Banter And why say they must the Felicity of the Soul Depend upon the Body I suppose they mean but in Part as a Widower may have some Happiness tho Great Grief with it But why not upon that Body it had before as well as upon a New Body For let me ask these Quakers who say that the Soul will have a Body in Heaven tho' not the same body it had before will that New Body be any Addition of Happiness or Advantage to the Soul If not To what Purpose is it But if so then is the Soul in an Imperfect State before it gets that Body and all the Quaker Objections Return upon themselves Let them then speak out and own the True Quaker Opinion viZ. That the Soul do's Receive that Heavenly Body Immediately after Death Nay I have heard some say That they had it already and all the Resurrection that ever they expect Indeed they know not what they mean by it and that Heavenly Body which they talk of most of them understand nothing by it but the Soul it self or an Heavenly Frame or Disposition of the Soul which they think they have attain'd already or may be some of them may think they may have it in an Higher Measure after their Death And this is all the Resurrection and all the Heavenly Body that they Mean when they use these Words II. T. E. p. 153. brings in the subject of their Infallibility and stands stoutly by it G. Keith had objected against this out of a Book of G. W's call'd The Voice of Wisdom before mentioned where G. W. Boldly avers p. 33. That they that want Infalâ—ibility they are out of the Truth and their Ministry is not of the Spirit seeing they speak not from the Spirit but from their own Hearts which are Deceitful where they want Infallibility And their Common Salvo to those they would Impose upon That they only Plead for the Infallibility of the Spirit i. e. of God which none ever Deny'd will not do in this Place For p. 32. Danson whom G. W. opposes had put his Objection so Clear as to obviat that Distinction His words are these As for your Participation of the Infallible Spirit if that were granted that Infers not a Participation of the Spirit 's Infallibility As indeed it do's not more than of its Omnipotence Omniscience or any other of the Divine Attributes But G. W. do's violently oppose this and says most ignorantly that This tends to Divide the Spirit from its Infallibility as if such as Partake of the Spirit do not Partake of its Infallibility was there ever such Folly as this Truly I think not nor such Mad Enthusiastical Delusion ever heard of before in the World For they may Pretend to Partake of God's Omnipotence by the same Reason and with as much Justice Was W. P. Infallible in not only saying but Printing it That Christ was born at Nazareth Or if there was an Error in the Press and Nazareth put for Bethlehem from the Likeness of the Words was T. E. Infallible in Printing this over again as before is told without Correcting of it Were these Quakers Infallibly Guided into the Meaning of that Scripture Matth. xi 30. My Yoke is easie and my Burden is Light who quoted it at a Conference before those whom I know as a Proof for their Light within A little Human Learning would have done well here to have understood the Meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text which signifies Light not as oppos'd to Darkness but to Weight of a Burden which common sense much less Infallibility could not have mistaken in this Text. Was William Walker a Great Quaker Preacher Infallible who mistook John xiv 2. In my Father's House are many Mansions for In my Father's House are many Manchets And made the Application what Plenty of Provision was in Heaven fine White Bread little Manchets and Many of them This I have from those who heard him and heard other Quakers Improving upon his Doctrine what Fine Bread there was in God's House In-numerable Instances of the Like Ignorance might be Given and of Lying Prophesies the Rankest Treasons and Blasphemies Pronounced In The Name of the Lord for which I Refer the Reader to The Snake in the Grass where he will find a Plentiful Collection of them and Un-denyably Vouched Now George Fox their First and Great Apostle in his Answer to the Westmorland Petition 1653. p. 5. says All you that Speak and not from the Mouth of the Lord are False Prophets And in his Saul's Errand c. 1654. p. 7. says They are Conjurers and Diviners and their Preaching is from Conjuration that is not spoken from the Mouth of the Lord. If G. Fox told a Lye in this then by his own Rule he was a Conjurer because he spoke not from The Mouth of The Lord. And if he spoke Truth He is as much a Conjurer and all the Quaker Preachers with him who either Preached False Doctrine or Mis-understood or Mis-apply'd any Text of Scripture or any other Man's Meaning of which we have pretty Broad Instances now before us because No Mistake of any sort can come from The Mouth of The Lord. SECT 4. of Christ's Coming to Judge the Quick and the Dead I. GEorge Whitead says as quoted p. 160. Now what is that Glory of the Father in which His Christ's coming is Is it visible to the Carnal Eye And when was that coming to be Is it now to be looked for outwardly But further we do acknowledge the several Comings of Christ according to the Scriptures both that in the Flesh and that in the Spirit which is Manifest in several Degrees as there is a Growing from Glory to Glory But Three Comings of Christ not only that in the Flesh at Jerusalem and that in the Spirit but also another Coming in the Flesh yet to be Expected we do not Read of but a Second Coming without Sin unto Salvation which in the Apostles days was looked for The First Coming of Christ he confesses to be that in the Flesh at Jerusalem The Second be makes to be His Inward Coming into our Hearts which he says was looked for in the days of the Apostles i. e. Christ was so â—ome at that time in their Hearts But the Coming to the Future Judgment he calls the Third Coming and this be Utterly Denys And T. E. Endeavours to support him by Matth. xvi 28. where Christ said That some standing there should not tast of Death till they saw the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom i. e. till the Destruction of Jerusalem which was a Glorious Manifestation of the Power of Christ in Fulfilling those Judgments which he had Threatned upon the Jews And it was likewise a Type of the Final Judgment and Destruction of the World But T. E. knowing nothing of this would understand those Scriptures which speak of Ghrist's coming to Judgment to mean only His Inward Coming in the Heart
but a wrangling Personal Dispute betwixt T. E. and G. Keith about some Papers Exhibited by the one against the other All which I pass over And come to G. Keiths Appendix to his Narrative which T. E. begins there to Consider SECT V. The several Charges in the Appendix THese are some further Instances upon the Four Heads which are the subject of the Narrative And a few other things which come in by the by and might have been spar'd But that this Reply may be Full I proceed to Examin them 1. A Quotation out of G W. is set down p. 198. Wherein he denies either the Soul or Body of Christ to be Human or that he had an Human Nature and he says that the Blood of God with which he purchased his Church Act. xx 28. Was not the Blood of the Human Nature And where doth the Scripture says he call the Blood of God Humane or Humane Nature To this T. E. Answers That Christ was not of a meer Earthly Extraction That there was more of Divinity even in that Body than in the Bodies of other Men. Which none hardly the Socinians will Deny But T. E's Inference is not Good That because Christ's Body had more Divinity in it than other Mens that therefore it was too Heavenly to he call'd Humane or Earthly For the Hypostatical or Personal Union of his Human with his Divine Nature did not Destroy or Swallow up his Humanity as the Eutychians held But his Human both Soul and Body are still and for ever Truly and Properly Humane else he were not Truly and Properly a Man And the not knowing of this has greatly Milled the Quakers Who if they had given themselves but a little to Humane Learning which they despis'd because they had it not and had known the Ancient Heresies which were Condemned by the Church in several Ages they wou'd not have fallen in with so many of them as they have Ignorantly done T. E. Wou'd not have given such an Answer as he do's here That Christ's making his Soul an offering for Sin was true and so it is says he in a Figurative Manner of Speaking Which was the very Words and Excuse of these Primitive Hereticks who said that Christ's Passion was not Real but onely in Appearance to Mens Eyes And if his Body was but a Vaile or Garment wherein he dwelt as the Quakers and Socinians do make it then indeed his sufferings were no other than Figurative or â—alse and he cou'd no more be said to have been Cruciâ—y'd then a Man would be Crucify'd if his Cloak or Garment was Crucify'd And thus it must be if Christ's Humane Nature was not Hypostatically united to his Divine Nature so as both to make but one Person as Soul and Body is in Man For otherwise the Soul cou'd feel nothing or be said to suffer for whatever was done to the Body And T. E's Argument and G. W's which he Recites is most Ridiculous that Christ's Soul was Immortal and cou'd not be put to Death So is every Mans. And when we Kill a Man no body says that we Kill his Soul But as the Separation of Body and Soul is Death to us So it was and us Really to Christ And not onely In a Figurative maâ—ner of speaking as T. E. with the Ancient Hereticks do's contend II. Page 202. There is a Quotation of G. W's brought wherein he denies That there is continual need of Repentance And T. E. Justifies it by supposing that the Quakers are free from all Sin Else there must be Continual need of Repentance I will not Enter now upon their most Exploded Title to a Sinless Perfection having done it sufficiently elsewhere I onely mention this now to shew their Infallible Hardiness in pretending still to it after it has been Expos'd even to Laughter and as many Failings shewn of these Perfect Sinless Creatures as wou'd make any of the Prophane to appear Ridiculous And this Pretence to a Sinless Perfection is not the least Gross of their Imperfections And shews the Excess of their Spirituall Pride For which they may Read their Sentence 1 John 1.8 If we say that we have no Sin we deceive our selves and the Truth is not in us For as Solomon says Prov. xx 9. Who can say I have made my Heart clean I and Pure from Sin III. The next Quotation is p. 202. Where G. W's Perversion of Isa ix 6. Is set down He turns that most Express Prophesy of Christ Viz. Vnto us a Child is â—orn c. To an Allegorical sense of Christ within and his being Born in our Hearts And says that he was thus Born in Isaiah himself who wrote these Words Who had also been as with Child Says he i. e. Of Christ T. F. In Defence of this says p. 203. That this was meant of Both Viz. Of Christ's Outward and his Inward Birth but this is false for the Prophecy was only of his Outward Birth And if it can be turned to the Inward how shall we thereby convince the Jews as to the Outward Christ This Liberty of Interpretation will confound all the Prophesies of Christ in the Old Testament And it is Remarkable that Isaac Penington a Quaker having wrote a Book Intituled Some Queries and Answers of deep Concernment to the Jews and Design'd purposely for Their Conversion do's not through the whole once Name the outward Christ But bids them onely look to their Light within T. E. Quotes a Book of G. Keith's call'd The Rector Corrected p. 30. In Justification of this Exposition of his of Isa ix 6. To mean both the Outward and the Inward Birth of Christ And tho my business is not here to Vindicate G. Keith yet I had the Curiosity to look into that Book of his and find that this Text was not so much as under Consideration or once Nam'd in that place but he was treating there wholly of another Subject and which is no ways Applicable to this IV. The next Quotation is p. 203. G. W. in his Book call'd The He Goats Horn Broken by way of Wittieism upon John Horn whom he Answers p. 33. 34. Charges this among others as an Error in J. Horn Viz. That when Paul saith Christ was seen of him Last 1 Cor. xv 8. He must needs mean it of his Body seen and seen by Bodily sight Which is contrary says G. W. to Gal. 1.16 To this says T. E. that if G. W. had denied that Christ was Bodily seen of Paul that had not Allegorized a-away Christ's Resurrection And this is all he says to it But if Christ was not Bodily seen of Paul then was Paul a false Witness of Christ For in that Place 1 Cor. xv He Names himself among other Witnesses to Christ's outward Resurrection He was seen says St. Paul v. 5. Of Cephas then of the Twelve After that he was seen of above 500 Brethren at once after that he was seeen of James then of all the Apostles and last of all
Leven In their Publick Schools it is Enjoyn'd that the Scholars shou'd Read such a Portion of that Blasphemous Journal of G. Fox's every day Particularly in their great School at Wansworth The Publick ought to take some care of this in Pity to their Poor Souls And in Private Families that odious Journal is daily Read where the Holy Bible is suffer'd to Mould And the Travels of Fox are more Read and Valu'd by the Quakers than those of St. Paul or any of the Acts of the Apostles 4. But to shew how their Infection does spread if what I have said be not enough I will give this further Demonstrative Proof which has occur'd very lately There is one Thomas Curtis commonly call'd Captain Curtis he was such in Oliver's Army at Reading a wealthy Man and one of the Quakers of the most Ancient standing now among them he has â—een a Preacher with them about 40 years and so still continues Has suffer'd and merited in their cause as much as any But is more open-hearted and less Dissembling than the Rest He freely owns the Doctrines he has Learn'd and which he always taught since he first engag'd amongst the Quakers and carry'd it on with Indesatigable Zeal He erected or was chiefly Instrumental in it a Monthly Quaker Meeting at Kings-Heath in Lamborne Woodlands in Berkshire 25 Miles from Reading it was call'd Thom. Curtis's Meeting And Preaching there at their Monthly Meeting upon Sunday the 4th of this Oct. 1696. He took notice of their Present Divisions upon Account of the New Doctrine as they call it which G. Keith had of Late Broached among them And finding that some of that Meeting had a favourable opinion of G. Keith herein and embraced his Principles parcicularly one William Clark he challenged him by Name and any 5000 of that Party to dispute with him Whereupon Will. Clark did engage him And there Publickly before them all T. Curtis asserted That Christ had a Prepared Body but what is become of it he knew not neither said he do I care Being ask'd whether Christ had a Soul He said he knew not Whether it was the Godhead or Manhood that suffered He Answered that he cou'd not tell whether it was the Manhood or the Godhead that suffered He said There was no Resurrection but of the Soul from the Death of Sin and this said he I have often Preached and do still maintain it He said That Paul got all the Resurrection while living in this World That he did believe his own Body shou'd be changed like unto Christ's Glorious Body while he was living in this World That he knew nothing of Christ but within himself Being asked by W. Clarke whether he did believe that Christ is in Heaven without us in the Entire nature of Man of Soul and Body the some for substance it was on Earth Glorify'd at God's Right Hand He Repâ—y'd This is one of thy Quibbles I will not Answer thee And then asked Where is God's Right Hand Being again Demanded by W. C. Whether he had whole Christ in him He Answered I know nothing of Christ but within my self He said That a man might be come to the Resurrection and have the Resurrection and yet not Past iâ—e That the Resurrection being once come it Remains and so is not Past At which Rate it will not be Past in Heaven after the Resurrection But this is a Fetch of the Quakers to make their Denyal of the Resurrection appear not to be the same with that of Hymeneus and Philetus 2 Tim. 2.18 With which it is the very same and St. Paul calls it 〈◊〉 overthrowing of the Faith For he did not oppose them in the State of the Blessed after the Resurrection being a Remaining State and not to Pass away But in that they said the Resurrection was already Past i. e. Inwardly brain'd by the Faithful and therefore no â—â—ster or outward Resurrection of the Body to be expected 5. Thomas Ellwood in his Answer before â—â—â—â—â—der'd p. 142 143. Repeats these words of George Whitehead's against our Notion of the Resurrection viz. And their Assertion and Determination therein is contrary to what the Apostle saith 2 Cor. V. For we know if our Earthly House of this Tabernacle were Dissolved we have a Building of God an House not made with hands Eternal in the Heavens For we that are in this Tabernacle do Groan being Burdened c. But why wou'd he close this with his c. So soon For the very next words in the same ver 4. wou'd have set him Right and Determin'd the cause fully on our side viz. Not for that we wou'd be un-cloathed but Cloathed upon that Mortality might be swallow'd up of Life i. e. Not that we wou'd be un-Cloathed or quite Divested of our Bodys but that a New Cloathing of Immortality shou'd be given to our Bodys The un-Cloathing is the Quaker Notion of the Resurrection The Cloathing upon is ours T. E. by way of excuse says p. 143. That G. W. wrote this against that Notion That the Happiness of the Soul is not Perfect without the Body and that the Soul hath a strong desire to a Re-Vnion to the Body This T. E. thought such an absurdity as that no Man wou'd own it Which shews how very far they have wander'd from the Truth in this Doctrine of the Resurrection For it is not doubted among Christians but the Soul hath a strong desire to a Re-Vnion with the Body And that her Joy is not Perfect i. e. Compleat before that time Which makes them Cry How Long O Lord Rev VI. 10. XXII 20. Holy and Just And Pray that God wou'd Hasten his Kingdom and Come Quickly And the Quakers endeavouring to Ridicule this as before is shewn is a Proof that they have more need of being Taught than Disputed against And instead of medling with Controversy shou'd be sent to Learn their Catechism But to Return to Thom. Curtis 6. The Account I have above given and all the Particulars I have seen under the hand of William Clarke the Person Concern'd And I am told That a Narrative of the whole Proceedings of that Monthly Meeting is like to be Published In the mean time the use I have to make of it is this to shew that the Quakers do still hold these Abominable Heresies and always have held them Notwithstanding of the shuffling excuses which T. E. G. W. and W. P. wou'd now put upon them If it be objected that Thom. Curtis is a Separatist from the Quakers of Grace-Church-street and joyned with those of Harp-Lane And therefore that those of Grace-Church-street are not Accountable for any thing he says or does Answ 1. Those of Harp-Lane are Answerable and all in Communion with them And my present business is to shew that these Vile Heresies are still Taught among the Quakers Answ 2. These of Harp-Lane did not separate from those of Grace-Church-street upon any Principle of Faith or Doctrine But meerly upon
Distinct Operation or Manifestation of the Father Christ is not Distinct from the Father says George Fox and They the Father Son Great Mystery p. 242. 293. and Holy Ghost are not Distinct And he opposes Chr. Wade for saying that God the Father never took upon him Humane Nature but the Son pag. 246. as Chr. Wade words it and quotes against it that Text where Christ is called The Everlasting Father So that herein they join with those Old Hereticks the Patripassians and with Muggleton who say that it was God the Father who was Incarnate and Dyed And they cannot think otherwise if they believe the Word to be nothing else but a Distinct Operation or Manifestation of the Father and so but Nominally Different from Him as some of them do express it for an Operation or Manifestation can neither be Incarnate or Dye III. The next Heresie of G. W's and the Quakers which T.E. defends is that against the Incarnation of Christ in making Christ or the Word to have assum'd an Humane Body only as a Vail or a Garment wherein He Dwelt for a time as Angels when they appear'd in Bodies but Deny with the Socinians that He really became a Man by taking our Nature into His own Person and therefore say that He had not an Humane Soul tho' He dwelt in an Humane Body For this G. K. produc'd this passage out of a Book of G. W's which T. E. owns and Repeats p. 33. viZ. If the Body and Soul of the Son of God were Both Created doth not this render him a Fourth Person In excuse of this T. E. supposes that he in answer to whom G. W. wrote this one T. Danson a Presbyterian Preacher did hold that Christ had a Created Soul from Eternity and upon that Supposition that G. W. brought this as an Absurdity following from Danson's Position that this would infer a Fourth Person in the Divinity Now this is so gross a Prevarication that not only no Presbyterian but no Christian ever held that Christ's created Soul was from Eternity It is a Contradiction for if it was created it could not be from Eternity And therefore such a Pretence as this is downright pleading Guilty But shews the true Quaker Doctrine that Christ had no Human Soul and consequently that He was not truly a Man For proof of which this Quotation of G K's was most Pertinent and T. E's Answer confirms it much more IV. G. K. brought another Proof to shew that G. W. do's not acknowledge that Christ has now the Body of a Man or will come in that Body to Judge the World T. E. repeats the Words of G. W. p. 37. Do'st thou look for Christ as he was Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a Bodily Existence to save thee if thou do'st thou mayst look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him This George Whitehead wrote against one Robert Gordon and says T. Ellwood pag 38. If he be Dead his Eyes may be already dropt out without seeing it This was spoke like Merry Andrew Why did Robert Gordon pretend that the Last Judgment should come before he Dyed was that the Dispute betwixt him and G. W No. Their Dispute was concerning Christ's coming in His Human Body to the Last Judgment and T. E. do's not pretend to the Contrary And therefore this Childish put off as it is an Affront to his Readers so is it a Total yielding up the Cause and that in the most Shameful Manner As is his other Excuse that that coming to Judgment was not to save us for the Contest was not for what End He came But whether He would come or not None ever said that the Saints were not saved that is justified and in Bliss before the Day of Judgmentâ— yet the Full and Compleat Consummation of their Bliss in the Re-Union of Soul and Body and Perfect Happiness will not be till then which is the Ultimate and Compleat Salvation V. The next Quotation out of G. W's Books is p. 39. in these words And that he Christ existeth outwardly Bodily without us at God's Right hand what Scripture-proof hath he for these Words and then what and where is God's Right hand Is it Visible or Invisible within us or without us only And is Christ the Saviour as an outward Bodily Existence or Person without us Distinct from God and on that consideration to be worshipped as God yea or nay And where doth the Scripture say He is Outwardly and Bodily Glorify'd at God's Right hand Do these terms express the Glory that he had with the Father before the World began in which He is now Glorified In Excuse for all this Vehement Denyal of Christ's BODILY Existence at the Right Hand of God T. E. says p. 40. That sometimes Questions are only for Information or to amuse an Adversary not to shew ones own Opinion Yes sometimes they are so And it is very Plain when they are so And sometimes they are the most Positive way of asserting as implying an Astonishment or Wonder of the Contrary as so manifest an Absurdity as not to be Defended And it is as manifest when Questions are in this strain And T. E. dares not say that these Questions of G. W. were not in this later sense And therefore his suggesting this was against his own Conscience and to shew that he was Resolv'd to support his Cause Right or Wrong His second Answer is yet more Notorious p. 40. He supposes that R. Gordon G. W 's Opponent intended to Deny the Divinity of Christ which he never Deny'd but Strongly asserts and to set up the Body that was born of the Virgin for the only whole Intire Christ and Saviour And that G. W. only meant to oppose him in this 1st The Words above quoted were a strange sort of opposition if this had been so But 2dly This is as Errant a Slander as ever was Invented and T. E. and G. W. know it full well For R. Gordon held no such thing nor any thing like it No nor any Man that ever was Born that only the Body was Christ Did that ever enter into the Head of any Creature So Confounded so Destitute of all appearance of Truth are these Quaker Pretences whereby in stead of forsaking they seek to cover and sow Fig-leaves before their Nakedness They have but one Security left That it is a shame to Confute them But this Drudgery some must undergo for the Good of those among them who are not stung with the Deaf Adder and to save others out of their Cobweb but Destructive Snares to those who are bewitch'd into them VI. As vile and gross but more Impudent is that Imputation which T.E. puts upon whole Professions of Christians in Vindication of G. W's answer to a Baptist who from Rev. 1.7 inferr'd that Those who Pierced him Christ in his Body of Flesh shall see that Body visibly come again which G. W. opposes and says that
Spiritual as the Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink and Spiritual Rock in the Wilderness 1 Cor x. 2.3 Will this if there be no more in it makes His Blood to be the Blood of God And what is this to G. W's Argument That a Spirit cannot have Material Blood and therefore That if the Blood of the New Covenant be the Blood of God it cannot be Material Blood i. e. That the Material Blood of Christ was not the Blood of God otherwise than as the Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink and All things are His. This lets us into the Heart of the Quaker Divinity VII G. W. says in a Book of his call'd The Voice of Wisdom p. 36. That the Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finit but Infinit T. E. says p. 113. That these Words are an Inference from a Position of his Adversaries one Thomas Danson viz. That the Righteousness whereof Christ is the Subject and that whereof He is the Efficient are of one Species or Kind 'T is true that G. W. mentions this But not as finding any Fault with it For he says the same and more himself in the same page viz. That Righteousness which God works in us by His Spirit it s of the same Kind and Nature with that which worketh it for the Saints are made Partakers of the Divine Nature 2 Pet. 1.4 T. Danson made the Righteousness of the Man Christ of the same Species or Kind with ours as His Human Nature is But G. W. makes the Righteousness of God to be of the same Kind and Nature with ours which is Blasphemy and far beyond what T. Danson had said with which G. W. found no Fault unless that he had said too little of the Oneness of the Righteousness of God and ours But he brings this former saying of Danson's to Confront that Position of his which G. W. sets down viz. That the Righteousness which God works in us is but Finite as well as other Effects This G. W. opposes and brings the above-quoted saying of Danson's as a Contradiction to this and then Proves against Danson according to his skill that the Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finit but Infinit This is in opposition to the above saying of Danson's That it was but Finit And if G. W. thought it but Finit why did he oppose Danson in this But he not only says that it is Infinit but goes on to Prove it For says he Christ is Gods Righteousness and Christ is formed in us Gal. iv 19. Thus miserably Perverting the Scripture But they are Desir'd to tell us how Infinity can be Formed 2dly How formed in that which is Finit G. W. in the same place Exclaims against those who would make that Righteousness in them the Saints but Finit When as says he Christ His Infinit Righteousness and the Saints are in one another Here he makes the Righteousness of Christ and of the Saints to be the same and corrupts that Text Heb. ii 11. to Prove it which he Repeats thus He that Sanctifieth and they that are Sanctified are one Whereas the Text is are all of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And concludes thus Then God's Righteousness in us is not Finit but Infinit Yet T. E. would make us believe that he said no such thing But this is no Novelty with him VIII Again p. 134. he justifies this saying of G. Ws That Blood and Water that 's said to Cleanse is not of another Kind but agrees in one with the Spirit And Demands in great assurance Is not that True No. Mr. E. it is not True but far from Truth That the Blood and Water are not of another Kind from the Spirit They are Material and outward Blood and Water which through the operation of the Blessed Spirit do cleanse But this makes them not of the same Kind with the Spirit more than Christ's Human Nature is of the same Kind with His Divine Nature or than a Man's Body is of the same Kind or Natuâ—â— with his Soul And this still shews more and more your Contempt and Denyal of the outward and Material Body and Blood of Christ for your Justification IX T. E. p. 136. brings in W. Penn justifying this saying of Isaac Penington viz. Can outward Blood Cleanse the Conscience And W. P. says We do Deny that outward Blood can be brought into the Conscience to Perform that Inward Work which they themselves i. e. the Professors as the Quakers call'd their Opponents Dare not nay do not hold Yet T. E. says p. 135. that Isaac Pennington put this Question Can outward Blood cleanse the Conscience to the Professors who place ALL upon the OVTWARD You must Excuse him he Began and was Resolv'd to go Quite through with this Topick in every Case to Misrepresent his Adversaries Meaning and if he cannot Find Faults to Make them But here he stands fairly Corrected by the more Ingenious W. P. whose Authority he Pretends to Maintain who says that the Professors Dare not nay Do not hold this G. Keith as quoted by T. E. p. 137. has given a clear Answer to this poor Subterfuge of Supposing that any did think the outward and Material Blood of Christ was to be brought into the Conscience and there Materially Apply'd which none sure in this World ever Imagin'd G. K. says The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience is by the Application of a Living Faith in Christ whose Blood it was the Spirit of God working that Faith in me This is Full and Orthodox But says T. E. in answer to this Why do's he say The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience as if it had been Really and Materially brought in there This is Intolerable and shews that they either can not or will nor take an Answer T. E. p. 136. tells of a Distinction which W.P. made betwixt the Pardon of Past Sin and the Present Sanctification of any Person and applys it to this Purpose as if the outward Blood of Christ could have no Tendency but only to the Former But this instead of Solving the Matter serves only to Discover the strange Confusion and Ignorance of these Men in the Mystery of the Gospel as if Christ's Blood outwardly shed were not as Effectual to our Sanctification as to our Justification to Procure for us the Graces of the Holy Spirit towards Living acceptably to God for the Future as the Pardon of Sins that are Past. SECT 3. Concerning the Resurrection of the Body I. T. E. is in Great Confusion upon this Head making Tedious Repetitioâ— and long Digressions about the Bush not knowing what to say and yet that he might appear to say something But I will Reduce his Immethodical Ramblement into this Order 1st To shew his weak and Fallacious Excuse for that Great Opposition which the Quakers have given to this Article of our Faith 2dly That T. E. instead of Vindicating others has himself down-right
oppos'd this Article of the Resurrection First His Excuse for the Quakers opposition to the Doctrine of the Resurrection He would as in Former Cases Deceive his Readers by Supposing against all Sense and Reason That we so understood the Resurrection as if the Body were to Rise in the same Grossness and Carnality that it has in this Life And that this was all that they oppos'd But such a gross Notion of the Resurrection no Christian ever held And G. Keith has sufficiently Explain'd himself even as quoted by T. E. p. 145. 146. That the Body when Raised again shall be the same as to Substance but not as to the Grossness and Carnality as now and did Illustrate it by the Chymical Extraction of Spirits out of Herbs c. and by the Change that is wrought in the White and Yolk of an Egg whereof a Chicken is made out of the same Substance Yet T. E. will not understand him But gives us a Dull Piece of Buffoonry and tells him p. 147. That if he and G. K. were Fellow-Commoners at a Chicken he would take the Substance and leave the Rest to G. K. And p. 148. That to make his Instance of the Extraction of Spirits to be Parallel with the Notion of the Resurrection which the Quakers oppos'd the Gross Body of the Herbs which he says may be made so Subtile and Volatile must still remain the same Gross Body of Herbs that it was before notwithstanding of its almost unconfinable subtilty by Chymical Operation And in the same page Explaining what sort of Resurrection they oppos'd says We have always Denyed the Body which shall be Raised to the same Body that Dyed with Respect to GROSSNESS and CARNEITY Which all that they oppos'd Denyed as much as they And p. 145. he says That which W. Penn reputed as absurd was that a Body should be Changed from an Earthly or Animal Body to an Heavenly Body and yet after such Change continue to be the same Earthly or Animal Body that it was before And Mr. Penn might Repute this to be Absurd And Disprove it Effectually and get the Victory over it and Triumph But he can name no body that ever held any such Absurdity That an Earthly Body Changed into an Heavenly Body may be the same Body it is True But that it should be the same Earthly Body none ever said It is a Contradiction it is to say that it is Changed and not Changed But how is it possible says Mr. Penn ibid. that it should be the same and not the same Very easily Is Mr. Penn the same Man as before he turn'd Quaker No sure There is a Great Change wrought in him Yet it is the same W. Penn or else He never Changed But says he in his Reason against Railing p. 134. If a thing can yet be the same and notwithstanding Changed for shame let us never make so much stir against the Doctrine of Trans-substantiation for the Absurdity of it is rather out-done than Equal'd by this Carnal Resurrection But Mr. Penn is so far out in his Reasoning here That a thing being Changed shews it to be the same If you Dye one piece of Cloth it is no change in another piece of Cloth And it were no change in the Cloth if it was not the same Cloth that was changed And if Mr Penn thinks Trans-substantiation a Less Absurdity than this we may yet see another change in him But to return to T. E. Notwithstanding of all that can be said or Done he still holds to it That we believe no Change of the Body in the Resurrection and puts it upon G. Keith p. 143. So that it seems says he according to G. Keith it must be a Terrestrial Elementary Body after it is Re-united to the Soul in Heaven Though G. Keith has not only said but Argu'd to the Contrary even as quoted in the same place by T. E. Therefore we see he is Resolv'd He will not Badge an Ace It must and shall be so For otherwise the Quakers are Undone Because if this be not the Notion of the Resurrection which they oppose then there is nothing left but that they down-right oppose that Doctrine of the Resurrection which has been all along Receiv'd in the Catholick Church and makes one of the Articles in her Creed But this will yet further appear in the second Point viZ. That T. E. has not only Negatively as in the first Point but even Affirmatively and in Plain Terms Deny'd the Resurrection in this his seeming Vindication of it By the Resurrection as ever Understood in the Church is Meant the Resurrection of the same Body which Dyed It is not otherwise a Re-surrection i. e. a Rising again For that cannot Rise which never Lay down and that which was not Before cannot be Again The Quakers will sometimes say as T. E. p. 151. that there is a Resurrection and that of Bodies and that there is an Heavenly Body Because these are Express words of Scripture But they Deny the Resurrection of our Dead Bodies Or that ever they will be made Heavenly Bodies What they Mean by a Heavenly Body themselves nor all the World can tell One of their She-Preachers told a Friend of mine That it was the Holy Ghost But that they Deny the Resurrection of the same Body which Dyed T. E. makes very Evident p. 149. where he Disputes That the Natural and the Spiritual Body are Two Distinct Bodies and not the same Body in Different States and Qualifications Thus he Expounds the Apostle's words 1 Cor. xv 44. He does not say The Natural is made a Spiritual Body or the Natural Body and the Spiritual Body is but one and the same Body but he sets them in opposition as Two Distinct Bodies And The Body says he that is put into the Grave is a Natural Body but the Body that is Raised is a Spiritual Body and that none might think this Spiritual Body was the same he adds There is a Natural Body and there is a Spiritual Body Thus T. E. understands that Scripture and goes on to Prove it further by the Comparison of the first and second Adam and says that the Spiritual and Natural Body are no more the same Body than the first and second Adam are the same Man i. e. than Christ and Adam are the same And to shew their utter Ignorance of the Doctrine of the Resurrection T. E. p. 140. c. quotes W. Penn and G. W. and joins with them himself in Proposing as a Great Absurdity that the Soul hath not its Perfect and Compleat Happiness before its Re-Vnion with the Body and Ridicules this by saying that the Deceased Saints are in Heaven but by Halves That the Soul is in a state of Widowhood which is a sort of Purgatory And that it is Vnequal the Soul should be Rewarded so long before the Body its Beloved Companion But it is rather Punished if it be in Purgatory as these Men presume to