Flesh as afterwards we have as good cause to believe him to be true and real Man before his outward Birth in the Flesh as after For it is not the outward Flesh and Blood that is the Man otherwise the Saints that have put off the outward Body should cease to be Men and Christ should have ceased to be Man betwixt his Death and his Resurrection but it is the Soul or inward Man that dwelleth in the Outward Flesh or Body that is the Man most properly such as Christ was even from the beginning And therefore adds he p. 104. Let all the Scriptures be searched and it shall not be found that Christ became Man and took to himself the Soul of Man at his Conception in the Womb of the Virgin Mary but Only that he took Flesh and was the Son of Mary David and Abraham according to the Flesh But according to his Heavenly Nature even as Man he was the Son of God and was the Father and Lord of all the Faithful in all Ages c. Thus far out of my former Book Besides these take the following out of his Way to the City of God p. 125. And thus even from the beginning yea upon Mans Fall God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself and Christ was manifest in the holy Seed inwardly and so stood in the way to ward off the wrath c. For even at Man's Fall the Seed of the Woman was given not only to bruise the Serpents Head but also to be a Lamb or Sacrifice to attone and pacifie the wrath of God towards Men. And this is the Lamb that was slain from the beginning of the World Again p. 154. And in this holy Seed the Sufferings of Christ and how he bore the Iniquities of the Soul and makes Intercession or Attonement unto God may be learned in some measure with many other things concerning Christ in relation to him and his Doings and Sufferings in the outward which was an outward and visible Testimony of his inward Doings and Sufferings in all Ages in Men and Women in the holy Seed And indeed we find that this is only the true and effectual way of knowing the Use and Work of his Coming and Sufferings and Death in the outward by turning and having our Minds turned inwards unto himself near and in our hearts in the holy Seed to know by an inward feeling and good experience his Doings and Sufferings in us by being made conformable thereunto In which Holy Seed as it ariseth in us such a clear Light shineth forth in our Hearts as giveth unto us the true knowledge of the use of his Inward Doings and Sufferings In his Additional Postscript to G. Whitehead's Book called The Nature of Christianity which is one of the Books he cavils at in his Narrative and which very Postscript he mentions there also but does not retract any thing therein he says p. 66. to his Opponent Gordon Because Christ is called the one Offering and that he once offered up his Body c. Thou wouldst exclude him as in us from being one Offering but herein thy work is vain for Christ Jesus is the one Offering still and tho' he offered up his Body outwardly but once upon the Cross yet he remains still an Offering for us within us c. Again p. 67. That thou challenge it that one said Christ was never seen with any Carnal Eye thou hast no more ground than to challenge himself who said He who hath seen me hath seen the Father and yet he said to the Jews who saw the outward Body of Iesus You have neither seen him nor known him Thus G. Keith And yet in his Gross Error p. 14. he blames G. Whitehead for this Expression and bringing Iohn 14. to defend it Again says he We deny not but the Names Messiah Iesus Christ c. were given to him as Man even as in the Flesh but they do More Eminently and More Originally belong to him as he was before he took that Body on him yea more immediately and more originally to the Word the Light the Seed the Life the quickning Spirit that dwelt in that Body which he called This Temple and it was called The Body of Iesus To give more Instances out of his Books would be redious as to comment on these would be needless they speak so plain the same things which he now calls gross and fundamental Errors in others Wherefore leaving that to the Reader as he now says he has done at present with his first Head so have I also In handling which and Answering his many Cavils thereupon I have been the larger because I look upon this to be the greatest and most important part of his Charge For if Christ were denied both as God and Man not only the Object of Faith but the whole Christian Religion would fall But as I have proved his Charge false and wrong in this part so I shall endeavour to shew it is in the other parts also in which I will be more brief if I can The Second Head of G. Keith's Charge viz. That we deny Iustification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed Considered The Second Head says G. Keith is Iustification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed which he says is opposed by W. Penn G. Whitehead aâ—d others Now before I mention his pretended Proofs I think fit to tell the Reader what this very Man has said of W. Penn concerning Iustification within these four years viz. in his Serious Appeal p. 10. he says Nor are W. Penn's words so to be understood concerning Justification as if he excluded Christs Righteousness which he fulfilled in his own Person but only he denieth that any can be justified by that alone without Faith and Repentance c. Did he write thus by rote without reading what W. Penn had written Or had he then read and upon reading did then approve and justifie what W. Penn had writ of Justification and yet now condemn it The Proof he now pretends to bring Nar. p. 24 25. is out of W. Penn's Book called Reason against Railing p. 91. And forgive us our Debts as we forgive our Debtors Says W. Penn Where nothing can be more obvious than that which is forgiven is not paid and if it is our duty to forgive without a Satisfaction received and that God is to forgive us as we forgive them then is a Satisfaction totally excluded This also G. Keith objected in his Gross Error p. 19. Upon this G. Keith says here I confess I was surprized with this word totally excluded Satisfaction adds he is not the strict solution of a Debt in all respects and circumstances VVhen we consider the Dignity of our Lord that was both God and Man his Sufferings suppose they were not the Thousand part of what the Damned suffer yet it was a true satisfaction Therefore I was scandalized with these words says he But he needed not have been
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
he was the Son of Mary And as to the Time of it if R. Gordon be dead his Eyes may be already dropt out without seeing it and yet the Appearance of Christ in a bodily Existence to judge the World at the last Day be yet to come and owned to be so These things I mention to shew the feeble grounds G. Keith hath for his Cavils But from the Book it self out of which G. Keith took these Words it is manifest that G. Whitehead used these Words only to manifest his Opponent Gordon's Confusion and Contradiction for they were not treating then concerning the Existence or Body of Christ but concerning Justification Redemption Salvation by Christ which R. Gordon it seems had asserted was wrought and compleated by the Sacrifice of Christ's Crucified Body upon the Cross and yet would put off Believers from being made Partakers of that Salvation till after their bodily Death that they should be raised from the Grave yet granted that it must be done by Christ's Appearance in Believers through Faith by his Spirit Whereupon says G. Whitehead to him Nature of Christian p. 29. See thy manifest Contradiction viz. A perfect Justification and Redemption of Sinners without them when no good is wrought in them But in Contradiction now it must be done by Christs Appearance in Believers through Faith by his Spirit As also thou grantest that his appearing the second time is without Sin to Salvation But when thinkest thou that must be Is it in this Life or hereafter Thou sayst that after the bodily Death you shall be raised out of the Grave and made partakers of that Salvation p. 13. T is strange the Salvation of Sinners yea of the whole World as thy Word is should be compleated at once above 1600. Years since and yet to be so long after Death lookt for how long is not known to thee or dost thou pretend to know or think thou know'st and thereupon dost thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee according to thy Words p. 30. If thou dost thou mayst look till thy Eyes drop out before Thou wilt see such an Appearance of him This says G. Keith is but one place that is that Christ will not so appear But why adds he will he not so appear but because he has no bodily Existence without us G. Whitehead said not so That 's only G. Keith's wrong Inference And That says he p. 16. I come now to prove So then what he has hitherto said is no proof of it for it seems he is but now coming to prove it For which purpose Nar. p. 17. he cites another Passage of G. Whitehead's in p. 4â— thus And that he existeth outwardly bodily without us at God's right Hand What Scripture-Proof hath he for these Words And then what and where is God's right Hand Is it Visible or Invisible Within us or without us only And is Christ the Saviour as an outward bodily Existence or Person without us distinct from God and on that consideration to be worshipped as God Yea or Nay And where doth the Scripture say he is outwardly and bodily glorified at God's right Hand Do these Terms express the Glory that he had with the Father before the World began in which he is now glorified These last Words from Where doth the Scripture say Is he says the thing that Rivets But if by Rivetting he means Fastening a Proof upon G. VVhitehead that he denies Christ to have a bodily Existence without us G. Keith himself has cut off the Head of his Rivet and made it uncapable to hold by saying which I shewed before from his Answer to his Countryman Iohn Alexander He ought to know that to Query a thing will not conclude that the Questionist doth positively affirm or deny what is Queried Truths Defence p. 59. Especially when it is only used in a Socratical way of Disputing or Arguing against an Adversary as it is used here and which he observes to be G. VVhitehead's way of Writing And indeed from the whole Answer which fills near two Pages out of which G. Keith hath cropt his Quotation it appears that G. VVhitehead's drift was to shew the Absurdity and Inconsistency of his Opponent's Assertion which was as in p. 40. that Christs Apostles and all his Ministers in all Ages pointed to Jesus the Son of Mary this Son of Man with an Hosannah to this Son of David and to none before him or to any ever since These Words The Son of Mary this Son of Man this Son of David and to none before him had a tendency to deny the Divinity or Godhead of Christ and to set up the Body that was born of the Virgin for the only whole intire Christ and Saviour And therefore to this G. VVhitehead answered That the Holy Prophets Apostles and Ministers hath pointed and testified unto Iesus Christ both as Man born of the Virgin or to his coming in the Flesh and unto his Divinity and Manifestation in Spirit this is owned â—ut that they all cried Hosanna to the Son of David is a mistake For it was the Multitudes that went before and that followed when Christ rid to Jerusalem that cryed Hosannah to the Son of David Mat. 21.9 Adding Many 〈…〉 cry Hosannah who never knew his Salvation within nor believed in his Power but rather spiritually crucifie him And the Scribes and Pharisees could talk of Christs being the Son of David when they neither truly believed nor owned him that was the true Christ either as the Root or Offspring of David But Christ asked these Pharisees and Scribes who said Christ is the Son of David this Question VVhat think ye of Christ VVhose Son is he They said unto him The Son of David He said unto them How then doth David in Spirit call him Lord If David then call him Lord how is he his Son c Now says G. VVhitehead there VVas not this the true Christ whom David in Spirit called Lord before he took upon him Flesh or came of his Seed There 's another Question put to his Opponent who had asserted That all the Apostles and Ministers of Christ in all Ages pointed to Jesus the Son of Mary this Son of Man with an Hosannah to this Son of David and to none before him Was not this the true Christ whom David in Spirit called Lord says G. VVhitehead What then Did this Question imply that G. VVhitehead denied Christ according to the Flesh or as he was born of Mary to be the Son or Offspring of David Nothing less For he says he took upon him Flesh and came of David's Seed and is owned as pointed at and testified unto by the Holy Prophets Apostles c. as Man born of the Virgin No more doth his asking his Opponent for it is not a general Question but particular to his Opponent grounded upon the particular Terms his Opponent had exprest himself in thus Whereupon
he knows wâ—re Io. Horn's terms But I observe he takes occasion from hence to make Sport with G. Whitehead and W. Penn their Philosophy even so far as to ridicule Divine Inspiration For he says he has oft told G. Whitehead that he and W. Penn will needs embrace false Notions in Philosophy they will needs seem to be Philosophers by Divine Inspiration as well as Ministers and Preachers by 〈◊〉 Had not the Philosophy himself so much dotes on and glories in been as his own phrase was a Ditch and a foul Ditch too he would have been more cleanly in his Expression and not have made Divine Inspiration the Subject of his Frothy Flout But it is high time for him to tack about and deny Divine Inspiration if he aspire to Preferment in that Church against which he has formerly said so much for it Thus having answered all his Quotations against G. Whitehead concerning the holy Manhood or Divine Existence and spiritual Being of Christ in Heaven as he is the Heavenly Man shewed that G. Whitehead hath not denied it I shall give a few Instances out of G. Whitehead's Books those especially which G. Keith has pickt his Cavils out of to manifest his owning the Holy Manhood or Bodily Existence of Christ in Heaven In his Book called The Light and Life of Christ within p. 9. refuting the slander of his Opponent he says False it is That the Quakers Christ is not Gods Christ or that they deny the Man Christ or the Christ that is in the Heavens In his Book called Christ ascended above the Clouds p 16. when his Opponent had asserted that Christ cannot dwell in Man and given this as his Reason For Christ is perfect Man as well as perfect God He does not deny that Christ is perfect Man as well as perfect God but denies the Consequence that therefore Christ cannot dwell in Man Mind his Answer which is this To say Christ cannot dwell in Man doth not only oppose his Spirituality Deity and Omnipotency but also is contrary to the Apostles plain Testimonies of Christs being in the Saints And if he be perfect God he can dwell in his People as he hath promised and surely his being perfect Man doth not put a Limitation upon him as a Let or Hinderance to disable him from being in his People whilst he who was Christ as come in the Flesh was also truly Jesus Christ within in his spiritual Appearance and we do not confine him under this or that particular Name Again p. 17. I grant that Christ arose with the same Body that was crucifiâ—d and put to Death and that he ascended into glory even the same glory which he had with the Father before the World begun Many more Instances might be added But the Reader may take notice that in my last Book called Truth Defended written about a year ago in Answer to two Books of G. Keith's and which he hath not yet replied to I gave a dozen Instances out of those Books which G. Keith has carped at to shew that G. Whitehead did own the Manhood of Christ one of which seeing he hath not taken notice of them I may repeat here referring the Reader to p. 161. of that Book of mine for the rest That which I now repeat is out of a Book called The Christian Quaker and his Divine Testimony Vindicated Part 2. p. 97. where G. Whitehead saith To prevent these Mens scruples concerning our owning the Man Christ or the Son of Man in glory I tell them seriously That I do confess both to his miraculous Conception by the Power of the holy Spirit over-shadowing the Virgin Mary and to his being born of her according to the Flesh and so that he took upon him a real Body and not a fantastical and that he was real Man come of the Seed of Abraham and that he in the days of his Flesh preached Righteousness â—rought Miracles was Crucifiâ—d and put to Death by wicked hands that he was buried and rose again the third Day according to the Scriptures and after he arose he appeared diversly or in divers forms and manners he really appeared to many Brethren 1 Cor. 15. and afterwards ascended into Glory being translated according to the Wisdom and Power of the Heavenly Father and is glorified with the same glory which he had with the Father before the World began c. Is it not strange Reader that G. Keith should have the face to charge G. Whitehead with denying the Manhood of Christ who hath so often and so plainly confessed to it What else is this but to pin a wrong Belief upon a Man to make him seem erroneous whether he will or no But this is worst of all in G. Keith who hath so often taken upon him to defend our Principles and Us against Opposers in his former Books And even but lately in his Serious Appeal printed in America 1692. in Answer to Cotton Mather of New-England having justified G. Whitehead and W. Penn in their Answer to Hicks and Faldo says p. 6. I do here solemnly charge Cotton Mather to give us but one single Instance of any One Fundamental Article of Christian Faith denied by us as a People or by aâ—y One of our Writers or Preachers generally owned and approved by us And in p. 7. he adds According to the best knowledge I have of the People called Quakers and these most generally owned by them as Preachers and Publishers of their Faith of unquestioned Esteem amongst them and worthy of double Honour as many such there are I know none that are guilty of any one of such Heresies and Blasphemies as he accuseth them And I think says he I should know and do know these called Quakers and their Principles far better than C. M. or any or all his Brethren having been conversant with them in Publick Meetings as well as in private Discourses with the most noted and esteemed among them for about 28 years past and that in many places of the World in Europe and for these divers years in America This more generally But with respect more particularly to our owning the Man Christ hear what he said in the Appendix to his Book of Immediate Revelation 2d Edit p. 133. And here says he I give the Reader an Advertisement that although the Worlds Teachers and Professors of Christ in the Letter accuse us as Deniers of Christ at least as Man and of the Benefits and Blessings we have by him yet that the Doctrine and Principles of the People called Quakers as well as the People do indeed more acknowledge the Man Christ Iesus and do more impute all our Blessings and Mercies that are given us of God as conveyed unto us through him unto the Man Iesus than any of them all And he gives the Reason too Inasmuch says he as we do believe and acknowledge that a measure of the same Life and Spirit of the Man Iesus which dwelt in him in its Fulness 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
that is here described for it is impossible to conceive how he can hold a number of Men in the right Hand of his external Person Therefore by his right Hand is signified his Power as he is the great Heavenly Man which can well hold all the Men that ever were in the World So also in the same p. 142. N. 7. upon the words of Christ Iohn 1.51 Verily verily I say vnto you Hereafter ye shall see Heaven Opened and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man he says This cannot be the external Person of Christ. But if it was not the external Person or outward Body as he says of Christ that Iohn spake of in Rev. 1. much less was it a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones and least of all doth G. Whitehead's opposing the Baptists carnal notion of Christ's having a Body now in Heaven of Flesh Blood and Bones and his being to come Visibly again in that Body of Flesh Blood and Bones deny Christs existence in his Glorified Body without us G. Keith says Io. Newman here only uses the word Body to his coming again and G. Whitehead finds fault with that But in that G. Keith slips for I. N. used not only the word Body but the words that Body to shew he meant a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones And it is well known that many of the Baptists as well as others of other Professions do hold the Body of Christ now in Heaven to be as really and materially a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones as it was when upon the Cross which G. Whitehead might as well find fault with then as G. Keith did afterwards He quarrels also with G. Whitehead for citing the words of Christ Iohn 14.19 Yet a little while and the World seeth me no more Upon this he carps at the Translation of that Scripture and says It may be better Translated as yet But I think it were better for him to let the Translation alone as it is which he cannot mend for though he hath declared himself to be one in Opinion with the Church of Rome the Church of England the Presbyterians Independents and Baptists Yet I scarce think he will find any among them to be one with him in altering the Translation of that Scripture at least as he would alter it Yet upon his confident altering the Text from no more to not as yet he says Does this prove that Christ has no Body at all This is very bad reasoning says he Ay sure so it is But who reasoned so besides himself Can he see no difference between Christs not having a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones and having no Body at all he has a very bad sight then When he formerly held that the Body that was Crucified on the Cross at Ierusalem is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones did he urge that to prove that Christ has no Body at all If not why will he infer so upon another without cause He alledges that G. Whitehead brings that Scripture for a Proof that those that Pierced Christ in his Body shall not see that Body Visibly come again And thereupon he cries out Here is a Proof that Christ was Evanished But it must be again remembred that that Body which the Baptist there contended for and which G. Whitehead opposed him about was a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones And therefore doth it not fall unavoidably upon G. Keith that herein he holds that Body only of Flesh Blood and Bones which suffered death upon the Cross to be the whole entire Christ seeing he infers that if that Body of Flesh Blood and Bones which suffered death upon the Cross be not now in Heaven and to be seen come Visibly again a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones then Christ is evanished But it appears from G. Whitehead's following words that he did not believe Christ was evanished but that he believed his existence in a Spiritual glorified Body and that he should so come again and be seen of all though not in a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones or after a carnal manner For he says in the next words after Iohn 14.19 But his second coming and appearance without Sin to Salvation I own and witness and that he is therein to be seen Spiritually in his Kingdom and Fathers Glory which is an Invisible Glory not seen Carnally Mark that Howbeit his appeaance shall be universally seen both to the joy of the Righteous and universal Conviction and Condemnation of the Wicked who have rejected his Light within and his saving appearance thereby made manifest Yea every Eye shall see him both of good and bad both those that have waited for his second coming without Sin to Salvation and they also which have Pierced or Crucified him which all those in general are chargeable with as really as his Persecutors that Pierced him outwardly who profess his name and yet Crucifie to themselves his Life or Spiritual Appearance He was Spiritually Pierced and Crucified in Spiritual Sodom and Egypt Rev 11.8 The same Jesus as he was seen ascend when a Cloud received him out of their sight who stood gazing Acts. 1.9 10 11. it is said shall so come in like manner c. Which tho' every like manner is not the very same nor all Clouds the same yet the same Jesus certainly cometh and in like manner his coming being in the Clouds This same Objecton G. Keith had made against G Whitehead in his Gross Error p. 3. and again p. 6. In which latter place reciting the foregoing words of the Baptist viz. That those that pierced Christ in his Body of Flesh shall see that Body visibly come again and part of G. Whitehead's answer to it he taxes G. Whitehead with having blamed the Baptist for useing the word Visibly with respect to Christ's comming again and yet that G. Whitehead in his late answer to some Queries had used the word Visibly with respect to Christ's Ascension Upon which G. Keith there says Now I am sure there is the same ground in Scripture for his Visible appearance and coming again as there is for his Visible ascending But let me ask G. Keith as sure as he says he is whether he then considered the great and wonderful change which himself elsewhere hath often said was made in the Body of Christ after it was taken up into glory and then Whether there is the same ground either in Scripture or Reason for the same manner of Visibility of his appearance and coming again in his glorified Body as was of his ascending before his Body was so glorified The Body of Christ in which he suffered being an outward Fleshly substance was at the time of his Ascension as well as before conspicuous and visible to the outward carnal Eyes of outward carnal Men. But will it be in like manner Visible to outward carnal Eyes when he shall come again now that it is so transcendently glorified that it is
learnt this Trickling Art from that Apostate as he represents him C. L He compares us to the Arrians and Macedonians some of the worst of Hereticks and in that for which they were more to be condemned than for their Heresies since these might possibly proceed from Ignorance and Mistake that must flow from Hypocrisy and Design I reject his comparison and in plain and sober words deny his Charge as a most abominable Falsehood and Slander In p. 31. he quarrels with G. Whitehead for saying S. Eccles's intent in those words No more than the Blood of another Saint was as to Papists and you whose minds are Carnal who oppose the Light within and also simply as to the Essence of the Blood which you dare not say is still in being To the first part of this Sentence he says This never was my Quakerism For my belief all along was that Papists and Baptists and all have a benefit by Christ's Death And so was G. Whitehead's too Because his Death being a general Attonement for all that shall believe in and receive him all are thereby put into a Capacity by receiving and believing in him to attain unto Salvation But if any whether Papists Baptists or other being carnally minded which is or brings Death Rom. 8.6 do in their carnal mind Oppose the Light within and continue so to do of what particular benefit to the Salvation of the Soul will the Blood of Christ be to them Therefore G. Keith in this as in almost all places deals unfairly with G. Whitehead neither taking his right sense nor giving his full words For what G. Whitehead delivered as S. E's intent with respect to such Papists and Baptists whose minds are carnal and who Oppose the Light within that G. Keith extends to Papists and Baptists Vniversally and draws his Conclusion accordingly thus Now it is come to this says he That the Blood of Christ is no more to Papists and Baptists than the Blood of another Saint As if all Papists and Baptists quâ tales must of necessity be carnally minded and oppose the Light within In like manner he deals with him in the latter part of that Sentence viz. And also simply as to the essence of the Blood which you dare not say is still in being c. Which plainly appears to have been Spoken ad hominem only upon the Baptists Notion that that Blood which was shed was not in being Yet upon this G. Keith descants alledging what no Quaker that I know of ever denied viz. That it was never defiled with Sin and had a Miraculous Conception but wholly conceals those other words of G. Whitehead's which in his Book immediately follow But not as to the Spiritual Virtue and Testimony which is still in being Which said G. Whitehead S. E. owned to be his Intention And that plainly proves that S. E. owned the Blood shed was more than the Blood of another Saint as to the Spiritual Virtue and Testimony of it But says G. Keith Let us consider these words of S. E. which G. Whitehead saith might satisfy any Spiritual or unbyassed man viz. I do very highly esteem of the Blood of Christ to be more excellent c. There G. Keith stops with an c. which he should not have done For if he had a mind to save the Transcribing those other good Epithets Living Holy Precious which S. E. added to the Blood yet he should not have overppassed those explanatory Words of S. E's which follow viz. I mean the Blood which was offered up in the Eternal Spirit Heb. 9.14 The words of that Scripture are How much more shall the Blood of Christ who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without Spot or fault to God purge your Consciences c. Hence it is evident that by the Blood of Christ which S. E. said he so highly esteemed he meant the Blood that was of and in that Body which was offered up upon the Cross For he refers expresly to this Scripture which Speaks directly of that Offering This G. Keith unfairly but like himself concealed and then cries out Here 's S. E's Fallacy and G. Whitehead's Fallacy also But I think he will not be able to make it out without the help of one of his former Tricks nor even with it Thus he goes on Now you know what Blood they mean and see what Blood G. Whitehead means The Blood is Spiritual and Inward the other is a Type If they know what we mean it is a sign we mean as we speak and write for they could not know our meaning but by our speaking or writing But such as mean to know our meaning aright will do well to take it from our selves not from an unjust and implacable Enemy That the Blood is Spiritual and that it is inward as well as outward and outward as well as inward I grant But that the outward is a Type is not the saying nor meaning of the Quakers but a meaning invented by G. Keith to put a Trick upon us He quotes G. Whitehead's Book Light and Life p. 56. both in his Gross Error p. 17. and here thus It is confessed that God by his own Blood Purchased to himself a Church Acts 20.28 Now the Blood of God or that Blood that relates to God must needs be Spiritual he being a Spirit and the Covenant of God is inward and Spiritual and so is the Blood of it Upon this says G. Keith Nar. p. 31. So you see he doth not allow the Blood outwardly shed to relate to God or to be the Blood of the New Covenant or that God Purchased his Church with that Blood outwardly shed on the Cross. Why so I pray G. Whitehead said nothing against the Blood outwardly shed on the Cross but having to do with a Baptist who would have the Blood to be only outward and not Spiritual and who as G. Whitehead cites him in that 56 p. confessed he was as Ignorant of any such Blood as may be G. Whitehead asserted the Blood of God by which he purchased to himself a Church and the Blood of the New Covenant to be Spiritual not only outward as the Type of it was And will G. Keith say that the Blood of Christ which was outwardly shed had no Spirituality in it nor might in any sense be called Spiritual considering the Miraculous conception of the Body whereof the Blood was a Principal part through the overshadowing of the Power of the Highest G. Keith might have remembred that when he was in The way to the City of God which now he hath turned his Back upon he writ thus p. 131. Even according to that Birth to wit his outward Birth he was the Son of God no less than the Son of Man as having God for his Father as he had the Virgin Mary for his Mother Now the Child we know doth partake an Image or Nature from both Parents and thus did Christ who did partake of the Nature and Image of
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
Resurrection or the Resurrection of the Body but only answers some Cavilling Queries put by I. Horn about the two Seeds and therefore is perversly applyed by G. Keith to the Resurrection of the Body Lastly He says G. Whitehead allegorizeth away the Resurrection of the Saints Bodies by his perversion of Phil. 3.21 to a Change of the Body that the Apostles and Saints witnessed before death But he quotes no place neither Page nor Book for this But he tells us that G. Whitehead in his Real Quaker a Real Protestant p. 105. understands that very Place of a Change of the vile or low and humble Body like unto the glorious Body of Christ as a thing to come And by this I understand that G. Keith hath sufficiently disproved the proofless Proof he brought before against G. Whitehead by bringing this for him so that I need say no more to it That which I would observe to the Reader is that G. Keith of all men is most unjust in charging G. Whitehead with allegorizing who has indulged himself so far in that way of Writing that scarce Origen himself has abounded more in Allegories From Allegories he proceeds to give some of G. Whitehead's Contradictions as he would have them to be taken of which he gives two or three Instances how idle and improper will easily be seen The First he assigns is That G. Whitehead in his Light and Life p. 69. thinks him a very Blind and Ignorant Man that reckons Bodies Celestial and Terrestrial to be all one in Matter and Substance and yet the same G. Whitehead in Malice of the Independent Agent p. 17. owns that Christ's Body now in Heaven is the same in substance he had on Earth So by his own words says G. Keith he hath declared himself to be a Blind and Ignorant Man and yet Infallible otherwise by his own word No True Minister But hold a little Did G. Whitehead ever call or own Christ's Body now in Heaven or while it was on Earth to be Terrestrial or of the Earth If he did not G. Keith is clearly out with his idle pretence of Contradiction Hath he forgotten what he told Cotton Mather in his Serious Appeal p. 23. That Contradictions lie not betwixt two Particulars nor two Vniversals but one Particular and another Vniversal And that a Contradiction is not betwixt two Positives but the One Positive the Other Negative And that is not enough neither for in his Truth 's Defence p. 191. he puts his Opponent I. A. in mind of a Rule in his School Logick That Propositions are not contradictory although the one be Affirmative and the other Negative unless they be in ordine ad idem in order to the same and in regard of the same Circumstances of Time Place Condition c. Now let him make out his Contradictions if he can according to these Maxims who hath already blamed G. Whitehead and that but just now for denying Christ's Body to be Terrestrial or Earthly and therefore refusing to call it Humane Another Contradiction he pretends to find in G. Whitehead is that in a late Printed half Sheet called The Christian Faith he owns Christ to be both God and Man c. and yet says he it is proved in the above Narrative that he neither owneth him to be God or Man Here G. Keith brings his own Narrative to prove that wha that Narrative says is true Is not that pâ—etty Whereas what he has charged G. Whitehead with in that Narrative is denyed and rejected as false and the Proofs he has pretended to bring out of G. Whitehead's Books upon a due Examination prove to be but G. Keith's Perversions and Misconstructions of G. VVhitehead's Words as from the former Part of this Discourse will I believe appear The like Method he takes in the following Instance of Contradiction referring to his Narrative for Proof And in his Fourth and Last Instance p. 55. which is of G. VVhitehead's signing among others a Treatise against Oaths wherein it is said We look upon it to be no less than a presumptuous tempting of God to summon him as a Witness not only to our Terrene but Trivial business c. and his now admitting it lawful to declare the Truth in the presence of God c. He seems to put no difference between summoning God as a VVitness and speaking the Truth in the Presence of God who is VVitness of the Truth spoken and yet he might have seen in the place he cites what was meant by summoning God as a VVitness viz. That it is vain and insolent to think that a Man when he pleaseth can make the great God of Heaven a Witness or a Judge in any Matter to appear by some signal Approbation or Judgment to help or forsake him as the Truth or Falseness of his Oath requires when he saith So help me God If G. Keith will not see a difference betwixt speaking with Impreâ—ation and without others do and that that difference destroys his pretended Contradiction In p. 55. He has an envious Fling at G. Fox from whom he suggests G. Whitehead and many others did receive unchristian Doctrine and he mentions a Paper of G. Fox's directed to all People in Christendom c. Which he says hath very unsound and unchristian Doctrine concerning Christ's Flesh. This Paper I have not seen nor heard of before that I remember How faithfully he recites out of it I know not But this I observe from what he cites that whereas he says by Christs Flesh G. Fox meaneth not his outward Flesh the very first Words he cites are Christ according to the Flesh crucified Was not that his outward Flesh that was Crucified 'T is true G. Fox says there as G. Keith cites him It was never corrupted But that doth not prove he did not mean the outward Flesh For I hope G. Keith will not say That that ever corrupted But surely G. Keith might have forborn falling thus foully on G. Fox for unsound and unchristian Doctrine now that he is gone to Rest considering how highly he writ of him while he was living For in his Rector corrected p. 211. he said not only that the Lord had made G. Fox a worthy Instrument unto us and among us and he hoped yet should unto many more but that he was safe in the hand of him that holdeth the seven Stars and the seven golden Candlesticks in his right Hand And said he to the Rector All thy malicious Reviling and slanderous Defamation of him cannot diminish any thing from that true Honour wherewith the Lord hath honoured him and other faithful Labourers with him whom the Lord hath raised up in this Day of the Appearance of his great and mighty Power Can G. Keith read this without Blushing to see how he is repeating the Rector's malicious Reviling and slanderous Defamation of G. Fox and other faithful Labourers with him that he might try if he could diminish that true Honour wherewith the Lord hath
was accepted with him Acts 10.35 So now in every Profession of the Christian Religion he or she that fears God and worketh Righteousness that hungers and thirsts after the Lord with desire to know more of his Will that they may do it and who walk faithfully with him according to what they already know of him such are accepted with him according to the Sincerity he finds in them though clouded in their Understandings through Education or Tradition Such as these we do not deny to belong to Christ and to be dear unto him and taken care of by him Yet that makes not any of those intire Bodies of People amongst any of whom these are to be the true Church of Christ G. Keith mentions also these Words as out of a Paper of Solomon Eccles The Quakers are in Truth and none but they I have not seen that Paper that I remember nor know how fairly he hath cited the Words but before G. Keith out of a pettish Spleen forsook the Quakers he I suppose would have said the same The Quakers so called are in the Truth no Body of People that we know of are so inwardly gathered to the Truth as the People called Quakers are He also flings at us a saying of E. Burrough's to the People called Quakers thus The Tabernacle of God is with you and his dwelling Place is among you and only among you is God known p. 64. of his Works E. Burrough's Words are You who are called Quakers who are so not only in Word nor in shew but in Life and in Power whom God hath called and chosen to Place his Name in and to take up his Habitation among above all the Families of the Earth the Tabernacle of God is with you c. This also is very true if it be truly understood For though the Lord is good and gracious to all and doth answer the Breathings and good Desires of the honest hearted and doth visit them in loving Kindness and extend of his Mercies and Goodness unto them in every Profession and amongst every gathered People yet his Tabernacle and Dwelling Place is with and among his peculiar People and he is not so known among any other People as an imbodied People in that full inward spiritual living sensible experimental Manner and Degree as he is known among us his Poor despised People called Quakers whom G. Keith has taken all this Pains to wreak his Revenge and Malice upon and to stir up and engage all other People against if he could But the Lord who sees the Wickedness of his Heart knows how â—oth to reward him and to preserve us in whom alone we trust Out of the same Book of W. Penn G. Keith picks another Passage which he says is either perfect Nonsense or Antichristian Doctrine and because he cannot tell which he concludes or rather indeed both It is a question whether perfect Nonsense may be properly called Doctrine either Christian or Antichristian But upon due Consideration I think he will find neither Nonsense nor Antichristian Doctrine in it It is in p. 310. of W. Penn's Rejoynder to I. Faldo and it is given as a Reason among many others why the Body of Christ which was nailed to the Cross simply considered by it self and abstractly from that Divine Life and Power which dwelt in it should not be called the Christ viz. Because that Flesh of Christ is called a Vail but he himself is within the Vail which is the Holy of Holies whereinto Christ Jesus our High Priest hath entred Heb. 10.20 21. And as he descended into and passed through a Suffering State in his Fleshly Appearance and returned into that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory from whence he humbled himself which was and is the Holy of Holies then obscured or hid by his Flesh or Body the Vail while in the World So must all know a Death to their Fleshly Ways and Religions yea their Knowledge of Christ himself after the Flesh or they stick in the Vail and never enter into the Holy of Holies nor come to know him in any spiritual Relation as their High and Holy Priest that abides therein First Where 's the Nonsense here the perfect Nonsense this great Iudge of Sense complains of Why if he cannot find it he 'l make it rather than not Cavil For says he His saying Christ hath entred into the Holy of Holies within the Vail and that Vail is his Flesh and that Holy of Holies is himself What Nonsense is this says he VVas not Christ always in himself But where did W. Penn say That Holy of Holies is Christ himself Find me those Words in the whole Paragraph Nay does he not plainly say otherwise Does he not expresly call that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory from whence Christ humbled himself and into which he returned the Holy of Holies Read the Words again And as he descended into and past through a Suffering State in his fleshly Appearance and returned into that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory from whence he humbled himself which was and is the Holy of Holies So c. Pray what is the Antecedent here to the Relative VVhich but the Word State going before G. Keith is too well versed in Grammar not to know and see this I would he were but half so well versed in Honesty For this is a plain dishonest Perversion for which he deserves at least the Contempt and Censure of every honest Reader who by this Instance may see the ways G. Keith takes to make his Opponent speak Nonsense or Antichristian Doctrine He goes on with the like Honesty in his second Note upon these Words of VV. Penn thus His entring in within the Vail of his Flesh is either perfect Nonsense or it hath this Sense That he hath put off his Body be had on Earth and is sâ—parated from it This is a plain Perversion also For his entring in within the Vaâ—l is clearly explained by those Words of his returning into that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory called the Holy of Holies which he was in before he humbled himself to take on him that Flesh which was called a Vail because it vailed or hid from Men the Glory of his Godhead that dwelt in it Both Vail and Holy of Holies are Metaphorical Expressions borrowed from the Legal Tabernacle And as there in the Type they were used to set forth a difference of Places wih respect to Degrees of Holiness So here in the Antitype they are used to set forth a difference of States with respect to Degrees of Glory The State of Christ's Humiliation when he appeared in the form of a Servant in that Body of Flesh which was called The Vail was very glorious But the State of his Exaltation into that Immortality Eternal Life and Glory which he had with his Father before the World began which is called The Holy of Holies is a far more