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
he was the Son of Mary And as to the Time of it if R. Gordon be dead his Eyes may be already dropt out without seeing it and yet the Appearance of Christ in a bodily Existence to judge the World at the last Day be yet to come and owned to be so These things I mention to shew the feeble grounds G. Keith hath for his Cavils But from the Book it self out of which G. Keith took these Words it is manifest that G. Whitehead used these Words only to manifest his Opponent Gordon's Confusion and Contradiction for they were not treating then concerning the Existence or Body of Christ but concerning Justification Redemption Salvation by Christ which R. Gordon it seems had asserted was wrought and compleated by the Sacrifice of Christ's Crucified Body upon the Cross and yet would put off Believers from being made Partakers of that Salvation till after their bodily Death that they should be raised from the Grave yet granted that it must be done by Christ's Appearance in Believers through Faith by his Spirit Whereupon says G. Whitehead to him Nature of Christian p. 29. See thy manifest Contradiction viz. A perfect Justification and Redemption of Sinners without them when no good is wrought in them But in Contradiction now it must be done by Christs Appearance in Believers through Faith by his Spirit As also thou grantest that his appearing the second time is without Sin to Salvation But when thinkest thou that must be Is it in this Life or hereafter Thou sayst that after the bodily Death you shall be raised out of the Grave and made partakers of that Salvation p. 13. T is strange the Salvation of Sinners yea of the whole World as thy Word is should be compleated at once above 1600. Years since and yet to be so long after Death lookt for how long is not known to thee or dost thou pretend to know or think thou know'st and thereupon 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 till thy Eyes drop out before Thou wilt see such an Appearance of him This says G. Keith is but one place that is that Christ will not so appear But why adds he will he not so appear but because he has no bodily Existence without us G. Whitehead said not so That 's only G. Keith's wrong Inference And That says he p. 16. I come now to prove So then what he has hitherto said is no proof of it for it seems he is but now coming to prove it For which purpose Nar. p. 17. he cites another Passage of G. Whitehead's in p. 4â— thus And that he existeth outwardly bodily without us at God's right Hand What Scripture-Proof hath he for these Words And then what and where is God's right Hand Is it Visible or Invisible Within us or without us only And is Christ the Saviour as an outward bodily Existence or Person without us distinct from God and on that consideration to be worshipped as God Yea or Nay And where doth the Scripture say he is outwardly and bodily glorified at God's right Hand Do these Terms express the Glory that he had with the Father before the World began in which he is now glorified These last Words from Where doth the Scripture say Is he says the thing that Rivets But if by Rivetting he means Fastening a Proof upon G. VVhitehead that he denies Christ to have a bodily Existence without us G. Keith himself has cut off the Head of his Rivet and made it uncapable to hold by saying which I shewed before from his Answer to his Countryman Iohn Alexander He ought to know that to Query a thing will not conclude that the Questionist doth positively affirm or deny what is Queried Truths Defence p. 59. Especially when it is only used in a Socratical way of Disputing or Arguing against an Adversary as it is used here and which he observes to be G. VVhitehead's way of Writing And indeed from the whole Answer which fills near two Pages out of which G. Keith hath cropt his Quotation it appears that G. VVhitehead's drift was to shew the Absurdity and Inconsistency of his Opponent's Assertion which was as in p. 40. that Christs Apostles and all his Ministers in all Ages pointed to Jesus the Son of Mary this Son of Man with an Hosannah to this Son of David and to none before him or to any ever since These Words The Son of Mary this Son of Man this Son of David and to none before him had a tendency to deny the Divinity or Godhead of Christ and to set up the Body that was born of the Virgin for the only whole intire Christ and Saviour And therefore to this G. VVhitehead answered That the Holy Prophets Apostles and Ministers hath pointed and testified unto Iesus 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 â—ut that they all cried Hosanna to the Son of David is a mistake For it was the Multitudes that went before and that followed when Christ rid to Jerusalem that cryed Hosannah to the Son of David Mat. 21.9 Adding Many 〈…〉 cry Hosannah who never knew his Salvation within nor believed in his Power but rather spiritually crucifie him And the Scribes and Pharisees could talk of Christs being the Son of David when they neither truly believed nor owned him that was the true Christ either as the Root or Offspring of David But Christ asked these Pharisees and Scribes who said Christ is the Son of David this Question VVhat think ye of Christ VVhose Son is he They said unto him The Son of David He said unto them How then doth David in Spirit call him Lord If David then call him Lord how is he his Son c Now says G. VVhitehead there VVas not this the true Christ whom David in Spirit called Lord before he took upon him Flesh or came of his Seed There 's another Question put to his Opponent who had asserted That all the Apostles and Ministers of Christ in all Ages pointed to Jesus the Son of Mary this Son of Man with an Hosannah to this Son of David and to none before him Was not this the true Christ whom David in Spirit called Lord says G. VVhitehead What then Did this Question imply that G. VVhitehead denied Christ according to the Flesh or as he was born of Mary to be the Son or Offspring of David Nothing less For he says he took upon him Flesh and came of David's Seed and is owned as pointed at and testified unto by the Holy Prophets Apostles c. as Man born of the Virgin No more doth his asking his Opponent for it is not a general Question but particular to his Opponent grounded upon the particular Terms his Opponent had exprest himself in thus Whereupon
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
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
some of the principal Books he picks his Cavils out of against G. Whitehead and W. Penn. Now let us see how G. Keith deals with G. Whitehead in the Quotation he brings against him Observe that first he says See what is here said by G. Whitehead That there is not an outward Coming of Christ to Iudge the Quick and Dead therefore look well to his Quotation and mind to find those words in it He begins the Quotation thus Moreover Christ said the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his Angels c. There G. Keith stops with an c. Citing Mat. 1â— 27 28 Luke 9.26 27. But leaves out the remaining words in those Scriptures which in Matthew follow thus And then he shall Reward every Man according to his Works Verily I say unto you There be some standing here which shall not taste of Death till they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom Why G. Keith left out these words I may shew anon Now he goes on with G. Whitehead's words thus Now what is that Glory of the Father in which his Coming is Is it Visible to the Carnal Eye And when was that coming to be Is it now to be looked for outwardly But farther we do acknowledge the several comings of Christ according to the Scriptures both that in the Flesh and that in the Spirit which is Manifest in several degrees as there is a growing from Glory to Glory But three Comings of Christ not only that in the Flesh at Ierusalem and that in the Spirit but also another coming in the Flesh yet to be expected we do not Read of but a Second Coming without Sin unto Salvation which in the Apostles Days was looked for this latter Clause he cited before in his Gross Errror p. 2. Now Reader observe First That those words G. Keith charges to be here said by G. Whitehead viz That there is not an outward Coming of Christ to judge the Quick and the Dead are not here That 's but an Inference of G. Keith's own making though he unfairly pretended G. VVhitehead said it Next he left out those words in the Text Mat. 16.28 Verily I say unto you There are some standing here which shall not taste of Death until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom Upon which words those Questions of G. Whitehead were grounded When was that coming to be Is it now to be looked for outwardly For that coming there spoken of by Christ Mat. 16.27 could not be meant of his coming at the end of the World because it was to begin in that very Age some then living and present with him were to see it before they died There are some standing here which shall not taste of Death until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom By his Kingdom saith Beza is to be understood the Glory of his Ascension and what followeth thereof Ephes. 4.10 or the Preaching of the Gospel In the latter part of the Quotation G. Whitehead had respect to the Baptists Notion of an Outward Personal Coming of Christ in a Fleshly Appearance to reign on Earth a thousand years And it is with relation to such a manner of coming in an outward Body of Flesh to reign Personally on Earth for a certain time as an Outward King that he there said after he had acknowledged the several Comings of Christ according to the Scriptures both that in the Flesh and that in the Spirit But three Comings of Christ not only that in the Flesh at Ierusalem and that in the Spirit but also another coming in the Flesh yet to be expected we do not read of And indeed how should he if G. Keith says true Way cast up p. 131. that That Body which was crucified on the Cross at Ierusalem and is now ascended and glorified in Heaven is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure ethereal or heavenly Body But that G. Whitehead's words there related to such a Coming of Christ in an outward Body of outward Flesh visible to Carnal Eyes therein to reign as an outward King after an outward manner a thousand years on Earth which some Baptists call the Personal Reign of Christ may be gather'd also from another Book of G. Whitehead's called Christ Ascended written near the same time in Answer to Iohn Newman a Baptist where having in p. 22. treated of Christs coming so as that his Appearance shall be universally seen both to the Joy of the Righteous and universal Conviction and Condemnation of the wicked c. he speaks p. 23. of the disappointment of them who are expecting that Christs second Coming or Appearance to Salvation will be a Personal Coming and his Reign a Personal Reign which word Personal they add to the Scripture and do they not herein shew their Carnal Expectations said he G. Keith has another Cavil in this page which also he had in p. 3. of his Gross Error against G. Whitehead about 1 Thes. 4.17 which he says G. Whitehead denies to be meant of his Personal Coming G. Whitehead then it seems did not deny it to be meant of Christs Coming and of his Coming to Iudgment but that which he excepted against was such a Carnal sort of Personal Coming as the Baptists expected him to come in and as is mentioned before To shew the Baptists the folly of which he asks them from those words of the Apostle both in the 15th and 17th Verses We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord if they did live and remain to a Personal Coming of Christ in the Clouds yea or nay Which G. Keith sophistically calls a Sophism to wrest it to his inward Coming Whereas G. Whitehead did not turn it to his inward Coming nor did he use the word inward in that place at all But he shewed by the Description Iohn gave of him when he saw him in the midst of the Seven Golden Candlesticks that such an outward Coming as the Baptists looked for him in in such a Personal Appearance as should be visible to the carnal Eye was not suitable to him But whereas G. Keith says both in his gross Error p. 5. and here also The Apostle's using the word we there we that remain is an Enallage Personae putting we for They like that of Iames Therewith bless we God and therewith curse we Men Iames 3 9. Though he delivers it positively and like a Dictator yet I see not why he must needs be believed Why might not the Apostle speak in the first Person we as supposing that great and extraordinary Appearance and Coming of Christ the certain time of which no Man knew Mat. 24.36 was so near at hand that it might probably fall out in his Life-time For as the Apostles accounted the Times they lived in the Last Days or Last Times and ordinarily called them so Heb. 1.2 and 9.26 1 Pet. 1.20 1 Iohn 2.18 so they thought the End of
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
his Divine Seed and Body extended into us And thus he is the incarnate Word or Word made Flesh dwelling in our Flesh c. VVay cast up p. 133. And G. Keith in his answer to the Rector of Arrow said I put thee to prove by any one place in all the Scripture that Christ hath now any other Flesh or Body but that which is Spiritual Rector Corrected p. 24. and again p. 54. As concerning the Body of Christ that was Crucified was it not again raised up to be made a living Body And after he arose and ascended was it not a Spiritual Body Why then says G. Keith to the Rector sayst thou shew a syllable that intimates a spiritual Body Is not Christ's Body a spiritual Body which he hath now in the Heavens Shew a Syllable that Christ hath any other Body but that which is spiriâ—ual And p. 55 he says What is that Body of Christ mentioned by the Apostle Col. 2.17 which puts an end unto the outward Observation of Meats and Drinks new Moons and Sabbath-days Is that only the outward Body that was Crucified If thou sayst yea then thou dividest Christ whereas Christ is not divided And p. 44. he says That there is no such a distance betwixt Christ that is gone into the Holiest and his Saints upon Earth as thou imaginest see but ver 19 20 21 22. of Heb. 10. And in p. 23. speaking of the Power and Vertue of the Body of Christ that rose and ascended a spiritual and glorious Body he says But this vertue is not any visible thing nor is the glorified Body of Christ visible Flesh and therefore says he to the Rector thou dost grosly erre to say as thou dost the Son of Man is visible Flesh For seeing the Body of Christ is glorified and wholly spiritual as the Body of every true Believer shall be at the Resurrection how can it be visible Flesh And adds he Christ the second Adam is called in Scripture the quickning Spirit but not visible Flesh. Therefore says he in this see how he banters him thou ' dost grosly erre and needest Correction None of these Passages hath ever yet been retracted by G. Keith that I have seen or heard of and therefore he is the more to be blamed for blaming G. Whitehead for asserting Christ's Body to be a glorified spiritual Body not a gross carnal visible Body of Flesh which he himself says it is not He hath one Cavil more upon this Head against G. Whitehead and a mâ—â—r Cavil it seems to be He grounds it on a passage he takes out of a Book of G. Whitehead's called The He goats Horn broken written about 36 years ago in answer to two Books written by three Opposers whereof one was named Io. Horn and G. Keith seems to fancy that this Book of G. Whitehead's had that Title as alluding to the Name of Iohn Horn and he took occasion from thence to make himself and his Auditors some Sport about it Nar. p. 19. But unless he had beâ—ter ground to go upon than bare likeness in â—ound of words he may be mistaken for all that For I could shew him a Book written some years before that by R. Hubberthorn called The Horn of the He-goat broken in Answer to a Book published by one Tho. Winterton betwixt which Name and Title there is not the least likeness of sound That which G. Keith objects to G. Whitehead here is That he contradicts a passage in his Opponents Book which G. Keith says if he understands any thing of true Divinity or Theology is a sound Passage viz. That our Nature Kind or Being as in us not in Christ is corrupt and filthy in it self yet Christ took upon him our Nature not as it is filthy in us by sin in it c. How sound this Passage is I will not here dispute because I would not dilate Controversie to feed a carping Mind in a peevish Adversary neither will I presume to question G. Keith's understanding any thing of true Divinity lost I should be thought as ignorant as he is arrogant But yet I think it may be worthy of consideration how far that Passage is sound which says Our Nature Kind or Being is corrupt and filthy in it self not only as in us by sin in it but in it self And how suitable it was for Christ to take upon him a Nature that was corrupt and filthy in it self That Christ took on him the Nature of Man though it be not in Scripture exprest in those terms that I remember may in a right sense for the word Nature is taken in divers Acceptations be admitted The Scripture says he took upon him the form of a Servant and was made in the likeness of Men Phil. 2.7 And that Forasmuch as the Children are Partakers of Flesh and Blood he also himself likewise took part of the same Heb. 2.14 And in verse 16. it is said He took on him the Seed of Abraham But the Margin expresses it more agreeably to the Greek as G. Keith knows thus He taketh not hold of Angels but of the Seed of Abraham he taketh hold Now I do not find by G. Whitehead's Answer that he denies that Christ took Mans Nature but that he taxes his Opponents with Confusion in two respectsâ— one for that they excepted against his former wording of their Assertion thus That their Nature is restored in Christ and yet that their Nature is a filthy Nature and Christ took upon him their Nature The other that to free themselves from the imputation of Confusion in the former they say He might as well have taxed the Apostle with Confusion for saying Men by Nature do the things contained in the Law Rom. 2.14 And yet by Nature Children of wrath Ephes. 2.3 In which two places G. Keith I presume will not deny the word Nature to be used very differently Now to this G. Whitehead's Answer was We may justly tax thâ—se Men with Confusion indeed but not the Apostle for here they cannot discern between the sinful Nature and the pure Nature for the Nature of Christ is pure so that it 's not their Nature for their Nature is filthy and therefore it is not in Christ that is as it is filthy Then he goes on to shew their Confusion in the other part And their bringing that of Rom. 2.14 Ephes. 2.3 together to prove their confusion sheweth that they cannot discern between that Nature by which Men do the things contained in the Law and that Nature by which Men break the Law and are Children of wrath but make as if it were all one Now I do not â—ind G. Keith is able to make any great advantage by his Cavil against G. Whitehead He says indeed Our blessed Lord might well take on him our Nature and the Nature in us be sinful and in him pure and holy But will he say that that Nature which our Lord took on him was sinful or corrupt and filthy in it self Which
natural whose Seed God promised to Bless with Earthly Blessings c. And that they were Figurative of the one Seed Christ and such as he should beget unto a lively hope c. it will consequently follow that this Seed must be inward and Spiritual since one outward thing cannot be the proper Figure or Representation of another Nor is it the way of holy Scripture so to teach us the outward Lamb shews forth the inward Lamb the Jew outward the Jew inward c. I have these two short Arguments to prove what I believe and assert as to the Spirituality of the true Seed and a clearer overthrow it is to the Opinion of our Adversaries to the true Christ. First Every thing begets its like what is Simply Natural produces not a Spiritual being Material things bring not forth things that are Immaterial Now because the Nature or Image begotten in the Hearts of true Believers is Spiritual it will follow that the Seed which so begets and brings forth that Birth must be the same in Nature with that which is begotten therefore Spiritual then Christs Body or what he had from the Virgin strictly considered as such was not the Seed Secondly It is clear from hence The Serpent is a Spirit Now nothing can bruise the Head of the Serpent but something that is also Internal and Spiritual as the Serpent is But if that Body of Christ were the Seed then could he not bruise the Serpents Head in all because the Body of Christ is not so much as in any one and consequently the Seed of the Promise is an Holy and Spiritual Principle of Light Life and Power that being received into the Heart bruiseth the Serpent's Head And because the Seed which cannot be that Body is Christ as testify the Scriptures 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 And that this may yet more evidently appear let it but be seriously weigh'd that before ever that visible Appearance was the Seed bruised in good Measure the Serpent's Head in the Holy Men and Women of all Generations otherwise they had not been Holy but Serpentine and Wicked And if the Seed was before and that Seed be Christ because there is but one Christ as well as but one only Seed it doth clearly follow that Christ was Christ before that outward Appearance Which was the thing intended to be proved Upon this G. Keith says W. Penn will needs have this to be not Christ without but Christ within But W. Penn neither said so nor meant so He does not deny the Seed to be Christ without He says the Seed Christ is Spiritual and inward that is in Man which doth not hinder but that it may be and is outward also that is out of Man or elsewhere besides in Man but that whether inward or outward it is a Spiritual Substance Yet as it is a Seed bruising the Serpent's Head in Man it is inward working against the Serpent in the Heart where the Serpent puts up his Head to deceive and defile the Heart of Man and draw him from his Duty and Obedience to God And indeed in that great and most Eminent Encounter between the two Seeds when the Divine Seed had taken on it outward Flesh and so was born of the Virgin with respect to which he was Denominated and was the Seed of the Woman and so of Abraham and David of whose Seed she was though the Serpent could not assault him from any thing in himself having nothing in him John 14.30 Yet it was the Divine Word or Power which is called the Seed in Man the same which had bruised the Head of the Serpent in Mary David Abraham and all the Holy Men and Women before inwardly dwelling in that Immaculate Body by which he repelled the assaults of the Tempter broke the Power of the Prince of Darkness vanquished and put him to flight and Triumphed most Gloriously over him Again G. Keith says p. 24. So the Paschal Lamb was no Figure of Christ without And when John said Behold the Lamb of God! It was meant of Christ within us not of Christ without us for our Passover is Slain for us This G. Keith sets down as if they were W. Penn's words and accordingly they are Printed with Coma's in the Margin as the Quotations out of W. Penn's Books are And then G. Keith says upon it You see according to W. Penn that Passover that was slain for us was slain in us not without us And so they throw away our Arguments against the Iews But this is an Abuse in G. Keith The words he gives before as W. Penn's are not W. Penn's but G. Keith's unfair inference from W. Penn's words W. Penn did not say the Paschal Lamb was no Figure of Christ without He said the Outward Lamb shews forth the Inward Lamb the Jew Outward the Jew Inward And doth it not so And when Iohn said Behold the Lamb of God W. Penn doth not say It was meant of Christ within us not of Christ without us For Christ within us and Christ without us is but one Christ not two Christs nor divided But when Iohn said Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the Sins of the World Did he mean the Body only or Outward Manhood of Christ Or did he not mean more especially that Divine and Heavenly Manhood which then dwelt and appeared in that Body with respect to which he was called Christ long before he took on him that Body and is said to be the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World Rev. 13.8 It is not then according to W. Penn that the Passover that was slain for us was slain in us not without us but it is according to G. Keith's perverse Inference For the Passover that was slain for us was slain without us but it was not only an Outward thing or the Body only which was taken of the Virgin that is designed under that name of the Passover but that Son of Man who came down from Heaven and took upon him that Outward Body and suffered in that Body and so became a part yea a chief part of that Blessed Sacrifice although it was the Outward Body or Manhood only of Christ our Spiritual Passover as he is called Wilson's Christian Dictionary verbo Passover that in a strict and proper sense was said to be slain Next he quarrels with W. Penn's Logick in saying Then Christ's Body he had from the Virgin strictly considered as such was not the Seed This is rare Logick says G. Keith Here 's a Fallacy but I believe says he it proceeds not from any design but from his weakness in Logick But the Abuse he would put upon W. Penn proceeds I fear not so much from his weakness in
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
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 Virgin 's 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 But if he had forgotten this yet he might have remembred and ought to have considered that Christ having offered up himself through the Eternal Spirit to God the Blood that was outwardly shed was included in that offering as part thereof and will he not admit that Blood after it was offered up to God through the Eternal Spirit to be called Spiritual In p. 32. he tells his Auditors You have had an account of them as to Iustification and a false account too say I Now says he it is worth your while to see how these pretended infallible Men contradict one another What more frothy Flout could the most prophane Scoffer at Infallibility have used Is not this strange Language from one that in the same Breath as it were see p. 31. said I am a Quaker still Truly if he were I should think the worse of Quakerism as he calls it for his sake The Contradiction he pretends to find or rather make is between W. Penn and G. Whitehead both in answer to Danson He gives W. Penn's words out of Reason against Railing p. 82. thus Rewardableness is a work without which God will not bestow his Favour and yet not the Meritorious Cause for that there is no Proportion betwixt the work that is Finiâ—e and Temporary and the Reward which is Infinite and Eternal c. G. Whitehead's words he gives out of a little Book called The Voice of VVisdome p. 36. thus The Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finite but Infinite for Christ is God's Righteousness and Christ is formed in us Gal. 4.19 and so that Righteousness which God works in us by his Spirit is of the same kind and nature with that which worketh it for the Saints are made Partakers of the Divine Nature 2 Pet. 1.4 G. Keith should have observed first that these words of G. Whitehead 's for he approves and highly commends VV Penn in this place But his Hosannah has commonly a Crucify at the Tail of it were a Deduction or Inference from T. Danson's Affirmation who had laid down that the Righteousness whereof Christ is the Subject and that whereof he is the Efficient are of one Species or kind From which G. Whitehead makes his Inference thus Then say I the Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finite but Infinite For Christ is God's Righteousness and Christ is formed in us 2. Which takes away the Contradiction wholly W. Penn and G. Whitehead do not speak of one and the same thing W. Penn speaks of the works which we perform G. VVhitehead speaks of Christ God's Righteousness formed in us So the pretended Contradiction being removed G. Keith's envious notes thereupon fall with it which only shew his captious nature and cavilling Spirit He should have called to mind that in his Serious Appeal p. 24. he told Cot. Mather That the nature of a Contradiction is difficult many times to understand even in natural things so that it is reckoned the Subtillest part of Logick or Metaphysicks to understand throughly what are always Contradictions and what not And therefore much more hard it is to undertand in Spiritual things that contain many seeming Contradictions But this now I think on 't was to help himself off when C. Mather charged him with Contradicting himself In p. 33. he says Now I would hasten to a Conclusion And though he takes time to tell an untruth in the very entrance saying I have proved to you that they have excluded the Blood of Christ c. Yet he makes so much haste that going on to prove that we say we are not sanctified by that Blood he gives us three pages but names no Book out of which he takes them I shall read to you says he G. Whitehead p. 49 50 51. Here 's one Proof says he if ye think this is not enough I will bring more What ground they had to think that Proof enough who heard it I cannot tell But I think no man by reading the Narrative can tell what to think of it For he gives neither the Book nor the words but only the Authors name and three pages He brings one more and that is out of G. VVhitehead's Book called Light and Life p. 59. The Baptists words he gives thus Neither did I ever read that it was the Blood or Life of Christ in his People that we are Iustified by See now the Treachery of this false Man in setting down the Baptists words The Baptist's words were Neither did I ever read that it was the Blood or Life in Christ or the Life of Christ in his People that we are Justified by He leaves out the words in Christ and makes it only the Blood or Life of Christ in his People Whereas the Baptist's words import a denyal of Justification not only by the Life of Christ in his People but by the Blood or Life in Christ himself For said the Baptist Neither did I ever read that it was the Blood or Life in Christ or the Life of Christ in his People that we are Justified by G. W's answer he gives thus The Spirit of Christ which is Life doth both Quicken Sanctify and Justify the true Believers Iohn 6.63 1 Cor. 6. And that Blood and Water that is said to cleanse is not of another kind but agrees in one with the Spirit all which is known within and the effects thereof Upon this G. Keith concludes thus So you see he takes it away from the outward Blood and gives it to the inward Blood No such matter He does not divide the outward Blood from the inward with respect to the Virtue and Efficacy of it Neither indeed did he mention outward Blood or inward Blood either in this place But he said The Spirit of Christ which is Life doth both quicken sanctify and justify the true Believers is not that true He said That Blood and Water that 's said to cleanse is not of another kind but agrees in one with the Spirit is not that true And he said All which is known within ' the Quickening the Sanctifying the Iustifying the Cleansing and the Effects thereof is known within is not that true also Whatever the Efficient be the work is wrought within and both the work and the effects there of is known within By this time his Auditors seem to be as weary of G. Keith as he of the work And therefore they bid him go to the
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
delivered in the Scriptures that the Body that shall be raised is the very same Body that died but we find the quite contrary expresly delivered in Scripture Thou sowest not that Body that shall be 1 Cor. 15.37 And therefore we see no Reason any more than G. Keith formerly did to receive or believe it as a common Article or Principle of the Christian Faith much less that we should be blamed for not so receiving it and least of all by him who hath provided so good a Defence for himself against being blamed for not receiving as an Article of the Christian Faith what he cannot find expresly delivered in the Scripture I could shew a great deal of Absurdity and Self-contradiction of G. Keith's in what he has delivered on this Subject of the Resurrection But I am unwilling to spend time or too much to enlarge the Bulk of these Sheets which are already increast beyond my Expectation when I began by my giving particular and full Answers to the foregoing Heads I shall therefore in the Remainder contract my Answers as much as well I may and either pass wholly over the lighter parts of his Narrative or touch but lightly on them Towards the bottom of p. 35. having done with the Doctrine of the Resurrection he takes an occasion to give another Flurt at Infallibility though not relating to any of his four Heads or Charges which makes me think he did it to gratifie the more prophane and loose party of his Auditors as knowing that such Persons use to scoff at Inspiration and Infallibility to whom he was willing by that means to endear himself and them to him He takes his occasion from a Passage in a Book of G. Whitehead's mentioned before called The Voice of VVisdom in Answer to T. Danson where p. 33. to the Priest's saying Our want of Infallibility is no valid Plea against our Ministry G. Whitehead answered His falshood here appears plainly for they that want Infallibility and have not the Spirit of Christ they are out of the Truth and are fallible and their Ministry is not of the Spirit seeing they speak not from the Spirit but from their own Hearts which are deceitful where they want Infallibility The Inference G. Keith makes from hence is this Now I hope says he I have proved they want Infallibility and therefore by their own Doctrine they are no true Ministers of Christ. But his Consequence will not hold For it depends not upon certainty but hope and false hope too He hopes he has proved they want Infallibility But his Hope is but the Hope of an Hypocrite which will perish as he also will unless he repent If Infallibility be so ludibrious a thing with him how comes it to pass that he hath not yet openly renounced what he has formerly written in Defence of Divine Inspiration Immediate Revelation and Infallibility who perhaps has writ more on those Subjects than any Quaker has done In p. 36. I observe a Passage dropt from a Friend of ours that happened to be present thus I do not know but you will find when you have an Answer to what G. Keith has offered that those he Charges and Paraphrases â—n will agree with him in Principles He that spake this must be understood to mean If G. Keith will agree with himself in Principles that is will own the same Principles now which he owned maintained and defended while he was a Quaker which as G. Keith had not openly renounced so neither did that Friend of ours know whether he would or no. The Stranger therefore that in p. 37. undertook to Answer in G. Keith's behalf did somewhat mistake the Matter when from those Words I do not know but you will find they whom he Charges will agree with him in Principles he inferr'd You say that he differs not from you in Principles Nor was he less out in concluding that that was to clear him from the Charge of Apostasie For It was aptly replied by another There is an Apostasie from the Spirit of Christianity as well as from the Principles But that Stranger was strangely out who in p. 45. said For a Man to Apostatize is to Apostatize from the whole Faith but for a Man to differ with respect to particular things this is not Apostasie He might have consider'd that Apostasie is either General or Special Apostasie General is that which he calls an Apostasie from the whole Faith which I think cannot be properly said of any but such as wholly renounce the Christian Religion in all parts of its Profession and turn Iews or Infidels But if any who have profest the Protestant Religion and held Communion with Protestants under any particular Denomination should renounce Protestantism and turn Papist I presume any considerate Protestant would account such an one an Apostate and yet such an one could not be rightly said to have apostatized from the whole Christian Faith inasmuch as the Church of Rome as Corrupt as she is doth hold divers Articles of the Christian Faith in Common with all Protestants But since Apostasie in the common acceptance of the Word and from the Etymon thereof Signifies a departing or Falling off from that Religious Society or Body of People to which a man was before joyned and it is evident G. Keith is fallen off and departed from the Society of the People called Quakers to which he was once joyned he comes properly under the Denomination of an Apostate and it is no Injury to him to call him so In p. 37. he repeats the Story which he formerly told of the Man that he says told him he would rather Die or lose his right Hand than sign a Sentence as he calls it against him And that man he says has since come to him and told him he did not joyn in the Judgment given against him Whether this latter part be true I know not nor much regard knowing what a sort of unstable man that has been But of the rest of that matter so far as it did concern the Meeting I have given so particular and full an account in my former Book called Truth Defended p. 64 65 66 67. as I doubt not will give Satisfaction to any unbyassed Reader whether I refer such that I may not spend time upon so impertinent a matter here as I perceive some of his Auditors judged it For after he had ended his relation of it one of his Auditors whom he calls a Stranger said All this is very Impertinent to the Business in Hand Yet I find he ran on in a loose way of telling Stories against the Quakers both the rest of that page and p. 38. Towards the bottom of that page he tells a Story of three Ministers of London that in the Year 1678. Rose up he says against him and he opposed their Errors Being asked by an Auditor What Ministers they were He readily answered They were Quakers But being put upon it and prest hard to tell their Names