as faying,

That if there be any other Chrift, but he that was crucified within, he is the falle • Chrift This Chrift that was rifen and crucified within-Devils and Reprobates make a Talk of him without.'

с

THIS Quotation is partial, the Breaks being put in the Place of Words omitted, neceffary for understanding the Author's Meaning; I fhall therefore transcribe the Place, pointed as it ought to be, viz.

Now I fay, if there be any other Chrift, but he that was crucified, within, he is the falfe Christ, and the Scripture holds forth this, and the * Devil never made it, but he and his Meffengers are against it; and he that hath not this Christ, that was risen and crucified, within, is a Reprobate, though Devils and Reprobates may make a Talk of him without.'

THE Paffage is certainly Orthodox, unless our Adverfary will deny the Being of Chrift within; and that G. F's Meaning was not inconfiftent with the Acknowledgment of an outward Chrift, is evident by his own Words in the fame Page, viz. And this is not oppofite to Jesus Christ without, that died at Jerufalem, but the fame.'

Ibid. p. 207. G. Fox difputes against this Pofition, That God hatha Chrift diftinct from all other Things whatsoever; and more particularly he fays, God's Chrift is not diftinct from his Saints."

THE

* These Words are us'd by G. F. in Answer to his Adverfary, who had us'd this Expreffion, It is a Scripture of the Devils making, to apprehend this Christ crucified within.

*

THE Pofition G. F. difputed againft, was this, That God hath a Chrift diftinct from all other Things whatsoever, whether they be Spirits or Bodies.' To which he anfwers, God's Chrift is not diftinct from his Saints, nor his Bodies, for he is within them; nor diftinct from their Spirits, for their Spirits witness him: And God was in Chrift, reconciling the World to himself, who is the Head of every Creature. And there is not any Creature, but its manifeft in his Sight, and he is in the Saints, and they eat his Flesh, and fit with him in Heavenly Places.'

LET the Reader judge, whether any Thing in this Answer is inconfiftent with the Acknowledgment of an outward Chrift; but if our Adverfaries will take the Liberty of thus clipping and curtailing Men's Expreffions, they may unchristian whom they list.

G. Fox is a third Time cited, (ibid. p. 250) as fpeaking thus to his Adverfary, †G. Wade; The Devil was in thee; thou sayft thou art faved by Chrift without thee, and fo haft recorded thy felf to be a Reprobate.'

HERE again the Break breaks in upon G. F's Senfe, whose next Words are, • and ignorant of the Mystery of Chrift within thee; for without that thou doft not know Salvation.'

G. Fox is again quoted (id. p. 254.) as saying, That they that profefs a Chrift without them, • and another Christ within them, here is Two.' The being of Two Chrifts, G. Fox there oppo

*Acts xvii. 28. Chriftopher Wade.

fes,

In G. F's Great Myftery, 'tis

fes, and plainly fhews, that by Chrift without, and Chrift within, he understood but one and the fame Chrift. So that the Vindicator's Perversion of this Place is remarkable, who would reprẻfent G. Fox as afferting the very Point he is there arguing against

.

Pag. 13. W. Penn is cited (in his Addrefs to Proteftants, pag. 119. London 1697.) faying, What is Christ, but Meeknefs, Juftice, Mercy, &c. [i e. a Principle, and not a Perfon] Can we then deny a meek Man to be a Chriftian?'-

W. P's Words fairly cited, are,

• LET us but foberly confider what Chrift is, and we fhall the better know, whether moral Men are to be reckon'd Chriftians. What is • Chrift but Meekness, Justice, Mercy, Patience, Charity, and Virtue in Perfection? Can we then deny a meek Man to be a Chriftian? A just, a merciful, a patient, a charitable, and a vir'tuous Man to be like Chrift?'

WHAT ROOM is here for that Reflection of the Vindicator's [i.e. a Principle, not a Perfon?] Might not W. P. fhew the Refemblance a virtuous Man bears to Chrift, without denying his Appearance in the Flesh? Does the Apostle Paul's faying, I Cor. i. 30. of Christ Jefus, that he is made unto us Wisdom, and Righteoufnefs, and Sanctification, and Redemption, imply, that he efteemed Chrift to be a Principle, not a Perfon? Surely not: Neither do W. P's Words fo imply, but 'tis apparent from the whole Context, that he is so far from difowning the Perfon of Chrift, that he frequently in the fame Section refers for Proof of his Affertions to the Words of Christ spoken by

him when perfonally on Earth, which 'twere abfurd to do, if he had not believed fuch his perfonal Appearance.

W. P. is again quoted (ibid. p. 118.) afferting, That he that believes in God, believes in Chrift.' His Words are, As he that believes in Chrift, believes in God; fo he that believes in God, believes in Chrift.' An Affertion, which he that fhall contradict, muft deny the Divinity of Christ. But wherein such a Testimony to the Divinity of Chrift is inconfiftent with the Belief of his Humanity, the Vindicator has not in the leaft evinced. 'Tis hop'd, he will allow a Man may poffibly believe both.

W. Penn is a third Time cited (in Serious Apol. p. 146.) faying exprefly, That the outward Perfon which fuffered, was properly the Son of God, we utterly deny.'

THIS Quotation is alfo partial, fince the Words both going before and following, are neceflary to the right Understanding of W. P's Meaning; his Adverfary (Jenner) having charg'd the Quakers, with denying that Perfon (the Son of God) that died at Jerufalem, to be our Redeemer, W. P. thus anfwers, Which horrid Imputation has been an• fwer'd more (I believe) than a Thousand Times, by declaring, that he that laid down his Life and fuffered his Body to be crucified by the Jews without the Gates of Jerufalem, is Chrift ⚫ the only Son of the moft High God: But that the outward Perfon which fuffered, was properly the Son of God, we utterly deny, and it is a perfect Contradiction to their own Principles; A Body haft thou prepared me, faid the Son, then the Son was not that Body, though

6

• the

the Body was the Son's: This brings him more under the Charge of making him but a meer Man, than us, who acknowledge him to be One with the Father, and of a Nature Eternal • and Immortal, for he was glorified with the Father before the World was.'

*

So that W. P's Words entirely taken, as is obferv'd by Dr. Philips, plainly manifeft, that by Outward Perfon, he means no more than the Body of Christ that fuffered Death, and therefore uses Outward Perfon and Body as equivalent Terms: Chrift is here acknowledged by W. P. to be the only Son of the most High God; notwithstanding the Outward Perfon is denied to be properly the Son of God. To remove any feeming Difficulty that may arise in any Man's Thought, concerning thefe Expreffions, I fay, Christ is taken here collectively, for the • Entire Saviour of the World, viz. as he is both • God and Man: Outward Perfon is taken abftractly, for Chrift's Body only; for as he was the Divine Logos he was Immortal; as he was the Son of Mary, he was like us in all Things, • Sin excepted.

Ir is to be observed, that our Friend doth not deny, that the Outward Perfon was improperly the Son of God; but only that, properly and ftrictly speaking, it was not the Son of • God, that is the Entire Son of God. If this Rector, fays Dr. Philips, if this Vindicator, fay I, can produce any Text of Scripture to prove the Outward Perfon, or Body that died, was properly the Son of God, he will do fomething

• worth

* Vindiciæ Veritatis, p. 100, 101.