Further Discovery of the Quakers, Reply · Position 5
Poſition 5. That Chriſt in the Fleſh, with all he did and ſuffered therein, was but a Figure, and nothing but an Example.
Excep. 1 O deceitfull ſpirits, &c. are thoſe words expreſſely found in Sauls Errand to Damaſcus, as you ſay they are, let that Booke be witneſſe againſt you, and your lying ſlanders to all that reade it.
Reply. Surely this man pretends neither to conſcience, nor modeſty, that doth challenge us here for a lye for ſaying, that Doctrine was expreſſely found in Sauls Errand. He that ſhal… but looke upon that Booke, pag. 2. pag 8. pag. 14. ſhall begin to know the impudence of Iames Nayler, pag. 2. 9. line laſt, in the ſchedule annaxed to the Lancaſhire Petition to the Councell of State, you have this charge, Richard Hubbethorn wrote, that Chriſts comming in the Fleſh, was but a Figure. Now, are we lyars in affirming thoſe words are expreſſely found there? Nay, further, in pag. 8. where Hubbethorne anſwers to that charge, we will give you his owne words, Chriſt in his people is the ſubſtance of all figures, types and ſhadowes, fulfilling them in them; but as he is held forth in the Scripture-letter without them, and in the fleſh without them, he is their example or figure, which is both one, that the ſame things might be fulfilled in them, that was in Chriſt Ieſus. Could a man have ſpoken more plainely to affirme what we aſſerted of him? And doe we adde our owne imaginations to make them odious; when we ſay, according to their principle, thoſe things that are held forth of Chriſt without us (as Hubbethorn ſayes) muſt be acted over againe within us; and ſo Chriſt muſt be borne of the Virgin in us, and Iudas, and Herod, and Pilate muſt be in us to betray and crucifie him. Is not this the plaine aſſertion of Hubbethorn? the ſame thi…gs muſt be fulfilled in us that was in Chriſt Ieſus, as he was held forth in the Scripture-letter, and in the fleſh without us. And this we alſo proved by an aſſertion of George Bateman. pag. 29. to which Nayler anſwers nothing.
But further, it ſhall yet appeare, that its cleare in Sauls Errand to Dam…ſcus, pag. 14. where George Fox expreſſ…y ſayes, Chriſt his fleſh is a figure, for every one paſſeth thr…ugh the ſame way that Chriſt did, who comes to know Chriſt in the fleſh.
What a ſeared conſcience muſt this man need… have that when this Doctrine is expreſſely found in thoſe evid…nt pl…ces in that Booke, yet hath the impudence, againſt the light of conſcience, to ſay, Let that Booke he wi…neſſe agai…ſt y…u, and your lying ſlanders herein to all that reade it. But both you and we ſhall both learne what th…s man and his way i….
Excep. 2 You ſay, this was written in a Letter which N…yler w…ote to one in Lancaſhire, viz. That …e that expects to be ſaved by him that dyed at Ieruſalem, ſhould be deceived; which …s a m…ſt … by untruth &c and ſo he goes on …a…ling.
Reply. 1. It is acknowledged tha… that Letter which had this Doctrine in it, that Chri…t was but a figure, was not Naylers Letter, in which that other paſſage is, we miſtooke N…yle… for Hubbethorne and that it was in a Letter from Hu…betho…e written to one in Lancaſhire. Take this enſuing Teſtimony of Mr. Moore, a godly Miniſter in Lancaſhire.
RIchard Hubbethorne wrot…, that the c…mmi…g of Ch…ſt i… the fl…ſh, is but a figure, or an …ol…ing … in … and actions amongſt men, thoſe things that he will truely, ſpiritually, and really doe in the ſpirits of his people at his ſecond comming. This but being objected againſt him, as denying the Lord that bought us. He replyed in another Letter, Thou doſt not underſtand what I meant by that expreſſion, &c. Theſe words being often objected to the Quakers, and particularly to George Fox, though ſome of them made an anſwer to the but, yet none of them deny it in theſe parts that I can heare of. Theſe Letters were ſent to Henry Holme, and are now in my hands.
Kellet in Lancaſh. Jan. 16. 1653. William Moore.
Thus you have our confeſſion of our miſtake, onelyonly of the Name, you ſee the truth of the thing convincingly evidenced.
But that it is a filthy untruth that Nayler wrote ſuch a Letter in which were thoſe words, He that expects to be ſaved by him that dyed at Ieruſalem, ſhould be deceived; we anſwer.
Firſt, Nayler may know that we doe onelyonly affirme, that Doctor Marſhall did object this againſt him at Applehy, and Maſter Iaques, Miniſter of Bolton in Lancaſhire, ſent his promiſe that he would make it appeare. Had Nayler denyed that either of theſe two were true, he might have charged us with a falſehood; but this he doth not, he dare not doe. 2. Though Nayler doe ſo cry out againſt this as a ſlander, yet he that conſiders this their Principle, that Chriſt with all he did in the fleſh is but a figure (which is proved to be their principle beyond exception) will wonder why Nayler ſhould looke upon this as a ſlander, when it is the neceſſary conſequence of that wicked Doctrine; for if Chriſt were but a Figure, I ſhould no more expect to be ſaved by him, then by the figures and types of th… Law. But becauſe the man ſo loudly cryes out againſt this as being a filthy untruth that ever he wrote ſuch a Letter (though he deny not what we ſay, that this was objected againſt him by D. Marſhall, and that M. Iaques engaged to juſtifie it) yet we have affixed M. Iaques Teſtimony to ſatisfie the world of our cleareneſſe from the ſcandals and wicked reproaches of Nayler, and this ſent is under his Hand and Scale.
JAmes Nayler in a Lettor which he writ to Henry Holme, gave out this expreſſion, If thou expect to be ſaved by him that dyed at Ieruſalem, thou art deceived.
Hoc unum teſt. John Jaques.
Excep. 3 There is but one thing more in Naylers anſwer, whereby he ſhuffles this Poſition, and that evaſion is this, We doe owne and confeſſe that Ieſus Chriſt in the fleſh is a figure or example; as if figure and example were all one. To which we anſwer.
Reply. Ieſus Chriſt not a Figure.1. We challenge Iames Nayler to ſhew one tittle of Scripture wherein Ieſus Chriſt is called a Figure. The firſt Adam is called a Figure, Rom. 5.14. the Tabernacle called a Figure, Heb. 9.9. but Ieſus Chriſt is never called a Figure; and therefore it is a ſinfull ſhuffle of Iames Nayler thus to confound an Example and Figure.
2. If he be a Figure, we againe affirme, he muſt typifie ſome thing; but we referre you to our Booke (as to Chriſt not being a Figure, or onelyonly an example) where we have layd downe many Scriptures and arguments, to which he anſwers nothing, Perfect Phariſee, pag. 8. 9.