have no Money I expect he will as he uses to do pay me off with Ignorance and Folly for questioning any thing of his Philosophy But 't is no matter if he do I learnt when I was a Boy Sâ—ultitiam Simulare loco Prudentia Summa est That little Skill I have I know when where and how to use and how to hide It were well if he knew how to make better use than he doth of his greater Stock But Breaking off this short Digression which I hope will be excused for though I cannot dress out Dishes nor serve them up so elegantly as he yet I expect he should allow me Interferre meis interdum gaudia curis He sees I rather chuse to change the Verb than break the Poet's Head and thereby hazard the breaking of my own if I had chnaged the Mood of Interpono I return to the matter again where I observe that he makes the outward Blood not at all the Efficient Cause I mean the worker of Sanctification in the Heart but the Spirit and the Blood no more the Cause of Sanctification than Money is the Cause of Health and Nourishment to the Body to wit by procuring the Spirit to Sanctify as Money procures Medicine and Bread to Cure and Nourish the Body And in that sense perhaps as he says he agrees with all true Christians we may agree with him provided he will under the Name of Blood take in the whole Offering of Christ his Obedience and Sufferings both inwardly and outwardly and not divide the Sacrifice At the close of this page he tells his Auditors he has now done with the two first Heads and asks them Shall I go on to prove the other two or shall we adjourn to another Day And truly his Auditors seem'd to have had so fully enough of that Days work that they would rather endure the Fatigue of one half Hour more than be troubled with him another Day And bid him if half an Hour would do go on So on he goes The Third Head of G. Keith's Charge viz. That We deny the Resurrection of the Body that dieth Considered The Third Head says he p. 34. to be proved is That the Body that dieth riseth not again First says he from W. Penn 's holding the Resurrection immediately after Death in his Rejoynder p. 138. I think adds he this will be enough for W. Penn if I give no more It may be so indeed but I don't think it will be enough for G. Keith if he intends to make a Proof against W. Penn about the Resurrection For that place in that Book treats of the Scriptures but not a Word of the Resurrection The poor Man in his over-eager haste mistook his Books and quoted Rejoynder instead of Reason against Railing in which latter I have found the place he quotes I defend Truth and therefore need not take advantage of Errors of the Press if this had been the Printers Error as it is not but his own fumbling mistake though he hath most unworthily done so against G. Whitehead and that after it hath been proved unto him Before I recite the Quotation which I find he cited also before in his Gross Error p. 12. and perverted there as here I cannot but take notice of the Medium he uses to prove his Charge by viz. That W. Penn holds the Resurrection immediately after Death So that G. Keith to prove one Charge makes another which needs Proof as much as the former Now let us see how he attempts it T. Hicks says he argues thus for the Resurrection of the Body That if there be no Resurrection of the Body the Ioys of Heaven should else be imperfect Now here says G. Keith is W. Penn's Answer to it I answer Is the Joy of the Antients now in Glory imperfect Or are they in Heaven but by halves If it be so unequitable that the Body which hath suffered should not partake of the Joys Coelestial is it not in measure unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul held-by many Baptists on I am mistaken But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Widow and so in a state of Mourning and disconsolateness to be without its beloved Body Which state is but a better sort of Purgatory Thus far he gives out of W. Penn then adds G. Whitehead argues the same way but does not tell where naming neither Page nor Book But he gives his words thus If the deceased Saints in Heaven or their Souls have not all that they expect to all Eternity all the Resurrection they look for then they must be in Purgatory for the time But if the latter be not then not the former Upon this G. K says But this Contradicts many Scriptures that especially in Act. 26. That Christ should suffer and should be the first that should rise from the Dead Now says he according to this Doctrine of W. Penn and G. Whitehead Christs Resurrection was later than that of many Millions Tho' he has much curtail'd W. Penn's Answer and given no direction whereby to find G. Whitehead's neither have I upon diligent search found it and G. Whitehead deniâ—â— the words above given as his to be his yet from the words of each which he has given I find that neither of those Quotations will answer the End for which he brings them They both relate to one and the same Objection That if there be not a Resurrection of the same Body the Joys of Heaven should be imperfect To shew the absurdity of that Objection they both argued That if the Joys of Heaven to the Souls already in Heaven depend upon the Resurrection of the same Bodies in which those Souls lived on Earth then the Joys of Heaven to the Saints already there should have been imperfect hitherto and must continue to be imperfect until the same Bodies shall be raised But this does not at all conclude that they held the Resurrection immediately after Death but rather the contrary For they did not argue That the Souls of the deceased Saints have perfect Joy in heaven because their Bodies in which they lived on Earth have had a Resurrection already but because the Joys of Heaven do not depend upon the Resurrection of those Bodies This then is no proof that they held the Resurrection immediately after Death nor consequently that they contradicted that Scripture Acts 26. That Christ should be the first that should rise from the dead which whether in a strict Sense he was has been questioned by some who have urged the Instance of Lazarus and some others before him But it seems as if he did not intend those Words of G. Whitehead for a Proof because after he had passed his Sentence upon that he says Now if you will hear a Proof from G. Whitehead you may and cites p. 353. of the Book
Nature upon him and became in the likeness of sinful Man being born of the Virgin Mary c. G. Whitehead Answer'd p. 12. This Assertion opposeth the Deity and Divinity of Iesus Christ and contradicts the faithful Testimonies of the Holy Men of God in the Scriptures of Truth Again p. 14. Though Jesus signifies a Saviour and Christ Anointed yet to coâ—sine those Names only to the Manhood still agrees with the erroneous Doctrine before that Christ was not the Word from the beginning whereas he took upon him the Manhood in Time in which tho' we own him as the anointed of God yet he was also Gods anointed as he was his only begotten and Delight and so the Son from his Eternal Being or Substance before the Mountains and Hills were settled And in p. 15. he expresly calls that Opinion Heretical that denies the Divinity of Christ. Again p. 16. To say Christ cannot dwell in Man doth not only oppose his Spirituality Deity and Omnipotency bar c. And if He be perfect God he can dwell in his People as he hath promised Again p. 18. It still strictly limits or tyes up the Name Jesus Christ to a Body of Flesh and Blood and so coverâ—ly denies his Being before he took on him that visible Body of Flesh Blood and Bones and so opposeth his Divinity as before Again p. 68. What a gross Error is it to affirm that Christ was not from the beginning or that he was not the Word in the beginning and what a denyal of his Divinity like the old Hereticks Again ib. Much more might be said on the behalf of the Divinity of the Son of God or Christ who was the Word in the beginning and with the Father in his Glory before the World began In another Book also of G. Whitehead's called The Nature of Christianity c. Printed in the Year 1671. to which G. Keith himself writ a Postscript in the Epistle p. 3. G. Whitehead speaking concerning the true Saviour or the Man Christ Jesus says Whom we have frequently Confest both as to his Divinity and as to his taking upon him the Body prepared for him to do the Will of God in according to the Scriptures of Truth yea both his outward and inward Appearance his suffering Nature and glorified State and his Divinity in both we have always truly Believed and Confessed even his Dignity Spiritual outgoing from of old from Everlasting as also his outward Birth c. And in the Book p. 36. G. Whitehead replies upon his Opponent What is this but to deny the Divinity of Christ c. Again p. 40. That the Holy Prophets Apostles and Ministers both pointed and testified unto Jesus Christ both as Man born of the Virgin or to his coming in the Flesh and unto his Divinity and Manifestation in Spirit this is owned Again p. 41. I perceive he is ignorant of Christ both as the Son of God and as the Son of Man For according to the Spirit he was the Son of God c. Again p. 52. says he to his Opponent R. Gordon Thou having confest that his Christ's out-goings were from Everlasting hast thereby granted to what I said that the Son of God and his Light are not under a Limitation as to Time and Place especially if thou wilt own his Divinity or that he ever was the Son of God before he took a Body in the Womb of the Virgin but if thou dost not own that the Son of God was before then than thou dost not own his Divinity nor him no more than a Finite Creature I choose to confront G. Keith out of these Books rather than others because these are some of the Books he hath cited and out of which he hath pretended to make good his Charges against us and therefore he may not be supposed to have been ignorant that these Passages were in them But how horribly unjust and wicked he must be in charging G. Whitehead with denying the Divinity of Christ or that Christ is God who hath so fully and frequently asserted and maintained his Divinity against others and that at the same time wherein he is charged to have denied it I leave to the Reader 's Judgment The next part of his Charge against G. Whitehead is That he has denied Christ to be Man Nar. p. 16. For proof of which he cites that Book of G. Whitehead's which I lately mentioned called The Divinity of Christ c. p. 18. but the Reader must take Notice It is in the Second Part of that Book for the Book is by its Pages divided into two parts The Words G. Keith cites first are these If the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both Created doth not this render him a Fourth Person c. There G. Keith breaks off with an c. But it follows in G. Whitehead's Book thus For Creation was in Time which contradicts their Doctrine of three Distinct Increated Co-Eternal Co-Essential Persons in the Deity seeing that which was Created was not so This shews the occasion of those Words and that they weâ—â—â— ad hominem to shew his Opponent T. Danson the absurdity of his Assertions about the Personalities of the Deity But this Passage though G. Keith mentioned it to make the greater noise and flourish he leans not on For without Commenting on it he says But the stress I lay is in the Words following which he gives thus But herein whether doth not his and their ignorance of the only begotten of the Father plainly appear There he leaves out these Words And their denyal of Christs Divinity which he knew would make against him and then goes on thus Where doth the Scripture say That his Soul was Created For was not he the brightness of the Fathers Glory and the express Image of his Divine Substance But supposing the Soul of Christ was with the Body created in Time c. There G. Keith breaks off again with an c. But in G. Whiteheads Book it follows thus I ask if from Eternity he was a Person distinct from God and his Holy Spirit without either Soul or Body And where doth the Scripture speak of any Person without either Soul or Body Let 's have plain Scripture This further shews that this whole Passage related to Danson's strange Notions of the Personalities of the Deity to shew his Confusion therein and also to bring him back to the Scripture which he with the rest for there were several other Priests concerned also at that time in the Controversie had set up for the only Rule in Religion but would not keep to Therefore did G. Whitehead put it upon them Where doth the Scripture say Let 's have plain Scripture But G. Keith perverts the whole Passage and abuses G. Whitehead for he tells his Auditors Here ye see He will not own that Christ had a Created Soul Th. Danson being a Presbyterian Minister says he did plead That Christ as Man had a Created Soul Nay
hold there Tho. Danson spake of the Son of God And to those Terms G. VVhitehead answered To this I say if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both Created doth not this render him a fourth Person For Creation was in time which contradicts their Doctrine of three Distinct Increated Co-Eternal Co-Essential Persons in the Deity seeing that which was Created was not so Plain it is from hence that in this whole Answer G. VVhitehead did not so much express his own Sense as expose Danson's and the other Priests their Confusion and Contradiction to themselves and one another Therefore he asks Danson If from Eternity He the Son of God was a Person distinct from God and his Holy Spirit without either Soul or Body And where says he doth the Scripture speak of any Person without either Soul or Body And because you Priests contend so hotly that the Scripture is the only Rule of Faith and Life for that was part of that Controversie p. 45 c. Let 's have plain Scripture Where doth the Scripture say that the Son of God the only begotten of the Father one of the Three Distinct Increated Co-Eternal Co-Essential Persons in the Deity as ye call him that his Soul was Created Thus G. VVhitehead hampered his Adversaries by putting the Questions which shew'd the aâ—surdity and inconsistency of their Notions and Assertions a way of dealing with G. Keith hath sometimes used towards an unfair Adversary himself And though he says such a way of questioning plainly impâ—rts a Denial now that he writes against Truth and the Friends of it yet when â—ormerly he wrot in Truth 's Defence a Book under that Title Printed in 1682. in Answer to his Countreyman Iohn Alexander of Leith he told him p. 59. I. Alexander ought to know that to query a thing will not conclude that the Questionist doth positively affirm or deny what is Queried But it is common to him to forget himself as oft as he has a Mind not to remember However I think those Words where doth the Scripture say that his Soul was Created which G. Keith would have taken notice of and which he says he laies the stress in will not bear the stress he lays if right notice with respect to the occasion drift and manner of Speech be taken of them But that G. VVhitehead hath fully and frequently owned the Holy Manhood of Christ with respect both to Soul and Body shall be shewed by more Instances than one At present let me shew G. Keith what he hath written concerning the Soul of Christ in his VVay cast up p. 104. And therefore says he let all the Scriptures be searched and it shall not be found that Christ became Man and took to himself the Soul of Man at his Conception in the Womb of the Virgin Mary but only that he took Flesh and was the Son of Mary of David and of Abraham And in p. 103. Yet before this even from the beginning he was the Heavenly Man and had his Soul and heavenly Flesh and Blood c. Here G. Keith is positive that Christ the heavenly Man had his Soul from the beginning before he did partake of our Flesh and Blood by his outward Birth And he is as positive that Christ did nâ—t take to himself the Soul of Man nay that he did not become Man at his Conception in the Womb of the Virgin Mary How will he scape now from falling into Appollinarius his Error or contradicting himself to escape it G. Keith brings another Passage out of another Book of G. VVhitehead's in order to prove that G. VVhitehead has denied Christ to be Man He brings it in thus Next I prove says he p. 16. that G. Whitehead says He speaking of Christ has not the Body of a Man See his Nature of Christianity p. 29 41. This were an home Proof if he could make it good But being conscious to himself of the falseness of this Charge and how easily it may be disproved out of G. VVhitehead's Book he staggers in his undertaking and before he recites G. VVhitehead's Words makes his own excuse thus If he has said otherwise in any of his late Printed Books I am glad of it But let him retract these for these have done much mischief Now says he when I said he was Orthodox I mean noâ— as he was Heterodox For there is a G. Whitehead Orthodox and a G. Whitehead not Orthodox I did not know G. Whitehead not Orthodox till lately I do not say there are two Persons in G. Whitehead he is but one and the same Person in this and some other things Orthodox and not Orthodox I own it that I have cited divers Passages out of his later Books that are Orthodox to prove him sound c. This plainly shews that G. Keith knew G. VVhiteheads Judgement to be otherwise than he has represented him But is it not a most horrible Wickedness for one Man designedly and wilfully to represent another Man's Judgment quite contrary to what he knows it to be Now let us return to G. Keith's Charge and Proof His Charge is that G. VVhitehead says He Christ has not the Body of a Man His Proof is from the Book last mentioned p. 29 41. thus Or dost thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee according to thy VVords p. 30. If thou dost thou mayst look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him Is this a Proof that G. VVhitehead says Christ has not the Body of a Man I expected when G. Keith said I prove that G. VVhitehead says He Christ has not the Body of a Man he would have pretended at least to have produced some place wherein G. VVhitehead had exprest those very VVords But instead of that he brings a place that hath neither those VVords nor any thing like them There is not in these Words of G. VVhitehead's a Denial either that Christ hath a bodily Existence or that he will appear in that Bodily Existence But from them may be gathered that thâ—t Appearance of Christ shall not be to save but to judge the World at the last Day and that that Day was not so near at hand as R. Gordon seem'd to expect or think For the Words are or dost thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee according to thy Words p. 30. If thou dost thou mayst look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him to wit only as the Son of Mary and to save thee The Word Such may respect the End of his Appearance as well as the Manner of it The End viz. to save thee as if Man should not be saved until the Day of general Judgment The manner viz. As the Son of Mary as if Christ should come in no higher powerful and more glorious Appearance than as
Logick as from an evil Design in him He adds You know there should be no Term nor thing of Importance in the Conclusion of any Syllogism or Argument but what should be in the Premises but strictly considered is not in the Premises therefore it should not be in the Conclusion Had he minded the Premises better he might have seen that though those very Terms strictly Considered were not expresly in the Premises yet equivalent Terms were namely the Terms Material and simply Natural which last yet was used only ad hominem upon the Adversary's Opinion therefore G. Keith might well have spared his Flurt at W. Penn's Logick but that he had a mind to crack of his own Skill therein He says No Man says The Body of Christ strictly considered without the Soul of Christ is Christ or that either the Soul and Body of Christ strictly considered without the Godhead is the Christ. But let him tell me what they say or upon their own Principle ought to say Who affirm that Christ as Christ was not in being till he was born of the Virgin He says The Sense of W. Penn's Argument is That Christ's Body was no part of him Herein he doth not say the Truth but gives a wrong sense of W. Penn's words Though Christ was Christ before he took upon him that Body yet after he had assumed that Body it was a part of him though but the Outward part He goes on to pervert W. Penn's both sense and words saying as from W. Penn. The one Seed cannot be an Outward thing and then says upon it This ye see is universal and exclusive of any outward thing W. Penn did not say The one Seed cannot be an Outward thing His words were as a Deduction from his Premises It will consequently follow that this Seed must be Inward and Spiritual which doth not universally exclude it from being in some respect an Outward thing also But if VV. Penn had said This Seed cannot be an Outward thing intending thereby a thing simply and wholly outward so as to exclude its being Spiritual and at all Inward Would G. Keith have consented to that I think not It is evident W. Penn contended with such as would restrain the Divine Seed of Promise to the Body which Christ took of the Virgin not being Spiritually-Minded enough to apprehend any other Seed than that which he then took of her whereas the Promised Seed which was the Heavenly Man Christ Jesus was in being and did operate in the Hearts of Men and bruised the Serpent's Head there many Ages before he took upon him that Body of Flesh of the Seed of the Virgin And during that time even from the making of that Promise until the time of his outward coming at Ierusalem he was altogether Spiritual working inwardly and Spiritually against the Enemy in the â—eart and could not properly be called an Outward thing at least in the gross Notion wherein we commonly use and understand the word Outward Not that he was so Inward as to be no where but in Man for he was in Heaven with his Father Iohn 3.13 But when in the fulness of time he descended and took on him the Seed of Abraham by taking on him that Body of Flesh from the Seed of the Virgin he was then and in that respect Outward as well as Inward Yet even then aâ—d since his Operation as a Seed of Light Life and Power to bruise the Head of the Serpent in Men has been Inwardly and Spiritually felt in the Heart working against and subduing the Enemy there where the Serpent is and where he works most to the hurt and disadvantage of Mankind And therefore it was idly done of G. Keith to ask in a Marginal note Is not the Serpâ—nt or Dâ—vil without Men as well as within many Men Since his being without is not so Destructive or dangerous to Man as his being within And therefore the Operation of the Holy Seed within to bruise his Head to break his Strength and Power there and to cast him out is the more advantageous and necessary And whereas G. Keith would infer from W. Penn's saying This Seed must be Inward and Spiritual that he universally excludes any Outward thing because he adds since one outward thing cannot be the Proper Figure and Representation of another He should have considered that though it cannot be so properly yet it may be so improperly or in a less proper way of Speaking which is not unusual in Scripture And that therefore to say one Outward thing cannot be the proper Figure and Representation of another is not universally exclusive of any other thing His charging W. Penn with a Sorites an imperfect or confused Argument in saying Because the Seed is one and that Seed Christ and Christ God over all blessed for ever We do conclude and that most truly that Christ was and is the Divine Word of Light and Life that was in the beginning with God and was and is God over all blessed for ever I say his quarrelling at this is Idle and shews he did not understand the Matter But the Inference he makes is worse For he says Thus you see he makes the promised Seed to be nothing but an Inward Principle God over all c. Why then is God over all nothing but an Inward Principle with G. Keith But W. Penn did not so confound things For though with the Apostle Gal. 3.16 he said The one Seed is Christ And with the same Apostle Rom. 9.5 Christ is over all God blessed for ever Yet he did not say that Christ was God over all as he was the Seed nor that the Seed of God in Men was God So that G. Keith in his heat and haste has overstruck himself and lost his Blow So also he shoots at random when he says But to say Christ is only God and not Man without us as W. Penn's way of arguing imports is most false Doctrine For neither did W. Penn say so nor doth his way of arguing import so The plain import of all his arguments in that long Quotation given out of him which G. Keith cavils at is that Christ as Christ was from the beginning before he took that outward Body of Flesh in which he suffered at Ierusalem which is so far from a denyal of his being Man as well as God that it is a fair acknowledgment of it inasmuch as he would not have been Christ if he had not been Man as well as God As therefore he was Christ from the beginning so was he also both God and Man and that not only in his People but out of or without them also And if he was truly Man then before he appeared in that outward Body which was nailed to the Cross to be sure he is not less truly Man now since that outward Manhood became as I may say a Cloathing to that Divine and Heavenly Manhood which he had before and is glorified with it What he intimates
of a pretended Contradiction between W. Penn and I. Whitehead is very Idle in it self and wicked in him and the worse for that he urged it formerly in his Book called The true Copy c. And I answered then in mine called Truth Defended p. 131. which he takes no notice of as I did also answer in that Book much of what he hath now urged concerning Christ and his being the promised Seed from p. 113. to p. 123. Where also I gave several Quotations out of G. Keith's Bôoks shewing most plainly that he hath maintained the very same things he now condemns in others and yet will not condemn in himself as particularly in his Book called The Way cast up where Sect. 8. p. 93. In answer to an Adversary's Charge that we deny Jesus the Son of Mary to be the alone true Christ. He first answers This is a false Accusation We own no other Jesus Christ but him that was born of the Virgin Mary who as concerning the Flesh is the Son of Mary and the Son of David and the Seed of Abraham Then adds p. 93. And yet he was the true Christ of God before he took Flesh and before he was the Son of Mary or David or of Abraham For his being Born of the Virgin Mary made him not to be Christ as if he had not been Christ before But he was Christ before even from the beginning as says heâ— I shall prove out of Scripture c. And having brought divers Scriptures and Arguments from p. 93. to p. 99. to prove that Christ Jesus as Man was from the beginning and had from the beginning an Heavenly Manhood and Spiritual Flesh and Blood He there concludes thus This is the promised Seed which God promised to our Parents after the Fall and actually gave unto them even the Seed of the Woman that should bruise the Head of the Serpent And therefore tho' the outward coming of the Man Christ was deferred according to his outward Birth in the Flesh for many Ages yet from the beginning this Heavenly man the promised Seed did inwardly come into the Hearts of those that believed in him and bruised the Head of the Serpent c. Here G. Keith not only asserts that this Heavenly Man Christ was the promised Seed and did from the beginning inwardly come into the Hearts of Believers and bruised the Head of the Serpent but also calls him the Seed of the Woman and says God not only promised him but actually gave him even the Seed of the Woman that should bruise the Serpents Head unto our Parents after the Fall many Ages before his outward Birth in the Flesh. Surely he that writ this had no cause to quarrel with W. Penn for saying Christ's Body strictly considered as such was not the Seed of Promise G. Keith had more need to have reconciled himself to himself if he could in these two opposite Expressions of his viz. That God gave the promised Seed even the Seed of the Woman actually to our Parents after the Fall many Ages before his outward Birth in the Flesh Way cast up p. 99. And That Christ did not become the Seed of the Woman according to the Sense of Gen. 3. Vntil the fulness of time that he was made of a Woman True Copy of a Paper p. 20. And he should have done well to have informed his Reader how God did actually give unto our Parents after the Fall so many Ages before Christ's outward Birth in the Flesh the Seed he promised them Gen. 3. Even the Seed of the Woman And yet Christ not be the Seed of the Woman according to Gen. 3. until so many Ages after he was actually given as the Seed of the Woman This is part of what I said to him in my former Book called Truth Defended p. 117 118. which rather than Answer he chose to cut himself out new work at Turners-Hall He pretends he did not Answer my Books in Print because he had not time to write nor outward Ability to Print I have shewed the Falshood of that pretence in the fore part of this Book yet let me now ask If that had been true why did he not then at his Meeting at Turners-Hall Answer my Books viva voce which then lay at his door unanswered and both Refute them if he could and acquit himself from those many Clinching Quotations I had therein hâ—mpered him with out of his own Books by explaining defending or Retracting them This I think every considerate Person will judge had been more properly his Province than wholly over-looking this to spend his time in impeaching Others by Renewing his old Baffled Charges before he had cleared himself from being guilty of the same Errors as he calls them which he had charged others with For if they whom he hath charged were as bad as he endeavours to make them yet he of all men is not fit to charge them till he has acquitted himself from the Imputation he lies under of being guilty of the same things This is so plain a Case that it may be hoped upon his next Indiction of such a Mock Meeting at Turners-Hall or elsewhere some of his Auditors when they are together will think fit to put him upon this just and necessary Work and I had like to have said hold him to it but that I consider he will be held to nothing However to furnish any such a little further with matter of that kind to invite him to I will not think much to transcribe another Quotation or two of his which I gave him in my former Book p. 119 120. The first is taken out of his Appendix to his Book of Immediate Revelation p. 256. where speaking of the spiritual Generation and Birth of Christ in us he says Thus we become the Mother of Christ in a spiritual sense or according to the Spirit as the Virgin Mary was his Mother after the Flesh. And this Spiritual Mystery Christ himself did teach in the days of his Flesh when he said Whosoever shall do the Will of my Father which is in Heaven the same is my Brother and Sister and Mother Mat. 12.50 And thus says G. Keith Christ according to his spiritual Birth in the Saints is the Seed of the Woman for that the Saints are the Woman that bring him forth after the Spirit and are his Mother as Mary brought him forth after the Flesh and after the Spirit also so that she was the Mother of Iesus in a double respect for as she brought him forth in her Body so she brought him forth in her Soul otherwise he could not have been her Saviour c. Here G. Keith calls Christ the Seed of the Woman according to his spiritual Birth in the Saints and yet quarrels with W. Penn for saying The Seed Christ must be inward and spiritual Again In the Way cast up p. 102. he says For indeed seeing he Christ is called as really Man before his ouâ—ward Birth in the
Flesh as afterwards we have as good cause to believe him to be true and real Man before his outward Birth in the Flesh as after For it is not the outward Flesh and Blood that is the Man otherwise the Saints that have put off the outward Body should cease to be Men and Christ should have ceased to be Man betwixt his Death and his Resurrection but it is the Soul or inward Man that dwelleth in the Outward Flesh or Body that is the Man most properly such as Christ was even from the beginning And therefore adds he p. 104. Let all the Scriptures be searched and it shall not be found that Christ became Man and took to himself the Soul of Man at his Conception in the Womb of the Virgin Mary but Only that he took Flesh and was the Son of Mary David and Abraham according to the Flesh But according to his Heavenly Nature even as Man he was the Son of God and was the Father and Lord of all the Faithful in all Ages c. Thus far out of my former Book Besides these take the following out of his Way to the City of God p. 125. And thus even from the beginning yea upon Mans Fall God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself and Christ was manifest in the holy Seed inwardly and so stood in the way to ward off the wrath c. For even at Man's Fall the Seed of the Woman was given not only to bruise the Serpents Head but also to be a Lamb or Sacrifice to attone and pacifie the wrath of God towards Men. And this is the Lamb that was slain from the beginning of the World Again p. 154. And in this holy Seed the Sufferings of Christ and how he bore the Iniquities of the Soul and makes Intercession or Attonement unto God may be learned in some measure with many other things concerning Christ in relation to him and his Doings and Sufferings in the outward which was an outward and visible Testimony of his inward Doings and Sufferings in all Ages in Men and Women in the holy Seed And indeed we find that this is only the true and effectual way of knowing the Use and Work of his Coming and Sufferings and Death in the outward by turning and having our Minds turned inwards unto himself near and in our hearts in the holy Seed to know by an inward feeling and good experience his Doings and Sufferings in us by being made conformable thereunto In which Holy Seed as it ariseth in us such a clear Light shineth forth in our Hearts as giveth unto us the true knowledge of the use of his Inward Doings and Sufferings In his Additional Postscript to G. Whitehead's Book called The Nature of Christianity which is one of the Books he cavils at in his Narrative and which very Postscript he mentions there also but does not retract any thing therein he says p. 66. to his Opponent Gordon Because Christ is called the one Offering and that he once offered up his Body c. Thou wouldst exclude him as in us from being one Offering but herein thy work is vain for Christ Jesus is the one Offering still and tho' he offered up his Body outwardly but once upon the Cross yet he remains still an Offering for us within us c. Again p. 67. That thou challenge it that one said Christ was never seen with any Carnal Eye thou hast no more ground than to challenge himself who said He who hath seen me hath seen the Father and yet he said to the Jews who saw the outward Body of Iesus You have neither seen him nor known him Thus G. Keith And yet in his Gross Error p. 14. he blames G. Whitehead for this Expression and bringing Iohn 14. to defend it Again says he We deny not but the Names Messiah Iesus Christ c. were given to him as Man even as in the Flesh but they do More Eminently and More Originally belong to him as he was before he took that Body on him yea more immediately and more originally to the Word the Light the Seed the Life the quickning Spirit that dwelt in that Body which he called This Temple and it was called The Body of Iesus To give more Instances out of his Books would be redious as to comment on these would be needless they speak so plain the same things which he now calls gross and fundamental Errors in others Wherefore leaving that to the Reader as he now says he has done at present with his first Head so have I also In handling which and Answering his many Cavils thereupon I have been the larger because I look upon this to be the greatest and most important part of his Charge For if Christ were denied both as God and Man not only the Object of Faith but the whole Christian Religion would fall But as I have proved his Charge false and wrong in this part so I shall endeavour to shew it is in the other parts also in which I will be more brief if I can The Second Head of G. Keith's Charge viz. That we deny Iustification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed Considered The Second Head says G. Keith is Iustification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed which he says is opposed by W. Penn G. Whitehead aâ—d others Now before I mention his pretended Proofs I think fit to tell the Reader what this very Man has said of W. Penn concerning Iustification within these four years viz. in his Serious Appeal p. 10. he says Nor are W. Penn's words so to be understood concerning Justification as if he excluded Christs Righteousness which he fulfilled in his own Person but only he denieth that any can be justified by that alone without Faith and Repentance c. Did he write thus by rote without reading what W. Penn had written Or had he then read and upon reading did then approve and justifie what W. Penn had writ of Justification and yet now condemn it The Proof he now pretends to bring Nar. p. 24 25. is out of W. Penn's Book called Reason against Railing p. 91. And forgive us our Debts as we forgive our Debtors Says W. Penn Where nothing can be more obvious than that which is forgiven is not paid and if it is our duty to forgive without a Satisfaction received and that God is to forgive us as we forgive them then is a Satisfaction totally excluded This also G. Keith objected in his Gross Error p. 19. Upon this G. Keith says here I confess I was surprized with this word totally excluded Satisfaction adds he is not the strict solution of a Debt in all respects and circumstances VVhen we consider the Dignity of our Lord that was both God and Man his Sufferings suppose they were not the Thousand part of what the Damned suffer yet it was a true satisfaction Therefore I was scandalized with these words says he But he needed not have been
called the Christian Quaker c. Where in Answer to T. Danson's saying The Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body its dear and beloved Companion the Soul having a strong Desire and Inclination to a Re-union to the Body as the Schools not without ground determine vide Calvin He gives a part of G. Whitehead's Answer as also he did in his Gross Error p. 11. thus Both Calvin T. Danson and the Schools and divers Anabaptists are mistaken in this very Matter and see not with the Eye of true Faith either that the Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body or that the Soul hath a strong Desire to a Re-union to the Body while they intend the Terrestrial Elementary Bodies For this implies the Soul to be in a kind of Purgatory or Disquietness till the supposed Resumption of the Body This place as that of G. Whitehead and of W. Penn cited before speaks not of Resurrection of the Body but of the supposed Imperfection of the Souls Happiness without the Body and the strong Desire they fancy it hath to a Re-union to the Body which the immediately following Part of G. Whitehead's Answer left wholly out by G. Keith here and not fully given in his Gross Error though he confidently says Nar. p. 37. I have quoted full Periods at length plainly shews For says G. Whitehead there And their Assertion and Determination therein is contrary to what the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 5. For we know that 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 ver 1. For we that are in this Tabernacle do groan being burdened c. ver 4. We are confident I say and willing rather to be absent from the Body and to be present with the Lord ver 8. And said he the Apostle I am in a strait betwixt two having a desire to depart c. Phil. 1.23 It is manifest I say from hence that G. Whitehead's Words cited by G. Keith related directly to that Notion of T. Danson and others That the Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body and that the Soul hath a strong Desire to a Re-union to the Body to which he opposed those Words of the Apostle before recited Yet from hence G. Keith tells his Hearers You see I hope here is Proof enough that G. Whitehead holds that the deceased Saints look for no Resurrection of the Body But in this he concludes unfairly For the Words he gives for Proof do not prove he held so Here G. Keith was put in Mind it seems that G. Whitehead said Elementary Bodies which he did and Terrestrial also to which G. Keith replies What other Body could it be As much as to say What other Body could the Soul desire to be re-united to but a Terrestrial Elementary Body For of such Bodies G. Whitehead spake as the Soul was said to have a strong desire of re-union to which was the Terrestrial Elementary Body which T. Danson said had been it's dear and beloved Companion So that it seems according to G. Keith it must be a Terrestrial Elementary Body after it is re-united to the Soul in Heaven What other Body could it be says G. Keith But he is fain to step down into his Ditch to fetch up a little of his Ditch-Philosophy to make it out by I hope says he a little Philosophy will not offend you The Objection says he they make is the same against Christ's Body Pray says he Was not Christ's Body Elementary Did he not Eat and Drink And was it not the same as we Eat and Drink And if we Eat and Drink of what are Elementary then his Body did receive the same Elements and they were converted into his Body First let me tell him the Objection made against a Resurrection of Terrestrial Elementary Bodies is not the same against Christ's Body For there was a difference between Christ's Body and the Bodies of other Men. His was a more excellent Body with respect to its Generation G. Keith hath said it Way to the City of God p. 134. And thus he was both the Son of God and the Son of Man according to his very Birth in Mary And therefore even according to that Birth he hath a Divine Perfection and Vertue and that Substantial above all other Men that ever were are or shall be And in p. 135. ' His body hath not only the Perfections of our Body but also much more because of its being generate not only of a Seed of Mary but of a Divine Seed This made him contend against the Word Humane as too mean a Title for the outward and visible Flesh which Christ took of the Virgin Rector Corrected p. 27 c. But now calls Christ's Body not only Elementary but plainly Terrestrial He says G. Whitehead owns in his latter Writings that Christ's Body that rose is the same with his Body that suffered Here he uses the Word Latter deceitfully and maliciously to insinuate as if G. Whitehead had not owned this till now of late whereas he could not but know that in a Postscript to a Book called The Malice of the Independent Agent rebuked written in the third Month 1678. which is eighteen Years ago G. Whitehead for to him G. Keith ascribes that Postscript said Christ did rise in that Body wherein he suffered and in the same ascended into the Heavens I say G. Keith could not but know this because in his Book called The true Copy Printed but last Year p. 21. he quoted a Passage as G. Whitehead's out of that very Postscript But says he in p. 35. his Pride will not suffer him to own his forme Error either in that or in other things I may rather say of G. Keith His Envy will not suffer him to be Iust or Honest. For he can no where find in any of G. Whitehead's Writings that he did ever disown Christ's Body that rose to be the same Body that suffered But there is not an equal Comparison betwixt Christ's Body and Man's His saw no Corruption But Man's Body is subject to Corruption and Putrefaction In p. 35. He says And seeing W. Penn thinks it absurd that a Body can be transformed from an Earthly and Animal Body to an Heavenly Body as says he he argueth Reason against Railing p. 134. He makes it not only as gross as Transubstantiation but worse But this says he is his gross Ignorance in true Philosophy and his false Philosophy destroys his Faith But what I wonder has destroyed G. Keith 's Honesty except it be his gross Enmity For he has most grosly abused W. Penn in this Passage Where doth W. Penn say or hold it is absurd that a Body can be transformed from an Earthly or Animal Body to an Heavenly Body There is no Word in the Place cited nor any where that I know of that either speaks so or has a tendency
Habitation for a Glorified Soul in Heaven to dwell in nor to be the same Body that it was when it was a Natural and Carnal Body if it cease to be a Natural and Carnal Body and be made wholly Spiritual 3. From the uncontroulable Testimony of the Holy Apostle who says expresly That Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdoms of God 1 Cor. 15.50 And by a Metaphor borrowed from Agriculture says That which thou sowest which is the Body that dies and is put into the Grave thou sowest not that Body that shall be ver 37. which is alike as if he had said in so many Syllables The Body that shall arise is not the same Carnal Body that dies and is put into the Grave No the Body that is put into the Grave or is sown is a Natural Body But the Body that is raised is a Spiritual Body It is sown a Natural Body it is raised a spiritual Body says the Apostle ver 44. And that none might think this spiritual Body was the same with the Natural Body he adds There is a Natural Body and there is a spiritual Body 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 There is a Natural Body and there is a Spiritual Body The Apostle illustrates this Difference between the Body that dies or is sown and the Body that is raised from the two Adams the first and the last saying The first Man Adam was made a living Soul the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit ver 45. Is this quickening Spirit the same with that living Soul Is the last Adam and the first Adam but one and the self same Adam The first Man is of the Earth Earthly the second Man is the Lord from Heaven ver 47. Will G. Keith say This second Man which is the Lord from Heaven is the same with the First Man which is of the Earth Earthy As is the Earthy such are they also that are Earthy and as is the Heavenly such are they also that are Heavenly ver 48. Does not the Apostle here plainly shew that as the second Man the Lord from Heaven is not the same with the first Man of the Earth Earthy So the Heavenly Bodies which the Saints shall have are not the same with the Earthy Bodies which they have had And says he as we have born the Image of the Earthy we shall also bear the Image of the Heavenly ver 49. This shews we shall bear the Image of another Body in Heaven than that which we bore on the Earth consequently not the Image of the same Body But if by Heavenly Body were meant the same Body that was Earthy then we should bear the Image of the same Body hereafter in Heaven which we have born here on Earth quite contrary to the Apostle's Doctrine who to clear the matter fully that in all this Discourse of his about the Resurrection he did not mean the same Body of Flesh and Blood that dies should be raised concludes thus ver 50. Now this I say Brethren that 〈…〉 Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God But the 〈◊〉 that dies every one knows is a Body of Flesh and Blood therefore that Body cannot inherit the Kingdom of God but it must be a Body which is not of Flesh and Blood and that cannot be the Body of Flesh and Blood that dies This is so fully handled in those Books of W. Penn and G. Whitehead out of which G. Keith took his pretended Proofs as well as in other Books of theirs that G. Keith needed not have fetched a Round to prove it by alledging that they hold the Resurrection immediately after Death but that he had a Mind to fix if he could that slander on them which they no where say nor do the Places he has quoted prove it For they therein only argued against the absurd and gross Notion of their Opponents which was that the Body which is raised is the same Carnal Body that Died and was Buried which he if he have a Mind may undertake the Proof of But though we cannot subscribe to that gross and carnal Notion yet both the Quakers in general and they in particular do own and always have owned a Resurrection and that of Bodies So said W. Penn in the Book G. Keith quoted or should have quoted if he had not mistaken and quoted another for it Reason against Railing p. 133. We do acknowledge a Resurrection in order to Eternal Recompence and that every Seed shall have its own Body and we rest contented with what Body it shall please God to give us But as we are not such Fools as curiously to enquire What So must we for ever deny the gross Conceits of T. Hicks and his Adherents of whom G. Keith is now become one concerning the Resurrection And having refuted those gross Conceits he spaâ—â— of he concluded thus in p. 140. For our parts 〈…〉 we believe and of Bodies too unto 〈…〉 What they shall not be I have briefly said 〈…〉 roved what they shall be we leave with God 〈…〉 will give every one a Body as pleaseth him and 〈…〉 Fool belongs to the unnecessary medler G Keith himself but a while ago undertook W. Penn's Defence in this Point of the Resurrection against Cotton Mâ—ther in his Serious Appeal p. 9. where he says As for his citing W. Penn's Words arguing against that same Numerical Body its rising at the Resurrection it is clear that he understandeth the same exact Number of the small Particles or Dusts neiâ—her more nor less than what is commonly buried and what hurt is there in that Said G. Keith then If G. Keith has a Mind now to maintain and defend the contrary and will undertake to prove that it is the same Numerical Body with all its Numerical Particles that rises which was buried let him do it Scripturally not only Philosophically and that by false Notions of Philosophy lest he make People suspect he intends only a Resurrection of Philosophers or at most but a Philosophical Resurrection I advise him to keep to Scripture-Terms because he hath so often recommended that to others and blamed his Opponents formerly for going from it And particularly in his Book called Truth 's Defence p. 169. is Positive That all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith which God requireth in common of all Christians are expresly delivered and recorded in the Scriptures and therefore says he there for my part what I cannot find expresly delivered in Scripture I see no Reason why I should receive or believe as any common Article or Principle of the Christian Faith or Life The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead is a common Article of the Christian Faith which we find expresly delivered in the Scriptures and accordingly we sincerely believe it But we do not find it expresly
said he produced those Manuscripts as a Nip for his conceited Folly asked in a Parenthesis What means he by above six Does he mean six and a half For if they had been seven or eight he might as well have said so as above six This he calls my way of Quibbling which I think was suitable enough to his way of Scribbling Why should such a conceited Philosopher play the Fool and not be told of it He says I tell him he is guilty of Forgery in saying the Yearly Meeting censured any Expressions in his Manuscripts But because he repeats this over and over in the following part of his Narrative I say nothing to it here intending to speak to it once for all when he is got past his Manuscripts which he now says are seven or eight it seems he does not yet know whether however it is more than six and an half and not quite so uncertain as above six Yet I find not that he produced any more than two and those but private Letters from one Man and out of them he read but a piece of each and how truly and fairly he read those Pieces I know not having no Copy to prove them thereby for when they were read at the Yearly Meeting he mentions we could not obtain a Copy of them from him and we have seen but lately how unfair and unjust he was in giving a Passage out of G. Whitehead's Book The Letters he mentions go under the Name of one Iohn Humphreys and the substance of that part he read out of the first Letter is 1. A blaming them that divide Christ and put asunder what God hath joyned together by making such a distinction between Christ within and Christ without as divides Christs Body from his Spirit 2. A censuring G. Keith 's Ten Articles of Faith as relishing too much of Carnality And then says I am grieved to hear some say They did expect to be justified by that Blood that was shed at Ierusalem When G. Keith had read what he thought would serve his purpose he gave over and said I have not read the whole Letter but an intire Paragraph of it And thereupon says So farewel Christ without You divide Christ if you mention Christ without I think he wrongs the Man in the Inference for I take his meaning to be not that the bare mentioning Christ without is a Dividing of Christ but that so to distinguish between Christ within and Christ without as to make two distinct Christs of them whereas Christ within and Christ without is but one Christ this is to divide Christ and this I take to be that which Io. Humphreys did there blame But I would fain know why G. Keith did not read the whole Letter For though I would not be over-confident upon my own Memory of a thing I never heard read but once and that more than two years ago yet I am strongly perswaded there were other Passages in that Letter which was read in the Yearly Meeting that did explain I. Humphreys his meaning in these And I cannot think why G. Keith who is prolix enough at other times should pick out a piece of a Letter only and conceal the rest if he had not found something in the rest that he thought would take off the edge of his Objection against that he took As for those pieces of I. Humphreys Letters which G. Keith hath exposed in his Narrative though I do not hold my self nor the People called Quakers accountable for them or for every thing that particular Persons may write in private Letters yet I charitably hope though I know not the Man that wherein he hath erred it hath rather been in the Expression of his Mind than in his real Intent and Meaning For in that passage of his first Letter wherein he says I am grieved to hear some say they did expect to be justified by that Blood that was shed at Ierusalem I take these words to depend upon that complaint which he had made before of Dividing Christ by that kind of Distinction which some had made between Christ within and Christ without whereby they attributed at least he thought they did that to one part only as distinct and divided from the other which ought in a right sence to be ascribed to both joyntly I am the rather induced to believe this was his meaning from that Passage which G. Keith hath given out of his second Letter which seems to have been written on this occasion wherein he says the word Only should have been put in and that the leaving it out was the Omission of his Pen. Now had that word been in as it seems he intended it should have been the Sentence would have been thus I am grieved to hear some say They did expect to be justified by that Blood Only thaâ— was shed at Ierusalem And then I suppose G. Keith would not have quarrelled with it And though I. Humphreys when he saw how his Meaning was wrested in his first Letter did in his second Letter after he had declared the word Only should have been in and that that was his meaning in contempt of the deceitful and malicious workings of the Adversaries seemed indifferent whether they put in the word only or no saying as G. Keith cites him But however Let Deceit and Malice have its full force and scope upon it and that word only taken off the Conclusion of my Paper c. Yet it seems he did this not as intending thereby to exclude the Blood shed at Ierusalem from having any share or part in our Justification but as believing from his before declared Sense that Christ and consequently his Sacrifice ought not to be divided but taken joyntly that it would appear his Words had the force and import of the Word only and that that was his Meaning though the Word only was through inadvertency left out And therefore he refers to the Words of Christ Iohn 6.63 Which saying says he of our Saviour himself will clear me of your Aspersion So that even from what G. Keith hath thought fit to give of his second Letter it appears that their wresting the Words in his former Letter and inferring therefrom that he wholly excluded the Blood shed at Jerusalem from being concerned in our Iustification he took to be an Aspersion upon him and so called it Now the Words of our Saviour which he referr'd to in Iohn 6.63 are these It is the Spirit that quickeneth the Flesh profiteth nothing In which Words it may not be supposed our Saviour meant that his Flesh or Body as it was in Conjunction with his Spirit and Soul and contained that Divine Life which dwelt in it and was offered up together a compleat Sacrifice to the Father did profit nothing did avail nothing did contribute nothing to the Benefit and Advantage of Man But that the Flesh or Body considered simply of it self and by it self without that Divine Life Soul and Spirit that was in
therein considered TO his Narrative he tacks an Appendix containing he says some considerable Proofs out of these Menâ— Books relating to the foregoing Heads The first Passage be carps at is in G. Whitehead's Book called The Divinity of Christ p. 70. Where in Answer to I. Owen who had â—aid The Sacrifice deâ—otes his Christ's Humane Nature whence God iâ— said to purchase his Church with his own Blood Acts 20.28 For he offered himself through the eternal Spirit there was the Matter of the Sacrifice which was the Humane Nature of Christ's Soul and Body c. G. Whitehead answered These Passages are but darkly and confusedly expressed As also we do not read in Scripâ—ure that the Blood of God by which he purchased his â—hurch is ever called the Blood of the Humane Nature Nor that the Soul of Christ was the Humane Nature or was put to death with the Body for the wicked could not kill the Soul for his Soul in his own being was immortal and the Nature of God is Divine and therefore that the Blood of God should be of Humane or Earthly Nature appears intonsistent And where doth the Scripture call the Blood of God Humane or Human Nature c. It is plain enough from hence That G. Whitehead's Exception lay against the word Human which he explains by Earthly to shew he took it in that signification wherein it is derived abâ—Humo from the Ground or Earth in which sence it is not a fit or proper Term to express the Blood of God or the Soul of Christ nay nor his outward Man by For his outward Body which was nailed to the Cross was not of a Meer Earthly Extraction there was more of Divinity even in that Body than in the Bodies of other men which rendred it too Heavenly to be called Humane or Earthly But though G. Whitehead rejected the word Humane or Earthly with respect to Christ's Manhood and Holy Nature and to the Blood of God wherewith he purchased his Church and could not admit that his Soul was put to death though it with the Body was made an Offering for Sin and so it is in a figurative manner of speaking said that he poured it out to death yet he never denied the Manhood of Christ nor the sufferings thereof both inwardly and outwardly nor the virtue merit and efficacy of those sufferings Nor is there any thing in those words of his which G. Keith hath quoted that imports he did But in the progress of his Answer to I. Owen in the next page mentioning both the Travel and Sufferings of Christ's Soul under the Burden of Man's Transgression and the suffering of his Body under the violence of the wicked hands to death and the shedding of his Blood c. he adds We desire all may have as good an esteem of Christ in his sufferings as may be Therefore G. Keith doth very unjustly and like himself in insinuating as if G. Whitehead had denied the Manhood of Christ. He takes some pains to excuse himself for having formerly as he pretended to excuse others cited those words of Hilarius Quid per Naturam Humani corporiâ— conceptu ex Spiritu Sancto Caro judicatur i.e. Why is the Flesh conceived by the Holy Ghost judged by the Nature of an Human Body But says he neither Hilarius nor I judged that the Body though conceived of the Holy Ghost was any part of the substance of the Holy Ghost No more say I do we Yet being conceived by the Holy Ghost through the overshadowing of the Power of the Most High that Body was more Pure and Heavenly than the Bodies of other Men and above the Epithet Humane or Earthly The Book he mentions in which he says he cited those words of Hilarius which he calls The True Christ owned I do not remember I have ever seen But in another Book of his called The Rector Corrected Printed the next year after that viz. in 1680. he gives the same sentence out of Hilarius and tells us p. 29. Hilarius saith concerning the Body of Christ that was born of the Virgin Iesus Christ was not formed by the Nature of Humane Conception and that the Original of his Body is not of an Humane Conception And as there he spake for Hilarius so in p. 27. speaking for himself he says even the outward and visible Flesh which he took of the Virgin seeing it was not produced or formed by Humane Generation but by a Divine Conception through the Overshadowing of the Holy Ghost and did far excel the Flesh of all other Men that ever were since inasmuch also that after death it was not subject to Corruption the name Humane Mark is but too mean a Title whereby to express it far less should it be so called now when it is glorified and it is altogether Heavenly and Spiritual Nor doth the Scripture any where give unto his Body such a name as Humane said he then And who would then have thought that he would have come to plead for the word Humane with respect to Christ's both Flesh and Soul and condemn us for Hereticks for not using it But concerning the Excellency of Christ's Body hear what he said in the year 1678. in his Book called The way to the City of God which now poor man he is quite beside p. 131. Even according to that Birth he Christ was the Son of God no lesâ— than the Son of Man as having God for his Father as he had the Virgin Mary for his Mother Now the Child says he we know doth partake an Image or Nature from both Parents And thus did Christ who did partake of the Nature and Image of Man from the Seed of Mary but did partake of a Nature and Image much more excellent than that of Man in its greatest Glory from God and his Seed who did really sow a most divine and heavenly Seed in the Virgins Womb which as it supplied the Males Seed so it had much more in it and brought forth a Birth which as it had the true and whole Nature of Man so I say it had a Perfection above it and that not only in accidental qualities as men will readily confess but even in substance and Essence And yet we must be now anathematized and that by him for denying that Body to be Humane or Earthly He says p. 53 G. Whitehead 's Objection against the word Humane as signifying Earthly hath the same force against calling Christ Adam coming from the Hebrew word Adamah that signifieth Earth From hence first I must desire the Reader to observe that G. Keith saw well enough where the ground of G. Whitehead's Objection lay viz. as I have expressed it before upon the word Humane as signifying Earthly This shews that he is a meer Caviller and seeks occasions to quarrel and defame without cause Next I must tell him That Christ is not called Adam in a strict and proper sense but in a figurative with allusion to the First Man
glorious State Yet doth not his entring into this State imply that he has put off his Body he had on Earth and is separated from it For that Body being glorified is in Heavenly Glory with him But it is probable he raised this Cavil as to defame VV. Penn so also to introduce a Story which hereupon he tells of one R. Young in Pensilvania who he says affirmed this But that he did so G. Keith gives no Proof but his own Word which is justly in things of this kind of no Credit with me who have so often found and proved him false He makes a Third note upon those words of W. Penn before cited and that with as little Honesty as before For from W. Penn's saying All must know a Death to their Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh G. Keith says It is plain from his words that he hath this unsound sense of it that they must know a Death to the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh as the Flesh signifieth the Flesh of Christ as he came in the Flesh. But as this Comment is not very perfect sense and yet I will not call it perfect Nonsense so it is plain that he perverts W. Penn's words to a wrong sense and therein Abuses him For W. Penn's words are All must know a Death to their Fleshly ways and Religions which word Fleshly ways and Religions G. Keith left out see his Abominable Falshood and Treachery Yea their knowledge of Christ himself after the Flesh c. Which words Fleshly ways and Religions shew what sort of Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh he meant all must know a Death to viz. Their Fleshly Knowledge as Fleshly is opposed to Spiritual or that Knowledge which they in their Carnal Minds have comprehended or gathered in and in which too many rest without pressing after the Divine and Spiritual Knowledg of the End of Christ's coming in the Flesh and the Blessed effects thereof and manifold Benefits that accrue thereby to them that receive him in his Spiritual Appearance But how malicious a mind must he have who from those words would infer that W. Penn would have all to Die to the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh so as not to know that he ever came in the Flesh. In p. 58. G. Keith cites a Passage out of a Book of W. Penn's called Truth Exalted and with all rents a Quotation he gave before in his Narrative p. 21. out of a Book called The Christian Quaker which the Reader may find answered before From both which he infers that he and G. Whitehead and many other Teachers among the Quakers have no other Notion of Christ but an Inward Principle This is such a known Falshood and Apparent Slander Contradicted by almost all our Books and so fully disproved in many places of this Book that it neither deserves nor nâ—eds any other Answer here than a bare Denyal To his unjust Charge of unsound Passages he adds two or three seeming Contradictions which he would fasten upon W. Penn. The First is That in A Treatise of Oaths mentioned before he is earnest against all Oaths under the Gospel and yet in his Reason against Railing p. 180. he useth saith G. Keith the greatest Oath that ever was used among the Jews The Instance he gives is in these words directed to T. Hicks O that these heavy things might not be laid to thy Charge for so sure as God liveth there 's his Catch great will be the wrath that shall follow Yea God will visit for these unrighteous Dealings And I testify to thee from God's living Spirit if thou desist not and come not to deep Repentance the Lord will make thee an example of his Fury and thy Head shall not go down to the Grave in Peace c. This I take to be a meer Cavil and a very weak one too For first That form of Speech as the Lord liveth though it was sometimâ—â— used among the Jews of Old as an Oath yet it was not always so nor do I think G. Keith will take it to be intended for an Oath in all those places where he Reads it in the Bible as particularly in 1 Sam. 25 26. Where Abigail used it to David Concerning his Enemies See also Chap. 26.10 and Chap. 29.6 1 Ki. 17.12 and 18.10 2 Ki. 22.4.6 and Chap. 4.30 Iob. 27.2 with many other places in the Books of Samuel and the Kings where it is used sometimes singly as the Lord liveth sometimes with this Addition and as thy Soul liveth Yea and sometimes this latter Expression as thy Soul liveth is used without the former as in 1 Sam. 1.26 and 17.55 2 Sam. 11.11 14 19. Yet neither with it nor without it was intended for an Oath Secondly There is a difference between those two forms of Speech As the Lord liveth and so sure as God liveth for though the former was formerly used as an Oath yet the latter never was so used or taken but is only a Persuasive Form of Speech used to set forth the unquestionable Certainty of the thing delivered from the acknowledged Certainty that God lives In which sense and no other it is evident W. Penn there used it to express the Assurance he had of the Truth and Certainty of the Testimony he then gave against and to Tho. Hicks But none I think besides G. Keith would be so extravagant as to think that in these words W. Penn intended to take his Oath that the wrath of God which should follow those unrighteous dealings of T. Hicks would be great So to think were great Folly How mean a Cavil then is this And how meer a Caviller hath G. Keith shewn himself therein The latter part of W. Penn's words before cited G. Keith says imply some Prophecy against T. Hicks which he suggests was not fulfilled But he should have observed that what was there spoken of T. Hicks was Conditional if he desisted not and came noâ— to Repentance That he desisted is certain that he did not â—ome to Repentance I suppose G. Keith will not adventure to say that he did come to Repentance I have heard which that G. Keith also may do I wish His second Instance of Contradiction he gives in p. 59. out of two Books of W. Penn's One called Iudas and the Iews p. 13. the other An Address to Protestants p. 152. in the second Edition p. 151. in the first Edition the Passage is concerning the Power of the Church from those words of Christ Mat. 18.17 Go tell the Church This place in both those Books W. Penn expounded of Private Offences or Personal Injuries between Brethren which has no shew of Contradiction in it 'T is true that in the former he inferr'd from those words of Christ That Christ gave his Church Power both to try and reject Spirits In the other he denies that those words of Christ do Impower the Church to define and Impose upon all People under Temporal and Eternal Punishment Articles of
his Narrative where he hath repeated these Charges against W. Penn and G. Whitehead and I as before have endeavoured to free them from his Perversions and Abuses The Fourth Error he bestows on me is That I deny that the Gift of the Divine Grace or Power within is the real Purchase of Christ's Obedience unto Death arguing that if so that would not be the Free Gift of God p. 121. Here are two notable Pieces of Art he has shewed in the framing of this Error First He has changed my VVords from The Gift of the promised Seed to The Gift of the Divine Grace or Power within Which quite alters the Sence of the Place For whereas I inferred from his Words that the Gift of the promised Seed was not a free Gift or did not proceed from the free Love of God to Man contrary to Iohn 3.16 but was the real purchase of Christ's most holy and perfect Obedience unto Death when he came which was the Error and Absurdity I drew upon him from his own Words He to slip from under that changes the Words as I shewed before from the Gift of the promised Seed to the Gift of the Divine Grace and Power within referring to Rom. 5.15 Eph. 4.7 8. and Psalm 68.18 which latter Places mention Christ's giving Gifts unto Men when he ascended up on High after his Death and Resurrection So turning the Free Gift of God in promising the Seed and giving his only begotten Sun to the Gift of Divine Grace and Power within which Christ the promised Seed gave when he ascended up on high and then charges me with Error in denying this Gift given by Christ to be the real purchase of his Obedience unto Death whereas it was the Gift of Christ himself as the promised Seed that I spake of which was the Effect of God's free Love not the purchase of Christ's Death The other piece of his Art is in turning this upon me saving He denies Whereas I neither denyed nor affirmed but shewed him the Absurdity and Error of his own Words The Fifth Error he assigns me is That I blame him for saying Christ's Body is the same in substance it was on Earth p. 129. I desire the Reader to examine that Place in my Book and he will see that I do not blame G. Keith for saying Christ's Body is the same in substance it was on Earth But I expose his Confusion and Folly in saying it is the same in substance that it was on Earth and yet saying It is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure ethereal or Heavenly Body as if Christ's Body when on Earth had not been a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but an Ethereal or Airy Body Or as if Flesh Blood and Bones were not of the substance of an outward visible tangible Body such as was that which was nailed to the Cross at Ierusalem The Sixth Error he allots me is That I deny that Christ came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary p. 136. In this as in the rest he is extreamly unjust In this place also we treated of Christ as he was the promised Seed And he undertaking to prove in p. 22. of his Book called The True Copy c. from Mat. 1.1 That the Seed of Promise came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary I pinched him up close with his own words in that same Book of his p. 20. where he had said It is neither the Body of Christ strictly considered nor the Soul of Christ strictly considered without the Godhead nor the Godhead strictly considered without the Soul and Body of the Manhood of Christ that is the Seed of the Woman or Seed of Abraham but the Godhead and Manhood jointly considered and most gloriously united Hereupon I shewed him that in urging Mat. 1.1 to prove the Seed of Promise as he had defined it came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary he shewed himself to be of a corrupt Judgment and contradicted his former Saying I was so favourable before as only to say Should I not serve him right if from hence I should conclude against him that he holds the Seed of Promise as consisting of Godhead and Manhood united to have come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary since he blamed S. C. for denying it But I think I have just cause now to set it harder on him and charge it home upon him as a vile and gross Error That he holds that Christ who he says in the same place was the Son of God by an eternal Generation before the World began the promised Seed which he says is neither the Body of Christ strictly considered nor the Soul of Christ strictly considered without the Godhead nor the Godhead strictly considered without the Soul and Body of the Manhood of Christ but the Godhead and Manhood joinâ—ly considered and most gloriously united that Christ the promised Seed or Seed of the Woman thus defined did come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary And I hope he will think himself or that others however will think him obliged to clear himself of this Error which is vile and gross enough before he take upon him to arraign others The Seventh Error he abuses me with is That I pervert the Apostle's Creed in that Clause Conceived of the Holy Ghost p. 138. by which I infer that Christ came not by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary and in so doing he says I make the Holy Ghost to be the maâ—erial Cause of that Generation as if that Holy Thing conceived were of the substance of the Holy Ghost whereas the Holy Ghost was the Efficient Cause thereof but not the Material Cause Perversion is so natural to him that he can do nothing at this sort of work without it That he might fasten an Error upon me he perverts yea alâ—ers the words of that Creed For the words of that Creed in that Clause are Conceived by the Holy Ghost and so I gave them in my Book he has changed the word by to of and renders it Conceived of the Holy Ghost Whereas the word by imports the Holy Ghost to have been the Efficient Cause that by vertue of which Mary conceived But the word of imports him to have been the Material Cause as if the thing conceived had been taken of the Matter or substance of the Holy Ghost To avoid which I following the express words of that Creed said the common Creed called The Apostles says Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost though born of the Virgin Mary Now how shameless is this Man to charge me with vile and gross Error in perverting the Apostle's Creed in that Clause Conceived of the Holy Ghost When it plainly appears from his own Book that it is he himself that has altered and thereby perverted the words of that Creed and not I Besides
brings it forth And though G. Keith says This is as absurd as to say The Beams of the Sun that descend on the Earth are the chief Cause of the Earths Fruitfulness and not the Sun it self that is in the Firmament yet both the Absurdity and Error will prove his own in his comparing the Inward Appearance of Christ in the Heart whereby the work of Regeneration and Sanctification is wrought to the Beams of the Sun that is in the Firmament by which the Earth is fructified as if Christ were no otherwise in the Saints than the Sun is on the Earth viz. by its Beams Whereas the Travail of the Apostle was That Christ might be formed in them he writ to Gal. 4.19 That he might dwell in their hearts by faith Ephes. 3.17 And G. Keith saith expresly Way cast up p. 134. The word Incarnate or made Flesh and called by Iames the Ingrafted Word we do really see for it dwelleth in us And p. 124 125. It is impossible says G. Keith that he could hear us and be sensible of our Prayers and especially of our Thoughts if he were not immediately present in us and with us And in p. 123. He says The Man Christ Jesus is really present in and among us I do not mean says he by his external or outward Person for that is ascended into Heaven but in vertue of his divine Life and Spirit or Soul extended into us in his divine Seed and Body which is his heavenly Flesh and Blood wherewith he feedeth the Souls of them that believe in him In p. 107. He brings many Scriptures as Ioh. 6.56 and 17.23 Rom. 8.10 Eph. 3.17 Col. 1.27 1 Cor. 13.3 and 5. to prove Christs Being and Dwelling in the Saints and that as the Word made Flesh according to Iohn 1.14 And in p. 111. Speaking of Christ's dwelling in the hearts of the Saints by Faith he says He is formed in them Gal. 4.19 so that they are his Mother who bring him forth by a spiritual and divine Birth Mat. 12.49 Is this to be compared to the Beams of the Sun that descend on the Earth Or did it hold forth a more immediate and substantial Indwelling of Christ in his People How unsuitable then is G. Keith's Comparison besides the Error it discovers in his Judgment of the Beams of the Sun descending on the Earth and there causing Fruitfulness in it to Christ's working Regeneration and Sanctification in his People As if Christ in his Spiritual Appearance and Working were no nearer to his People than the Sun in the Firmament is to the Earth What remains of his Appendix to his Narrative at the bottom of p. 61 and 62. being little and to as little purpose I designedly wave as supposing he may probably receive an Account of it from another hand But I shall here fetch in a Passage in p. 60. which I purposely stept over there with intention to bring it in here It is this In p. 60. He says Now before I have quite done with W. Penn let me put him in mind of his Promise That he would answer me in the face of the Nation For I think I have made good my Word that I have put him to prove his Charge against me that I am an Apostate in the face of the Nation What need W. Penn do that and he too Did W. Penn so oblige himself to do it that he must needs do it over again after G. Keith hath been so kind to him to save him that labour by having done it himâ—elf again and again and that indeed in the face of the Nation in every Book he has published since It is probable W. Penn might have done it before now if G. Keith had not taken the work out of his hand and shewed himself so officious and forward to do it that he has thereby rather confirmed the apprehension I formerly had of his Meaning when in p. 32. of his Book called The True Copy he said I propose this just demand to W. Penn that he give me an Opportunity to make good his Charge against me c. namely That he wanted but opportunity to do it himself and thereby free W. Penn from that small undertaking I know not how I may speed for reminding him of this For I remember he was very angry with me before for but gently touching it and I think pretty modestly with a He seems to have bespoke a publick Meeting that â—e might have done it himself there Yet this soft touch put him into such a Heat that I doubt whether he be Cool yet For no longer ago than the Third Month last when he publishâ— his intention of Holding his Court at Turner's Hall he was in such a Fret about it that in the Postscript to his Advertisement in p. 11. of his Narrative he calls it a most impulent and notorious Perversion a Cheat and Forgery Me a gross and impudent Forgerer Wresâ—er and Perverter offers to prove me to be not only guilty â—â— Gross Forgeries and Perversions and Antichristian Principles oâ— which the Reader hath just now heard a long List in Ten Heads and not only so but says he grosly ignorant in that which he pretends to have knowledge of Humane Learning and of that I can assure him I never pretended to much and though I love Learning well yet I had rather be as Ignorant as he takes me to be than as Arrogant as I take him to be Neither is this all but I am also he says guilty of Pedantick Trifling and Quibling from meer Errors of the Press not so duly corrected yet obvious to any intelligent Reader I confess I think both his Book and Himself under correction be it spoken have need enough to be duly corrected and that I suppose is obvious to any intelligent Reader Now if I did happen to mistake his Meaning in that hobling Expression of his lame Demand of an Opportunity for him as his words seemed to import to make good the Charge against himself I think he has sufficiently paid me off with his Billingsgate Rhetorick and Scottish Complements Yet were it not that I am loath to offend him again so soon I could tell him that the Explanation he gives doth not sufficiently clear the sense of that Cloudy Sentence neither hath he shewed that it was the Error of the Press but added another viz. when I will for where I will But I have done with that leâ—t he tax me with Quibling I return to p. 60. of the Narrative where G. Keith having put W. Penn in mind of his Promise to prove him an Apostate c. which G. Keith himself hath sufficiently done says And let him not put off this Work that belongs to himself to any Deputy or Busie Intruder as T. Ellwood or I. Penington who have already sufficiently shewed their Folly in Print But how if T. E. and I. P. should not think they have sufficiently shewed their Folly in Print Will he not give them
that way But that which W. Penn reputed absurd was that a Body should be said to 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 This is that of which W. Penn said How is it possible that it should be the same and not the same And if a thing can yet be the same and notwithstanding changed for shame let us never much so make stir against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation And indeed as easily may G. Keith defend the one as the other And if among those of the Protestant Parties he now Courts he should miss of the End of his turning from the Quakers it is not altogether unlikely but that he may try what Earnings he can make among them that hold that Doctrine He says It is not Transubstantiation if I say a Saint's Body is the same at the Resurrection for Substance as it was when it went into the Grave leaving the faces or drossie Part of it behind I say that is beside the Question But the Question is Whether a Natural or Carnal Body that is a Body consisting of Flesh Blood and Bones can be raised out of the Grave without Flesh Blood and Bones and yet be properly and truely said to be the same natural or carnal Body that it was while it consisted of Flesh Blood and Bones For if he would argue from the Substance of a Body he should first have defined what the Substance of a Natural or Carnal Body is that it might have been agreed whether the Faces or drossy Part as he calls it by which I understand him to mean the Flesh Blood and Bones be the Substance or any Part of the Substance of a Natural or Carnal Body He seems to hold that it is not For he blames W. Penn for holding that Carniety is essential to a Carnal Body that is that Flesh is essential to a Body of Flesh and he says thereupon see how contrary this is to common Sense and Vnderstanding But sure I think every one that has but common Sense and Understanding may have ground to Question Whether he has not lost his To manifest how contrary it is to common Sense and Understanding and withal to give his Auditors to understand that he is not only a mickle Philosopher but a little Piece of an Hen-Housewife too he says There is no VVoman that sets an Hen to breed Chickens but knows the contrary You know says he the Substance of the Egg the VVhite and Yolk by the force and heat of the Hen sitting on the Egg is changed into a Chicken Is here sâ—â—s he any Transubstantiation First observe he grants the White and the Yolk to be the Substance of the Egg. Next that this Substance of the Egg the VVhite and the Yolk is changed into a Chicken Now unless he will affirm that the Substance of a Chicken after it comes to be a Chicken is the VVhite and Yolk I see not how he will avoid a Transubstantiation that is a changing of the Substance of the Egg which was VVhite and Yolk into the Substance of a Chicken which of all the Chicken I have eaten of I always took to be Flesh Blood and Bones If he thinks otherwise and it should ever happen that he and I should be Fâ—llow-Commoners at a Chicken let him but let me have what I call the Substance of it and I will readily resign all the rest to him even the VVhite and the Yolk if he can find it and in requital of his Courtesie some part and the most solid of that which I call the Substance too which will not be unsuitable to a Cynical Philosopher But whereas he makes himself a little sport with VV. Penn's Philosophy he might have considered that what VV. Penn writ on that subject was not to entertain the Schools but to inform common and vulgar Capacities and therefore he handled it Scripturally not Philosophically using the Terms he writ in according to the ordinary Signification and common Acceptation of them What he says of a Chymical Operation I take to be but a Chymical VVhimsie in his Head or a Chimera which he pleases viz. That a gross Body of Herbs or other Substance can by Chymical Operation be made so subtile volatile and spiritual without any Transubstantiation or Change of the Substance that a Glass can scarce confine or hold it I don't think many have that understanding that he pretends to have of Chymical Operations That a subtile volatile spirituous Substance may by Chymical Operation be extracted from a gross Substance or Body of Herbs is easily apprehensible And that which is so extracted is usually called the Spirit of that Body out of which it is drawn not the Body it self But that the gross Body it self of Herbs or other Substance can be made so subtile and volatile as scarce to be contained in a Glass requires better Proof to gain belief than his bare saying it Besides if the gross Body be made so subtile and volatile as he says how is the Faeces or drossy part left behind as he says But that which must make his Chymical Conceit bear any right Parallel with that Notion of the Resurrection which VV. Penn opposed must be that this gross Body of 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 it s almost unconfinable subtility by Chymical Operation as they hold the Body that dies and is laid in the Grave to be changed in the Resurrection and yet to be the same Body after the Resurrection as it was when it died and was laid in the Grave This is that which VV. Penn compared to the Absurdity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Folly of which Doctrine not to meddle here with the Impiety of it lies in this that the Patrons of that Opinion affirm the very Substance of the Bread and VVine after the Words of Consecration as they call them are spoken to be really changed into the very Substance of Christ's Body and yet the Accidents of the Bread and Wine enforce the Senses to confess that the Substance of the Bread and VVine remains in them as before I perceive he has done and that quickly with his Third Head about the Resurrection Which as he has stated it he needed not at all have attempted to prove our denial of For it is a known thing that as we have always asserted a Resurrection of Bodies so we have always denied the Body which shall be raised to be the same Body that died with respect to Grosness and Carniety and that 1. From the Principles of our Opposers about it who hold that it is wonderfully changed and therefore it is a wonder it should be the very same 2. From the Reason and Nature of the thing which will not admit a Natural Carnal Body to be a suitable