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
p. 152. of the same Book in Answer to a Question Whether the knowledge of the outward coming sufferings and Death of Christ is not of absolute necessity unto every one He says Though express knowledge of his outward coming sufferings and Death is very profitable to beget Faith and Love in Men towards God as aforesaid and ought to be highly valued in its place Nevertheless this express knowledge is not of absolute necessity unto Faith and Love c. And in p. 153. How many thousand have been saved before Christ's coming in the outward who knew it not expresly And a little lower Seeing then that some had Faith and Love to God and were saved without the express knowledge thereof to wit of Christ's coming in the outward before he came outwardly why not also after his coming where his coming outwardly hath not been preached nor revealed For now Christ is inwardly come in a Seed of Life and Light in all which is the Word of Reconciliation by which men may be Reconciled with God as they joyn and apply their Minds thereunto Such passages as these abound in his former not yet retracted Book which it would be tedious to transcribe Yet inasmuch as he says here Nar. p. 23. that though Regeneration is no â—light thing yet comparing Christ's Incarnation with the Work of Regeneration I do affirm the Work of Regeneration is a light thing tho' not light in it self I will shew him though it be some what beside the present Business how much he formerly prefer'd the inward Appearance and Manifestation of Christ in Spirit to his outward Appearance in the Flesh. In his Book called Immediate Revelation not ceased nor retracted p. 59. he says If his Bodily presence was not sufficient to the Church his teaching them outwardly by word of Mouth Face to Face but he said It was expedient that he should go away from them and he would send another Teacher who would do greater things and more Manifestly and Gloriously reveal unto them God and the things of his Kingdom If Christ's Bodily presence in the Flesh was not sufficient of it self to Minister though he spake as never Man spake yet I say If this Ministration was not sufficient but a more Glorious they were to expect and as they waited they witnessed it fulfilled and come unto them Then far less is the outward Administration of any other Man c. Seeing the knowledge of Christ after the Flesh was not sufficient nor to be rested in but they were to look for a better a more clear and full manifestation in themselves he appearing in a Spiritual Glorious Heavenly Mysterious way in their Hearts c. And in p. 120. having cited before many Scripture sayings out of the Old and New Testament Concerning Christ he says All these Glorious things both he in the Days of his Flesh and the Prophets before that his appearance in that Body of Flesh declared neither only nor principally concerning his coming in the Flesh namely in that Vessel or Temple which appeared at Ierusalem but mainly and principally concerning his Spiritual Appearance in his Saints after his being Crucified Risen and Ascended for till then the Son of Man was not Glorified And though he was Bodily present with his Disciples yet he told them they were to see greater things And p. 121. He told them It was expedient he should go away that he might come again in a more Glorious and Comfortable Appearance by the Revelation of his Glorious Power in their Hearts for his Kingdom was not of this World but an inward Kingdom and he said that it was within and pointed to this Spiritual Appearance by his Light in their Hearts under many Parables and Figures c. Again p. 107. he says The Iews and People of Israel who lived in Moses's time and were saved it was through Faith in this Word in this Prophet raised up in them in their Hearts not at a distance but nigh the Word is nigh in thy Heart And this is Christ in them the hope of Glory the Mystery hid from Ages and Generations but was ever made manifest in his Saints but in the latter Days more clearly Christ in all that believe the hope of Glory Does he not here plainly make that Mystery which the Apostle and he from him calls the Mystery which hath been hid from Ages and from Generations Col. 1.2.6 to be the inward Appearance of Christ the hope of Glory in all that believe and says It was ever made manifest in his Saints He pretends Nar. p. 23. to have some other principal Proofs remaining about this Gross Error as he calls it of W. Penn But he brings forth but one that I find and that the same which he charged formerly in his Book called The True Copy c. And which I answered at large in my Book called Truth Defended from p. 113. to p. 123. Of which he takes no notice Had he been either fair or manly he should first have refuted the former Answers before he had renewed his Charge Yet not only here but in his Gross Error p. 18 19. he repeats this same Charge without so much as owning that it had been answered to before So that with respect to him it is to little purpose to answer at all since he has so little honesty as to wink over the answer and repeat his Charge a new as if there had been nothing said to it But for the undeceiving of them whom he labours to deceive and by false Accusations and Calumnies to bring into a dislike of our Principles and us I shall here wipe off some of his Abuses and refer the Reader for further satisfaction to my former Book called Truth Defended The Quotation he now gives is out of a Book called The Christian Quaker p. 97.98 It is a Controversial Book and the Controversy in that part of it is Whether Christ as Christ was before he took Flesh of the Virgin or no Which the Adversaries denied W. Penn affirmed and gave many Arguments from Scripture and Reason to prove it which the Reader may there see at large from p. 92. to p. 99. Amongst those many Arguments one was drawn from the promised Seed which all acknowledge to be Christ and therefore as a fit Medium was used by W. Penn to prove that Christ as Christ was before he took that Body of Flesh upon him and therefore that that Body simply considered as a Natural Body which was the Notion the Adversaries had of it and from whence they Spake so much of Christ's Humane Nature was not properly the Christ but he most properly who was the Heavenly Spiritual Man who came down from Heaven and took upon him that outward Body in as much as the Seed is a Spiritual Substance Now to prove that the Seed is inward and Spiritual he argued thus which is the passage G. Keith quotes As Abraham outward and natural was the great Father of the Jews outward and
his Divine Seed and Body extended into us And thus he is the incarnate Word or Word made Flesh dwelling in our Flesh c. VVay cast up p. 133. And G. Keith in his answer to the Rector of Arrow said I put thee to prove by any one place in all the Scripture that Christ hath now any other Flesh or Body but that which is Spiritual Rector Corrected p. 24. and again p. 54. As concerning the Body of Christ that was Crucified was it not again raised up to be made a living Body And after he arose and ascended was it not a Spiritual Body Why then says G. Keith to the Rector sayst thou shew a syllable that intimates a spiritual Body Is not Christ's Body a spiritual Body which he hath now in the Heavens Shew a Syllable that Christ hath any other Body but that which is spiriâ—ual And p. 55 he says What is that Body of Christ mentioned by the Apostle Col. 2.17 which puts an end unto the outward Observation of Meats and Drinks new Moons and Sabbath-days Is that only the outward Body that was Crucified If thou sayst yea then thou dividest Christ whereas Christ is not divided And p. 44. he says That there is no such a distance betwixt Christ that is gone into the Holiest and his Saints upon Earth as thou imaginest see but ver 19 20 21 22. of Heb. 10. And in p. 23. speaking of the Power and Vertue of the Body of Christ that rose and ascended a spiritual and glorious Body he says But this vertue is not any visible thing nor is the glorified Body of Christ visible Flesh and therefore says he to the Rector thou dost grosly erre to say as thou dost the Son of Man is visible Flesh For seeing the Body of Christ is glorified and wholly spiritual as the Body of every true Believer shall be at the Resurrection how can it be visible Flesh And adds he Christ the second Adam is called in Scripture the quickning Spirit but not visible Flesh. Therefore says he in this see how he banters him thou ' dost grosly erre and needest Correction None of these Passages hath ever yet been retracted by G. Keith that I have seen or heard of and therefore he is the more to be blamed for blaming G. Whitehead for asserting Christ's Body to be a glorified spiritual Body not a gross carnal visible Body of Flesh which he himself says it is not He hath one Cavil more upon this Head against G. Whitehead and a mâ—â—r Cavil it seems to be He grounds it on a passage he takes out of a Book of G. Whitehead's called The He goats Horn broken written about 36 years ago in answer to two Books written by three Opposers whereof one was named Io. Horn and G. Keith seems to fancy that this Book of G. Whitehead's had that Title as alluding to the Name of Iohn Horn and he took occasion from thence to make himself and his Auditors some Sport about it Nar. p. 19. But unless he had beâ—ter ground to go upon than bare likeness in â—ound of words he may be mistaken for all that For I could shew him a Book written some years before that by R. Hubberthorn called The Horn of the He-goat broken in Answer to a Book published by one Tho. Winterton betwixt which Name and Title there is not the least likeness of sound That which G. Keith objects to G. Whitehead here is That he contradicts a passage in his Opponents Book which G. Keith says if he understands any thing of true Divinity or Theology is a sound Passage viz. That our Nature Kind or Being as in us not in Christ is corrupt and filthy in it self yet Christ took upon him our Nature not as it is filthy in us by sin in it c. How sound this Passage is I will not here dispute because I would not dilate Controversie to feed a carping Mind in a peevish Adversary neither will I presume to question G. Keith's understanding any thing of true Divinity lost I should be thought as ignorant as he is arrogant But yet I think it may be worthy of consideration how far that Passage is sound which says Our Nature Kind or Being is corrupt and filthy in it self not only as in us by sin in it but in it self And how suitable it was for Christ to take upon him a Nature that was corrupt and filthy in it self That Christ took on him the Nature of Man though it be not in Scripture exprest in those terms that I remember may in a right sense for the word Nature is taken in divers Acceptations be admitted The Scripture says he took upon him the form of a Servant and was made in the likeness of Men Phil. 2.7 And that Forasmuch as the Children are Partakers of Flesh and Blood he also himself likewise took part of the same Heb. 2.14 And in verse 16. it is said He took on him the Seed of Abraham But the Margin expresses it more agreeably to the Greek as G. Keith knows thus He taketh not hold of Angels but of the Seed of Abraham he taketh hold Now I do not find by G. Whitehead's Answer that he denies that Christ took Mans Nature but that he taxes his Opponents with Confusion in two respectsâ— one for that they excepted against his former wording of their Assertion thus That their Nature is restored in Christ and yet that their Nature is a filthy Nature and Christ took upon him their Nature The other that to free themselves from the imputation of Confusion in the former they say He might as well have taxed the Apostle with Confusion for saying Men by Nature do the things contained in the Law Rom. 2.14 And yet by Nature Children of wrath Ephes. 2.3 In which two places G. Keith I presume will not deny the word Nature to be used very differently Now to this G. Whitehead's Answer was We may justly tax thâ—se Men with Confusion indeed but not the Apostle for here they cannot discern between the sinful Nature and the pure Nature for the Nature of Christ is pure so that it 's not their Nature for their Nature is filthy and therefore it is not in Christ that is as it is filthy Then he goes on to shew their Confusion in the other part And their bringing that of Rom. 2.14 Ephes. 2.3 together to prove their confusion sheweth that they cannot discern between that Nature by which Men do the things contained in the Law and that Nature by which Men break the Law and are Children of wrath but make as if it were all one Now I do not â—ind G. Keith is able to make any great advantage by his Cavil against G. Whitehead He says indeed Our blessed Lord might well take on him our Nature and the Nature in us be sinful and in him pure and holy But will he say that that Nature which our Lord took on him was sinful or corrupt and filthy in it self Which
in mine called Truth Defended from p. 148. to p. 155. which he has not replied to 'T is true he doth not begin his Cavil now with the same Quotation he did then but for a blind brings it in now with a Quotation of the same Matter in Substance taken out of another Peice viz. A Preface to the Collection of R. Barclay 's Book which he supposes and I deny not was writ by VV. Penn and then claps his former Quotation out of VV. Penn's Rejoyndâ—r to Faldo behind it to support it taking no notice that I had answered it before This in him was neither Ingenuous nor Fair. He should have answered my Book before he had renewed the Charge therein answered But instead of that he conceals that it was already answered and proposes it as a new thing as if it had not been answered before Now seeing he hath dealt so unfairly I shall take the less notice of what he now says in the Case but that I may not actum agere shall refer the Reader to my former Answer in the Book and Pages abovementioned yet not wholly pass by what he says here First I observe he quarrels with VV. Penn for saying upon 1 Tim. 3.16 Great is the Mystery of Godliness God manifest in the Flesh c. And if the Apostle said it of the Manifestation of the Son of God in the Flesh if that be a Mystery and if a Mystery it is not to be spelt out but by the Revelation of the Spirit how much more c. From hence G. Keith infers VV. Penn doth not say it is a Mystery but he puts three Ifs to it This Objection is childish in all but the Malice of it For G. Keith knows VV. Penn hath always acknowledged that Manifestation of Christ in the outward Body of Flesh in which he suffered at Ierusalem to be a very great and wonderful Mystery And he and every one else that understands Words aright knows that the Particle If both divers Significations sometimes it is Conditional sometimes Dubitative sometimes Concessive or Granting Of which there are plenty of Instances in Scripture Rom. 11.6 If by Grace then no more of VVorks The Apostle there cannot be supposed to doubt or question much less to deny that the Election is of Grace for he positively affirm'd it in the verse before So ver 12. If the fall of them the Iews be the Riches of the World c. how much more their Fulness ver 16. If the first Fruit and if the Root be Holy so the Lump so the Branches ver 21. If God spared not the natural Branches c. 1 Pet. 4.17 18. If it Judgment first begin at us And if the Righteous scarcely be saved c. 2 Pet. 2.4 5. If God spared not the Angels that sinned but cast them down to Hell c. And spared not the old World but saved Noah c. Might not G. Keith as well have charged the Apostle with denying or doubting that God spared not the Angels that sinned and the old World Yet upon this he asks Pray was our blessed Lord a meer Shell Was he like the Shell of an Egg without the Meat of an Egg I answer no He was not a meer Shell neither was he like the Shell of an Egg either without the Meat or with it For he was full of Grace and Truth John 1.14 And in him dwelleth all the Fulness of the Godhead bodily Col. 2.9 For it pleased the Father that in him should all Fulness dwell chap. 1.19 Again He asks Was there any Holiness ever in any Prophet or Apostle but it is like a Drop to the Ocean to what was in our blessed Lord If it were or could be less than a Drop to the Ocean that affects not us in this Case For we draw no Comparison between the Holiness that was in him and that which is or ever hath been in any of the Saints with respect to the Degrees thereof Grant it to be the same in Nature and Quality and it suffices which a Drop is with the Ocean But G. Keith's Comparison in his Marginal Notes in this p. 21. run higher in Degree than a Drop to the Ocean For he says The same Seed and Life is in us which was in the Man Christ and is in him in the Fulness as Water in the Spring and in us aâ— the Stream which is more than a Drop and bears more proportion in quantity to the spring it flows from than a Drop does to the Ocean Again he says As the natural Life is in all the Members but more principally in the Head and Heart without any Division so this spiritual Life and Nature is both in Christ our Head and in us by which he dwelleth in us as the Spirit of Man doth in the Body But is the disproportion as great in the natural Body between the Life in the Member and in the Head Heart as between a Drop and the Ocean He suggests that W. Penn compares the Work of Regeneration to the Incarnation of our Lord so as to equal yea prefer it with respect to Holiness and thereupon says Nar. p. 22. I Appeal to you the Auditors whether is it not a most abominable Error and whether it doth not make every regenerate Man not only equal to the Man Christ but greater for says he VVe truly value any Man as more Holy according as the Manifestation of God is more in one Man than in another Now this is a great abuse in him For the Comparison if he will have it to be one was not originally W. Penn's but his Adversaries and it lay not between the Incarnation of Christ and the Work of Regeneration But between the difficulty of Believing the one and Experiencing the other So W. Penn understood I. Faldo at first and thereupon said Regeneration is a slight thing meaning with I. Faldo in Comparison of the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh. Mark that He did not say in Comparison of Christ after the Flesh But in Comparison of the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh. And thereupon he added The History is made viz. by I. Faldo the greatest Mystery And to believe the one matter of greater difficulty than to Experience the other Rejoynder p. 336. The Comparison here lay not between the Digniâ—y or Excellency of Christ's Incarnation in that Body which he took of the Virgin and his spiritual Formation and Birth in his Saints which is intended in the Word Regeneration But between the difficulty of Believing the one and of Experiencing the other Neither would the Comparison between the Incarnation of our Lord Christ and the Work of Regeneration had such a Comparison been made have been with respect to the Degrees of Holiness in each But with respect to the greatness of the Mystery in the one and in the other which depended not simply upon the Holiness in either For though this Mystery of the Incarnation of Christ be by way of Emphasis or
of a pretended Contradiction between W. Penn and I. Whitehead is very Idle in it self and wicked in him and the worse for that he urged it formerly in his Book called The true Copy c. And I answered then in mine called Truth Defended p. 131. which he takes no notice of as I did also answer in that Book much of what he hath now urged concerning Christ and his being the promised Seed from p. 113. to p. 123. Where also I gave several Quotations out of G. Keith's Bôoks shewing most plainly that he hath maintained the very same things he now condemns in others and yet will not condemn in himself as particularly in his Book called The Way cast up where Sect. 8. p. 93. In answer to an Adversary's Charge that we deny Jesus the Son of Mary to be the alone true Christ. He first answers This is a false Accusation We own no other Jesus Christ but him that was born of the Virgin Mary who as concerning the Flesh is the Son of Mary and the Son of David and the Seed of Abraham Then adds p. 93. And yet he was the true Christ of God before he took Flesh and before he was the Son of Mary or David or of Abraham For his being Born of the Virgin Mary made him not to be Christ as if he had not been Christ before But he was Christ before even from the beginning as says heâ— I shall prove out of Scripture c. And having brought divers Scriptures and Arguments from p. 93. to p. 99. to prove that Christ Jesus as Man was from the beginning and had from the beginning an Heavenly Manhood and Spiritual Flesh and Blood He there concludes thus This is the promised Seed which God promised to our Parents after the Fall and actually gave unto them even the Seed of the Woman that should bruise the Head of the Serpent And therefore tho' the outward coming of the Man Christ was deferred according to his outward Birth in the Flesh for many Ages yet from the beginning this Heavenly man the promised Seed did inwardly come into the Hearts of those that believed in him and bruised the Head of the Serpent c. Here G. Keith not only asserts that this Heavenly Man Christ was the promised Seed and did from the beginning inwardly come into the Hearts of Believers and bruised the Head of the Serpent but also calls him the Seed of the Woman and says God not only promised him but actually gave him even the Seed of the Woman that should bruise the Serpents Head unto our Parents after the Fall many Ages before his outward Birth in the Flesh. Surely he that writ this had no cause to quarrel with W. Penn for saying Christ's Body strictly considered as such was not the Seed of Promise G. Keith had more need to have reconciled himself to himself if he could in these two opposite Expressions of his viz. That God gave the promised Seed even the Seed of the Woman actually to our Parents after the Fall many Ages before his outward Birth in the Flesh Way cast up p. 99. And That Christ did not become the Seed of the Woman according to the Sense of Gen. 3. Vntil the fulness of time that he was made of a Woman True Copy of a Paper p. 20. And he should have done well to have informed his Reader how God did actually give unto our Parents after the Fall so many Ages before Christ's outward Birth in the Flesh the Seed he promised them Gen. 3. Even the Seed of the Woman And yet Christ not be the Seed of the Woman according to Gen. 3. until so many Ages after he was actually given as the Seed of the Woman This is part of what I said to him in my former Book called Truth Defended p. 117 118. which rather than Answer he chose to cut himself out new work at Turners-Hall He pretends he did not Answer my Books in Print because he had not time to write nor outward Ability to Print I have shewed the Falshood of that pretence in the fore part of this Book yet let me now ask If that had been true why did he not then at his Meeting at Turners-Hall Answer my Books viva voce which then lay at his door unanswered and both Refute them if he could and acquit himself from those many Clinching Quotations I had therein hâ—mpered him with out of his own Books by explaining defending or Retracting them This I think every considerate Person will judge had been more properly his Province than wholly over-looking this to spend his time in impeaching Others by Renewing his old Baffled Charges before he had cleared himself from being guilty of the same Errors as he calls them which he had charged others with For if they whom he hath charged were as bad as he endeavours to make them yet he of all men is not fit to charge them till he has acquitted himself from the Imputation he lies under of being guilty of the same things This is so plain a Case that it may be hoped upon his next Indiction of such a Mock Meeting at Turners-Hall or elsewhere some of his Auditors when they are together will think fit to put him upon this just and necessary Work and I had like to have said hold him to it but that I consider he will be held to nothing However to furnish any such a little further with matter of that kind to invite him to I will not think much to transcribe another Quotation or two of his which I gave him in my former Book p. 119 120. The first is taken out of his Appendix to his Book of Immediate Revelation p. 256. where speaking of the spiritual Generation and Birth of Christ in us he says Thus we become the Mother of Christ in a spiritual sense or according to the Spirit as the Virgin Mary was his Mother after the Flesh. And this Spiritual Mystery Christ himself did teach in the days of his Flesh when he said Whosoever shall do the Will of my Father which is in Heaven the same is my Brother and Sister and Mother Mat. 12.50 And thus says G. Keith Christ according to his spiritual Birth in the Saints is the Seed of the Woman for that the Saints are the Woman that bring him forth after the Spirit and are his Mother as Mary brought him forth after the Flesh and after the Spirit also so that she was the Mother of Iesus in a double respect for as she brought him forth in her Body so she brought him forth in her Soul otherwise he could not have been her Saviour c. Here G. Keith calls Christ the Seed of the Woman according to his spiritual Birth in the Saints and yet quarrels with W. Penn for saying The Seed Christ must be inward and spiritual Again In the Way cast up p. 102. he says For indeed seeing he Christ is called as really Man before his ouâ—ward Birth in the
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
called the Christian Quaker c. Where in Answer to T. Danson's saying The Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body its dear and beloved Companion the Soul having a strong Desire and Inclination to a Re-union to the Body as the Schools not without ground determine vide Calvin He gives a part of G. Whitehead's Answer as also he did in his Gross Error p. 11. thus Both Calvin T. Danson and the Schools and divers Anabaptists are mistaken in this very Matter and see not with the Eye of true Faith either that the Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body or that the Soul hath a strong Desire to a Re-union to the Body while they intend the Terrestrial Elementary Bodies For this implies the Soul to be in a kind of Purgatory or Disquietness till the supposed Resumption of the Body This place as that of G. Whitehead and of W. Penn cited before speaks not of Resurrection of the Body but of the supposed Imperfection of the Souls Happiness without the Body and the strong Desire they fancy it hath to a Re-union to the Body which the immediately following Part of G. Whitehead's Answer left wholly out by G. Keith here and not fully given in his Gross Error though he confidently says Nar. p. 37. I have quoted full Periods at length plainly shews For says G. Whitehead there And their Assertion and Determination therein is contrary to what the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 5. For we know that if our earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God an House not made with Hands Eternal in the Heavens ver 1. For we that are in this Tabernacle do groan being burdened c. ver 4. We are confident I say and willing rather to be absent from the Body and to be present with the Lord ver 8. And said he the Apostle I am in a strait betwixt two having a desire to depart c. Phil. 1.23 It is manifest I say from hence that G. Whitehead's Words cited by G. Keith related directly to that Notion of T. Danson and others That the Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body and that the Soul hath a strong Desire to a Re-union to the Body to which he opposed those Words of the Apostle before recited Yet from hence G. Keith tells his Hearers You see I hope here is Proof enough that G. Whitehead holds that the deceased Saints look for no Resurrection of the Body But in this he concludes unfairly For the Words he gives for Proof do not prove he held so Here G. Keith was put in Mind it seems that G. Whitehead said Elementary Bodies which he did and Terrestrial also to which G. Keith replies What other Body could it be As much as to say What other Body could the Soul desire to be re-united to but a Terrestrial Elementary Body For of such Bodies G. Whitehead spake as the Soul was said to have a strong desire of re-union to which was the Terrestrial Elementary Body which T. Danson said had been it's dear and beloved Companion So that it seems according to G. Keith it must be a Terrestrial Elementary Body after it is re-united to the Soul in Heaven What other Body could it be says G. Keith But he is fain to step down into his Ditch to fetch up a little of his Ditch-Philosophy to make it out by I hope says he a little Philosophy will not offend you The Objection says he they make is the same against Christ's Body Pray says he Was not Christ's Body Elementary Did he not Eat and Drink And was it not the same as we Eat and Drink And if we Eat and Drink of what are Elementary then his Body did receive the same Elements and they were converted into his Body First let me tell him the Objection made against a Resurrection of Terrestrial Elementary Bodies is not the same against Christ's Body For there was a difference between Christ's Body and the Bodies of other Men. His was a more excellent Body with respect to its Generation G. Keith hath said it Way to the City of God p. 134. And thus he was both the Son of God and the Son of Man according to his very Birth in Mary And therefore even according to that Birth he hath a Divine Perfection and Vertue and that Substantial above all other Men that ever were are or shall be And in p. 135. ' His body hath not only the Perfections of our Body but also much more because of its being generate not only of a Seed of Mary but of a Divine Seed This made him contend against the Word Humane as too mean a Title for the outward and visible Flesh which Christ took of the Virgin Rector Corrected p. 27 c. But now calls Christ's Body not only Elementary but plainly Terrestrial He says G. Whitehead owns in his latter Writings that Christ's Body that rose is the same with his Body that suffered Here he uses the Word Latter deceitfully and maliciously to insinuate as if G. Whitehead had not owned this till now of late whereas he could not but know that in a Postscript to a Book called The Malice of the Independent Agent rebuked written in the third Month 1678. which is eighteen Years ago G. Whitehead for to him G. Keith ascribes that Postscript said Christ did rise in that Body wherein he suffered and in the same ascended into the Heavens I say G. Keith could not but know this because in his Book called The true Copy Printed but last Year p. 21. he quoted a Passage as G. Whitehead's out of that very Postscript But says he in p. 35. his Pride will not suffer him to own his forme Error either in that or in other things I may rather say of G. Keith His Envy will not suffer him to be Iust or Honest. For he can no where find in any of G. Whitehead's Writings that he did ever disown Christ's Body that rose to be the same Body that suffered But there is not an equal Comparison betwixt Christ's Body and Man's His saw no Corruption But Man's Body is subject to Corruption and Putrefaction In p. 35. He says And seeing W. Penn thinks it absurd that a Body can be transformed from an Earthly and Animal Body to an Heavenly Body as says he he argueth Reason against Railing p. 134. He makes it not only as gross as Transubstantiation but worse But this says he is his gross Ignorance in true Philosophy and his false Philosophy destroys his Faith But what I wonder has destroyed G. Keith 's Honesty except it be his gross Enmity For he has most grosly abused W. Penn in this Passage Where doth W. Penn say or hold it is absurd that a Body can be transformed from an Earthly or Animal Body to an Heavenly Body There is no Word in the Place cited nor any where that I know of that either speaks so or has a tendency
Habitation for a Glorified Soul in Heaven to dwell in nor to be the same Body that it was when it was a Natural and Carnal Body if it cease to be a Natural and Carnal Body and be made wholly Spiritual 3. From the uncontroulable Testimony of the Holy Apostle who says expresly That Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdoms of God 1 Cor. 15.50 And by a Metaphor borrowed from Agriculture says That which thou sowest which is the Body that dies and is put into the Grave thou sowest not that Body that shall be ver 37. which is alike as if he had said in so many Syllables The Body that shall arise is not the same Carnal Body that dies and is put into the Grave No the Body that is put into the Grave or is sown is a Natural Body But the Body that is raised is a Spiritual Body It is sown a Natural Body it is raised a spiritual Body says the Apostle ver 44. And that none might think this spiritual Body was the same with the Natural Body he adds There is a Natural Body and there is a spiritual Body He does not say the Natural is made a spiritual Body or the Natural Body and the Spiritual Body is but one and the same Body But he sets them in Opposition as two distinct Bodies There is a Natural Body and there is a Spiritual Body The Apostle illustrates this Difference between the Body that dies or is sown and the Body that is raised from the two Adams the first and the last saying The first Man Adam was made a living Soul the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit ver 45. Is this quickening Spirit the same with that living Soul Is the last Adam and the first Adam but one and the self same Adam The first Man is of the Earth Earthly the second Man is the Lord from Heaven ver 47. Will G. Keith say This second Man which is the Lord from Heaven is the same with the First Man which is of the Earth Earthy As is the Earthy such are they also that are Earthy and as is the Heavenly such are they also that are Heavenly ver 48. Does not the Apostle here plainly shew that as the second Man the Lord from Heaven is not the same with the first Man of the Earth Earthy So the Heavenly Bodies which the Saints shall have are not the same with the Earthy Bodies which they have had And says he as we have born the Image of the Earthy we shall also bear the Image of the Heavenly ver 49. This shews we shall bear the Image of another Body in Heaven than that which we bore on the Earth consequently not the Image of the same Body But if by Heavenly Body were meant the same Body that was Earthy then we should bear the Image of the same Body hereafter in Heaven which we have born here on Earth quite contrary to the Apostle's Doctrine who to clear the matter fully that in all this Discourse of his about the Resurrection he did not mean the same Body of Flesh and Blood that dies should be raised concludes thus ver 50. Now this I say Brethren that 〈…〉 Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God But the 〈◊〉 that dies every one knows is a Body of Flesh and Blood therefore that Body cannot inherit the Kingdom of God but it must be a Body which is not of Flesh and Blood and that cannot be the Body of Flesh and Blood that dies This is so fully handled in those Books of W. Penn and G. Whitehead out of which G. Keith took his pretended Proofs as well as in other Books of theirs that G. Keith needed not have fetched a Round to prove it by alledging that they hold the Resurrection immediately after Death but that he had a Mind to fix if he could that slander on them which they no where say nor do the Places he has quoted prove it For they therein only argued against the absurd and gross Notion of their Opponents which was that the Body which is raised is the same Carnal Body that Died and was Buried which he if he have a Mind may undertake the Proof of But though we cannot subscribe to that gross and carnal Notion yet both the Quakers in general and they in particular do own and always have owned a Resurrection and that of Bodies So said W. Penn in the Book G. Keith quoted or should have quoted if he had not mistaken and quoted another for it Reason against Railing p. 133. We do acknowledge a Resurrection in order to Eternal Recompence and that every Seed shall have its own Body and we rest contented with what Body it shall please God to give us But as we are not such Fools as curiously to enquire What So must we for ever deny the gross Conceits of T. Hicks and his Adherents of whom G. Keith is now become one concerning the Resurrection And having refuted those gross Conceits he spaâ—â— of he concluded thus in p. 140. For our parts 〈…〉 we believe and of Bodies too unto 〈…〉 What they shall not be I have briefly said 〈…〉 roved what they shall be we leave with God 〈…〉 will give every one a Body as pleaseth him and 〈…〉 Fool belongs to the unnecessary medler G Keith himself but a while ago undertook W. Penn's Defence in this Point of the Resurrection against Cotton Mâ—ther in his Serious Appeal p. 9. where he says As for his citing W. Penn's Words arguing against that same Numerical Body its rising at the Resurrection it is clear that he understandeth the same exact Number of the small Particles or Dusts neiâ—her more nor less than what is commonly buried and what hurt is there in that Said G. Keith then If G. Keith has a Mind now to maintain and defend the contrary and will undertake to prove that it is the same Numerical Body with all its Numerical Particles that rises which was buried let him do it Scripturally not only Philosophically and that by false Notions of Philosophy lest he make People suspect he intends only a Resurrection of Philosophers or at most but a Philosophical Resurrection I advise him to keep to Scripture-Terms because he hath so often recommended that to others and blamed his Opponents formerly for going from it And particularly in his Book called Truth 's Defence p. 169. is Positive That all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith which God requireth in common of all Christians are expresly delivered and recorded in the Scriptures and therefore says he there for my part what I cannot find expresly delivered in Scripture I see no Reason why I should receive or believe as any common Article or Principle of the Christian Faith or Life The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead is a common Article of the Christian Faith which we find expresly delivered in the Scriptures and accordingly we sincerely believe it But we do not find it expresly