« PreviousContinue »
W’s He Goat's Horn, p. 11, 12. and Edward Burreughs, p. 80. but to no Purpose. When he shall give us Directions sufficient to find it by, we may consider it.
Pag. 123. He has also this Question, Why * did it behove Christ to have both the Divine < and the Human Nature in one Person? The greatest Part of his Answer to this, p. 123, and 124. we have little Objection to. But seeing he concludes. it thus, • And he is our Mediator
with God, neither as God only, nor as Man
only, but as both God and Man in one Person.' we think it not amifs to put him in Mind of this Text, Tbere is one God, and one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim. ii. 5.
He acknowledges p. 124. That the Quakers bave professed that they sincerely believe in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Living God, both as be is true God and perfe&t Man. But that Profeffion he would have not to be understood of his outward human Manhood, for, he says,
· They • have elsewhere plainly told us, that they never
owned, nor do own, Christ's Body now in « Heaven, or while it was on Earth, to be ter6 reftial or of the Earth.' And cites Thomas Ellwood's Answer to G. K's first Narrative p. 205. But to shew chat. Thomas Ellwood in that Place doth not plainly tell us any such Matter, we shall transcribe the Passage.
In order to clear George Whitehead of Contradiction, which G. K. had charged him with, T. E. says, “Did G. W. ever call or own Christ's Bo
dy now in Heaven, or while it was on Earth, " to be terrestrial or of the Earth ? If he did nor, • G. K. is clearly gone with his idle Pretence of
• Contradiction. Now I appeal to any rational Man, whether this Query and Supposition of T. Ellwood's, concerning G. W doth at all infer, that they (the Quakers) have plainly told us, that they never own'd, nor do own, Christ's Body nowo in Heaven, or whilst it was on Earth, to be terrestial or of the Earth ? If it do not, our Opponent's Cavil in this Point is altogether groundless, and the Quakers owning Christ as he is perteet Man, may be well understood of his outward human Manhood.
As to our Opponent's Query p. 125.
. Is not Christ inwardly born in Men, which the Scripture calls Christ formed in them, a greater
Mystery than a Christ without, outwardly • born of the Virgin Mary?' I find no Foundation for it in the Place he cites, viz. W. P's Preface to R. B's Collection p. 20. However, our Adversary admits the Text Gal. iv. 19. to be understood of Regeneration, and p. 126. of Men's being renewed after the Image of God and Christ, and denies not that to be a Mystery ; yet he says, it is in no wise to be compared, and far less to be preferred to it (viz. Christ's outward Birth of the Virgin Mary) for which he gives this Reason, because it is what they who had no external Revelation, could have some Apprehensions of, when they placed Religion mainly in the Imitation of God, in Holiness and Goodness.
The Word when in this place is remarkable, and seems to infer, that Men only THEN placed Religion mainly in the Imitation of God, in Holiness and Goodness, when they had no external Revelati
As if external Revelation had alter'd the Nature of Religion, and it were not now to be placed mainly in the Imitation of God, in Holinefs
and Goodness. This is a great Mistake, for the Imitation of God in Holiness and Goodness, is the Sum and Substance of true Religion ; which ’iwas the very End and main purpose of Christ's Coming to bring Men to, and without which all Speculative Knowledge, fuperficial Ceremonies, and outside Performances, will avail nothing. To the Truth of this, the Writings of the New Testainent do most abundantly testifie.
Our Adversary next proposes this question, - Does not the Apostle to the Colossians say, The
Mystery that has been bid from Ages and Genera• tions, but now is made manifest, is Christ in you • the Hope of Glory; that is, Christ born and • formed in them, and working his Works in
them, whereby as they are sanctified, so are
they justified, (and so to speak) formally justi• fied in the Sight of God.' Here he quotes R. B's Apology p. 196, 215. whose Words are,
Pag. 196. Prop. vii. concerning Justification: • As many as resist not this Light, but receive • the same, it becomes in them a holy, pure and
spiritual Birth, bringing forth Holiness, Righ
teousness, Purity, and all those other blessed • Fruits, which are acceptable to God; by s which holy Birth, to wit, Jesus Christ formed s within us, and working his Works in us, as we
are fanctified, so are we justified in the Sight of « God, according to the Apostle's Words, But
ye are washed, but ye are fan&tified, but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the
Spirit of our God. i Cor, vi. 11. Therefore it • is not by our Works wrought in our Will, nor
yet by good Works, considered as of them· selves; but by Christ, who is both the Gift and the Giver, and the Cause producing the
« Effects in us; who as he hath reconciled us, ( while we were Enemies, doth also in his Wif• dom save us, and justify us after this manner, as « faith the fame Apostle elsewhere ; According to • bis Mercy he saved us, by the washing of Regene' ration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Tit.
AND p. 215.
I come then to the second · Thing proposed by me, which is, That it is by
this inward Birth, or Christ formed within, that we are (so to speak) formally justified in the Sight. of God. I suppose I 'have said enough already to demonstrate, how much we ascribe to the • Death and Sufferings of Christ, as that, where" by Satisfaction is made to the Justice of God,
Remission of Sins obtained, and this Grace and "Seed purchased; by and from which this Birth
proceeds. The Thing now to be proved is, That by Christ Jesus formed in us, we are justified,
made just. Let it be marked, I use Justifi*cation in this Sense upon this Occasion.' which Sense he explains a few Lines lower, to be a being really made just, and not a being merely imputed such. Had our opponent mark'd this Sente of the Word Justification, so exprefly insisted upon by R. B. he might have sav'd most of his Remarks on this Question. Since 'tis plain, R. B. ascribes Juftification, viz. the Remission of Sins that are past, only to the Death and Sufferings of Christ, and that he acknowledges the Grace by which Sanctification is wrought to be the Purchase of the fame. Which is as much as our Adversary himself in other Words fays, p. 127. • All the blessed Influences and Operations of his
Spirit within us, working his Works in us, .. are the sole Fruit and Purchase of his outward. • Birth, and Death and Sufferings without us.'
Pag. 128. THE Vicar puts this question, Is • not the Knowledge and Faith of Christ after the • Flesh, or of his outward Birth and Coming in ( the Flesh, and his outward Death and Suffer
ings on the Cross, but as it were the Rudi:ments young Children learn, which after they • become better Scholars, are of less Use to them, * because they have and possess the very Substance • of those first Precepts in their Minds. And so • such as come to know the new Birth, to be in · Christ indeed, to be a new Creature, to have • old Things pass away, and all Things become
new, may safely say with the Apostle, Though
we have known Christ after the Flesh, yet now • henceforth know we bim no more. 2 Cor. v. 16.' This, he says, “is a most unchristian Assertion, • and Thews us the very Heart of Quakerism.' And for his Authority cites R. B's Apol. p. 175, 176.
Our Opponent in this place uses a most unchristian Practice, and shews us the very Heart of Priestcraft,
1. By putting into the Question fome Terms not us’d by R. B.
2. By clipping and mangling his Words, and omitting several Lines explanatory of R. B's Sense.
This will evidently appear, by producing at large, the Paslage referr'd to.
R. B. in his Apol. pag. 174, lays down this Position. That those that have the Gospel, and • Christ outwardly preached unto them, are not saved, but by the working of the Grace and Light in