destroy the Felicity of his Soul that he makes the Work of Regeneration in the Soul of Man to be nothing else but a Purification from Sin as when a Body besmeared with Dirt is cleansed that is a Purification and not a Transmutation I never heard nor read saith he a more Ignorant and Nonsensical Assertion Answer Nor I a more bold Forgery For where doth the Friend Labour to destroy the Felicity of either Soul or Body Where doth he make the work of Regeneration NOTHING ELSE but a Purification c. Though he saith it is RATHER so than a Transmutation which was G. Keith's phrase He needed not therefore have queried as he doth p. 13. What is this but to make the Souls of the Saints nothing but so many Tabulae Rasae Washed Tables without any beautiful Colours or lively Portraicture on them Is then the Image of God in the Saints no positive thing but a freedom from Sin or a Negation of it Is Holiness nothing but a Negation of unholiness c Nor to have added O wretched Ignorance And O Lamentable shame that falls upon the Second Days Weekly Meeting of the People called Quakers for approving such Antichristian Doctrine c For as the Friend did not deny that man after his Restoration becometh really Holy and hath a divine Image the Image of the Heavenly stamped upon him even so that the Soul hath the Impression thereof which yet may be without change of substance So G. Keith himself as little Charity as he useth to have for us or him seems to allow C. Pusey will not stand to it upon better Consideration which shews G. Keith hath been fighting with his own shadow all this while who thus goes on But if on better Consideration he be ashamed of his rash assertion is G. Keith ashamed of his false Charge and come to acknowledge that the Soul by Regeneration not only is purified from Sin but wonderfully Changed and transformed from Natural or Animal to Spiritual from Earthly Is the Soul Earthly to Heavenly and yet the same in substance let him acknowledge that the mighty Power of God through Christ that hath thus Changed the Soul retaining the same Substance can and will change the low Body of a Saint and fashion it like the Glorious Body of Christ c. Answer As he misapplies what was said by Paul of the Natural Body to the Change or Transformation of the Soul so neither do his Parallels hold For the Soul that is Immortal is of nearer affinity to Spiritual than the Mortal which puts on Immortality and the addition it receives of Beauty and Glory do not Change its Substance But what is this to the vile low or Corruptible Body which is as diametrically opposit to Glorious and Eternal and Incorruptible as any thing can be Can that be changed into Incorruptible and Spiritual and yet the substance the same as when corruptible Fleshly and Mortal This indeed he would fain have us grant and in the next Paragraph pretends to demonstrate how a natural and Corruptible substance hath been Changed into a Spiritual one he should have added and yet the substance not Changed for that is the matter in debate and whereupon C. Pusey hath compared his Notion as equally Contradictory to Reason with that of Transubstantiation However he attempts to prove it thus The Food which our Saviour received into his Body was it not before he received it Corruptible saith he and answers Yea surely it was and what part of that Food became part of his Body and Flesh it was turned or changed into Incorruptible c. p. 13. 14. Answer I did observe though I have not noted it before that in Truth Advanced p. 119. he said The inferior Creatures by a sort of innate appetite and desire encline to be joyned unto Man as their Head and to be his Food that so they may attain to their Perâ—ection and Restoration in him which they cannot attain unto otherwise But I let that pass then having store of absurdities besides to load him with yet now he having taken a larger step to embody them with the Heavenly Man the Lord from Heaven shall shall I not say with a cause as himself did but lately without a cause O wretched Ignorance O Lamentable shame He that tells the Friend that as a Shooemaker goes beyond his Last so he beyond his Sphere of knowledge What becomes of our Master of Arts now Had he not better have kept to his employ of teaching of School-Boys than thus to go beyond his Sphere of knowledge as to draw such Inferences which would fetch in the very Beasts of the Field Fowls of the Air and Fish of the Sea to become part of Christs Body and Flesh in Heaven A second thing I observe in that very Paragraph p. 14. is that he cites Malice of Independent Agent p. 17. which he assigns to G. Whitehead as the Author of to prove that the Body of Christ is at present an Incorruptible Substance The words I find in said Page to be thus Seeing we have always believed and confessed the Immortality and entire beings of the Souls of all other men it must needs be evidently unjust to accuse us with denying the Manhood of Christ or Jesus of Nazareth to have a being both as to his Soul and Body And seeing G. Keith hath Read this and thereby perceived that the Divine existence of Christs Manhood in Heaven was so fully acknowledged what a kind of Man must he be to insinuate the contrary against G. Whitehead The Friend having shewed that G. Keith had asserted that the grossy part called by Paul Corruption is not proper to Man as Man nor no proper part of Mans Body and the other part Corrupteth not argueth thus How then is it said of David that he slept with his Fathers and saw Corruption and of Job I have said of Corruption Thou art my Father c. And how is Man in Scripture called Corruptible Man See his p. 32. This G. Keith calls Wrangling and Quibling from his own gross Misunderstanding of some places of Scripture but he doth not enform him better though he adds if he will take these Scriptures strictly and litterally he must as much contend against the Immortality of the Soul as the Resurrection of the Body c. But why so Doth G. Keith manifest wherein Or give any proof that these Scriptures are not to be taken strictly and litterally Nothing less They were pat and argumentum ad hominem to him the enervating whereof he shifts by huffing What he adds of the mortal Body of Man being truly said to be Corruptible because it consists of two Heterogeneous parts the one noble the other ignoble to wit the Husk Dross or Cortex and after the Separation of the Noble from the ignoble is not Corrupt c. Is not ad rem The question is not about Husk Dross or Cortex but of what was proper to Man as Man
not proper to Man as Man not so much as to his Cloathing before the Fall but was added by means of transgression A Resurrection of the Body of such a Body as God shall please to give we own and that he knows full well but his uncertain Wavering Notional Absurd Incongruous and Unscriptual Expositions we reject as particularly what he said even now that that which riseth is the Mortal and yet again that which riseth is a pure noble part that consumeth not and this makes him uneasy As a further Indication of his instability let us hear what true Philosophy right Reason and ocular Experience teacheth as himself giveth it us viz. The Generation of one thing followeth the Corruption of another yet there is something in the new Generated thing that was in the old Corrupted thing c. Whence I query Whether this SOMETHING in the new generated thing which was in the Old Corrupted thing be that which riseth Mortal and Corruptible as he said even now For if Mortal and Corruptible how comes it to be a pure noble part which consumeth not nor corrupteth with the old Corrupted thing Are these Terms convertible That predicable of the one which is of the other Or is it not rather a demonstration that in stead of being taught by true Philosophy c. He is now Plunged into the Ditch of Philosophy as he called it whence this blind Leader of the Blind cannot help himself out As well as that these Sentiments whereby the Flesh Blood and Bones are Termed the Old Corrupted thing that the New Generation hath not but only SOMETHING that was in it The Flesh that is Mortal and Corruptible being by him denied to be the Flesh that shall be raised up Immortal and Incorruptible p. 10. do no ways accord with those of those whom he now appeals to against us and would shelter himself among for they assert the Resurrection of the same Body of Flesh Blood and Bones that Dyed and was laid in the Grave he here denieth it So that after all his quarrelling with us rendring us Atheists Sadducees c. And Labouring to Provoke the Government against us to suppress our Books himself is no less Erroneous and Heretical while abiding by what he here saith to their received Opinion of the Resurrection than we are when our belief is rightly stated Upon G. Keith his distinction of Commutation and Transmutation with respect to Body and Soul the Friend argues first with respect to the Body thus If the Corruptible be laid aside and that which Corrupteth not but is separated as G. Keith saith in about a Years time more or less and laid by divine Providence in some certain Invisible place till the Resurrection How then doth it receive the change meant by him in the Text at the Resurrection viz. If it be Incorruptible before the Resurrection for he saith it Corrupteth not and the Change must be a Transmutation from one thing to another must it not then needs be from an Incorruptible Body to an Incorruptible Body and what change is that For if it be a Transmutation what is it which is Transmuted It cannot be the noble and pure part because the Apostle saith It is our Vile Body and according to G. Keith it cannot be that which Corrupteth because he saith That which riseth Corrupteth not Thus far C. Pusey p. 32. 33. which G. Keith gives not his Reader though he makes his perverse inference therefrom saying of his Opponent He cannot conceive how there can be an Incorruptible part lodged or placed in the Corruptible Body and how the Body can have any Incorruptible part in it before the Resurrection c. To which I answer The debate is not about an Incorruptible part being lodged in a Corruptible Body but what that is that is changed whether the vile Body or that which Corrupteth not and again whether seeing a Transmutation must be from one thing to another what Change is that from an Incorruptible Body to an Incorruptible Body So that he hath to avoid the force of the argument not only not given the Citation but mis-stated it and then insults saying shall I send him to his Mill or own Trade of Grinding or Sawing Timber for further Instruction And yet this Miller hath ground him so he cannot get fairly off And therefore in the next place let us examine G. Keith his Philosophy When a Man cateth Corn with the Husk and swalloweth down at least a good quantity of the Husk or Bran together with the Food that is mixed with it doth the Husk become any Part of his Body Or rather doth it not belong to the excrement with other gross parts of the Food saith he p. 12. I answer by way of retortion the Swine that feed on Husk only and the Prodigal Son who did the like if all went into excrement and none into nourishment what did they live on He saith again Is there not in all Food one more noble part that becometh not excrement but is Transmuted into real Flesh in Man But the Husk being not allowed by him to be the more noble part I ask What is Transmuted into real Flesh where the Food is only Husk Yet he so values himself upon his Excrementitious and Husky Philosophy that hence he further argues Did not what our Saviour Eat turn into his 〈◊〉 Flesh and become Incorruptible And was not his Body of Flesh yet further changed after his Resurrection c. And then he tells us for whose sake he Traces this Ignorant Man as he calls his Opponent of whom he saith It might seem like casting Pearls before Swine that so dares to tread under his dirty Feet such precious Truths of Scripture not for his and his Sadducean Fraternity's as he miscalls Friends but for others who he hopes will gather them up and value them for the worth of them To which I say They must not be very valuable themselves who gather up and value up such Husky Notions Again I query Whether that Food that according to G. Keith was turned into Christs real Flesh which Flesh was further changed after the Resurrection and became Incorruptible as G. Keith saith be the same in substance that it was before the change and when Corruptible Now I come to what the Friend saith in his p. 33. with respect to the Soul As for the Soul saith he it was a Spiritual substance in its self before its Sanctifying as after so is not the Body so that such a change is surely RATHER a Purification than a Transmutation even as the washing of a Body besmeared with Dirt when cleansed is a Purification and not a Transmutation Upon which G. Keith quoting only from where he saith a change is surely thus hath it But still this Ignorant Presumptuous Man runs himself rashly upon the sharp Pricks Formerly he hath Laboured in vain to destroy the Felicity of the Body of a Saint and now he Labours as much in vâ—iâ— to
Scripture was writ And yet did they not receive the Holy Ghost Could not that Law that Command that Word make Perfect Had Men Faith in Christ and could not that Faith save in their Days Monstrum horrendum Page 105. He tells us that Moses falls a declaring concerning the New Covenant Deut. 30. from ver 11 to 16. the Probation whereof he gives in the next Page both from Jer. 31. 32. and Rom. 10. 5 6 7 8 9. And in p. 107. thus hath it The Jews and People of Israel who lived in Moses's Time and were SAVED it was through Faith in this Word in this Prophet raised up in them in their Hearts not at a distance but nigh the Word is nigh in thy Heart And this is Christ in them the Hope of Glory the Mystery hid from Ages and Generations but was EVER made manifest in his Saints but in the latter Days more clearly c. p. 107 108. Query Had Men Faith in Christ the Word Was the Mystery ever made manifest in the Saints and yet was the Law within in sufficient to make perfect till since Christ was offered up in the outward Having transcribed many verses in 119 Psalm concerning the Word he queries p. 109. What Word this is whether the Letter of the Scripture oâ— that Word of Faith Paul and Moses long before spoke of and its effects upon David he tells us anon saying This quickned him this strengthned him this comforted him this taught him and made him wiser than his Teachers This was as Oyl unto him a Lamp unto his Feet and a Light to his Paths in this his Steps were ordered verse 133. in this he worshipped he prayed he sung Psalms and all his Springs were in this p. 111 112. But I query if the Law within made nothing perfect until the one Offering was revealed how came David by his Quicknings Strength Comfort Instruction Wisdom Light fresh Springs c For now we are got a step beyond proving that the Gentiles were savingly enlightned and by occasion administred from G. Keith driven to evince out of his former Writings that the Patriarchs before Christ was born and suffered had such a Law within them as did make them perfect Are these the Fruits of an imperfect Law to quicken strengthen c. or will he who once contended that many were saved and attained unto perfect Peace and Reconciliation with God in their Souls now deny it to David a Jew both inward and outward as he must do if the Law could not make perfect How is he confounded how engaged in what is and will be too hard for him Solomon comes next From what he â—â—ys of Wisdom's crying at the Gates in every City G. Keith queries Is not her crying c. the same with Jesus Christ his standing at the Door c. p. 113. And I query Whether to them that opened unto him even during that Administration he did not come in and Sup with them for G. Keith immediately quotes Rev. 3. 20. to adapt it to Solomons saying 2dly Whether such had the Holy Ghost And 3dly Whether the Law within such made them perfect in that Age G. Keith goes on thus The Gospel was Preached unto Abraham Abel Enoch Noah and to ALL BELIEVERS who lived before Scripture was writ in a Book and it was spoken into their Hearts by the Spirit of Jesus Christ and the Saints who then lived and were inspired of God preached the Gospel and the Gospel is the same in all Generations for it is the Everlasting Gospel Rev. 4. 6. But now the Declarations Discoveries and Manifestations of this one Gospel have been many and different under the Law more darkly in the Time of the Prophets more manifestly in the Time of the Apostles Yet more manifestly and yet all ONE GOSPEL and we preach no other but the same Everlasting Gospel which is the Power of God unto Salvation Rom. 1. 16. See p. 213. Now hence I query Whether the Gospel Preached unto Abraham Abel Enoch Noah c Were the Law within Abraham c And whether it made them perfect 2dly Whether these Believers who lived before Scripture was writ in a Book who had that inspeaking into their Hearts by the Spirit of Jesus Christ partook of the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Holiness of Adoption or Sonship or of the Spirit of Fear and Bondage only Were they Sons of Hagar or Sarah Of First or Second Covenant 3dly Whether those inspired Men who preached the Gospel which he allows to be the same in all Generations had ALL OF THEM the Doctrinal Knowledge and Faith of Christ Crucified and preached it to others And this I the rather urge for as much as Truth Advanced p. 42. he denies that Paul means the Gospel is the Power of God simply and abstractly considered without all Doctrine and doctrinal Knowledge and Faith of Christ Crucified All Saints have the same Spirit and Word of Prophecy in some measure more or less that the Prophets had who ever directed People to the same Spirit and Word in their Hearts from which they spake that they might in themselves hear the same Word and Spirit whereby the true Faith comes p. 221. Is this Spirit and Word saving Is it perfecting in all Ages Can a Man hear it and obey it and yet be without the Holy Ghost But hear him again This second Adam is called the quickning Spirit by whose quickning Vertue the Souls of ALL the Holy Men and Women were made and kept alive unto God as truly before he came in the Flesh as after for they did all eat the same spiritual Meat c. Which was Christ yea they did eat his Flesh and drink his Blood as TRULY REALLY in measure BEFORE he came in that Body of Flesh as the Saints have done since p. 227. To the same purpose he expresseth himself in p. 258. and in Way cast up p. 95. and in Rector Corrected p. 95. This shews what he once thought of the Holy Men and Womens Condition in those first Ages of the World who then only placed the difference in Degree not in Kind now will not allow more then Gentile Sincerity and Righteousness where Faith in Christ crucified is not revealed as well as that he concludes all before Christ was visibly offered under such an inward Law as made not perfect How he will reconcile such a State to that of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood let him look to In the mean while as he queries Truth Advanced p. 184. in his query 10. Can any Eat the Flesh of Christ and drink his Blood who have not the Faith of him as he GAVE his Body of Flesh to be broken and his Blood to be shed for us So I query Could any do thus before it was given or broken Or had all those Holy Men and Women he spoke of even now so much as the Faith or Knowledge that it should be broken Having offered what Citations I at present
Books lye upon him unanswered to which he gave grounds to expect an Answer he saith First Some of their own Church have sufficiently answered to shew the badness of their Cause in that censure they gave against T. Ellwood c. If this were true that some had done so for they are nameless and at most give but their own Censure and that but to a Passage or two have they answered the Book in Print Or if they had would that excuse G. Keith How willing is he to shift when pinched and to lay hold of any Twig like a drowning Mâ—n a Comparison he once used to evade making good his Charge But he hath a Secondly viz. that he hath offered to Answer them Viva voce at a Meeting alledging there is no end of answering them in Print that few will be at the Pains to compare Book with Book and that the Charge is too great for him But why did he begin then with Printing and not rather have exhibited his Charge at first Vivâ voce if he esteemed that the best Method of Debate But to do it now when he hath drawn us into the Press and to expect we should do so too is preposterous Nay why doth he now answer me in Print seeing so few will be at the pains of comparing Book with Book c. as he alledgeth and that he so lately proposed a Vivâ voce vindicating himself against me in his winged ADVERTISEMENT tagg'd to the Tail of Pegasus but that he is so hampered with a bad cause that he knows not which way to turn My Quotations in the Book he now pretends to Answer were 1. His vindicating our Principles from our common Adversaries 2. His Contradictions in several Doctrinal Parts To the first he Answers Such as I did think were their Principles I did formerly vindicate Nay this will not shelter him it was such as he KNEW to be so and that from twenty eight Years Converse both Publick and Private with the most Noted and Esteemed among them in many Places of the World in Europe and America as he told C. Mather and I cited him Serious Appeal p. 7. And among the rest were some of those very Books of G. Whitehead and W. Penn out of which he hath since pickt Quarrels brought in his Book of The Christian Faith c. â—s Sound and Orthodox and to convince our Opposers that it is and hath been our constant and firm belief to expect Salvation by the Man Christ Jesus that was outwardly Crucified at Jerusalem as in Title Page and p. 16. So that he now freely acknowledging p. 22. of this Book his shortness and mistake with respect to the Principles of the Teachers among the Quakers universally and the Principles of G. Whitehead and W. Penn as it is to introduce a slander so iâ— of no weight The like he had said Exact Narrative p. 61. and would have me to takâ— that for an answer to my Book called An Apostate Exposed but I shall not so excuse him but put him upon answering the Book If thaâ— alone might have served why did he not pâ—â— me off so here and give me no further answer to this Book of mine I am now defending against his Remarks Nor was I most uncharitable to him in alledging as I did in my Last p. 10. and he in part Cites here that he manifested great hardness who had so large so long so near and intimate Converse among Friends now all of a sudden to give the lye tâ— all this and deduce some of his pretended Probations out of the Books he had so newly commended and recommended For that is a trâ—â— State of the Case He goes on in said p. 22. maiming a Quotation of mine out of him and then insulting over me I had it thus Seeing this true Faith is wrought in Gods ordinary way by Preaching therefore the true Faith of Christ Death and Sufferings ought to be one of thâ— first and chiefest Things that every true Minister ought to Preach there he stops with an c. but had he quoted the rest his Cavil had been out of Doors which was thus and build up his Hearers in in order to bring them to Communion with God and Christ in Spirit and that they may witness God and Christ to dwell in them Upon this he vaunts saying It is my Lot to have to do with Men that have neither so much true Logick nor common Sense as to understand what a true Contradiction is then descanting upon the Words ONE OF THE FIRST he adds a little lower It is no Contradiction to say G. Whitehead was one of the first Quakers G. Fox was the first Quaker Well I hope before I have done with him further to manifest as little as I pretend to Logick that he hath really contradicted himself and that not so much from the Words he so plaies upon as upon what follow viz. and build up his Hearers in Order to bring them into Communion with God and Christ and that they may witness God and Christ to dwell in them If this be true that the Faith of Christs Death and Sufferings is that which brings into Communion with God c. the building up therein that whereby they witness God and Christ to dwell in them then to be preached before the inward but if it be true that the Knowledge of Christs inward coming is the more needful and in the first Place as being that by which the true and comfortable use of his outward coming is alone sufficiently understood as he asserted Way to the City of God p. 3. and I cited him in my p. 12. Then the Inward to be Preached before the Outward And this is a Contradiction But for the better understanding of the Case the Distinction betwixt General Religion and Christian Religion he saith is to be considered which Distinction I have used adds he in my Book called Divine Immediate Revelation and Inspiration c. Answ I am beholden to him for this Reference out of a Book I had not read before for it not only helpeth me to fresh Passages in General but even here it makes for me not for him For in p. 45. he saith The Scriptures do witness abundantly concerning such an experimental and spiritually sensible Knowledge of God which is perceived in a most inward Union and Communion of the Soul with God and in a certain intellectual and spiritual Contact or Touch of which not only Plato and Plotin and others among those called Philosophers but the Apostles among the Christians have largely made mention Hence I query What Religion theirs was that of Plato Plotin and the Heathen Philosophers General Religion or the Christian Religion Again what the most inward Union of their Souls with God that spiritual Contact or Touch that spiritual sensible Knowledge of God he allows them to have witnessed was it with or without the Holy Ghost seeing as yet Jesus was not so much as born in the
answered and a new one raised ver 35. to which in ver 36. Paul replied Thou Fool c. The one said there is no Resurrection the other disputed inquisitively about the Modus or Manner of it how And with what Body And were distinctly answered So that in this G. Keith grosly errs and needs Correction as he once told the Rector of Arrow But the Translation with what Body doth not please him who seems to think well of nothing but what himself hath a Hand in He would have it with what quality why not rather what kind of Body and adds this their querying was a sort of arguing against the thing it self p. 16. First he imposeth his own Version then a Dogmatical Inference without Proof which as such I reject as I do also his slander against us a little below that we argue against the Resurrection of the Body it self from the Manner of it Against C. Pusey's having shewed G. Keith his contradictory Assertions to be as little reconcileable to Reason as the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation G. Keith alledgeth that professing to hold a Resurrection of the Body but not of that same Substance falls in with the Popish Transubstantiation Answ Surely to say It is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure aethereal or heavenly Body and yet that the Substance remaineth the same that it was on Earth which G. Keith hath confessed to p. 4. is more like their Doctrine who say The Form of Bread remains yet it is the real Flesh and Blood of Christ than our saying with the Scriptures Thou sowest not that Body that shall be but God giveth it a Body as it hath pleased him and to every Seed it s own Body 1 Cor. 15. 37 38. For as he hath said in another Place we have good Company even the Apostle Paul on our side which he hath not for himself What follows as a Charge against G. Whitehead and W. Penn That the Saints get the Resurrection immediately after Death and that they both argue against the Deceased Saints expecting any Resurrection of the Body c. He not offering to prove upon them out of any of their Poâ—ks I lightly pass over as knowing G. Keith too well to trust to his general Accusations and them better than to Credit such Evidence against them Nor shall I engage in what he further offers p. 17. relating to their differences in America whereto I am not Privy Yet may say that a free and bold laying open of our Sufferings when hardly and illegâ—lly dealt with as in the Case of W. Penn and W. Mead their Tryals bears no Proportion to giving a Magistrate ill Language and provoking Terms for we have not so learned Christ Neither need G. Keith ask his Opponent p. 18. a Proof that he is a Man of a wrong Spirit adding What oâ—e evil thing hath he proved against me in all his Book either in Doctrine or Conversation For any that compares the Book and Answer together in a right Spirit will see there is sufficient to detect G. Keith to be of a wrong Spirit And what is wanting there himself hath made up since in bitterness in envy in reviling and slandering Gods Heritage which I pray he may be sensible of before too late In p. 18. G. Keith makes a general Reference to what C. Pusey gave in several Pages out of his Truths Desence p. 169 170 171. And upon the whole saith he remains in the same Mind still that he would have nothing urged nor pressed as Articles of Faith but what is delivered to us in plain express Scripture Words which he saith is the Substance of that large Citation Answ The Substance of that Citation was more comprehensive than so as who so please to read it in the Original cited above may find wherein he declares that Charity and makes those Proposals of Concord with the otherwise Minded as suits not with his late Actions Yet from what he hath here given as the Substance of that large Citation the Friend Objects p. 53. that this Advice could not find Place with G. Keith when so often desired and queries What Uncharitableness is this when we offer to express our Faith in Scripture Words for you to say we have another Sense than what we speak see his p. 54. G. Keith makes Answer It is false in him to say that this was so often desired but could not find Place I said again and again We shall take your Confession in Scripture Words provided ye will condemn your Errors that are contrary to express Scripture Words But this saith he they would never do And perhaps they held no such Errors as he charged them with and so had none to condemn say I However this being true that such an offer was made by Friends and thus replied to by him which is so far from never refusing that it includeth a refusal in tying them to such Terms as no Innocent Man can comply with without an implicit acknowledgment of Guilt the next thing I observe is that whereas his Opponent queried How know ye that we have a Sense contrary to Scripture Words G. Keith Answers They have sufficiently discovered it not only by one or two unsound Expressions but Multitudes of them as their Letters and Manuscripts there and the Printed Books here sufficiently prove Answ This Reference is wide enough What is in their Letters and Manuscripts there we know not nor are we like for ought I see though he hath long threatned us with them Again what Printed Books here doth he mean What is their Title In what Page Who the Author Surely he thinks his Credit is great that the Reader must take all from him upon trust without Examination But at length he comes to one particular Case by which we may give a guess of the rest It is in haec verba We need go no further for a Proof saith he than the most gross and Antichristian Expressions and Sayings of Caleb Pusey himself in this very Treatise for whereas he hath plainly affirmed p. 15. ad finem That Jesus of Nazareth cannot be something else than the Light Power and Spirit within Now can there be any thing more contrary to express Scripture than this Assertion Was not Jesus of Nazareth a real Man consisting of Soul and Body in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily And is that Body and that Soul and that fulness nothing else but the Light within us O abominable Non-sense and Perversion and Contradiction to Scripture and all true Reason Ans By that Time I have given C. Pusey his Words I doubt not but to make appear that G. Keith is a Man nullius fidei not to be trusted For this he calls a plain Affirmation was but an Inference or Deduction from what G. Keith had laid down and no ways designed as here alledged to deny Jesus of Nazareth to be both God and Man C. Pusey p. 15 16.