whether that Corrupts and how David could be said to see Corruption or Job that Corruption was his Father c. If nothing of Man as Man be Corrupt the which he hath rather sought to evade than answer The like the Friend urged from G. Keith's saying The Man-Eaters may eat the gross part of Mans Body yet that more subtile and Invisible tart they cannot eat asking What is this but to say the Man-eaters may eat Mans Body but they cannot eat the substance of Mans Body p. 34. 35. This G. Keith never â—ites yet infers from it that he would with â—is devouring Throat Eat or Swallow up the Resurrection of the Body which shews G. Keith is better Skilled in the Art of Railing than disputing he knows who called that a Black Art once with something more I may chance to put him â—n mind of before we part see Way Cast up p. 169. Besides C. Pusey did not seek to Swallow up the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body but to detect his explication as unâ—ound and unscriptural as well as Contradictory But how doth it appear that his Opponent â—yneth with Atheists and Sadducees in arguing against the Resurrection of the Body being the same â— substance from the Man-Eaters as G. Keith â—harged him Do the Atheists and Saducees acknowledge there is a Resurrection yet not the â—â—me in substance Or doth not the one deny â—here is a God Heaven or Hell and the other that there is a Resurrection at all or Angel or Spirit as in Acts 23. 8. Are these Case Parallel Or is it not rather manifest that G. Keith's Suggestions are as false as they are malicious Who no longer ago than in the Year 1691. in his Book called Presbyterian and Independent Churches tells his Reader It is a notorious false Charge that we deny the Manhood â— the Lord Jesus Christ and affirm that as Maâ— he is not in Heaven or that we deny the Resurection of the Dead But because we deny theâ— carnal Conceptions of the Resurrection and hâ—â— us to Scripture Words which is most safe therefore they have so beliâ—d us saith he p. 22â— 228. And the Case is the same now between us and him C. Pusey further saith in his p. 35. Is not this â— contrary to that common Understanding thâ— God hath given Man as the Popish Doctrinâ— of Transubstantiation For the Papists sâ—â— Though as to their Sense they eat the verâ— Bread it having the very colour the smell the taste and shew of Bread yet the Substance of Bread they eat not So G. Keith hold That though Man-Eaters may eat the visible Part of Mans Body which is seen with the outward Eyes yet the Matter and Substancâ— of Mans Body they cannot eat c. This G. Keith though he gives us not the Friend Words inveighs loudly against saying From this he most nonsensically inferrs that I affirm tâ— Man-Eaters eat the accidents of Mans Body Again I neither said nor thought the Man-Eateâ— eat only the accidents c. This he Terâ— quibbling partly from his gross Ignorance and partly from thâ—â—â—rversion and Prejudice of his 〈…〉 shall I say of G. Keith who gives not the Friends Words at all yâ—â— foistâ—th in as said by him what there is noâ— Syllable of in the Book no mention of 〈◊〉 â—he Word not so much as named for I have â—iven almost the whole of what was said there â—â— that Subject Whence came this but from â—erversion and Prejudice of Spirit not gross Ignorance for it was done wittingly He goes â—â— I distinguished betwixt the Radix and principal Substance of Mans Body and the drossy Part which is frequently separated from the noble voâ—ile Part by Chymical Operations Answ Thus â—â— makes two Substances to Mans Body and â—e Man-Eaters to be the Chymists to make this â—eparation But supposing these Man-Eaters â—t not the Body till after a Year more or less â— which time he allows Truth Advanced p. â—17 the Separation may be made betwixt the â—â—nel and the drossy Part do they then our Mans â—ody Or do they not Or what is it they do it if that be not Mans Body And whereas back this Assertion he queries p. 15. Whether Robbers that swallowed down Gold did eat it Answer The Instance is very remote except â— could prove they eat the drossy Part and â—t the more refined behind them then it had â—uer suited his Purpose But what he inâ—â—ances in Iron the Demonstration is more obâ—ous Men do not eat Iron because they do â—â—t digest it but the Ostrich that digests it â—aid to eat Iron Query Whether the Substance of Iron when eaten the excrementitious Part voided and the more noble Part transmuted into real Flesh in the Ostrich a Notion he hath favoured in p. 12. and I have commented upon be the same as before it was eaten And to his last clause in the Paragraph viz. As every Body hath a distinct Seed so thâ— Radix of every Body is a distinct Radix I say if every Body have it's distinct Seed and Radix theâ— Man's Body before the Fall had so and must there be a Radix to the Cloathes also To thâ— Coats of Skins which he interpreteth Truth Advanced p. 27. to be the Skin and Flesh oâ— this frail mortal and corruptible Body tâ— that which he saith Ibid. p. 113. is not proper to Man as Man and this such a Radix aâ— the Man-Eaters cannot eat with the dross and husky Part The Miller whom he would send to his Mill and cautioneth not to go beyond his Sphear of Knowledge is a better Philosopher than this comes to Now after all his bluster of Sadducees Sadducean Fraternity c. he brings in his Opponent owning a Resurrection of Just and Unjust though to help himself off he brands him with great Hypocrisy who being a prejudiced Adversary and offering no reasonable Demonstration I submit it to the Candid to make their Judgment of both of them and so leave it Nor shall I now debate with him whether the Primitive Christians were come to any result about what their Bodies should be It is sufficient that he hath not detected us whatever he would have Men believe concerning us to have deviated from the Faith of the Resurrection or from Scripture Terms and Expressions to which he hath said it is only safe to keep in this and all other things as hath been instanced To C. Pusey's query If it was the common belief of the Primitive Christians that the very same Matter and Substance of this corruptible Body should be the Body that is raised why should any among themselves especially have asked such a needless Question as with what Body do they come G. Keith Answers Such who asked that Question were such among them that said there was no Resurrection of the Dead 1 Cor. 15. 12. Answ This is no ways deduceable from that Scripture nor any other that I can find For the Question asked ver 12. was
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.
For indeed what Analoge is there between a spiritual Body and that Body which is not to be destroyed but only the Belly Guts and Draught of it Herein he seems well-deserving the Character of a Carnal Conceiver which I fastned on him and this Answers G. Keith's Query Do these Words prove that I have Carnal Conceptions of the Resurrection like those Sadducees To the second Did not the Sadducees altogether deny the Resurrection I Answer Yes Yet the Idea they conceived thereof in such as did believe it was very carnal witness their Instance in the seven Men that married one Woman But upon a groundless Presumption that I had inferred his saying that Men should have Belly Guts and Draught after the Resurrection which I never intended he bestows his vulgar Rhetorick of Perversion and downright Forgery upon me then refers p. 34. to his Book called Truth Advanced which I am willing enough the Reader should see for there he will find more of the same Leaven and lastly his Answer to the Bishop of Aberdeen's queries which was Extant as he saith thirty Years ago Answ His former Sentiments therein being sound if they were so doth not prove his latter were so But that he hath contradicted himself in this and other particulars is too notorious I doubt not to such as have read my former and 〈◊〉 read these The next thing is concerning Water-Baptism and the Supper wherein I shewed thaâ— one while he pretended to be moderate in his Judgment concerning them another while represented theâ— as abolished Shadows and legâ— Rites buried and not to be raised up again as iâ— my p. 35 to 42. More Instances I could give but I reserve them till further Service calls foâ— them these being shifted by him though upon occasion of my opposing some of his Queries in Truth Advanced p. 183 184. tâ— his declared contradictory Sense formerly â—â— alledgeth that they were simply proposed by hiâ— as Queries and plainly distinguished from Positions and that at Turners-Hall some made the excuse They did but Query Answ That Account or Narrative of what passed at Turners-Hall being given by himself who is a Party and none of the fairest Adversaries I dare not confide in and therefore apply my self to himself thus That if I did believe he would deny there were affirmative Interrogatives Queries in the Nature of Affirmations I would hunt for a passage I lately saw in a Book of his that would give it against him For that these were so coupled with Positions not distinguished from them is plain in that they were proposed as tending to Love Peace and Unity among the Sincere Professors of the Lord Jesus Christ see Truth Advanced p. 173. which if he will not be bound by what are they brought for or what a slippery Chapman will these Men have of him But to go on from his adding of these Sincere Professors that they held the Head and Build on the true Foundation and yet differ in some lesser Matters I observed that at the same Time no Epithets were with him black enough upon his quondam Friends whom he sometimes boasts he hath been upwards of thirty Years amongst G. Keith taking hold of that Passage hold the Head and build on the true Foundation and giving the other the slip renders us so unchristianly uncharitable as he saith we too evidently shew we are as to judge none in Christendom differing from us in Profession hold the Head or are Sincere Professors of the Lord Jesus Christ but we only But he runs too fast and in his Prejudice outruns himself We do not so judge though he while so unchristianly uncharitable they are his own Words to his quondam Friends and yet seeking to claw with others that he might Nest somewhere deserved that rebuke Now let us hear what a kind of Retractation he makes The Reader may perhaps expect some great matter if he be enformed what large Notice he hath given before hand above a twelve Month ago and how he bespoke his own Praise in the being free to do it For in his Book called True Copy Dated in the third Month 1695. in Order to introduce what he called A short List of the Vile and gross Errors of G. Whitehead J. Whitehead W. Penn c. he freely acknowledgeth that upon a review of his former Books of Immediate Revelation Universal Grace Rector Corrected and Truth defended he hath found some Passages and Words that not only need some further Explanation but even in some Part an Emendation and Correction And thanks Almighty God that has not only given him to see them but has given him that Humility of Heart Love to Truth and regard to the Salvation of Souls that he can freely both acknowledge and correct his former Mistakes after the example of some worthy Ancients True Copy p. 17. What could be expected from hence but something besides flourish from such as did not know G. Keith especially considering he hath took Time for it All he gives is this I am not ashamed says he here p. 34 35. to own my general Mistakes I have been under concerning divers Places of Scriptures particularly Relative to Water-Baptism and the Supper as Mat. 28. 19. and 1 Cor. 11. 26. And some other Places of Scripture relative to some other Matters especially in the Misapplication of some Places to prove certain Truths which these Places did not prove And I am so far from being ashamed to Publish this Confession that I have great Peace and Joy in it Answ This Confession is as Lame as he pretends in another Place G. Whitehead's Evidence to be but two particular Scriptures named the rest General as if he designed a reserve when more of his Contradictions are laid open who notwithstanding the Joy and Peace he pretends to have in his Publication is very uneasily drawn to this little and perhaps had not I forced him to it by exposing of him had stayed yet another twelve Month before he had given them which yet Falls abundantly short of what was proposed in his True Copy no Emendation or Correction being yet extant to those four Books he there both promised to exhibit and assigned as needing them Thus Parturiunt montes nascitur ridiculus mus All G. Keith's empty crack ends in a Ridiculous Boast I shall follow him upon this subject though he unseasonably interposeth what comes not in course In his p. 36. upon his querying whether it may not be said there is one Baptism â—s there is one Land called America though the Map or Figure of it is also called America even as there is but one Spiritual Baptism with the Holy Ghost though the outward Baptism with Water is also called Baptism I opposed thereto his asserting That the Scriptures are not that word more than a Map or Description of Rome or London is Rome or London or the Image of Caesar is Caesar or Bread and Wine is the Body and Blood of Christ to which after a
little ventilation that the foregoing is only a Query he will let it pass for a position and adds 1. The Scriptures are not that Living and Essential Word c. But that they may be called the Word as a Map of America is called America I never denied saith he The more unsound man he the mean while say I especially he having confessed they are no more so then Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ Therefore what he would turn upon us viz. That if we deny this to be a Truth we must hold with the Papists rebounds upon himself 2. That though there is but one Spiritual Baptism yet that the outward Baptism with Water is also called Baptism is also true for John's Baptism with Water is called in Scripture the Baptism of John saith he Answer And so there were divers Washings oâ— Baptisms and the Doctrine of Baptisms in those Daies see Heb. 9 10. and 6. 2. Although the Christians had but one which himself once acknowledged to J. A. of Leith when he told him We do not say as the Papists that there were two Baptisms with Water one of John another of Christ Truths Defence p. 124. But not it seems he can both say it with the Papists and defend it so uncertain a man is he Expostulating with him I added Here this Rabbi who once boasted that he hath the gifts both of sound knowledge and Expressions with manifold other Mercies bestowed upon him hath foiled himself sorely At this he excepts first against the word Rabbi alledging it is in a Scoffing Spirit and that it is the known way of the Quakers not to call a Man Master Answer I used it as the Characteristick of what he covets to be to wit a Sect Master and as such it suits him His next Cavil p. 37. against the Word foiled himself sorely he leaving to the Intelligent to Judge I do so also Yet is he willing to forestall his Judgment wherein I shall not imitate him Then to vindicate those words sound knowledge c. From savouring of Boasting he alledgeth that to make it look like a Boast I left out these last words for which I desire to Praise him for ever and the foregoing viz. his being Charged by his Opponent with Marvellous Ignorance Falshood and Giddiness To the first I say The Pharisee stood and Prayed thus to himself God I thank thee that I am not as other Men Luk 18. 11. The Pharisee thanked God G. Keith desired to Praise him for ever To the second Let another Man Praise thee and not thy own Mouth a Stranger and not thy own Lips Prov. 27. 2. He Objects against my calling his Book of Truth Advanced a Bulky Book But this I did not as representing it a bigger Volumn than many good Men have writ but that it was all Bulk not to edification but such gear as I have given the Reader a tast of already under my second Head I now return to his p. 35. where he alledgeth that I blame him for Opposing it as an Error That the Garden of Paradise was some part of this Visible Earth He left out And that Mans Food both for his Soul and Body was to have been Paradisical to which he gives no other answer than some citations and inferences out of G. W. G. F. and W. S. That G. W. and W. S have writ against them who have affirmed that the forbidden Fruit was an Apple the Serpent a Creature like our English Snares from which Dream of theirs the Picture of a Snake and an Apple in its Mouth in a Tree are set up at the beginning of Bibles c. Hence he argues p. 36. If the Trees of the Garden were not Visible and particularly the Tree of the forbidden Fruit as G. W. saith it was not then to be sure the Garden by his Judgment was not Visible c. Answer â—â— doth not follow that man was not in a Visible Garden any more than it would in the Metaphor wherein Nathan expressed David's Sin with Bâ—â—â—shebah under the Parable of an Ew-Lamb For as it would be an undue inference that David Uriah c. Were not Visible Persons upon this Visible Earth because it would be gross ignorance and darkness to think Nathan spake of a material Ew-Lamb so in this case it is as absurd to conclude G. Keith's Notions that the Garden of Paradise was not some part of this Visible Earth that man's Food before the Fall was to have been Paradisical and the Cloathing with the Skin and Flesh of this Frail Mortal and corruptible Body received but since the Fall as in Truth Advanced p. 16. 18. and 27. are backed by these Friends not allowing the gross Interpretation and Conception upon Gen. 3. What he adds out of G. Fox's Journal which he tauntingly calls that Famous Book where it is said I was come up in Spirit through the Flaming Sword into the Paradise of God is very idle For as there being a Mystical Canaan doth not imply there never was an outward one So there being a Mystical Paradise doth not imply there never was an outward Paradise To defend his Exposition of Adam and Eve's hiding themselves among the Trees of the Garden to be in a Tree of the Garden and that that one Tree may be well understood to be the divine Mercy or Clemency whereupon I replyed The divine Mercy is in Christ Jesus and if they were got there methinks when they heard the Voice of the Lord God walking in the Garden they should not have been afraid for they were already safe G. Keith p. 37. after a repeating his having said that the Hebrew doth bear it in a Tree of the Garden and a reflecting upon my ignorance in the Hebrew a Language I never pretended Skill in for it is the application that I mind adds Are they not carnally minded to think that Adam thought he could hide himself either among the Trees of an outward Garden or in any one Tree of it so as God might not see him Answer Adams thoughts I shall not dive into but if he thought to hide himself from the wrath of God even in a Tree of the Garden according to G. Keith's Exposition he found himself mistaken But how Natural it is for fear and guilt to take undue and precipitant Courses which in a sedate frame they could not propose to be sheltered by instances in Isai 2. 19. Hos 10. 8. and Rev. 6. 15 16. declare where men are said to go into the Holes of the Rocks and Caves of the Earth for Fear of the Lord to say to the Mountains Cover us and to the Hills Fall on us to hide themselves in the Dens and Rocks of the Mountains that they might hide them from the Face of him that sitteth upon the Throne and from the wrath of the Lamb. Did these men thinks he reckon God could not see them there Or were they not in a Terrour and