 2. How is this to undervalue the wisedome of the holy Ghost himselfe Bereans commended for trying spirits by Scriptures Acts 17.11 who judgeth and pronounceth the Bereans more Noble then those of Thessaloniea in that they searched the Scriptures dayly whether those things that were spoken by Paul and Silas were so or no in that they searched the Scriptures the Spirit prizeth them for trying the Doctrines of Paul and Silas by the Scripâ—uâ—es the written Word And how wicked a thing is this in the Quakers to cry downe this trying of spirits and Doctrines of Scriptures which the spirit expressely ownes with such a signall testimony as speaking out in the soule such a spirituall noblenesse 3. It is confessed on all hands that the eternall Spirit is the originall of Scriptures and the tryer of Spirits who ever questioned that But our question is what the Saints are to try the spirits by not whether the spirit can try the Doctrines No. But we affirme that this eternall Spirit hath left the written Word as that which shall be the discovery touchstone and tryall of spirits and Doctrines by authority and divine warrant from himselfe See 2 Pet. 1.21 Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost 2 Tim. 3 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God c. John 5.99 Search the Scriptures Isay 8.20 c. So that our asserting the Scriptuâ—es to be tryall of spirits is but setting up the spirit in his owne authority and throne over the spirits and consciences of men and pleading with men that the spirit may rule in his owne way and that they will try Doctrines by that Scripture which the holy Ghost commands them to try the Doctrines by And he that refuseth that touchstone which the spirit hath layd dâ—wne for tryall doth destroy the authority of the holy Ghos â—et hâ—m speake fantastically of trying by the spirit what he will But this reasoning of Naylers is as if when the Loâ—d Protector should declare what is treason by Law in publique Proclâ—mations a Justice of Peace should when a Person were proved before him guilty of treason according to that Law yet should say he is not to judge what is treason according to that Law but he would appeale from the Law to himselfe for what is treason though the Law had determined it before But in this case to exclude the Scriptures because the holy Ghost is the originall of them is to destroy that plaine truth Subordinate non pugnant things that act in a subordination though about the same thing doe not destroy one anothers usefulnesse or causality Nay the spirits being the Originall of all Scripture this being confessed doth necessarily confesse their divine authority for that trying of spirits for which they were given forth by the inspiration of God 2. As to that expression the spirituall man judgeth all things we have fully spoken before in pag. 79. We know there is a spirit of discerning which Beleevers have of Gospel mysteries but what absurdity is this to inferre therefore spirits are not to be tryed by Scriptures For that light which a spirituall man hath is a Scripture light 1 Cor. 5.4 opened 3. How ignorantly is that 1 Cor. 5.4 produced to prove this assertion when Paul sayes In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when you are gathered together and my spirit to deliver such an one to Sathan c. Paul is not trying of spirits or judging of Doctrines but exhorting the Church to excommunicate the incestuous Person and tells them That his Apostolicall power shall goe along with them in that sentence The verse going before tells you what is the meaning of his spirit where he sayes I as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already as though I were present concerning him that hath done this deed that is I in this Epistle doe send you my mind and my judgement what you ought to doe with this man that hath committed Incest as fully as if I were present with you and so you may goe on at your meeting to excommunicate him having for so doing not onely the authority of the Lord Jesus but also the conseâ—t and iudgement of me his Apostle This is that in those words In the name of the Lord Jesus and my Spirit How doth this man heape up quotations without any understanding of the minde of the spirit in them and with what exceeding ignorance doth he apply such Texts to his absurdities as neither prove them nor speake a tittle concerning them Excep 2 By this spirits were the spirits tryed before the letter was therefore spirits are not to be tryed by Scriptures Reply What a miserable non sequitur is here There was a time when the spirit had not given forth the Written Word therefore when the spirit doth give forth a written Word it is not to be regarded There was a time when the Law was not engraven in Tables of Stone therefore when it was engraven the Israelites must not looke upon it as a rule of life or judgement There was a time when the will of God was not written was not Scripture therefore when Christ bids you search the Scriptures you need not heed them at all But we leave the Reader to laugh at this absurd consequence The Bereans judged by another light then James Nayler doth who though they knew there was a time when Scripture was not written yet they tryed the spirits and doctrines of Paul and Salas by the Scriptures And the Spirit it selfe inspired and moved holy men of God to write the Scriptures to leave them as a tryall and touchstone of spirits though once there was a time when there was no written word But oh how doth God infatuate men when they will not submit to the authority of his Word Excep 3 He falls a rayling exceedingly and sayes We have no guide but the letter because we assert the authority of Scripture and addes how many minds how many formes how many gods doe ye worship and all pretend Scripture If it be possible to
denied truely he could not in so few words have spoken more untruely to prepossesse the Reader but we beg the Reader as to that to suspend his judgement till he have fully read the ensuing Discourse wherein whether any thing have been charged on them that is false and whether Nayler have done faithfully in owning what is truth will appeare at large In the Preface of James Nayler to his answer he tells you The Man of sin and his â—orkings in the last times Revealed That Christ now appearing in his Saints to discover the man of sinne with all his deceits and deceiveable workings now all the powers of darkenesse are gathered against him Gog and Magog As for those deceits and deceiveable workings truely these blasphemous Doctrines of these men with their Diabolicall delusions and quakings will make it appeare where the man of sin is now working To open this we shall stay the Reader a little Agreement betwixt Papists and Quakers 1. It is as claere as the noone day 2 Thes 2. chapter Rev. 12.3 Rev. 13. Rev. 17.4.5.9.10 that the Papall Apostacy and state is The Antichrist so often Prophesied of in Scripture Now it is as plainâ— that the very distinguishing Doctrines and practises of these men are such as are the maine principles of that man of sinne in opposition to Jesus Christ Papist Bell. l. 2. de justif cap. 7. 1. The Papists deny the imputed righteousnesse of Christ for justification and in scorne and derision call it A putative Righteousnesse Quak. These also from the same spirit deny the imputed Righteousnesse of Christ for justification And Nayler himselfe before the whole Court at Appleby discoursing with W. C. about justification by righteousnesse of Christ imputed not onely denyed it but in a sleighting way ended his discourse thereabout with this language That which is without is without So George Fox affirmed That he that is borne of God is justified by Christ alone without imputation Sauls Errand pag. 12. Papist Bell. l. 2. de justif cap. 3. 2. The Papists in their controversies with us doe positively affirme that justification is by inherent Righteousnesse Hence Bellermine Stapleton c. with the rest doe positively affirme that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is onely justum facere per inherentem justitiam that to justifie is onely to make righteous by inherent righteousnesse Quak. So these men doe as confidently affirme that they are onely justified by inherent righteousnesse or that righteousnesse within which Christ within them enableth them to performe See our proofe Perfect Pharisee pag. 10. Papist Bell. de juâ—tif l. 4. c. 11. 12. 13. 14 3. The Papists againe doe confidently conclude that a man may perfectly keep the whole Law Hence their neglect of the righteousnesse of Christ their workes of supererogation and the like Quak So the Quakers their great assertion as a challenge to all is that eâ—ery Saint is perfect that it is pâ—ssible to be perfectly holy and without sinne Perfect obedience to the Law of God is their great Principle which they confidently cry up more then any Papist Bell. l. 3. de verbo Dei c 4. 4. The Papists affirme that the Scriptures or the Written Word of God are not the supreame Iudge of sp rits Quak So these people that the spirits are not to be câ—yed by Scripture So A. P. in the Booke he but forth called Severall Papers p 19. The Woâ—lds touchstone is without them and they try the spirit by the letter c. but the Saints touchstone is within So that though they agree not what shall be yet both of them consent in denying the Scripture to be the judge of spirits Papist 5 The Papists call the Scripture aâ—â— ad letter a nose of wax a scâ—bbard without a sword Coâ—erus in Euchir pag. 44 Pighius lib. 1. cap. 4. So Melchior Canus sayes It is most certaine the Written Word is onely for Babes and is no way necessary for those that are growâ—e as is more fu l Melchior Canus defens each fid contra confess Worâ—berg cap. 36. Quak. So these men also not onely câ—y downe the necessity of the written word see the perfect Pharisee pag. 20. but also call it a dead letter a carnall letter that they are but a declaration of them that spake it So Melchior Canus againe saith the Gospel is not the Scripture as Farnworth in his Booke Discovery of Faith scoffes at our saying the foure Bookes of Matthew Marke Luke and John are the Gospel pag. 1â— Papist 6. The great argument by which the Papists doe goe about to establish the truth of their way is Immediate revelations and pretended miracles the want of which they upbrayd the Protestant Ministers and charge us to be no Church Quak So the Quakers doe in their pretence to an immediate call and their supposed miracle of quaking So A. P. the Word of the Lord came to me saying So Audland the Word of the Lord came to me but of that more hereafter Papist 7. The Papists doe place much of their holinesse in their Eastings beggerly apparell and forsaking the World as they call it as their lâ—â—ing mewed up in convents and cloysters their wandring up and downe as Hermits and begging Fryers c. Quak. So these men is knowne to place abundance of their holinesse in Fasting beggarly apparell wandring up and downe the World c. we might adde much more but here you may see how the man of sinne in these men in their compliance with the principles and practises of the Romish way breaks out in his deceit and deceiveâ—ble workings 2. He is a stâ—anger in the Booke of God as to the discovery of Antichrist The spirit of errour the spirit of Anti-Christ who doth not observe the spirit of God mightily unvailing Antichrist by the revealing of the spirit of errour in him for 1 Iohn 2.18 there it plainly appeares that horrid errors are of that affinity with the Antichrist that when he would describe that man of sinne in the last time he calls the Heretiques by that very name Now are there many Antichrists whereby we know it is the last time c. Now besides those which we have named the Reader will easily observe such a masse and heape of Arminian Socinian Familisticall errors in their Doctrines layd downe in the Perfect Pharisee that he may câ—earely observe where the spirit of Antichrist works in all deceiveablenesse in this last time 3. Lastly It is the Saints bulwarke against the Papists while they call for our miracles that the spirit of God clearely holds forth that the comming of the man of sinne is after the working of Satan with all power and signes and lying wonders 2 Thes 2.9 So Rev. 16.13 the three uncleane spirits ver 14. are the spirits of Devils working miracles to gather together c. Now this further evidenceth the spirit of the man of sinne
give you a part of a dispute betwixt M. Sanderson a Minister of the Gospel and severall Quakers at Peirce-bridge Decemb. 12. 1653. attested by the subscriptions of ten severall persons part of which concerning the thing in question we have given you word for word Quaker Is not Christ the true light in every man speake Mr. Sand. Where Christ is he rules as a King but in all he doth not so exercise his Government Therefore c. Quaker In some he is kept under corruption and this I witnesse he is subdued in me this I pawne my salvation upon Mr. Sand. Its Blasphemy to say that a finite corruption should keep under an infinite Christ this is to make corruption stronger then Christ Quaker Well if a man obey the light within him he will be happy c. How undenyably doth this convince this man of his faithlesse and perfidious dealings in seeking most unworthily to shuffle off a Principle so fully owned by them Heb. 6.4.6 opened vindicated viz. that Christ in the reprobates is held under corruption yea notwithstanding his so confident denyall of this principle yet Nayler immediately forgets himselfe and falls to proving of it in justification of Audlands Letter from Heb. 6.4 6. that its impossible to renew them againe to repentance sith they crucifie to themselves the Sonne of God afresh and put him to an open shame whence he would prove that Christ Jesus is in the reprobates because they crucifie afresh the Sonne of God 1. Let the Reader obâ—erve it is not said they crucifie the Sonne of God in themselves but to themselves How then doth this Text speake any thing to the upholding of his errour 2. Those the Apostle writes to were Hebrews the Iewes such as were of that people that crucified and put to death the Lord of life Now as it doth not follow that because they crucified him upon the Crosse therefore he was in them so neither doth it follow that Iesus Christ is in reprobates and apostates because they crucifie him afresh unto themselves This is enough to shew that though Apostates doe crucifie the Sonne of God to themselves yet it no way followes that Jesus Christ is in every man and in the reprobates is under bondage And for as much as it is affirmed that those Apostates there spoken of are included under an impossibility of salvation it must necessarily follow that if Nayler will suppose that Christ doth dwell in those then he must affirme that Christ doth dwell in those whose sins are unpardonable that have fin'd a sin against the holy Ghost Excep 3 There are yet these things objected to justifie this Principle Iohn 1.9 this is that true light that lightneth every man that cometh into the world Iohn 1.9 opened For the opening of this Scripture you are to know that Iohn is speaking here of the Eternall Word In the beginning was the Word all things were made by him c. so that his designe is to manifest the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the Creation of the world by him in which Creation he enlightneth every man that comes into the world He was in the world and the world was made by him these being the words immediately following that expression of enlightning every man c. It s cleare as can be that that light is that which was implanted in the soules in the first Creation Now that this light which in the first Creation was implanted in the soule and so is in every man that comes into the world is 1 Neither Christ 2. Nor a Knowledge of Christ as Mediator 3. Nor is a light sufficient to bring to Gospel salvation we shall fully cleare and so discover how miserably this Text is wrested by them Lâ—ght in all mâ—â—â—â—â— not Christ in all men 1. That that light there spoken of which is implanted in the soule in the first Creation is not Christ wiâ—l thus appeare First It s a light Created by Christ in the soule and so cannot be Christ himselfe unlesse they will blasphemously affirme Christ to create himselfe 2 For this light with which he enliâ—â—â—nâ—th the soule most either be by creation or by hypostaticall union viz. by the dwellingâ— of the Divinity of Christ in every man as he was personally in the humane nature when the Word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst as which how horrid a blasphemy were it to assert and how loathsome would it be to any that knowes but the first Principles of the Gospel And here we must againe tell Iames Nayler of his wicked blasphemy in affirming that Christ as Man dwells in him which though we proved against him in the Booke he pretends to answer yet he wholly passeth that over in silence without a tittle of exception which we cannot but interpret as his confession that it is his Principle Light in all gives yet no knowledge of a Meâ—iator 2. That that light which by Christ in the creating of the world is implanted the soule is not a Knowledge of Christ as Mediator we shall thus evidence 1. First This was the light of the first covenant viz. a covenant of workes which did not aâ— all hold forth or make out a Mediator for it was that light which was given forth in the first creation in which Adam stood onely under a covenant of workes neither needed a Mediator before his fall upon which fall the first light of a Mediator broake out in a promise The Seed of the Woman shall breake the Serpents head as in Gen. 3 15â— ver 2. The knowledge of Christ as Mediator the Scripture parely holds forth as a matter of meer Revelation given forth by God in the second covenant and not implanted in the soule in its first creation Mat. 13.11 to you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdme of Heaven but to them it is not given If Christ doe enlighten every man in the Knowledge of himselfe as a Mediator how then comes this Scripture to speake so distinguishingly to you it is given to them it is not given which exception of Christ doth clearely deny the quakers universality that it s given to all To thiâ— is parallell that of Christ to Peter when by the Fathers peculiar revelation he understood Iesus to be Christ Mat. 16.17 Blessed art thou Simon bar Iona for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee but my Father where he cleares Peters Knowledge of Christ as Mediator not to be from any principle of light crâ—ated or naturall Knowledge but from a peculiar revelation f om the Father and pronounceth him blessed upon the account of that distinguishing discovery How fully doth that place of Paul for ever dash any pretence to a power to know Christ as a Mediator by that naturall light which is in every man that comes into the world 1 Cor. 2.14 the naturall man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishnesse unto him neither can
under a covenant of workes and how much better a state the Saints are in by interest in Christ then the soule of the first Adem was the Reader way finde at large in the Perfect Pharisee pag. 12. 13. to which he hath answered nothing as his manner is but we shall further adde First Adam was under a covenant of living by doing or by obedience to the Law which is plainely a covenant of works who knowes not this In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye Gen 2.17 2. Adam was under such a Covenant as had no Mediator upon his breach of the command there was none by that Covenant to enterpose betwixt him and death which is a distinguishing consideration betwixt the two Covenants made with the first and second Adam 3. And for Naylers reason He was not under the Covenant of Workes because the Law was given after we may laugh at his ignorance Was the Law never knowne before it was written upon Tables of stone Did God make Adam a rationall creature wholly ignorant of his will Doth the ingraving of the Law in Tables of stone inferre that Adam had not the engraving of that Law upon his heart or that he was not under the command or covenant of that Law but that we have proved from those expresse words of covenant in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye We know not whether to thinke the ignorance of this man or his impudence greater in answering nothing to what we have fully layd downe against his Doctrines Position 9. That no man that commits sin or that is not perfectly holy can ever enter into the Kingdome of Heaven unlesse there be a Purgatory Excep 1 Nayler thus excepts There is not a word to that purpose as you have set downe Reply This is strange Doth not he confesse there is this Quaere in it Whether any imperfect one shall enter into the Kingdome of Heaven yea or no and if not then how shall one dying in sinne and where shall he be made perfect and cleane seeing the tree must lye as it falls and whether you owne a Purgatory yea or no this he confesseth to be his words And is there not a word as he chargeth us there to that purpose 〈◊〉 quâ—râ—es 〈◊〉 to aâ—â—â—â—â— us 2. But the Reader must know that what he there in that Booke layes downe by way of quaery must be looked upon as his positive assertions as thou wilt see by the adjoyning quaeries in the same page where challenging those that are so much offended at perfection he puts these quaeries 1. Whether any imperfect one committing sinne be the Imâ—ge of God yea or no where a man may plainely see he meanes such an one is not the Image of God 2. Whether any can witnesse the worke of Redemption compleat in them by Christ while they commit sinne where it is evident he intends the negative So in this quaere to resolve it into a proposition we appeale to his conscience or the judicious Reader that whilest he puts â—his quaere as a challenge to those that deny perfection in this life Whether any imperfect and uncleave one that lives in sinne shall enter into the Kingdome of Heaven yea or no and if not how shall one dying in sinne and where shall he be made perfect and clâ—ane seeing the tree must lye as it falls and whether you owne a Purgatory or no we dare appeale to them we say if it runne not thus by way of assertion That no uncleane or imperfect man can enter into the Kingdome of Heaven unlesse there be a Purgatory to wash away his sins that dyes imperfect And now thou wilt see how unjustly this man rayles with open mouth as if we were the most wicked lyars in the world when the assertion is so evidently his owne and will so appeare to any that hath but halfe an eye of common understanding Excep 2 He tells us They charge me to say that no man that hath sinned can enter into the Kingdome and as though I owned a Purgatory Reply Nâ—yâ—eâ—s shuffling Hath sinned what a miserable shuffle is this and what a pittifull conscience hath this man thy owne eyes Reader will informe thee that we have not such a tittle in our Booke we charge him to say No man that doth commit sinne and is not perfectly holy can enter into the Kingdome but who chargeth him to have said that no man that hath sinned c. For charging him as if he owned a Purgatory it s like the former surely the man was put to a pinch when he falls a doubling and shuffling so apparently We say this must be his argument Either there must be a Purgatory to wash away the sinne of him that dyes imperfect or else he can never enter into the Kingdome of God It seems Nayler knowes no other way but a Purgatory to wash away his sinne that dyes imperfect But we looke upon that clause as the absurdity which Nayler thinks to run us upon if we will pleade that a man may dye imperfect and yet be saved then we must owne a Purgatory And so because he knew no other way to wash away mens sins Quakers Popery but either by perfect holinesse here or by a Purgatory we found him out a medium even the blood of the Lord Iesus which cleanseth the soule otherwise as to its personall actings very guilty from all sinne Excep 3 Against this he objects that Text 1 Iohn 1.7 Doth it say any are cleansed from sinne while they personally act sinne or the quite contrary Reply Naylers jugling vvith Scripture How falsely doth Nayler deale with the Scripture and imitate the Father of lyes when Satan tempted Christ Mat 4 6 to cast himselfe downe from the Temple he takes that of Scripture that would be thought serve his purpose and leaves out the rest as may be seene by comparing it with Psal 91.11.12 Just so deales Nayler with the Scripture and us leaving out from that Scripture that which immediately followes If we say that we have no sinne we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us which would fully have made out the mystery of perfect justification consisting with imperfect sanctification it s spoken of Saints that are actually cleansed by the blood of Christ and yet are told there is no truth in them they make God a lyar if they say we have no sinne That Text beyond exception also Rom. 4.5 To him that worketh not but beleeveth in him that justifieth the ungodly c. he is silent unto according to his custome Position 10. No reall Saint but he that is perfect and perfectly holy in this life and doth not sinne Our severall proofes that this is their Principle are not denyed but we are reviled for manifesting this to be an errour from Scripture though he hath not answered one of the many Scriptures we gave against this Doctrine Excep 1 The first reviling is this
justification by reason of the imputation of the obedience of him who is the Lord our righteousnesse This Reader is their great Idoll and Diana and therefore thou wilt pardon our tediousnesse and clearely see how blinde these men are as to Gospel righteousnesse Position 11. That every man in the world hath a light within him sufficient to guide him to salvation without the help of any outward light or discovery In his answer to this Position he denyes none of our proofs but addes his further profession of the same Principle in these words All the World shall witnesse against you that they have a light that lets them see when they sinne which if they did minde and obey would leade out of sinne unto Christ c. Except The maine part of his answer is by way of rayling all that he speaks to make good this Position is that Christ is the true light and that he enlightneth every man and that where he is there need no outward discovery Reply For the first that Christ is the true light is confessed on all hands but that Iesus Christ is in every man or gives a saving light to every man we utterly deny and we have plentifully proved in our answer to the fourth Position The first Text he proves it by is Iohn 1.9 He is the true light that lightneth every one We have fully opened this Text in our answer to the fourth Position and convincingly shewed it is not meant at all of any Gospel saving light where we desire the Reader to satisfie himselfe at large Io. 8.12 opened For his second Iohn 8.12 I am the light of the World he that followes me shall not walke in darkenesse This proves not that Christ doth give a saving light to the whole world no more then that Text 1 Iohn 2.2 doth prove that the whole world shall have the benefit of Christs propitiation Secondly the words immediately following might satisfie Nayler that he is thus a saving light onely to them that follow him who are Beleevers drawne by the power of the spirit of God Cant. 1.4 No man comes to me except the Father draw me Iohn 6.44.45 Every man that hath heard and learned of the Father commeth to me So that Christ is onely the light of those that have learned of the Father and have been drawne by the Father and follow him Here is a cleare restriction of Christs being a light onely to Beleevers to them that follow him c. Io. 1.4.5 opened The third Scripture Iohn 1.4 5. the light shined in darkenesse and the darkenesse comprehended it not is cleare against him For the Phrase of the light shined in darkenesse imports onely that Jesus Christ was Preached to them Christ came amongst them and Iohn Preached him to them Ver. 29. Behold the Lambe of God c. yet they were in darkenesse for want of light they could not so much as discover him nor receive him so farre were they from knowing Christ or the world from having Christ a light in them all that they could not apprehend him when he was Preached openly to them His fourth Text is Iohn 3.19 this is the condemnation that light is come into the world is as full against Nayler as the former for it speaks this that Jesus Christ is the true light was Preached to the World and discovered to them when he had before been a mistery hid from Ages and Generations Col. 1 28. yet they would not beleeve him but loved to continue in that darkenesse or ignorance of Christ which is in all by nature Now for the third branch of his answer that where this light of Christ is there need no outward discovery We answer 1. We have abundantly proved that Jesus Christ is not in all in out answer to his reply to the fourth Position 2. We have also proved That Iesus Christ neither is in all nor doth he enlighten all by giving every man a knowledge of the Gospel this we have done at large in the same place 3. We have fully proved that all men in the world doe need an outward light or discovery and that it is the way of Christ his making knowne himselfe by outward discovery and Preaching the Gospel in the Perfect Pharisee pag. 18.19 in six arguments to which Nayler answer nothing Necessity of outward reaching further proved All that he brings for it de novo in his answer is onely his bare word without either argument or text so that we need to say no more Yet ex abundanti we shal adde First It was the wisedome of the Father to have the Gospel Preached to every creature and therefore did he send men forth to publish it Marke 16.15 Mat. 28.19.30 2. It pleased the Father to owne Preaching of the Gospel with the conversion of soules Acts 2.41 1 Cor. 1.21 I◠pleased God by the foolishnesse of Preaching to save them that beleeve 3. It pleased the Lord Iesus when he was ascended up to Heaven to give officers for the perfecting of the Saints Ephes 4.11.12 for the edifying of the body of Christ 4. It pleased him also to establish this as an everlasting Ordinance to continue till the end of all things Mat. 28 last Ephes 4 15. He that hath any sense of the wisedome of God and submission to it will not dare to say with Nayler that every man hath a light within him sufficient without the help of any outward discovery or to charge folly in doing all this upon him whose wisedome is admired infinite and acteth nothing needlessely and in vaine But what dare not these men doe who dare lift up themselves in their blasphemous pride to be as pure as God 2 Pet. 1.19 opence vindicated There is one Scripture 2 Peter 1.19 which is not brought by Nayler by way of proofe but is most ignorantly wrested by him to this their Idoll of light within We hinted how little the man had of any knowledge of Scripture by his so blinde and pittifull abusing this Text in that former Booke Perfect Pharisee p. 19. We see he is yet as confident as he was we shall onely say that which is there called the sure Word of Prophesie 2 Peter 1.19 is that word of Prophesie which in old time holy men of God spake c v. 21. and to this he bids them take heed viz. to the Doctrine of the Prophets where Peter doth not send them to the light within them but to the Bookes and Words of the Prophets as Christ sends the Iewes to the same Scriptures Iohn 3.39 Nay the Text is so farre from hinting any light within that the Apostle tells you these words of the Prophets were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a more sure Word then the voyce that came from Heaven ver 17. Thus the man hath still the weakenesse to produce Scripture that fully destroyes his owne Principle We shall adde no more but from these words of Naylers Where this light of Christ is
the nature of quaking owning it where there was any reall appearance of God to the Prophets and shewing a clear difference betwixt these divâ—ne repâ—ures and the Satanicall quakings of these men he answers nothing at all but onely cavils at a word Excep 2 That we say They call their Quaking their great perfection which he sayes is false c. Reply To which we answer We cannot but look upon that as the great perfection in the eyes of these men which they doe so much cry up and so much desire as such a pretious attainement W. C. One of us doth know that Cap Ward and Will. Cartmell did expresse their desires of it and their hopes to come under that condition Henry Houseman said speaking concerning quaking he was not come up to that perfection yet We might adde more but Iohn Gilpin tells you in Quakers Shaken p. 5 that he did earnestly desire that he might fall into quaking and trembling apprehending that he should thereby attaine to the immediate discoveries of God unto him And is not that perfection Why doth Nayler still charge us with slanders Practice 2. Rayling Except He would endeavour from Scripture to lay downe a warrant for his rayling and his reason is because Christ called the Iewes the children of the Devil c. The Apostle cals men dogs wolves c. Reply 1 We charged them with rayling at those persons they had never seen before telling them they were Devils damned they saw the Devil in their faces so that this appeares to be perfect rayling because not knowing the persons or actions of any such men nor any particular sinne by them yet they let fly their dreadfull censures at randome Thus we instanced in our Perfect Pharisee p. 46. in their rayling at Mr. H. T. Merchant of Newcastle calling him a Priest c. and Gorge Fox rayling at Mr. Nichols in Carlile p. 48. telling him he was an hypocrite though he had never seen his face nor knew his name Now how is this bottom'd upon Christs example or the Apostles who gave such expressions to none but such as they had particular knowledge of as to their sinne giving a reason for such titles 2. Those titles were given to wicked Herod and to the teachers of false Doctrines Phil. 3. 2 Pet. 2. and we have fully cleared it we hope to every mans conscience who is not filled with errour and prejudice that we are neither reproachers of Christ or his Doctrine but according to our talent have found mercy of the Lord to be faithfull in carrying on the interest of the Lord Iesus and therefore we cannot but looke upon it as their sinfull practice in powring out such language upon us 3. He that doth but reade the Scriptures shall finde that this is not the ordinary language of Christ and his Apostles it was very seldome and very solemne and he that doth but compare this with the practice of quakers shall see a vast difference for it is their common practice and such words are as familiar as any they use as thou art damned and I see the Devill in thy face nay they are their usuall first salute to all they meet withall Was this the Apostles way take but any of their Books and compare them with any of Pauls Epistles and as thou wilt see a spirit of sweetnesse and meeknesse in his so thou wilt observe such a continuall froathing out of passion and bitternes in these men as will lay them naked to be acted by a spirit vastly different from that of Paul or any of the Apostles of the Lord Iesus 4. But shall the holy zeale of Christ and his Apostles be wrested to be made a patronage to their malitious raylings Doe they not by this means labour to take away the sinfulnesse of that rayling which the Apostle tells you is the fruit of the flesh and of which they that are guilty shall never enter into the Kingdome of God 1 Cor. 6.9 But we referr thee for further information in this to the Perfect Pharisee pag 44. 45. Pract. 3. Their pretending upon all occasions to be sent by sheâ—iall Commission from God 1. Here we having related by severall passages of the quakers pretending to a Commission from God the ridiculousnesse of their Messages and that pretence he plainely tells us he will not justifie them and when he cannot shuffle it off he tell us he can say nothing to it because he knows not the things in particular though the persons Reader thou mayst observe that are there mentioned are of his familiar company and converse and so thou wilt easily think had they been lyes we should have heard from him with open mouth yet the man will needs take the boldnesse to call them lyes though he confesse he knows not the particulars Now Reader judge of Nayler and his conscience 2. He sayes that they who were before the Magistrates were invited to any of our houses is false Oh! the confidence of this man and how boldly dare he rush upon a lye or any thing to make us odious All we say is that some of them that came to Newcastle were invited to come to our houses by some of us If Iames Nayler will aske M. Tayler if he were not invited by W. C. to his house when he was at that time at Newcastle and did not come he will see the debauchednesse of his conscience for W. C. doth beleeve M. Tayler hath so much honesty left as not to deny it Quakers justifie their cursing because such vvords are in Scripture and make the Scripture a vvarrant for cursing As to George Foxes cursing M. Fetherston which we quoted p. 48. Perf. Phar. all that Nayler replyes is that M. Fetherston confessed all that Geo. Fox spoke was Scripture What a ridiculous evasion is this of so great a sin Because there are such words in Scripture therefore he may apply them as he will There are these words in Scripture I am the Lord and change not he sits upon the circle of the Heavens c. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God these expressions because they are in Scripture is it therefore lawfull to give them to any creature Nay dare Geo. Fox challenge them to himself because they are in Scripture Or because such words the Lord smite thee thou painted wall thou hast lyed against the holy Ghost for whom is reserved the blacknesse of darknesse for ever Are these true of G. Fox or may we therefore lawfully apply them to G. Fox because they are such words as are found in Scripture Oh! what a ridiculous evasion is this He may also plead that he and his followers may lawfully swear because the words sweare and oaths are to be found in Scripture and then this generation will perfectly come up to the necessary and experienced fruit of these principles viz. Ranting to a great degree wherof they are already attained in their most impudent obscene and shamelesse
which is the cause of such most wretched blasphemies 1 Cor 6.17 opened This next Scripture is 1 Cor 6.17 He that is joyned unto the Lord is one spirit The designe of the Apostle there being to dehort from Fornication upon the account of that union that is betwixt the Fornicator and the Harlot ver 16 they are one body for two saith he shall be one flesh doth adde a further reason to the Saints he that is joyned to the Lord is one spirit V. 15. Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of an Harlot God forbid Now that this Text doth not hold forth a Beleevers equality with God will thus appeare For first The strength of the Apostles argument in this place is by the membership of a Beleever to Christ to prove the exceeding sinfulnesse of taking a member of Christ and making it a member of an Harlot all the union it holds forth betwixt us and Christ is onely as we are members of the Lord Jesus Now the membership of a Beleever with Christ is nothing to prove his equality with God For first The implantation of a Beleever into Christ being by Faith in his death and Faith it selfe being a finite grace can no way bring the soule into an infâ—nite equality 2. Besides Paul after membership by Faith in Christ yet complained of a body of sinne which utterly disclaimes all equality with God 2. The nature of this union speaks no physicall onenesse for as there is no physicall onenesse betwixt the Fornicator and the Harlot neither are they physically one body though so ca led out of a relative respect so neither is there any such physicall onenesse betwixt Beleevers and Christ And without the soules physicall onenessâ— with God there can be no equality betwixt it and God nay if Christ were not essentially one with the Father neither could he be equall with the Father Having thus seen the full meaning of these Scriptures we beleeve Readâ—râ— thou wilt wonder how the Justices could heare the Scriptures so blaâ—phemously abused and yet be satisfied as Nayler pretends they understanding his affirming his equality with God of the spirit of Christ in him For did they thinke that the spirit did essentially dwell in Fox how then came they to be satisfied when Fox attributes that to himselfe which is the spirits property or how comes he to be the same essentially with the spirit of God or did they conceive the spirit in Fox to be the graces or fruits of the spirit how then could they be satisfied it so in as much as those fruits of the spirit are in their best capacity but a new creature and so in no way equall with God But were they all satisfied How then was it that Mr. Sawry a Member of the late Parliament and as unprepossessed as any of the Justices then present was so fully satisfied that Fox was really and by confession guilty of those blasphemous words that he said he was equall with God that he openly declared against him in the presence of them all and urged the Iustices that Fox was clearely guilty of that blasphemy by his owne confession before them all Now for what he addes concerning Dr. Marshall his Oath That one of the Iustices who was present at Lancaster when Fox spoke these words did openly there witnesse against Marshals false Oath in the hearing of the open Court Let the Reader know W. C. 1. T is true that Iustice did so in the hearing of one of us but did it in such a way with his head hanging downe and a low voyce that spake clearely enough to observant hearers he had more will to accuse him then either confidence or reason 2. That Iustice was Coll. Benson t is true he was at Lancaster and t is as true he was a Quaker long since and before that time and had made it his worke to ride up and downe about that businesse to get Fox discharged from his blasphemy and what such a partiall evidence is to gaine-say the Doctors Oath let the Reader judge 3. Besides the Dr. swore it and so did Mr. Altham but Coll. Benson onely whispered it or said it at the utmost 4. It was fully evidenced after in Lancaster before the whole Country 5. But to discharge our selves and to cleare up the truth beyond all denyall we have here given you the testimony of the said Dr. Marshall and Mr. Altham sent to us and dated at Lancaster Ian. 19. 1653. George Fox said That he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are one and they are equall George Fox being asked Whether he was equall with God answered thus I am equall with God The truth of these two Articles against George Fox we have already witnessed by deposing our Oaths before the Magistrate at severall times and still witnesse though now our testimony be not so necessary as formerly since the observant Reader may discerne what we witnesse more generally held out in their owne Books perticularly in the Booke entituled Sauls Errand to Damascus pag. 8. line 8. See also their answers pag. 5. 6. and 10. Jan. 19. 1653. William Marshall Michaell Altham Excep 2 Thus we have you see fully cleared our first testimony And for the second That Nayler said He was as holy just and good as God against which Nayler thus excepts It is an untruth and was never spoken by me nâ—r ever did it enter into my thoughts but is a lye raysed up by the father of lyes the Devill and vented by his servants to make the truth odious and so goes on denying that ever Will. Baldwinson heard him say so c. We thus answer Reply 1 Surely this man thinkes by his rage to darken the truth of this testimony but that thou mayst againe acquit us and see that Iames Nayler makes no conscience of lyes as we have given thee the testimonies of Dr. Marshall and Mr. Altham for the former so we here give thee a large account of the proofe of this horrible blasphemy under the hand of Will. Baldwinson January 14. 1653. Sir YOu Writ to me to certifie you of some Words that I heard from Iames Nayler and Richard Farnsworth as they call themselves amongst us I my selfe went to George Bateman his house in Underbarrow called the Crag and there was a great deale of people come in to the house and Nayler and Farnsworth sitting beyond a Table upon a Bench and there Nayler speaking and teaching Perfection and to be attaind to in this life and to be without sin this teaching so did trouble me as being contrary to the Word of God that I stood up before the Table and spoke these words Friends doe you hold that a man may attaine to that height of perfection in this life to be as perfect as pure as holy and just as God himselfe And they joyntly replyed Yea and they were so And one in the house spake and said My question was not
to the purpose And I answered and said But it was because I knew no such thing by my selfe And after these words they began to teach that every man had a light within him if hearkened to would teach guide and save him And I replyed againe and said how is it that our Saviour Christ sayes There is no man comes to me except my father which sent me draw him before God and Christ draw where is my light and to this they spoke not one word so I went home from amongst them But the day of the Moneth nor the Moneth I set not downe I not fearing the danger of this Heresie All these words were spoken in the same house in the night time Will. Baldwinson We doe testifie this to be Will. Baldwinsons owne testimony Tho Walker John Myriell John Wallace 2. Here thou hast our innocency vindicated and now what reason hath Nayler to call us the servants of the Devill and venters of lyes when as thou seest his deniall of that testimony is but the backing of his owne blasphemy with a notorious lye which must needs fly in in his face if he have any sparke of conscience left in him 3. This full testimony gives a further discovery of their Positions we formerly layd downe as first Their asserting perfection in this life and to be without sinne As also secondly Not onely Nayler but Farnsworth also affirmed he was as holy just and good as God for so saith Will. Baldwinson they joyntly replyed Yea and they were so Thirdly That every man hath a light within him if harkned to will teach guide and save him Thus we can blesse the Lord that our being forced by Nayler his charging us with lyes to vindicate the truth hath been an occasion to discover the blasphemies of these men more apparantly and convincingly unto all But we wonder how they dare deny these things or why Nayler should stand disputing against these testimonies when their being equall with God is fully layd downe in Foxes owne words in Print See Sauls Errand to Damascus pag. 8. and line 8. He that hath the same spirit that raysed up Iesus Christ is equall with God And againe thus line 11. c As Iesus Christ which is the mystery hath passed before so the same spirit takes upon it the same seed and is the same where it is made manifest Where it is clearely his designe to shew that there is the same hypostaticall union betwixt the spirit and our nature where the spirit dwels as was betwixt the Divine nature and the Humane in the Lord Jesus Excep 3 To our proofe that George Fox affirmed He was the Judge of the World Nayler denieth it not but replyes by justifying that expression And tells us we are grossely ignorant of Christ and rayles at us exceedingly For this he quotes 1. Cor. 6.2.3 Know you not that the Saints shall judge the World Hence he abuseth the Scripture to inferre that George Fox is the Judge of the World Reply 1 Cor. 6.2 opened For the opening of this Scripture know first That the Father hath committed all judgement to the Sonne Iohn 5 22. Acts 17.31 God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the World in righteousnesse by that Man whom he hath ordained whereof he hath given an assurance unto all men in that he hath raysed him from the dead Where you see plainely the Father hath eminently apointed Jesus Christ alone that man to be the Iudge of the World How then comes George Fox to be Iudge of the World for the Scripture doth but hold forth One to be the Iudge of the World even the Lord Iesus whom the Father hath therefore furnished with all necessary qualifications viz. of infinite power infinite knowledge infinite presence things absolutely necessary for the Iudge of the World 1 Cor. 15. â—5 Againe It is one thing to Iudge the world and much another thing to be the Iudge of it there is very much difference betwixt these two but George Fox must be either the judge oâ— none it seems 3. It is not said the Saints doe judge the world that 's proper to the Lord Iesus but t is said they shall judge the world they shall judge Angels the Apostles kept very strictly and closely to the expression of the future clearely holding forth that he means of their judging of the world at the end thereof and the resurrection of the dead according to that of Christ concerning the Apostles in the day of judgement Mat. 19.28 Verily I say unto you that you which have followed me in the regeneration when the Sonne of man shall sit in the throne of his glory ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel We shall not need to speake of the manner of their judging as Iustices at the Bench by subscription or assent to the righteous proceedings of the Lord Iesus at that day And is it not still apparant to be a blasphemy for Fox to say he is the judge of the world And can the abusing of this Scriture help him And what reason hath Nayler to charge us with grosse ignorance and rayle upon us upon this account but we have layd this open enough to any Reader Onely this we shall adde in Sauls Errand to Damascus pag. 6. it is objected against Fox that he professed himselfe to be the Eternall judge of the world not onely the judge but the Eternall judge and this he doth not at all deny but blasphemously goeth about to justifie it This is suitable to that which one of these Quakers lately wrote to an eminent Officer in the Army who told it himselfe to one of us viz. Looke to the light within thee which cannot sinne whereby thou wilâ— judge and determine God-like His next justification of that title is bottom'd upon that 1 Cor. 2.15 1 Cor. 2.15 opened The spirituall man judgeth all things To which we answer that he that is acquainted with the Originall will easily perceive that the word judgeth in the 15. ver is the same with that in the 14. ver which is rendred discerned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that the meaning of the expression is no more but the spirituall man discerneth all things All things viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the spirituall mysteries of the Gospel this is evident that these all things are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Apostle is speaking of the Mysteries of the Gospel ver 7. the wisedome of God in a mystery he is speaking of such things ver 9. which God hath prepared for theâ— that love him and ver 11. the things of God ver 12. the things freely given to us of God ver 13. things spoken of such things as are ver 16. the minde of Christ So that Nayler is wide to seek when he applyes this as he doth the spirituall man t is true doth discerne the mysteries of the Gospel and minde of