Further Discovery of the Quakers, Reply · Position 1
Poſition 1. Their Equality with God.
Excep. 1 TO the firſt Proofe, that George Fox affirmed, He was equall with God. Iames Nayler anſwers, and ſayes, that it is falſe that George Fox did ſay, that George Fox was equall with God.
Reply. Let the Reader take notice, that Nayler in his reply, doth not deny our proofe at all, when we ſay, that George Fox ſaid theſe words, I am equall with God; he doth not except againſt this at all.
2. Naylers further reply plainely doth evidence it alſo; where he confeſſeth that George Fox, when he was asked, Whether he was equall with God, ſaid, I deny George Fox, he is duſt, &c. but I and my Father are one. VVhere he clearely aſſerts his oneneſſe with God, as to equality, (for that was the queſtion the Juſtices put to him.) So that our proofe againſt him ſtands cleare by his owne confeſſion.
Now the ſtrength of Naylers anſwer lyes in this evaſion, which we doubt not but any that have their eyes open, will diſcover to be the ſubtilty of the Serpent, viz. he doth not deny that George Fox ſaid, He was equall with God; but denyes that he ſaid that George Fox was equall with God; where Nayler makes Fox to diſtinguiſh ignorantly, and make a difference betwixt George Fox, and himſelfe, ſo that though George Fox is not equall with God; yet he that is called George Fox is equall with God. Now to this blaſphemous evaſion, we thus anſwer.
1. If George Fox for his blaſphemy, be turned into Hell; what will become of him? that is what will become of that perſon that is called by the name of George Fox?
2. Is not the name alwayes given for the diſtinguiſhing of the perſon; yea, even when they are in a bleſſed ſtate, tranſlated from corruption. Mat. 17.3. there appe…red Moſes and Elias talking with him; they were Moſes and Elias ſtill, though in a ſtate of glory. So that the perſon is underſtood and diſtinguiſhed by the name; and therefore by the name George Fox, muſt be underſtood in our Booke, the perſon diſtinguiſhed by that name; we were never ſo childiſh as to thinke, that a bare name, without its relation to the perſon diſtinguiſhed by …it, any ſhould cry up to an equality with God; we ſpeake of the perſon underſtood by George Fox. Such cobweb anſwers, and childiſh evaſions, may ſatisfie ſuch deluded ſpirits as Nayler; but we cannot but in the feare of the Lord cry out, Oh! the plotted blaſphemy of theſe men.
3. Did ever any of the Saints of God in the old or new Teſtament diſtinguiſh in this way? Did not Paul ſay, Paul a ſervant of Ieſus Chriſt, not ſaying, I deny Paul, Paul is duſt, and muſt to duſt, but I am a ſervant of Jeſus Chriſt? what unſcripturall and ridiculous language is this?
4. Hence you may ſee, it was not without reaſon, that we were jealous of a myſtery of iniquity lying under theſe diſtinctions, betwixt George Fox, and himſelfe; and in theſe words, one whom the World calls James Nayler; and in Francis Howgill his paper, called A woe to Kendall, one whom the World calls, F. H.
5. The very evaſion that Nayler uſeth, is a very great demonſtration to us, that George Fox aſſerted he was equall with God. For Nayler confeſſeth he was preſent when George Fox was asked whether he ſpoke this of George Fox as he was a creature. Now here is a cleare confeſſion, that George Fox did ſay, He was equall with God, thats confeſſed he ſpoke this; onelyonly the queſtion was about the ſence of theſe words, and whether he ſpoke them of himſelfe as a creature. What ever the perſon were that asked Fox that queſtion, we would leave this upon his conſcience, what apprehenſions he had of Fox? For by the neceſſary, and infallible rules of reaſon, there is nothing that hath a being, but either a creature, or a Creator; and if Fox have an other conſideration (as that queſtion clearely implyes) beſides that as a creature, it muſt neceſſarily, be as a Creator, and ſo his equality with God is aſſerted. Well, tis confeſſed he ſpoke theſe words. 2. In this anſwer he denies George Fox as a creature; the meaning therof as given in anſwer to that queſtion, muſt be this, that George Fox as a creature denyes to be equall with God; but that he, as under ſome other conſideration is equall with God, he denyes not; nay aſſerts it, when he ſayes, I and my Father are one.
6. We cannot but preſſe it upon the Reader, that in the…e debates, about equality with God, it had been eaſie for Nayl…r or Fox, to have declared their totall inequality with God, and not ſo to have deluded the people in ſuch fond diſtinctions as I am equall with God, and yet George Fox is not equall with God; nay, this debate certainly, was an eminent call to th…m to diſclaime it, if this wretched principle had not filled their hearts; yet in ſtead of our ingenious denying of this blaſphemy, their whole worke is falſely to aſſert it under the cloake of ſubtle and unſcripturall, nay, blaſphemous diſtinctions and evaſions.
Iohn 10.13. opened.Now for the Scriptures he ſo blaſphemouſly abuſeth, they are theſe two. Firſt Iohn 10.30. I and my Father are one; this Scripture, that it is properly and incommunicably ſpoken of Chriſt, God and Man, and cannot be applyed to any meere creature, we ſhall thus make evident. The Perſon there ſpoken of is firſt in the 9. ver. the Doore. I am the Doore, by me if any enter in, he ſhall be ſaved. Is George Fox the doore? 2. That Perſon ſpoken of affirmes, ver 18. that he hath power to lay downe his life of himſelfe, and power to take it up againe. Hath George Fox that power? 3. In ver. 26. He ſaith to the Jewes, Ye cannot beleeve, becauſe ye are not of my Sheep. Dare George Fox ſay ſo? The reaſon why men doe not beleeve, is it becauſe George Fox hath not elected them from Eternity. 4. That Perſon there ſpoken of faith, ver. 27.28. My Sheep heare my voyce and I give unto them eternall life; neither ſhall any man plucke them out of my hands. Is it not blaſphemy for Fox to aſſert theſe things of him elſe? 5. He alſo ſaith, My Father that gave them me, is greater then all, ver. 29. Did the Father give the Elect to George Fox? Now ver. 30. this Perſon of whom theſe things are ſpoken, it is, who is one with the Father. And you may as well aſcribe the other five conſiderations to George Fox, or any meere creature, as this, that he and the Father are one. But oh! the greatneſſe of his ignorance of God, of Chriſt, of Scripture, of himſelfe, 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 onelyonly 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 inf…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 oneneſſ… 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 (Read…r… thou wilt wonder how the Juſtices could heare the Scriptures ſo bla…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 duplicate page duplicate page 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. Tis 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, tis true, he was at Lancaſter, and tis 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 onelyonly 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 n…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 duplicate page duplicate page 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 MonethMonth, nor the MonethMonth 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 onelyonly 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.…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, o… none it ſeems. 3. It is not ſaid, the Saints doe judge the world, (that's proper to the Lord Ieſus) but tis 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. OnelyOnly 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 onelyonly 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 wil… judge and determine Godlike.
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 foreign, ver. 15. foreign, ſo that the meaning of the expreſſion is no more, but the ſpirituall man diſcerneth all things; All things, viz. foreign, the ſpirituall myſteries of the Goſpel: this is evident, that theſe all things are foreign, 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 the… 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 tis true, doth diſcerne the myſteries of the Goſpel and minde of Ieſus Chriſt; theſe things of the Kingdome of God are not knowne to the man, or Princes of this VVorld: but what is this, to prove this? therefore it is lawfull for George Fox to ſay, he is the Iudge of the World. Did ever Paul, or any of the Apoſtles conclude from their ſpirit of diſcerning that they were the …udges of the World? Will a diſcerning of the myſteries of the Goſpel, rayſe up men to ſit in Chriſts Throne, and to judge, and condemne, and pronounce irrevocable ſentence againſt others, (as the practice of ſome of the Quakers is?) That ſpirit of diſcerning is there onelyonly attributed to the ſpirituall man, as to the myſteries of the Goſpel; Will a diſcerning of Goſpel myſteries, prove a power to diſcerne the fi…al ſtate and condition of ſoules, what i… ſhall be to all eternity? Is there not a large ignorance of their owne hearts, even in ſuch as have a large meaſure in Knowledge of Goſpel Doctrines? And is not this the Prerogative of God, to ſearch the hearts? Ier. 17.10. Ioh. 1.25. And is diſcerning & judging all one? 1 Tim. 5.24. Some mens ſins are open before hand; yea, God doth now fully diſcerne and know the ſtates of ſoules; yet the judging of the world ſpeaks more then a bare act of Knowledge and diſcerning. For there is a time, when that God that knoweth the thoughts of mens hearts, yet doth not execute this ſentence of judgement upon their ſoules; Eccleſ. 8.11. Rev. 6.10. How long, O Lord, &c. doſt thou not judge, &c. but God hath the day of his wrath, and of the revelation of his righteous judgement, Rom. 2.5. So that he that ſhall conſider how farre ſhort diſcerning doth fall of this ſort of judging, how farre ſhort diſcerning of Doctrines doth fall of either judging or diſcerning the future and finall ſtate of ſoules; how evidently this Scripture is wreſted to lift up ſinfull creatures into a blaſphemous arrogancy of the very Attributes and Office of Chriſt, will eaſily ſee, how ſinfully Nayler hath done to ſerve the Antichriſtian pride of Fox, who, as God 2 Theſ. 2.4 will needs fit in the Temple of God, and ſhew himſelfe that he is God.
Excep. 4 To our Proofe further, That George Fox was called by one of thoſe Quakers, the Sonne of God. Nayler ſayes, You that are offended that one ſhall witneſſe the Sonne of God, ſhew that you are ignorant of the new birth, &c. 1 Iohn 3.1.2. Behold, &c. that we ſhould be called the Sons of God. Now bluſh for ſh…me that you ſhould be Miniſters of the Letter, and are ignorant …f it. Thus farre he.
Reply. How Chriſt the Sonne of God: how the Saints are Sonnes.That Ieſus Chriſt is onelyonly the Sonne of God eſſentially, and according to Scripture expreſſion emphatically and diſtinguiſhingly called the Sonne of God is very cleare; Mat. 16.16. Simon Peter anſwered and ſaid, thou art Chr…ſt the Sonne of the living God. This is that …amous confeſſion of Peter which Chriſt ſaid, Fl…ſh and blood had not revealed to him, which is in that expreſſ…on rayſed up to ſuch a pitch, that it is impoſſible it ſhould be meant in the o…dinary notion of the Sons of God, as when applyed to regenera…e perſons, as is plaine by theſe two eminent expr…ſſions of fleſh and Blood hath not revealed this unto thee; and upon this confeſſion (not upon Peters perſon) ver. 18. Ʋpon this Rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of Hel… ſhall not prevaile againſt it. Conſonant to this is that, upon the miracle wrought by Chriſt, Mat. 14.33. they in the Ship, worſhipped and ſaid, of a truth thou art the Sonne of God. Can George Fox teſtifie his be…ng the Sonne of God by ſuch a miracle? Nay, Heb. 1.5 you have a challenge for the diſtinguiſh…ng Sonne-ſhip of Ch…iſt; Ʋnto which of the Angels ſaid he at any time, thou art my Sonne, this day have I begotten thee. ver. 8 But unto the Sonne he ſaith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. Here you have his Sonne ſhip vindicated from being communic…b…e even to the very Angels; though in other places called, the Sonnes of God, Iob 1.6. Iob. 38.7. when the Sonnes of God ſhouted for joy. Thus we have proved the eſſentiall Sonne-ſhip of Chr…ſt, and how that expreſſion, the Sonne of God is emphatically and diſtinguiſhingly given to him, ſo as not to be communicable to the beſt of creatures. For the creatures of God, when any of them are called the Sonnes of God, it is upon one of theſe two accounts. 1. Either of Creation, Luke 3.38. Adam i… called, the Sonne of God. 2. Or of Adoption, Gal. 4.5. to redeeme them that were under the Law, that they might receive the adoption of Sonnes. We know what the adoption of Sonne-ſhip of Beleevers is, and doe bleſſe God that this manner of love is given us, that we ſhould be called the Sonnes of God, 1 John 3.1. But firſt, Either hence to appropriate Chriſt his incommunicable title of being by eternall generation the Sonne of God. Or ſecondly, from that adoption, to aſſert an equality with God, we can account no leſſe then blaſphemy. Now let the Reader know, that the reaſon why we produced that expreſſion of George Fox being called the Sonne of God by one of that way, was to prove their conceipts, of an equality with God. Had Nayler confeſſed that his looking upon Fox, &c. as ſon by adoption, doth not carry him up to l…o…e upon them as equall with God, we ſhould n…t ha…e troubled the Reader further as to this particular: but in ſtead of confeſſing, he goes about to prove what the other had aſſerted; ſo that we hav… reaſon ſtill to ſee …hat name of Sonne but made a cl…ake to uſher in Foxes his in ruding into, being diſtingui…hingly and emphatically called the Son…e of God, and being (…cc…ding to his owne wo ds) equall with the Father. But if they will ſti l play with the Phraſe of the Sonne of God; yet the underſtanding Reader will ob…erve, that that expr…ſſion, was but one of the ſix Proofes we gave, that th…y had aſſerted an equality with God, three of which are already evident b…yond ex…eption.
There are two more deep and pertinent pro…fes againſt them as to this▪ One is. That their uſuall expreſſion is th t hey can ſee mens hearts; queſtionleſſe, this is Gods in ommunicable Attribute, Jer. 17.10. I the Lord ſe…rch …he hearts. The other is an expreſſion uſ…d by Nayler, himſelfe to o…e of us to this purpoſe, How God ſhould reve le any thing to him, …l e, viz. Nayler, not know it. As if God knew nothing, but Nayler knew it. Oh the h rribleneſſe of ſuch exp…eſſio… the Reader may wonder with what patience we can wr…te ſuch thin…s. Yet theſe two ſo fully ſpeaking to prove that they aſſert an equality with God, Nayler wholly paſſeth over, though himſe…fe w…s the a…ertor of one of them.
So that it ſtill ſtands fully evident againſt them, that they doe aſſert an eq…ality with God.
Reader, If thou wondre… 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.