The Quakers quibbles in three parts : first set forth in an expostulatory epistle to Will. Pfnn [i.e. Penn] concerning the late meeting held to Barbycan between the Baptists and the Quakers, also the pretended prophet Lod. Muggleton and the Quakers compared : the second part, in reply to a quibbling answer to G. Whiteheads, entituled The Quakers plainness ... : the third part, being a continuation of their quibbles ... / by the same indifferent pen.

SECT. II. In Reply to his second Section, wherein is set forth the QUAKERS QUIBBLES, EQUI∣VOCATIONS, and CONFUSIONS about the [Christ of God,] [his Manhood,] [his Humane-Nature,] [his Person,] [his Body,] [and his Flesh.]

THat we have denied distinctions, is false; For true and reasonable ones we deny not.]

1. Reply. If this mans own words, had not saved me the Labour, I would have pro∣ved it, That they have denyed Distinctions: For if he says true, And reasonable ones they deny not, then certainly he grants, tha•• false and irrational distincti∣ons they do deny, and so would make my words

good: (being laid down indefinitely by me:) and thus this great man hath done two things at once, both made good what I said, and implyed a contradiction to himself, when he says it is false, that they have de∣nyed Distinctions, which if true, then they have owned false or irrational ones, as well as true and reasonable ones; but for further Proof, see G.W's own words, if you will believe him, quoted at the end of this Section▪ And yet I shall put G.VV. to another task as hard as this, by desiring him to as∣sign by what Rule he knows those Distinctions are true, and reasonable which he esteems or calls so.

For that distinction which VV.P. used, I said was absurd (p. 16.) considering and with respect to the Quakers Principles of the Christ; and G.W. lets that alone, being so wise as to say nothing particularly to it, so as to clear it. For if the body was not the Christ nor any essential part of Christ, (as the Quakers own it was not) how could VV.P's distinction imply, as it should do, if it answered the Objection rightly without Quibbling: THAT THE CHRIST WAS SEEN WITH CARNAL EYES.

For if the person which they did see with their Bo∣dily eyes was not the Christ, I do not know how they should see the Light within, (as they call it,) or the Dei∣ty with their bodily eyes, and so still then according to the Quakers Doctrine, the Christ was never seen with Carnal (or Bodily) eyes, and VV.P's Distinction deceitful only and absurd.

G.VV. p. 18. acknowledges, that they have plainly and often confest, That the DIVINE NA∣TURE or Word, cloathed with the MOST HOLY MANHOOD, and as having taken Flesh of the Seed of Abraham, was and is the Christ: Yet, says he, we

must own, that if he was the Son of God, BEFORE he took Flesh, he was Christ. And in p. 19. he grants, he doth not own the Humane Nature is the Christ, for want of Plain Scripture that saith so; and says some do conscientiously scruple it, and pretend it is a de∣viating from Scripture-Language, which they cannot do in their Creed.]

2. Reply. What a pretty medly of Hypocrisie, Quibbling, and Confusion here is, I will now shew you.

For Hypocrisie, how palpable is it, in that they pretend they conscientiously scruple owning in their Creed, THAT THE HUMANE NATURE IS THE CHRIST, because, it is a Deviating from Scripture-Language, and they pretend they find no plain Scripture that says so; when yet at the same time, they tell you, they have often confessed that the DIVINE NATURE, or Word as CLOATHED with the most HOLY MANHOOD— is and was the Christ; and this they do without scruple of Con∣science; And yet there's no plain Scripture that I know of, that says so, yea, and it is a Deviating from Scripture-Language; for where can they shew me this Language in Scripture [CLOATHED WITH THE HOLY MANHOOD,] or such a word there as [MANHOOD,] and until they have done that, I must charge them with HIPOCRISY, and their pretended Scruples to be nothing but pretences and DECEIT.

3. As to their Quibbling, herein it plainly ap∣pears, that to blind the eyes of the simple, they some∣times pretend as in p. 18. to own the Holy Manhood to be Christ. And yet p. 19. Deny the Humane Na∣ture to be Christ. By the first they would seem as if they owned the Humane Nature to be Christ, when-as

indeed they utterly deny it, as you may see by the Latter.

But since they own, the Divine Nature Cloathed with the most Holy Manhood, and as having taken Flesh of the Seed of Abraham, not only was, but is the Christ; and yet say that the Light which is in every Man is the Christ, I considered with my self, whe∣ther this most holy Manhood was in every Man, and the Manhood was the Light in every Man, or a part of that Light? Taking these words in their proper and common signification among us English Men, but so I could not find it consistent with their Doctrine of the LIGHT WITHIN; and therefore would it not ap∣pear a pretty Quibble, if some of them do mean by MANHOOD; not MAN really, and essentially, but only a GARMENT, or a certain quality, as Power, Fortitude, or Valour? So when they confess Christ Cloa∣thed with the most Holy Manhood, they mean Christ was Cloathed with the most Holy Power, Valour &c. or Cloathed with a Garment? Or else, if they deny this, they must confute their other Principle of the Light within every Man being the Christ, or speak as ab∣surdly▪ if they say Christ's Manhood, as he is really and essentially Man, is within every Man.

4. And then I further enquire of the Quakers; Whether the most Holy Manhood be indeed the Christ or a real part of Christ? And whether the Flesh that Christ took of the Seed of Abraham (since AS SUCH, G.VV. sometimes, viz. p. 18. confesses he IS the Christ) be, or can be the Christ, the Light, or a part of that Light, which at other times the Quakers say is in every Man? Or will they say, that Christ's Flesh, which he took of the Seed of Abraham, is in every Man, or is it another Christ? See their con∣fusions and absurdities.

5. And when they say [before Christ took Flesh] let them deal plainly with us, and tell us WHEN Christ FIRST took Flesh, and whether they do not Believe he took Flesh BEFORE he was Conceived and Born of the Virgin Mary? and what plain Scripture they have that saith so?

And if Christ took Flesh BEFORE, whether it was Real Flesh, and what sort, and whether h••s Flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary was the same, or had Christ at the time of his Birth, two different sorts of Flesh, not Figuratively, but Really and Pro∣perly so called? and all this will shew their Confusion, and the Ridiculousness of their Fancies; for by I. Pennington's Question p. 20. it seems the Quakers do hold, that CHRIST's OWN FLESH, BLOOD AND BONES are of an ETERNAL NATURE; And that the FLESH AND BLOOD which Christ took of OUR NATURE was only OUR GAR∣MENT, and so of an EARTHLY PERISHING NATURE. And thus would make Christ's Flesh Blood and Bones to be GOD, for nothing can be of an ETERNAL NATURE, but GOD. Monstrum Horrendum! hear O Heavens! and hearken O Earth! What can be either Confusion or Equivoca∣tion in the World, (not to say worse of i••) if this be not!

6thly. G.W. pag. 19. and in several other places, says, The Quakers must have not only Plain Scripture, but Express Scripture, viz. Scripture that saith so, or else they cannot admit it into their Creed.

So in G.F. and J. Stubb's Epistle before G.W's Book, intituled The Divinity of Christ: Their very first Words are, [Whether do the Scriptures speak

of three Persons in the God-head — in these ex∣press words? Let us see where it is written, Come d•• not Shuffle, for we are resolved that the Scriptures shall buffet you about, and that you shall be whipped abo•••• with the Rule: Give us Plain Scripture for it with∣out adding, or diminishing, or shuffling. We charge you Presbyterians, to give us Printed Scrip∣tures for these following Words, and let us see in wha•• Chapter and verse they are Printed, viz. Concrete, Ab∣stract, Relative, &c. and so in this manner they ar•• giving Names to CHRIST and God, besides the Rul•• of Scripture, &c. And so they run on with it, over and over again.]

But now since they Impose, Command, and Charge others at this Rate, and not only so, but also pre∣tend that they cannot admit of any thing in their Creed, but what they have plain and express Scrip∣ture that saith so. How Reasonable and Just is it to Charge them, and accordingly I do here Charge them, to produce where it is written in Scripture in these express words, [The Divine Nature, or Word Cloathed with the most Holy Manhood, was and is th•• Christ,] which they have admitted into their Creed: Let us see in what Chapter and Verse it is Printed? So p. 24. The distinction of Father and Son, is Real in the Divine Relation, known as Co-workers in the Or∣der and Degrees:] Where's Chap. and Verse for these words?

Come G.W. Come (Quakers) shew me, or any other, the Chapter and Verse, where these words are written, [viz. Manhood, entire Manhood, the most Holy Manhood, Divine Relations, Co-work∣ers in the Order and Degrees?] Or henceforward be ashamed of your silly doings, and such ridiculous

scribbling: I might think W.P. may yet have so much Ingenuity left in him, as that he would be asha∣med of it when I consider his Learning; but that his undertaking to vindicate G.F. for notorious falshoods and nonsence (evident to mens Eyes and Senses and) a∣gainst his own senses and ocular demonstration, makes me much to doubt it; see Contr. ended, p. 39. being sorry to see that so ingenuous a Man, as W.P. once was, should Sacrifice his own Senses, Reason, Honour and Reputation, to keep up the Credit of such a Man as G.F. who hath written in many things so ridiculously (that it's impossible for any Man to vindicate him, without making himself more ridicu∣lous) and by his Tautologies and incoherency a sober Man would take him to be Craz'd: witness his Pro∣fessors Catechism, Testimony of the True Light, and his Primmer for the Scholars and Doctors of Eu∣rope.

And which is yet more, G. I have this to add, That I do not think, Tho••, nor all the Quakers in England, can bring Express Scripture for that which is your First and Grand Principle of all; wh••ch you talk of so much above all, viz. The Light of Christ within every Man, or Christ the Light within e∣very Man] Now to speak in G.F. and J. Stubb's words, I charge you (Qu••kers) Let us see where the Scripture speaks thus, in these ••xpress words; Let us see where it is written, come do not Shuffle, for we are resolved that the Scriptures shall buffet you (Quakers) about, and that you shall be whipped a∣bout with the Rule. Give us plain Scripture for it with∣out shuffling, adding or diminishing: I charge you (QUAKERS) to give us Printed Scriptures for all these foregoing words, and let us see in what Chapter

and Verse they are Printed:] and if they do that, I think I may promise them to turn Quaker presently.

But besides this, their Hypocrisie herein is more gross; For to what end (except to deceive) should they pretend that they cannot own this or that in the•• Creed, if it be not expressed in plain Scripture, whe•• they have so often, and so plainly avowed, That th•• Scripture is not their Rule, either for Faith or Pr••∣ctice? But now for the Protestants to call for plai••-Scripture is but according to their Principle, becaus•• they own it for their Rule.

7. So again, p. 19. G.W. confesses that JESUS CHRIST is MAN: one at first view might think h•• spoke well, so he does, if he did but mean truly wh•••• he speaks; But that you may plainly see he doth not and may see what kind of Man he means, in the sam•• Page he gives you to understand, that it is such •• Man as hath not HUMANE NATURE, and p. 24 such a Man as is not a Person without us: and wh•••• kind of Man think you must or can this be? Is no•• this a fine Quibble Judg you? That this their Equi∣vocation may appear more plain, even to the Capacit•• of the Vulgar, consider, That when the Quaker•• say, that Jesus Christ is Man, They must mea•• either That he is truly and substantially a Man, a created Body and Soul, or that he is an Imaginary and Fictitious one only.

If the first, then they must own he is a distinct Person, & ha••h (as essential to him) Humane Nature, For to be a Man, is to have the Nature of Man, and every sub∣stantial Man is a distinct Person. But this they deny of Christ, & therefore they do not mean he is such a Man. If the other, viz. an Imaginary or Fictitious Man, let them say so if they dare, and consider how Blasphe∣mous

it would be, and what horrible Consequences would follow thereon: And therefore to go round a∣gain (let the Quakers equivocate as much as they will) they must hold that indeed Christ is not Man, or else fall into the BLASPHEMY or Absurdity abovemen∣tioned. In plainness G. is Jesus Christ a Man and not a Person? Seeing thou dost define a Person to be a MAN, &c. In the Introduction of thy Book intituled the Divinity of Christ. What meanest thou by the word MAN? A Created Body and Soul, or some uncreated thing? Now G. use plainness and honesty in this particular if there be any in thee: or whoever he be that undertakes to Answer for thee. Generally all Men in the World, that use the Term Man as properly an English word, understand by it, a PERSON, or a RATIONAL CREATURE di∣stinct from all other Men, one that is in some certain Place, and cannot be in distinct Places at the same time, that hath in respect of his Body, Dimensions of Length Breadth, and Depth, that is visible, one that began to exist at a certain time, one that hath a head and a body so closely united, that when-ever they two are severed, the Man ceases to be; But the Quakers, they seem to mean quite another thing by the term MAN: sometimes one thing, and sometimes another; I be∣lieve themselves know not well what. By the term MAN, Do you not mean one that is not a Person or Ra∣tional Creature, but Flesh, Blood, and Bones of an eternal Nature. (J.P's. Qu. p. 20.) an infinite Soul? One whose Flesh is, and he is in a multitude of Men and Women in distant Countreys at the same instant of time? Myst. p. 68. Christ ascend p. 18. One that is not in Heaven, as a place to live in remote from Men that live on Earth? Spir. of Truth p. 12. Christ

ascen. p. 21. one that is not VISIBLE? Christ ascend. p. 37. one that beg••n not to be, for he was eternal? one that is as far remote from his Body, as Heaven is from Earth, and yet lives? See Quak. Plainness, p. 23. In fine it seems Jesus Christ is a Man whose Glorious Body in Heaven is not a Humane [or Man's] Body, see the same p. 23. and doth not the Quaker use now admirable Plainness in his Confession of Faith in Scrip∣ture-Language? Doth Europe or America afford such Equivocation?

8. G.W. p. 19. says further, That Christ's Bo∣dy of Flesh and Blood, that was born of the VIRGIN-MARY, and that suffered, was Crucifyed, Dye++d, and Rose again the third day, is called the Body of Jesus. But yet G. thou wilt not say, nor own, That that Living Body is Jesus; or that BO∣DY is so much as a part of Jesus. Consider this, serious Reader, here's still the Quakers Quibble, and a clear proof of the Quakers Mystery, whereby their poor un∣wary Hearers are deluded and deceived.

So they will say, the seventh day of the week called Saturday, and the eleventh Month called January, and the Scripture called the word of God, and the Writing or Declaration of Matthew called the Gospel of St. Matthew, and abundance the like.

Which yet they do not one whit the more Believe it for Truth, for saying it is called so; But Believe quite the Contrary, as they believe the Scripture is not the Word of God, though it may be called so: so they can say (by their Equivocation) The Body that was born of the Virgin Mary, is called in Scripture, the Body of Jesus, and yet will not own that Body, either to be a part of Jesus; or do believe it to be that Jesus

which the Scripture calls it. And here I appeal to all sober and understanding People in England to Judg, if ever they heard such Quibbling before (as the Quakers here use) about CHRIST JESUS: and this they are constrained ••o do, To maintain that first Principle they have took up, The Light within; for if they should own that living Body of Flesh and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary and that was Crucified and dyed, to be JESUS and the CHRIST, then they foresee, they should confound, that their Beloved Principle. The Light within every Man. For how can that Man or Body of Flesh Bone, and Blood, that was born of the Virgin Ma∣ry, be in every Man; and also upon this Ground, They deny that Person, that Man that was born of the Virgin Mary to be the Christ; Because they cannot tell how to make tha•• very Person and Man to be in every Man, and in all Persons, and so rather than fore∣go their Principle of the Light within, They will ad∣venture to fashion and form to themselves, a new Jesus and a New Christ, and have hid it and kept it as much as they could in a Mystery, and in Dark say∣ings, as long as they might, till at last being pressed by many Contests and Disputes they have been forced to discover it.

And now, Dear Friends and Country-Men, give me leave to tell you that though I do not remember that I ever positively said, That the Quakers were no Christians, yet I have much and often doubted in my self, and do still, whether they can (according to their Principles) be true Christians: since they do not own nor believe that Man, nor that living Body that was born of the Virgin Mary to be the Jesus and the Christ, and so do not believe, that the Christ inde••d

dyed, and if Christ did not indeed Dy, he did n••t indeed rise again. Nay though they own that the Scriptures call that living Body, Christ and Jesus, yet they give us at the same time to understand, They do not Believe nor own it to be what they themselves say the Scripture calls it, and so set up another Christ, than what the Scripture call's Christ, and declares to us to be the true Christ, and Messiah of the World. And for this Reason, and out of this Godly-Jealousy and Fear, (and not out of Envy and wicked malic•• as they pretend) it is, that I cannot own them, but have thus opposed them: And let all People consider it, weigh it well, and take heed; It is not for no∣thing, or yet a sl••ght matter only, that I set forth their Quibbles; But for their setting up another Christ, or another kind of Christ, than the Scrip∣ture holds forth and calls the Christ, to wit, that Person, Man, or living Body, that was born of the Virgin MARY: and what can be of a higher Nature or more dangerous in the Christian Religion, than for any to set up any other Christ, or any other Person or thing for Christ?

9. What pla••ner words is it possible to invent, that are intelligible to Mankind, than are used about this matter in Scripture, if Men would not be wilfully Blind as to give you an Instance or two, Acts 2.22, 23. Ye Men of Israel 'hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth, A Man, approved of God among you, by Miracles and Wonders and Signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye your selves also know, HIM, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledg of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have Crucified and Slain, v. 36. Let all the House of Israel know assuredly, That God hath made

that same Jesus whom ye have Crucifyed both LORD and Christ observe the Apostle says, that same Jesus, viz. Jesus of Nazareth A Man, God hath made both Lord and Christ, and if that same, then no other: and again, that same Jesus, whom the Men of Israel had taken, and by wicked hands did Crucify and Slay! That same Jesus, (and not any thing else) hath God made both Lord and Christ: Now, it was not the Light within, that the Men of Israel took, and by wicked hands Crucified, Hang'd on a Tree and Slew; But it was that Man, that Person, that Body that was born of the Virgin Mary, Jesus of Nazareth, that the Jews took, and by wick∣ed hands Crucified and Hang'd on a Tree. So it ap∣pears as plain (as any thing in the World can be by words made Plain) that that same Man, that Body, or that Person which was born of the Virgin Mary, Jesus of Nazareth is he which God hath made both LORD and CHRIST and not the Light within eve∣ry Man, nor any other thing.

Luke 24.39. Behold my Hands and my Feet, that it is I my self; handle me and see, For a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones, as ye see me have, and when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. John 20.24, 25. But Thomas one of the twelve called Dydimus was not with them when Jesus came, The other Disciples therefore said unto him, we have seen the Lord: but he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the Print of the Nails, and put my finger into the Print of the Nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. v. 26, 27, 28. And after eight days, again his Disciples were within, and Thomas with them: Then came Jesus, the door being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be

unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side, and be not faithless, but belie∣ving. And Thomas answered, and said unto him, my Lord, and my God, v. 31. But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have Life through his Name. What Jesus? even That Jesus, that same Person that was not within but without Thomas, who had the Print of material nails in his hands, that Thomas put his finger in, is the Christ the Son of God.

Now, G.W. Answer me in plainness once, if thou wilt be so honest, Was this Jesus (that the Apostle says here, we are to believe is the Christ the Son of God,) without Thomas, then when he put his finger in∣to the Print of the Nails? Or was it only Acted with∣in Thomas his Body? And hath the Light within (which thou ownest for thy Jesus) any Print of Ma∣terial Nails or hands, properly so called, of flesh and bone, as this Jesus had which is the true CHRIST? see also Math, 1.1. with verse 16▪ and Heb. 2.14.

10. G.W. p. 20. takes notice of Jer. Ives great Question, as he calls it, Whether Christ's Humane Nature was a part of Christ? But he gives no An∣swer to it, but gives it the go-by, by saying it was not a Question in Scripture-Phrase: But that could be no good Answer from thee, because thou thy self dost, and hast asked many Questions which are not in Scrip∣ture-Phrase: and besides, that can be but a silly pre∣tence no better than a Shuffle from thee, because thou dost not own the Scripture, or Scripture-Phrase to be the Rule of thy Faith: Therefore Quibble no more about it, but Answer it.

11. Then p. 21, 22, 23. G.W. instead of An∣swering

my Epistle, as he pretends in his Title, put•• many new Questions to the Baptists, and prays them to agree upon a consistent Creed amongst themselves, and so slily gives me the go-by, to which I need only say this, That I am of the Opinion, it may be •••• easy for the Baptists to form a Creed wherein they are all agreed, as it is for the Quakers to Form a Creed where∣in they & their writings do all agree: Let the Quakers do this themselves which they require of others.

Further, I dare adventure to say, that let a Baptist or some other Person, give but three Texts of Scrip∣ture to be interpreted, or put but three Questions to six Quakers, all apart, and let them answer apart, and that there shall not three of the six Qua∣kers alike, give the same Answer or Interpretation thereto, either in form or substance, notwithstand∣ing their pretended inspiration and unity.

12. Pag. 23. G.W. says, That though the meer Body of Jesus, was not the ENTIRE Christ, yet the Name Christ is sometimes given to the Body, though not so properly, as to the whole Man Christ.]

Reply. But thou-wilt not own that the meer Body was part of Christ; so far art thou from owning it to be the entire Christ, and though they acknowledg the Scripture calls the Body Christ, yet they are so obstinate in their own conceits, that they will not be∣lieve it is what the Scripture calls it, but thus will be wise above what's written. Oh deceit! you think the Body so far from being the entire Christ, that you will not allow it to be any part of him, but such as a Gar∣ment is that is none at all.

13. Pag. 23, 24. G.W. says, That the Distin∣ction of Father and Son, is not only Nominal, but Real, &c.] How then doth G.F. say, Myst. p.

142. Christ is not distinct from the Father, and that they are all one, p. 99? will G.W. and the Qua∣kers Condemn those sayings and disclaim them? till then they are Quibblers and Equivocators. G.W. p. 24. and also known as Co-workers in the order and degrees of Manifestation and discovery. And yet G.W. himself when he writ against a Baptist, for saying [now as he was God, he was Co-Creator with the Father] Then he condemned it as nonsence, saying, What nonsence and UNSCRIPTURAL-LAN∣GUAGE, is this, to tell of God being Co-CREATOR with the Father, or that God had Glory with God? DOES NOT THIS IMPLY TWO GODS, AND THAT GOD HAD A FATHER? says G.W. The Light and Life, &c. p. 47.] Oh excellent George! what difference between Co-Workers, and Co-Creators? Do ye not most frequently and importunely charge your Socinians with the horrible Crime of denying that Jesus Christ made or created the World? And yet is there any Socinian, nay Jew, or Turk, that will deny that one God (whom we call the Father of Jesus Christ) made the World? And thou sayest it's nonsence to tell of God [or Christ as God] being Co-Creator with the Father: oh dis∣ingenuous Man, that endeavours to get repute to your selves by Reviling others with that very thing whereof your selves are guilty! And the ground of your Reproach is, that you can equivocate, and they cannot.

14. G.W. p. 24. says, That the Distinction of Father and Son is not only nominal but real.

Now then let him if he can answer and confute his sincere-hearted and Zealous Brother W.P. in his Sandy-Foundation, p. 13.

Mr. Pen's Argument is this,

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 Conse∣quently THREE DISTINCT GODS.]

Now G. if this Distinction of thine, does not make them DI∣STINCT SUBSTANCES, thy Brother Penn tells thee they are DISTINCT NOTHINGS. Reconcile this if thou canst, and agree amongst your selves upon a Creed before you go about to Correct others.

15. G.W. p. 24. further says, We own that the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, as also that the SON IS THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, the Prince of Peace. But they do not own any such separation between God and Christ as these words [the Christ of himself and the God of himself] do imply Socinian-like] For this, let his Brother W.P. Socinian-like Answer him, and see what he makes of such Doctrine as G.W. here teaches, and let G.W. refute his Brother Penn's Argument. Sandy Foundation p. 14. he proves the Ridiculousness and irrationality of such an Opi∣nion, by this Argument, viz.

If that the ONLY God is the FATHER, and CHRIST be that ONLY God, then is CHRIST the FATHER: So if that ONE GOD be the SON: and the Spi∣rit that one God, then is the Spirit the SON, and so round, nor is it possible to stop says he.

And this he brings many Arguments to prove to be both an irra∣tional and a Ridiculous Opinion, and yet now is this the very Opinion of G.W. and other Quakers, viz. That Christ, or the Son, is the Father, as you

see G.W's words above do confess. Now let us know which of these two Brethren the Quakers will own to be wrong: For according to these words it is impossible they can be both right: and let us know in Plainness (if there be any such thing now left among the Quakers) whether W.P. will own his own Ar∣gument, or whether thou G.W. wilt disclaim him or it, or thy own word••; For they are as contrary as Yea, and Nay.

16. G.W. p. 24. Confesses, that the Title of Person without us, is un-scriptural, and too low to give to the CHRIST [or the Son], and yet his Brother W.P. in his Sandy Foundation p. 15. could give the Title of Person to Christ or the Son: these are his words, Who (speaking of the SON) so many hundred years since in PERSON testified the Vertue of it. Now then G. thou must say Christ is a Person within us, or else disclaim and disown W.P. for giving such an unscriptual and too low a Title, to Christ the Son; if not, dost thou not dissemble? and did not W.P. speak of a Person without us, as his words [who so many hundred years since testified] do evince plainly enough?

17. The Quakers being charged, that according to their Principle, They cannot and do not Believe that CHRIST INDEED DYED; G.W. does not deny it, but asks the Baptists, If any more of Christ properly dyed than the Body? Do you hold that his Soul Spirit or Divinity dyed? If not, the Charge is foolish and silly.

Reply. No G. the Charge is not foolish nor silly; for as I understand the Baptists hold that the living Body that was born of the Virgin Mary is Christ, and that that dyed, and so believe that Christ indeed dyed: But

you Quakers not Believing so, if you Believe that indeed the Christ dyed, you must Believe his Spirit or his Divinity Dyed, for that only you hold is THE CHRIST, and then are you like Reeve and Muggleton who have Blasphemously said that the Godhead d••••d, and thus is thy Charge turn'd upon thy own head; and thy Quest. proves foolish and silly, For how canst thou ask if any more of Christ than the Body dyed, when thou dost not Believe the Body to be Christ, or any real or essential PART OF CHRIST: Thus whilst you own the Body not to be the Christ, nor a real part of the Christ, you must own that not the Christ nor any real part of Christ dyed; since you agree, only the Body dyed, and the Body of Jesus was not the Christ, say you, nor any essential real part of Christ, that you will own.

18. As to Jer. Ives Answer to their Distinction, it seemed to me pertinent enough to manifest their falla∣cy and folly; and so it doth still for ought G.W. hath told me as yet to the contrary; and I cannot with∣out offering violence to my understanding be so much taken with G's Reply which is on this wise p. 26. It's not improbable, that if we had made such a comparison, you Baptists would have cryed out, oh Blasphemy!

This is an improbable or an improper Reply indeed; It's more probable W.P. could have told G.W. (if he did not know it) that he had learnt in the Schools, that may-bee's, can be answered with may not bee's, and so this might be sufficient for that: But,

1. What if the Baptists would not in such a case, have Cryed out, Oh Blasphemy! where's thy An∣swer then George?

2. Or, what if the Baptists should, and the Qua∣kers should not, in such a Case, Cry out oh Blasphe∣my!

as thou dost not affirm it is Blasphemy; where's thy Answer then George?

3. Or, what if there be no such comparison made as thou pretendest is implyed, (as sure I am there is not) viz the name of Christ, to be no more excel∣lent than the name of George or William? Where's then thy Answer George? And where's now thy oh Ignorance in the Abstract? one may well enough see it in the Concrete, viz. in G.W. when thou settest down thy Reply, thou, immediately says oh Ignorance in the Abstract! now, if thou meanest (as it may be so taken) that the words of thy Reply is such, I shall not trouble my self to say much against it; But if thou speakest it of me or the Baptists, by thy using that word Abstract, thou shewest thy own Ignorance and want of Learning (not well understanding the word Abstract,) which against the next time thou writest for W.P he may inform thee, and teach thee so much Logick; Ignorance in the Abstract Qualitatem notat nulli subjecto inhaerentem, and so not in me; Ask thy Brother P. else: Besides, how thou wilt Answer for this word Abstract before your Prophet G.F. I know not, for in the Epistle before one of thy own Books (Divin. of Christ:) he condemns that word, as well as others, as coming from our old Logical and Philosophical Books, and yet behold here a Qua∣ker uses it, oh what self-contradicting and dissembling Men are they!

And as for the excellency thou now pretendest to own, in the name of Christ, one may see it to be but Hypocrisy used for evasion-sake only, by what your friend John Crook says of the name Christ and Jesus. Principles of Truth p. 12.

[Without this Vertue, [viz. The Arm of God] CHRIST and JESUS are but empty names. We be∣lieve and know, by his Grace in our hearts, that as his name JESUS without Vertue and Power, is but an empty word, &c p. 11. But the name which saves, is the power and arm of God, that brings Salvation from Sin, &c.] Pray how much more excellent does the Quaker here make the name JESƲS, than the name GEORGE or WILLIAM? Are they? Can they be less excellent than empty words? Oh the Hypocrisy of these Men! to say no worse.

19. I said the Quakers Quibbled as much about the word Body as the word Christ, and G.W. in∣stead of denying it, hath confirmed it, p. 29. For though it be Scripture-Language, That the Body is one and hath many Members, and in another place, That the Church of Christ is his Body: yet it will not therefore follow, nor is it according to Scripture-Language, That Christ had NO OTHER Body than his Church, for had he not a Body, that was born of the Virgin MARY? or was the Church viz. all the Saints in the World born of the Virgin M••ry? Or had the Body of Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary (the espoused Wife of Joseph) no other mem∣bers (as Arms, Hands, Legs, &c.) but only the Saints? would not this be rare Divinity! When Thomas put his finger into the Print of the nails in the hands of Jesus, and put his hand into his side, was that then the Church, that Thomas put his hand and finger into? Oh excellent Quakerism!

Pag. 30. G.W. would slily give the go-by, to my discourse about Mr. Keith's distinction, of ma∣king three Christs, by taking no notice upon what I grounded the Objection, viz. Now after this rate, or

by the same manner of Reasoning and Quibbling, may not one say that G.K. makes three Christs in Scrip∣ture, and that with as much Truth as for any of them to affirm Christ would be a Monster, by saying he hath two Bodies? But this he slides by, not Answering a word to it: Is this the Qu••kers plainness? Is it not indeed a Plain shuffle? But come George: come back again, take notice what it is thou hast to Answer, and then Answer it, Shufflle me no Shufflles, nor Quibble me no more such Quibbles: neither doth G. tell me (which I also prayed W.P. honestly and plainly to do) whether G.K. meant,

• That these three were three Christs, in three di∣stinct Persons?
• Or that these three [and not any thing less than these three] were one Christ, in one distinct Person?
• Or whether these three are no Christ at all, in no distinct Person.

Let G.W. Remember his own words in his Intro∣duction to his Divinity of Christ [We judg that such ex∣pressions and words as the Holy Ghost taught the true Apostles and holy men mentioned in Scripture, are most meet to speak of God and Christ, and not the words of man's wisdom, or humane Inventions, and devi∣sed Distinctions since the Apostles days] — nor in Philosophical terms and nice School-Distinctions deri∣ved from heathenish Metaphisicks,] and now tell me G. whether this of thy Brother Keiths, is not a de∣vised Distinction since the Apostles? And whether G. thou hast not condemned thy Brother K's Distin∣ction? Where is there such an expression in the Scripture, as Proper, least Proper, &c. are not these Philosophical Terms?

Notes

• G.W. p. 18.