therein considered TO his Narrative he tacks an Appendix containing he says some considerable Proofs out of these Menâ— Books relating to the foregoing Heads The first Passage be carps at is in G. Whitehead's Book called The Divinity of Christ p. 70. Where in Answer to I. Owen who had â—aid The Sacrifice deâ—otes his Christ's Humane Nature whence God iâ— said to purchase his Church with his own Blood Acts 20.28 For he offered himself through the eternal Spirit there was the Matter of the Sacrifice which was the Humane Nature of Christ's Soul and Body c. G. Whitehead answered These Passages are but darkly and confusedly expressed As also we do not read in Scripâ—ure that the Blood of God by which he purchased his â—hurch is ever called the Blood of the Humane Nature Nor that the Soul of Christ was the Humane Nature or was put to death with the Body for the wicked could not kill the Soul for his Soul in his own being was immortal and the Nature of God is Divine and therefore that the Blood of God should be of Humane or Earthly Nature appears intonsistent And where doth the Scripture call the Blood of God Humane or Human Nature c. It is plain enough from hence That G. Whitehead's Exception lay against the word Human which he explains by Earthly to shew he took it in that signification wherein it is derived abâ—Humo from the Ground or Earth in which sence it is not a fit or proper Term to express the Blood of God or the Soul of Christ nay nor his outward Man by For his outward Body which was nailed to the Cross was not of a Meer Earthly Extraction there was more of Divinity even in that Body than in the Bodies of other men which rendred it too Heavenly to be called Humane or Earthly But though G. Whitehead rejected the word Humane or Earthly with respect to Christ's Manhood and Holy Nature and to the Blood of God wherewith he purchased his Church and could not admit that his Soul was put to death though it with the Body was made an Offering for Sin and so it is in a figurative manner of speaking said that he poured it out to death yet he never denied the Manhood of Christ nor the sufferings thereof both inwardly and outwardly nor the virtue merit and efficacy of those sufferings Nor is there any thing in those words of his which G. Keith hath quoted that imports he did But in the progress of his Answer to I. Owen in the next page mentioning both the Travel and Sufferings of Christ's Soul under the Burden of Man's Transgression and the suffering of his Body under the violence of the wicked hands to death and the shedding of his Blood c. he adds We desire all may have as good an esteem of Christ in his sufferings as may be Therefore G. Keith doth very unjustly and like himself in insinuating as if G. Whitehead had denied the Manhood of Christ. He takes some pains to excuse himself for having formerly as he pretended to excuse others cited those words of Hilarius Quid per Naturam Humani corporiâ— conceptu ex Spiritu Sancto Caro judicatur i.e. Why is the Flesh conceived by the Holy Ghost judged by the Nature of an Human Body But says he neither Hilarius nor I judged that the Body though conceived of the Holy Ghost was any part of the substance of the Holy Ghost No more say I do we Yet being conceived by the Holy Ghost through the overshadowing of the Power of the Most High that Body was more Pure and Heavenly than the Bodies of other Men and above the Epithet Humane or Earthly The Book he mentions in which he says he cited those words of Hilarius which he calls The True Christ owned I do not remember I have ever seen But in another Book of his called The Rector Corrected Printed the next year after that viz. in 1680. he gives the same sentence out of Hilarius and tells us p. 29. Hilarius saith concerning the Body of Christ that was born of the Virgin Iesus Christ was not formed by the Nature of Humane Conception and that the Original of his Body is not of an Humane Conception And as there he spake for Hilarius so in p. 27. speaking for himself he says even the outward and visible Flesh which he took of the Virgin seeing it was not produced or formed by Humane Generation but by a Divine Conception through the Overshadowing of the Holy Ghost and did far excel the Flesh of all other Men that ever were since inasmuch also that after death it was not subject to Corruption the name Humane Mark is but too mean a Title whereby to express it far less should it be so called now when it is glorified and it is altogether Heavenly and Spiritual Nor doth the Scripture any where give unto his Body such a name as Humane said he then And who would then have thought that he would have come to plead for the word Humane with respect to Christ's both Flesh and Soul and condemn us for Hereticks for not using it But concerning the Excellency of Christ's Body hear what he said in the year 1678. in his Book called The way to the City of God which now poor man he is quite beside p. 131. Even according to that Birth he Christ was the Son of God no lesâ— than the Son of Man as having God for his Father as he had the Virgin Mary for his Mother Now the Child says he we know doth partake an Image or Nature from both Parents And thus did Christ who did partake of the Nature and Image of Man from the Seed of Mary but did partake of a Nature and Image much more excellent than that of Man in its greatest Glory from God and his Seed who did really sow a most divine and heavenly Seed in the Virgins Womb which as it supplied the Males Seed so it had much more in it and brought forth a Birth which as it had the true and whole Nature of Man so I say it had a Perfection above it and that not only in accidental qualities as men will readily confess but even in substance and Essence And yet we must be now anathematized and that by him for denying that Body to be Humane or Earthly He says p. 53 G. Whitehead 's Objection against the word Humane as signifying Earthly hath the same force against calling Christ Adam coming from the Hebrew word Adamah that signifieth Earth From hence first I must desire the Reader to observe that G. Keith saw well enough where the ground of G. Whitehead's Objection lay viz. as I have expressed it before upon the word Humane as signifying Earthly This shews that he is a meer Caviller and seeks occasions to quarrel and defame without cause Next I must tell him That Christ is not called Adam in a strict and proper sense but in a figurative with allusion to the First Man
his Narrative where he hath repeated these Charges against W. Penn and G. Whitehead and I as before have endeavoured to free them from his Perversions and Abuses The Fourth Error he bestows on me is That I deny that the Gift of the Divine Grace or Power within is the real Purchase of Christ's Obedience unto Death arguing that if so that would not be the Free Gift of God p. 121. Here are two notable Pieces of Art he has shewed in the framing of this Error First He has changed my VVords from The Gift of the promised Seed to The Gift of the Divine Grace or Power within Which quite alters the Sence of the Place For whereas I inferred from his Words that the Gift of the promised Seed was not a free Gift or did not proceed from the free Love of God to Man contrary to Iohn 3.16 but was the real purchase of Christ's most holy and perfect Obedience unto Death when he came which was the Error and Absurdity I drew upon him from his own Words He to slip from under that changes the Words as I shewed before from the Gift of the promised Seed to the Gift of the Divine Grace and Power within referring to Rom. 5.15 Eph. 4.7 8. and Psalm 68.18 which latter Places mention Christ's giving Gifts unto Men when he ascended up on High after his Death and Resurrection So turning the Free Gift of God in promising the Seed and giving his only begotten Sun to the Gift of Divine Grace and Power within which Christ the promised Seed gave when he ascended up on high and then charges me with Error in denying this Gift given by Christ to be the real purchase of his Obedience unto Death whereas it was the Gift of Christ himself as the promised Seed that I spake of which was the Effect of God's free Love not the purchase of Christ's Death The other piece of his Art is in turning this upon me saving He denies Whereas I neither denyed nor affirmed but shewed him the Absurdity and Error of his own Words The Fifth Error he assigns me is That I blame him for saying Christ's Body is the same in substance it was on Earth p. 129. I desire the Reader to examine that Place in my Book and he will see that I do not blame G. Keith for saying Christ's Body is the same in substance it was on Earth But I expose his Confusion and Folly in saying it is the same in substance that it was on Earth and yet saying It is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure ethereal or Heavenly Body as if Christ's Body when on Earth had not been a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but an Ethereal or Airy Body Or as if Flesh Blood and Bones were not of the substance of an outward visible tangible Body such as was that which was nailed to the Cross at Ierusalem The Sixth Error he allots me is That I deny that Christ came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary p. 136. In this as in the rest he is extreamly unjust In this place also we treated of Christ as he was the promised Seed And he undertaking to prove in p. 22. of his Book called The True Copy c. from Mat. 1.1 That the Seed of Promise came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary I pinched him up close with his own words in that same Book of his p. 20. where he had said It is neither the Body of Christ strictly considered nor the Soul of Christ strictly considered without the Godhead nor the Godhead strictly considered without the Soul and Body of the Manhood of Christ that is the Seed of the Woman or Seed of Abraham but the Godhead and Manhood jointly considered and most gloriously united Hereupon I shewed him that in urging Mat. 1.1 to prove the Seed of Promise as he had defined it came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary he shewed himself to be of a corrupt Judgment and contradicted his former Saying I was so favourable before as only to say Should I not serve him right if from hence I should conclude against him that he holds the Seed of Promise as consisting of Godhead and Manhood united to have come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary since he blamed S. C. for denying it But I think I have just cause now to set it harder on him and charge it home upon him as a vile and gross Error That he holds that Christ who he says in the same place was the Son of God by an eternal Generation before the World began the promised Seed which he says is neither the Body of Christ strictly considered nor the Soul of Christ strictly considered without the Godhead nor the Godhead strictly considered without the Soul and Body of the Manhood of Christ but the Godhead and Manhood joinâ—ly considered and most gloriously united that Christ the promised Seed or Seed of the Woman thus defined did come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary And I hope he will think himself or that others however will think him obliged to clear himself of this Error which is vile and gross enough before he take upon him to arraign others The Seventh Error he abuses me with is That I pervert the Apostle's Creed in that Clause Conceived of the Holy Ghost p. 138. by which I infer that Christ came not by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary and in so doing he says I make the Holy Ghost to be the maâ—erial Cause of that Generation as if that Holy Thing conceived were of the substance of the Holy Ghost whereas the Holy Ghost was the Efficient Cause thereof but not the Material Cause Perversion is so natural to him that he can do nothing at this sort of work without it That he might fasten an Error upon me he perverts yea alâ—ers the words of that Creed For the words of that Creed in that Clause are Conceived by the Holy Ghost and so I gave them in my Book he has changed the word by to of and renders it Conceived of the Holy Ghost Whereas the word by imports the Holy Ghost to have been the Efficient Cause that by vertue of which Mary conceived But the word of imports him to have been the Material Cause as if the thing conceived had been taken of the Matter or substance of the Holy Ghost To avoid which I following the express words of that Creed said the common Creed called The Apostles says Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost though born of the Virgin Mary Now how shameless is this Man to charge me with vile and gross Error in perverting the Apostle's Creed in that Clause Conceived of the Holy Ghost When it plainly appears from his own Book that it is he himself that has altered and thereby perverted the words of that Creed and not I Besides
in mine called Truth Defended from p. 148. to p. 155. which he has not replied to 'T is true he doth not begin his Cavil now with the same Quotation he did then but for a blind brings it in now with a Quotation of the same Matter in Substance taken out of another Peice viz. A Preface to the Collection of R. Barclay 's Book which he supposes and I deny not was writ by VV. Penn and then claps his former Quotation out of VV. Penn's Rejoyndâ—r to Faldo behind it to support it taking no notice that I had answered it before This in him was neither Ingenuous nor Fair. He should have answered my Book before he had renewed the Charge therein answered But instead of that he conceals that it was already answered and proposes it as a new thing as if it had not been answered before Now seeing he hath dealt so unfairly I shall take the less notice of what he now says in the Case but that I may not actum agere shall refer the Reader to my former Answer in the Book and Pages abovementioned yet not wholly pass by what he says here First I observe he quarrels with VV. Penn for saying upon 1 Tim. 3.16 Great is the Mystery of Godliness God manifest in the Flesh c. And if the Apostle said it of the Manifestation of the Son of God in the Flesh if that be a Mystery and if a Mystery it is not to be spelt out but by the Revelation of the Spirit how much more c. From hence G. Keith infers VV. Penn doth not say it is a Mystery but he puts three Ifs to it This Objection is childish in all but the Malice of it For G. Keith knows VV. Penn hath always acknowledged that Manifestation of Christ in the outward Body of Flesh in which he suffered at Ierusalem to be a very great and wonderful Mystery And he and every one else that understands Words aright knows that the Particle If both divers Significations sometimes it is Conditional sometimes Dubitative sometimes Concessive or Granting Of which there are plenty of Instances in Scripture Rom. 11.6 If by Grace then no more of VVorks The Apostle there cannot be supposed to doubt or question much less to deny that the Election is of Grace for he positively affirm'd it in the verse before So ver 12. If the fall of them the Iews be the Riches of the World c. how much more their Fulness ver 16. If the first Fruit and if the Root be Holy so the Lump so the Branches ver 21. If God spared not the natural Branches c. 1 Pet. 4.17 18. If it Judgment first begin at us And if the Righteous scarcely be saved c. 2 Pet. 2.4 5. If God spared not the Angels that sinned but cast them down to Hell c. And spared not the old World but saved Noah c. Might not G. Keith as well have charged the Apostle with denying or doubting that God spared not the Angels that sinned and the old World Yet upon this he asks Pray was our blessed Lord a meer Shell Was he like the Shell of an Egg without the Meat of an Egg I answer no He was not a meer Shell neither was he like the Shell of an Egg either without the Meat or with it For he was full of Grace and Truth John 1.14 And in him dwelleth all the Fulness of the Godhead bodily Col. 2.9 For it pleased the Father that in him should all Fulness dwell chap. 1.19 Again He asks Was there any Holiness ever in any Prophet or Apostle but it is like a Drop to the Ocean to what was in our blessed Lord If it were or could be less than a Drop to the Ocean that affects not us in this Case For we draw no Comparison between the Holiness that was in him and that which is or ever hath been in any of the Saints with respect to the Degrees thereof Grant it to be the same in Nature and Quality and it suffices which a Drop is with the Ocean But G. Keith's Comparison in his Marginal Notes in this p. 21. run higher in Degree than a Drop to the Ocean For he says The same Seed and Life is in us which was in the Man Christ and is in him in the Fulness as Water in the Spring and in us aâ— the Stream which is more than a Drop and bears more proportion in quantity to the spring it flows from than a Drop does to the Ocean Again he says As the natural Life is in all the Members but more principally in the Head and Heart without any Division so this spiritual Life and Nature is both in Christ our Head and in us by which he dwelleth in us as the Spirit of Man doth in the Body But is the disproportion as great in the natural Body between the Life in the Member and in the Head Heart as between a Drop and the Ocean He suggests that W. Penn compares the Work of Regeneration to the Incarnation of our Lord so as to equal yea prefer it with respect to Holiness and thereupon says Nar. p. 22. I Appeal to you the Auditors whether is it not a most abominable Error and whether it doth not make every regenerate Man not only equal to the Man Christ but greater for says he VVe truly value any Man as more Holy according as the Manifestation of God is more in one Man than in another Now this is a great abuse in him For the Comparison if he will have it to be one was not originally W. Penn's but his Adversaries and it lay not between the Incarnation of Christ and the Work of Regeneration But between the difficulty of Believing the one and Experiencing the other So W. Penn understood I. Faldo at first and thereupon said Regeneration is a slight thing meaning with I. Faldo in Comparison of the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh. Mark that He did not say in Comparison of Christ after the Flesh But in Comparison of the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh. And thereupon he added The History is made viz. by I. Faldo the greatest Mystery And to believe the one matter of greater difficulty than to Experience the other Rejoynder p. 336. The Comparison here lay not between the Digniâ—y or Excellency of Christ's Incarnation in that Body which he took of the Virgin and his spiritual Formation and Birth in his Saints which is intended in the Word Regeneration But between the difficulty of Believing the one and of Experiencing the other Neither would the Comparison between the Incarnation of our Lord Christ and the Work of Regeneration had such a Comparison been made have been with respect to the Degrees of Holiness in each But with respect to the greatness of the Mystery in the one and in the other which depended not simply upon the Holiness in either For though this Mystery of the Incarnation of Christ be by way of Emphasis or
p. 152. of the same Book in Answer to a Question Whether the knowledge of the outward coming sufferings and Death of Christ is not of absolute necessity unto every one He says Though express knowledge of his outward coming sufferings and Death is very profitable to beget Faith and Love in Men towards God as aforesaid and ought to be highly valued in its place Nevertheless this express knowledge is not of absolute necessity unto Faith and Love c. And in p. 153. How many thousand have been saved before Christ's coming in the outward who knew it not expresly And a little lower Seeing then that some had Faith and Love to God and were saved without the express knowledge thereof to wit of Christ's coming in the outward before he came outwardly why not also after his coming where his coming outwardly hath not been preached nor revealed For now Christ is inwardly come in a Seed of Life and Light in all which is the Word of Reconciliation by which men may be Reconciled with God as they joyn and apply their Minds thereunto Such passages as these abound in his former not yet retracted Book which it would be tedious to transcribe Yet inasmuch as he says here Nar. p. 23. that though Regeneration is no â—light thing yet comparing Christ's Incarnation with the Work of Regeneration I do affirm the Work of Regeneration is a light thing tho' not light in it self I will shew him though it be some what beside the present Business how much he formerly prefer'd the inward Appearance and Manifestation of Christ in Spirit to his outward Appearance in the Flesh. In his Book called Immediate Revelation not ceased nor retracted p. 59. he says If his Bodily presence was not sufficient to the Church his teaching them outwardly by word of Mouth Face to Face but he said It was expedient that he should go away from them and he would send another Teacher who would do greater things and more Manifestly and Gloriously reveal unto them God and the things of his Kingdom If Christ's Bodily presence in the Flesh was not sufficient of it self to Minister though he spake as never Man spake yet I say If this Ministration was not sufficient but a more Glorious they were to expect and as they waited they witnessed it fulfilled and come unto them Then far less is the outward Administration of any other Man c. Seeing the knowledge of Christ after the Flesh was not sufficient nor to be rested in but they were to look for a better a more clear and full manifestation in themselves he appearing in a Spiritual Glorious Heavenly Mysterious way in their Hearts c. And in p. 120. having cited before many Scripture sayings out of the Old and New Testament Concerning Christ he says All these Glorious things both he in the Days of his Flesh and the Prophets before that his appearance in that Body of Flesh declared neither only nor principally concerning his coming in the Flesh namely in that Vessel or Temple which appeared at Ierusalem but mainly and principally concerning his Spiritual Appearance in his Saints after his being Crucified Risen and Ascended for till then the Son of Man was not Glorified And though he was Bodily present with his Disciples yet he told them they were to see greater things And p. 121. He told them It was expedient he should go away that he might come again in a more Glorious and Comfortable Appearance by the Revelation of his Glorious Power in their Hearts for his Kingdom was not of this World but an inward Kingdom and he said that it was within and pointed to this Spiritual Appearance by his Light in their Hearts under many Parables and Figures c. Again p. 107. he says The Iews and People of Israel who lived in Moses's time and were saved it was through Faith in this Word in this Prophet raised up in them in their Hearts not at a distance but nigh the Word is nigh in thy Heart And this is Christ in them the hope of Glory the Mystery hid from Ages and Generations but was ever made manifest in his Saints but in the latter Days more clearly Christ in all that believe the hope of Glory Does he not here plainly make that Mystery which the Apostle and he from him calls the Mystery which hath been hid from Ages and from Generations Col. 1.2.6 to be the inward Appearance of Christ the hope of Glory in all that believe and says It was ever made manifest in his Saints He pretends Nar. p. 23. to have some other principal Proofs remaining about this Gross Error as he calls it of W. Penn But he brings forth but one that I find and that the same which he charged formerly in his Book called The True Copy c. And which I answered at large in my Book called Truth Defended from p. 113. to p. 123. Of which he takes no notice Had he been either fair or manly he should first have refuted the former Answers before he had renewed his Charge Yet not only here but in his Gross Error p. 18 19. he repeats this same Charge without so much as owning that it had been answered to before So that with respect to him it is to little purpose to answer at all since he has so little honesty as to wink over the answer and repeat his Charge a new as if there had been nothing said to it But for the undeceiving of them whom he labours to deceive and by false Accusations and Calumnies to bring into a dislike of our Principles and us I shall here wipe off some of his Abuses and refer the Reader for further satisfaction to my former Book called Truth Defended The Quotation he now gives is out of a Book called The Christian Quaker p. 97.98 It is a Controversial Book and the Controversy in that part of it is Whether Christ as Christ was before he took Flesh of the Virgin or no Which the Adversaries denied W. Penn affirmed and gave many Arguments from Scripture and Reason to prove it which the Reader may there see at large from p. 92. to p. 99. Amongst those many Arguments one was drawn from the promised Seed which all acknowledge to be Christ and therefore as a fit Medium was used by W. Penn to prove that Christ as Christ was before he took that Body of Flesh upon him and therefore that that Body simply considered as a Natural Body which was the Notion the Adversaries had of it and from whence they Spake so much of Christ's Humane Nature was not properly the Christ but he most properly who was the Heavenly Spiritual Man who came down from Heaven and took upon him that outward Body in as much as the Seed is a Spiritual Substance Now to prove that the Seed is inward and Spiritual he argued thus which is the passage G. Keith quotes As Abraham outward and natural was the great Father of the Jews outward and
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
People that commit evil and so appeasing the Wrath of God by being a Propitiation for them according to 1 Iohn 2.1 2. This one would have thought might have gone down with G. Keith it being so agreeable to his own Doctrine For in his VVay cast up a Book not yet retracted p. 157. he said And thus Christ doth declare himself to be the Mediator betwixt God and Man as he is in them Thou in me and I in them here Christ is the Middle-man or Mediator as being in the Saints Which Confutes the gross and most comfortless Doctrine of the Presbyterians and others who affirm that Christ as Mediator is only without us in Heaven and is not Mediator in us whereas he himself in this place hath declared the contrary And lest G Keith should again Cavil at the Words offereth up himself c. I will remind him that he himself in his Additional Postscript to G. VVhitehead's Book called The Nature of Christianity p. 66. answered his Opponent Gordon thus 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 VVork is vain for Christ Iesus is the one Offering still and though he offered up his Body outwardly but once upon the Cross yet he remains still an Offering for us within us For he is a Priest for ever and every Priest hath somewhat to offer and he is both the Offering and the Priest who liveth for ever to make Intercession for us This is too good Doctrine still in G. Keith to be retracted by him for though he has mentioned this very Postscript of his in his Narrative yet â—e has not retracted any thing in it though he can condemn the same in others unjust Man as he is Before I leave this place let me put G. Keith in Mind seeing he seem to have forgot it of a necessary Caution he gave in his VVay to the City of God p. 127. thus Therefore we are not too nicely to distinguish betwixt the Influences of his inward and outward Coming and the Effects thereof but rather to take them conjunctly as in a perfect Conjunction having a perfect Influence upon all Mankind for their Reconciliation and Renovation unto God as obtaining that Measure of Light and Grace from God unto all and every one whereby it is possible for them in a Day to be saved And again p. 139. thus But as I said above so I do again repeat it that it may have the more weight viz. that we are not too nicely to make a difference betwixt the Influence and Effects of his Outward and Inward Sufferings but to understand them in a perfect Conjunction c. And so the People called Quakers do say I. Having had a fling at VV. Penn he says Let me come to G. Whitehead again And that he might stir up the People to Lightness he tells them You shall have here a rare Dish of Divinity and then to provide himself some Defence or Excuse after he had done it he adds Not that I would provoke any to Lightness What Hypocrisie is this Then to garnish his rare Dish he says I have read many Books in my Time but I never read such a Book except the Ranters in my Life Popery is Orthodoxy to it no Popish Priest will argue as he has done See how he Banters him Nar. p. 22. The Book he quotes is called The Light and Life of Christ within c. p. 8. where he says G. VVhitehead blames VV. Burnet for saying The Blood shed upon the Cross sprinkles the Conscience Sanctifies Iustifies Redeems us And in p. 18. of his Gross Error where he carps at the same Passage and gives the Quotation more at large but not truly he says Note Here it is plain that G. Whitehead doth altogether deny Iustification by that outward Blood or that it was the meritorious Cause of Salvation But this is a manifest Falshood and Abuse put upon G. VV. For he did neither deny the outward Blood to be the meritorious Cause of Salvation Nor did he there undertake to discuss blame or censure any of Burnet's Doctrines or Assertions That was to be done and with respect to some of them was done in the after part of the Book to which that former Part was but as an Introduction wherein Burnet's Contradictions were collected and exposed and therefore immediately after those Words of Burnets p. 7. partly cited by G. Keith viz. The Blood shed upon the Cross the material Blood meritorious to Salvation sprinkles the Consciences Sanctifies Iustifies Redeems us c. G. VVhitehead added thus But in Contradiction p. 40. That Blood shed is not in being says Burnet but he compares it to a price lost Upon which G. VVhitehead made this Observation p. 8. Observe said he here a twofold stress is laid upon that Blood 1. Merit to Salvation 2. VVork to Sanctification and so he hath set it up above God For God could not save he saith and yet it is not in being this G. Keith in reciting G. VVhitehead's Words left out gross Absurdity VVhereas Sanctification being a real VVork inward that is certainly in being which Effects it This plainly shews that that which G. Whitehead blamed his Opponent for was his Self-contradiction in saying that Blood shed Sprinkles Sanctifies Justifies Redeems which are all of the present Time and yet withal saying that Blood shed is not in being This part G. Keith as I noted concealed and then falls upon G. Whitehead as he had done before Gross Error p. 22. for wronging Burnet in charging him with having said God could not save And he makes as if he would help Burnet out but he quickly pulls in his Horns saying Nar. p. 25. But I wholly wave that Dispute I think it is above Mans capacity Whether antecedently to God's purpose he could have saved us without the Death of his own dear Son Truly I doubted nothing had been above G. Keith's Presumption because I have scarce seen him stick at any thing before how much soever above his Capacity But though he is willing to wave that Dispute yet to help off the Baptist and fall in with other Opposers he says But God having so ordained it consequentially to his purpose it viz. That God could not save may be as safely and truly said as when the Scripture saith God cannot lye Is it any Reflection says he to say God cannot lye and that he cannot contradict his Purpose But I would know of him whether to contradict or to alâ—er ones Purpose be the same thing as to Lye But it is probable G. Keith might borrow this Notion from Io. Owen who in his Book against the Quakers called A Declaration c. has a touch of this kind if I mistake not in p. 178. G. Keith gives another Proof against G. Whitehead out of the same Book called Light and Life p. 38. and having set down the Baptists
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
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
it profited nothing So Wilson in his Christian Dictionary Sixth Edition Printed at London 1655. expounds those Words The Flesh profiteth nothing that is to say the Humane Nature of Christ is not profitable to us of it self but as the Godhead dwelleth in it giving Life to it and quickning us by it And thus he says Tindal and the Bible Note expound this Place In like manner I understand Iohn Humphreys both when he said in his first Letter I am grieved to hear some say they did expect to be justified by that Blood that was shed at Ierusalem and in his second Letter from those Words of Christ it is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing So he himself ascribed the Work of Man's Salvation and Sanctification not to the Flesh that suffered but to the Spirit that quickned not to the Blood that was shed at Ierusalem but unto the Flesh and Blood that is spiritual c. to intend and mean not the outward Flesh and Blood of it self only without or apart from the Divine Life Spirit and Power that appeared in it and gave Virtue to it but both together Nor Primarily or Principally the outward Flesh and Blood but the Divine Life Spirit and Power that dwelt in that outward Body and made it what it was if he meant otherwise we cannot stand by him therein But whereas G. Keith says of Iohn Humphreys in Nar. p. 43. That some of his own Fraternity perswaded him to put in the Word Only and that would excuse the Matter he puts in the Word Only and says G. Keith he thinks it was against his Conscience and so bids put it out again That some of his own Fraternity as G. Keith scoffingly speaks perswaded him to put in the Word Only doth not appear to be true but that when he had put it in he thought it was against his Conscience appears to be false And from thence it appears that G. Keith did not think it was against his Conscience to belie him Where did I. Humphreys declare that the putting in the Word Only was against his Conscience and that therefore he bid put it out again The Words of his Letter as G. Keith has given them shew the contrary His 43. p. is spent in a confused rambling Discourse in which he flits to and fro from one thing to another in a loose way without sticking to any thing But in the Close of it he mentions a Testimony from W. Penn to prove that Bodily Death did not come in by Man's Sin Which in p. 44. he gives out of W. Penn's Book in Answer to Reeve and Muggleton called The New Witnesses proved Old Hereticks p. 55. thus If the Flesh of Beasts is capable of dying rotting and going to dust who never sinned why should not Man have died and gone to Dust though he had never sinned He should have noted that W. Penn spake this upon an extravagant Notion of theirs That The Reason why Men's Bodies in Death or after Death do rot or stink in the Grave and come to Dust is because there was Sin in their Bodies whilst they lived but on the contrary if Men had no Sin in their Natures or Bodies they might live and die and naturally rise again by their own Power in their own Time Upon this he thus observed Why should Sin only cause the Body to rot stink and go to Dust Does not the Scripure and Reeve himself in his Book p. 44. give another Reason namely That what came from Dust is that which must go to Dust Then adds to shew their weakness in assigning Sin only for the cause of the Bodies rotting and going to Dust Besides if the Flesh of Beasts is capable of Dying Rotting and going to Dust who never sinned why should not Man have dyed and gone to Dust though he had never sinned And in p. 5 6. he attacks Reeve again upon his own Assertion saying And it is further evident That Sin is not the cause of Mens Bodies crumbling into Dust from Reeves his own Words c. So that what W. Penn said on that Subject might be but Argumentum ad Hominem which ought not to be turned upon himself But if W. Penn had directly affirmed that Man's Natural Body as it was formed of the Dust of the Ground Gen. 2.7 Should have returned to Dust again although he had not sinned would that have been a gross and vile Error contrary to the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith Indeed according to G. Keith's wild Notions of Adam's and Eve's Bodies both before the Fall while they grew together back to back before they were split asunder as he Fables and after the Fall too the Bodies which they had after the Fall did derive from Sin not only their Mortality but their beginning and the Cause of their Being made For he Dreams that the Bodies in which they lived after the Fall were not the same that they had before the Fall but were those Coats of Skins which God is said Gen. 3.21 to have made for them which he fancies to be their outward Bodies of Flesh Blood and Bones and that those were made to cover the nakedness of their former Bodies Of which and many more such Dotages the Reader if he have any thing of a sober Brain may soon read himself Sick in his Book called Truth Advanced more especially from p. 16. to p. 32. In this 44. p. again He acknowledges G. Whitehead and W. Penn to be Orthodox though he has charged them with being Heterodox and for ought I see makes them Heterodox and Orthodox in the same things which is pretty Before he got hither he had pretty well tired his Auditors He was fain in p. 41. to say I beg of you I shall be but short And so drill'd them on the Contents of three Pages further Now says he I beg your Patience for one or two Quotations more before I have done This was heavy dull Work It is says he out of Tho. Ellwood to shew you that T. Ellwood Charges me with Forgery because I said the Yearly Meeting did censure some of these Vnsound Papers This he has been harping at divers times before both in p. 41 42 and 43. But I deferr'd my Answer to it till I came hither The ground of his Cavil here at me is this He to support his tottering Credit among those few that seemed at first willing to listen a little to him had in his Book called A seasonable Information c. p. 26. affirmed That the Paper called A true Account of the Proceedings of the Yearly Meeting in 1694. which his Agent R. Hannay publish't doth own them of the other side by whom he meant the Friends in America whom he had separated from to be guilty of unsound and erroneous Doctrines I in my Book called A further Discovery written in Answer to that of his said p. 84. How false and unfair he is in this the Words of that Paper shall shew which