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
he is altogether unjust in raising this Cavil for he knows that in this Place as well as in the other upon which he grounded his last pretended Error where I defended S. Crisp against R. Cobbet and him I expresly spake of Christ not only with respect to his Body which was born of the Virgin but as he was the Son of God by an Eternal Generation as he was conceived by the Overshadowing of the Power of the Highest as he was the Promised Seed which G. Keith had confessed was not the Manhood only but the Godhead and Manhood united And in these respects it was that I argued he was not produced by Coagulation which was one of Cobbet's Terms nor came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary which was another of Cobbet's Terms But before I part with G. Keith on this Head let us see whether He who is so forward to brand me with this Error has not himself trod too near that which he charges me with For in his Book called The way to the City of God p. 131. He says Even according to that Birth He Christ was the Son of God no less than the Son of Man having God for his Father as he had the Virgin Mary foâ— his Mother But as he was the Son of God having God for his Father was he produceâ— by Coagulation or did he come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary 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 is not that a Substance 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 The Eighth Error he slanders me with he calls my false way of reasoning against the Man Christ's being created from his reasoning if not created therefore not Man by retorting if created therefore not God p. 139. This is as meer a Cavil as the former and both the one and the other arose from hence that he would make the Manhood only to be Christ without the Godhead or else subject the Godhead to the same Condition of Generation or Creation with the Manhood either of which is an Error This made me give him that retorting Answer which has so much displeased him Thus it was in my former Book His Third Observation is That S. Crisp's denying that Jesus the Saviour was created or calling for Scripture to prove it doth sufficiently prove that he understands Christ only to be God and wholly excludes the Manhood of Christ from being Christ or any part of him Doth it so said I Then let G. Keith look to himself For by retortion I return upon him That his holding that Iesus the Saviour was created which he doth by condemning S. C. for denying it doth sufficiently prove that he understands Christ to be only Man and wholly excludes the Godhead of Christ from being Christ or any part of him which to hold is a gross and vile Error Let him acquit himself as he can He cannot acquit himself therefore he is angry and wrangles with me for retorting this on him He says I charge him to be deeply drenched into Socinianism My words are I confess I did not think him so deeply drencht into Socinianism He says This is my Ignorance The Socinian Error is not That Christ is a Creature but that he is a meer Creature viz. only Man and not both God and Man I was not ignorant of this nor am of the folly of his Arguing neither can he be ignorant that my Answer by retortion implied him to hold that Christ is not only a Creature but a meer Creature only Man wholly excluding the Godhead which is full Socinianism And until he will leave Cavilling and come down in his Stomach and distinguish as he ought to do betwixt Christ as he was the Son of God by Eternal Generation the divine Word which was in the beginning with God and which was God and that which he took of the Virgin he shall never be able to free himself from the Imputation of this Error For so far as he makes Christ to be created so far he makes him a meer Creature The Ninth Error he ascribes to me he calls my blaming him to make light so he expresses it of the work of Generation I take him to mean Regeneration in comparison of Christ's Incarnation therefore according to him says he Regeneration is greater than Christ's Incarnation Upon which he crys out O great Blasphemy p. 155. In this he mistook me whether ignorantly or designedly I know not for I did not intend nor now do to draw a Comparison between those two Appearances or Manifestations of Christ Outwardly in the Flesh at Ierusalem and Inwardly in the Hearts of his People so as to prefer the One to the Other for I have all along told him I do not like to divide Christ. But the drift and scope of my words which here he carps at was to shew him that he had done so As for the Charge it self of making Regeneration greater than Christ's Incarnation he had charged it before but falsly on W. Penn in his Narrative p. 22. And I have Answered it already in p. 82. of his Book to which I refer the Reader for satisfaction concerning it His Tenth and Last Error he flings at me is my saying that the Author of Regeneration is Christ chiefly as he is manifested inwardly in the heart p. 152. My words which best shew my meaning were these And very idle is he in saying Seeing the Work of Regeneration and Sanctification in the Saints is a great Mystery must we not own him who is the Author and great Cause of it to be greater For who ever questioned that We all own the Workman to be greater than the Work the Author and great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification to be greater than the Regeneration and Sanctification wrought And this Author and great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification we say is Christ and that chiefly as he is manifested inwardly in the Heart For he worketh it not in any but those in whom he is so inwardly manifested These words shew that when I said Christ is the great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification chiefly as he is manifested inwardly in the Heart it was with respect to him as he is the nearest and most immediate Cause thereof and as he actually works the work of Regeneration and Sanctification in the Heart and
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
the Conclusion of it is thus Which G. Keith alledgeth is Proof that G. Keith intended the Ligh within Here G. Keith's pretended Advocates instead of shewing that the Word Within was in the Words charged or in the Words proved which they should have done if they would have convicted me of mischarging him in saying he had cunningly slid in the Word Within come no nearer the Matter than to say that something or other not naming what G. Keith alledgeth is Proof that G. Keith intended the Light within They don't adventure so far as to say that that something or All which whatever it was is a Proof but that G. Keith alledgeth it is a Proof And a Proof of what I Pray Why a Proof that G. Keith intended the Light within But is not that a fair Proof at least by Implication that G. Keith did not express the Word Within whatever he intended and consequently that I said true in saying He knew it was not in the Words charged nor in the Words proved for how should it when it was not in the Words spoken as is here implicitely acknowledged but only in his Intention Was G. Keith so dull he could not see that this was so far from being a Defence for him that it wholly makes against him and for me To peice out this there is added in his Paper a Passage in one Ben. Chamber 's Letter Another Passage in Iohn Delaval's Letter And then is added Iohn Humphrey's two Letters read and both to the same Purpose It may be so And yet all to little or no purpose For what were all these Letters I pray Were they made publick in Print Or only private Letters lying in G. Keith's Pocket How then could it be expected I should know or take notice what was in them But I can assure G. Keith and his Advocates too if he hath any that I went upon surer Ground than the Letters in his Pocket could be to me For when I said He knows the Word Within was not in the Words charged nor in the Words proved I had G. Keith himself for my Author and I thought I could not have a better against himself than himself He in his Seasonable Information to which I then answered speaking of T. Fitz-water's Charge against him p. 12. said His Charge was That I denied the sufficiency of the Light Here 's not the Word VVithin and therefore he knew if he knew what he writ that the Word VVithin was not in the Words Charged Then three Lines lower in the same Page speaking of what the Witnesses proved he says They proved against me That I did not believe the Light was sufficient without something else Here 's not the Word VVithin and therefore he knew if he knew what he writ that the Word VVithin was not in the Words proved This I think were enough on this Head to clear me But to manifest more fully that I had good ground to say as I did viz. that he knew the Word VVithin was not in the Words charged I add that in the same Book p. 17. he says I stand recorded on the Monthly Meeting Book at Philadelphia by the Monthly Meetings Judgment given out against me and clearing T. Fitz-water for his accusing me that I denyed the sufficiency of the Light and the Evidence says he against me was That I said I did not believe the Light was sufficient without something else Here he has set down the VVords charged and the VVords proved as they stand recorded if he may be believed on the Monthly Meeting Book at Philadelphia and yet here is not the Word VVithin either in the VVords charged or in the VVords proved And this both he and his pretended Advocates might have seen in my Further Discovery p. 62. Yet further in his Book called Reasons and Causes p. 8. where he gives this Matter as the first Cause of the Separation he sets down T. Fitzwater's Charge against him thus T having openly in the Face of the Meeting accused G. Keith for denying the sufficiency of the Light Here is not the VVord VVithin And lower in the same Page telling what others witnessed for him he says they said They heard him both then and at all occasions that he delivered his Mind on that subject always bear Testimony to the sufficiency of the Light to Salvation Here 's not the VVord VVithin And this I noted formerly in my Further Discovery p. 63. whom would G. Keith have me to believe if not himself Yet G. Keith has the Face in his Comment upon this Head Nar. p. 48. to say The Question was not concerning the Light indefinitely but the Light within And that I accuse him unjustly The Second Head of that Paper is That in my Further Discovery p. 101. are these Words And this makes a Verbal Confession yea a bare verbal Confession sufficient to Yoak them as he phrases it together in Church-Fellowship To this they oppose Reasons and Causes of the Separation p. 22. ad finem Tho. Ellwood leaves this out viz. Touching these necessary and Fundamental Principles of Christian Doctrine as well as that their Conversation is such as becomes the Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ. They add also another Sentence out of Reasons and Causes p. 36. But as this last Sentence relates not to those Words of mine which were expresly restrained to the Quotation there given out of Reasons and Causes p. 22. So they or he for them for that it is his Work whoever he got to Patronize it I don't doubt leave out the former part of my Words which explain the latter The Dispute between him and me there was not about Conversation or how far he either admitted or required that as a Term of Communion with him but it was about a verbal Confession of Faith or Principles as a Door of Admittance into Society or Fellowship or Terms of Communion therein See my Epistle p. 59 60 and 61. In his Answer to which called A Seasonable Information p. 34. Sect. 37 38. He mentioned not a Word of Conversation but excepted against the Words Door of Admittance and said he made not a verbal Confession the Terms at all of Church-Communion when the Profession is but barely verbal but when the Confession or Profession floweth from the living Faith of Christ c. To this I replying in my Further Discovery p. 101. shewed that he had not guarded his Expression about a verbal Confession so before in the Place I had quoted of his which was that in Reasons and Causes p. 22. Then reciting the Words again viz. We are convinced and perswaded in our Consciences that God calleth us to separate from such Vnbelievers and not to be yoaked together in Church-Fellowship and Discipline with any that we have not proof of by Confession of the Mouth that they are sound in Faith I thereupon made this twofold Inference So that he makes a verbal Confession a Proof of their being sound in the Faith and this
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