Spiritual as the Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink and Spiritual Rock in the Wilderness 1 Cor x. 2.3 Will this if there be no more in it makes His Blood to be the Blood of God And what is this to G. W's Argument That a Spirit cannot have Material Blood and therefore That if the Blood of the New Covenant be the Blood of God it cannot be Material Blood i. e. That the Material Blood of Christ was not the Blood of God otherwise than as the Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink and All things are His. This lets us into the Heart of the Quaker Divinity VII G. W. says in a Book of his call'd The Voice of Wisdom p. 36. That the Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finit but Infinit T. E. says p. 113. That these Words are an Inference from a Position of his Adversaries one Thomas Danson viz. That the Righteousness whereof Christ is the Subject and that whereof He is the Efficient are of one Species or Kind 'T is true that G. W. mentions this But not as finding any Fault with it For he says the same and more himself in the same page viz. That Righteousness which God works in us by His Spirit it s of the same Kind and Nature with that which worketh it for the Saints are made Partakers of the Divine Nature 2 Pet. 1.4 T. Danson made the Righteousness of the Man Christ of the same Species or Kind with ours as His Human Nature is But G. W. makes the Righteousness of God to be of the same Kind and Nature with ours which is Blasphemy and far beyond what T. Danson had said with which G. W. found no Fault unless that he had said too little of the Oneness of the Righteousness of God and ours But he brings this former saying of Danson's to Confront that Position of his which G. W. sets down viz. That the Righteousness which God works in us is but Finite as well as other Effects This G. W. opposes and brings the above-quoted saying of Danson's as a Contradiction to this and then Proves against Danson according to his skill that the Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finit but Infinit This is in opposition to the above saying of Danson's That it was but Finit And if G. W. thought it but Finit why did he oppose Danson in this But he not only says that it is Infinit but goes on to Prove it For says he Christ is Gods Righteousness and Christ is formed in us Gal. iv 19. Thus miserably Perverting the Scripture But they are Desir'd to tell us how Infinity can be Formed 2dly How formed in that which is Finit G. W. in the same place Exclaims against those who would make that Righteousness in them the Saints but Finit When as says he Christ His Infinit Righteousness and the Saints are in one another Here he makes the Righteousness of Christ and of the Saints to be the same and corrupts that Text Heb. ii 11. to Prove it which he Repeats thus He that Sanctifieth and they that are Sanctified are one Whereas the Text is are all of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And concludes thus Then God's Righteousness in us is not Finit but Infinit Yet T. E. would make us believe that he said no such thing But this is no Novelty with him VIII Again p. 134. he justifies this saying of G. Ws That Blood and Water that 's said to Cleanse is not of another Kind but agrees in one with the Spirit And Demands in great assurance Is not that True No. Mr. E. it is not True but far from Truth That the Blood and Water are not of another Kind from the Spirit They are Material and outward Blood and Water which through the operation of the Blessed Spirit do cleanse But this makes them not of the same Kind with the Spirit more than Christ's Human Nature is of the same Kind with His Divine Nature or than a Man's Body is of the same Kind or Natuâ—â— with his Soul And this still shews more and more your Contempt and Denyal of the outward and Material Body and Blood of Christ for your Justification IX T. E. p. 136. brings in W. Penn justifying this saying of Isaac Penington viz. Can outward Blood Cleanse the Conscience And W. P. says We do Deny that outward Blood can be brought into the Conscience to Perform that Inward Work which they themselves i. e. the Professors as the Quakers call'd their Opponents Dare not nay do not hold Yet T. E. says p. 135. that Isaac Pennington put this Question Can outward Blood cleanse the Conscience to the Professors who place ALL upon the OVTWARD You must Excuse him he Began and was Resolv'd to go Quite through with this Topick in every Case to Misrepresent his Adversaries Meaning and if he cannot Find Faults to Make them But here he stands fairly Corrected by the more Ingenious W. P. whose Authority he Pretends to Maintain who says that the Professors Dare not nay Do not hold this G. Keith as quoted by T. E. p. 137. has given a clear Answer to this poor Subterfuge of Supposing that any did think the outward and Material Blood of Christ was to be brought into the Conscience and there Materially Apply'd which none sure in this World ever Imagin'd G. K. says The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience is by the Application of a Living Faith in Christ whose Blood it was the Spirit of God working that Faith in me This is Full and Orthodox But says T. E. in answer to this Why do's he say The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience as if it had been Really and Materially brought in there This is Intolerable and shews that they either can not or will nor take an Answer T. E. p. 136. tells of a Distinction which W.P. made betwixt the Pardon of Past Sin and the Present Sanctification of any Person and applys it to this Purpose as if the outward Blood of Christ could have no Tendency but only to the Former But this instead of Solving the Matter serves only to Discover the strange Confusion and Ignorance of these Men in the Mystery of the Gospel as if Christ's Blood outwardly shed were not as Effectual to our Sanctification as to our Justification to Procure for us the Graces of the Holy Spirit towards Living acceptably to God for the Future as the Pardon of Sins that are Past. SECT 3. Concerning the Resurrection of the Body I. T. E. is in Great Confusion upon this Head making Tedious Repetitioâ— and long Digressions about the Bush not knowing what to say and yet that he might appear to say something But I will Reduce his Immethodical Ramblement into this Order 1st To shew his weak and Fallacious Excuse for that Great Opposition which the Quakers have given to this Article of our Faith 2dly That T. E. instead of Vindicating others has himself down-right
Wit and their Time to Gloss and Cover their Errors which does but Expose them the more And since they now do pretend in Discourse and otherwise to be the same with the Church of England in Faith and Doctrine that they wou'd with a Noble and a Christian Courage Fairly and Above-board Retract and Condemn whatever they have said or wrote to the Contrary This is Incumbent upon them to Rescue the many Souls Deluded by them For that they are so Deluded none can deny I have many times heard several of them some of their Preachers plainly own all the Gross things Charged upon them even Denying any Merit or Salvation by the Blood of Christ which was outwardly shed That Christ is now a Man That there will be any Resurrection of our Dead Bodys or Future Universal Judgment Now where did they Learn these Doctrines There are none of any other Communion who believe few that ever heard of such things Therefore it is certain that these have been Deluded And who have Deluded them And nothing will undeceive them but seeing their Leaders downright Retract these Errors While they seem to excuse them they Confirm their Ignorant Followers in them Whose Blood will be requir'd at their Hands if they do not all that is in their Power to retrieve them What shall I say more To my Perswasions I will add my Prayers for them Which I do daily offer for their Conversion And thus to God and his Mercy I leave them through Jesus Christ who shed his Blood for them Dyed Rose and Ascended OVTWARDLY and will in the same Body come again to Judge them In which Day may they hear a Favourable sentence from Him and with us be one with him to all Eternity Amen Oct. 14. 1696. SOME GLEANINGS WITH Other further Improvements I. 1. THomas Ellwood is not onely Chargeable with what he has wrote in this Answer which has been Examined but the whole Body of the Quakers except Turners-Hall and those in Communion with them because it has been approved of by The second days Meeting as all Books are that they give forth which is their Supreme Authority in such Cases 2. Looking over his Answer again I cannot but Remark a Bold stroke of his p. 34. Thomas Danson being a Presbyterian Minister said G. Keith did Head that Christ as Man had a Creaâ—ed Soul Nay hold there Replies T. E. Thom. Danson spake of the Son of God i. e. That Christ is not the Son of God If he thinks to come off by that Limitation in Danson's words As Man it will not Rescue him For even As Man He was The Son of God Luk. 1.35 And as to his Eternal Generation He was the Son of God from all Eternity Therefore T. E. is to tell us in what sense he oppos'd Christ's being The Son of God And with the assurance of a Nay hold there As if some great Absurdity had been coming upon him II. 1. I told you in my Conclusion of the great Ignorance of the Generality of the Quakers And that many of them do at this day plainly own the most Blasphemous and Heretiâ—â— Doctrines which have been objected against them And thence I infer'd that whatever Face their Writers since the late Controversâ— against them have put upon their Principles yet this shews undeniably that such Heresies have been taught amongst them and are still so understood by their People And that vehemently A present Preacheâ— of theirs not long since being Pressed to acknowledge the Man Christ without us and the necessity of Faith in him Answered The Man Christ a F rt Horrid It Astonishes to Repeat such disdainful Blasphemy Tho it be necessary towards undeceiving of the World I know the Man and to whom he said it He deny'd before me and several others at another time That Christ's Body Rose out of the Grave That our Bodys should Rise That there wou'd be any General Judgment Or that the Scriptures were all True This is a Teacher Thus he has been Taught And thus he Teaches others And it is no wonder that they who are thus Taught to believe no outward Christ now in being shou'd use him with the utmost Contempt And his Worshippers with the greatest severity as being the Grossest sort of Idolaters to worship a Dead God who is no more in Being But the Quakers Faith is in an Inward Christ Viz. Their Light within And Inward Blood Inwardly shed c. 2. Can outward Blood Cleanse the Conscience Says Isaac Pennington in his Questions to the Professors p. 25. Was it the Flesh and Blood of the Vail or the Flesh and Blood within the Vail I have before observed that they call Christ's Body the Vail or Garment which he wore without taking it into his own Nature or being any Part of Christ For say they in a Book Compos'd by a great Club of them Intituled Some Principles of the Elect People of God in scorn called Quakers Printed 1671. p. 116. The Scriptures do expresly distinguish between Christ and the Garment which He wore between Him that came and the Body in which He came between the substance which was Vailed and the Vail that Vailed it There was the outward Vessel and the Inward Life This we certainly know say they and can never call the Bodily Garment Christ So that the Blood of Christ's Body was none of His Blood it was but the Blood of his Garment or Vail which the Quakers do not acknowledge to be Christ And which Isaac Pennington says cannot Cleanse the Conscience What Blood then is it which Cleanses Not the blood of the Vail that is of Christ's Body but The Flesh and Blood within the Vail i. e. of the Spirit which was within Christ's Body And this Spiritual Blood must be Spiritually that is Inwardly and not visibly shed This totally excludes the outward Christ and the outward Blood from having any Efficacy towards our Salvation Which Isaac Pennington explains yet fuller ibid Was it says he The Flesh and Blood of the outward Earthly Nature or the Flesh and Blood of the Inward Spiritual Nature Was it the Flesh and Blood which Christ took of the First Adam's Nature or the Flesh and Blood of the Second Adam's Nature This is Nonsense for Christ himself was the Second Adam and this Quere is whether he took Flesh and Blood of His own Nature But by the Second Adam the Quakers mean onely the Eternal word of God exclusive of the Humane Nature And they plainly here Exclude the Flesh and Blood which Christ took of the First Adam's Nature 3. Pursuant to this Notion the Quakers do not confine this Blood not â—â— the Vail i. e. Of Christ's Body but the Blood within the Vail i. e. the Mâ—stical Blood of the Spirit that dwelt in the Body of Christ they do not Confine this Blood to Christ alone but say that it is in themselves for they make iâ— to be nothing else than The Light within And from hence they
this is an addition to the Scripture And T. E. p. 47. brings him off as before by supposing that the Baptist meant as if Christ's Body at his coming to Judgment should not be chang'd at all from the condition and appearance it had upon Earth and that it was only this sort of Appearance which G. W. opposed It is well known says he p. 49. 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 And p. 47. Not so much as mentioning any Change in it Now if there never was a Christian who did not believe that Christ's Body was Glorified in Heaven and much changed from the Condition it was in upon the Cross how will T. E. answer for this Horrid and Senseless Imputation cast upon so many Christians How will he clear G. W. from Denying Christ's outward appearance at the Great Day when he can save him by no other Supposition than this which is notoriously False to all that bear the Name of Christians Ay and must be so to T. E. and G. W. themselves VII Here T. E. spends a great deal of fruitless pains as in several other places in Retorting upon G. K. But I leave him to Defend himself He needs no Second in his Contest with them For as to the Points of Doctrine Debated he has brought them for the most part to comply with him at least to Counterfeit an Agreement which is a Greater Victory if that were his aim They Confess that they have no Objection against his Morals and that they Differ not in Doctrine from him and yet have Excommunicated him that is have Condemned themselves And as to their Retortions and In-consistencies charg'd upon him he has hitherto kept himself superiour to them And set them an Example which is the only Method to save their Consciences and Reputation if they have not too much Pride to follow it that is he has own'd that there are some Errors in his former Books and has Promis'd to Print a Re-tractation of them as St. Augustine and other Great Men have done and to their Greater Praise But T. E. and the Party he defends stand still upon their Insallibility after it is Expos'd to the utmost Contempt They will yield no Error in themselves no not in an Iota not in their saying that Christ was bâ—rn at NaZâ—reth which T. E. in his Truth Defended printed 1695. p. 167. quotes out of W. Pean's Christian Quaker p. 104. But on the contrary They Invent such Salvâ—'s and strange Fetches to Reconcile their Heresies and Contradictions as T. E. in the Present Case that sinks them Deeper into the Mire is a Plain conviction of their guilt and makes them a Laughing-stock to all Maâ—kind But like a Bird that hides his Head and thinks no body sees him so they while they do not confess against themselves think themselves safe and will perswade many of their Implicit Followers that no body else sees them VIII But enough of this Let us Return to T. E. p. 53. he Defends G. W's Disputation against a Baptist for asserting that there was a Personal Christ now in Heaven at God's Right Hand all which G. W. turns Inward viz. a God's Right Hand WITHIN VS and a Christ WITHIN VS and to understand these as out of his People in a Personal being which are no Scripture terms says he still implies him to be a Personal God or Christ like the Anthropomorphite or Muggletonians conceit of him So that it seems a Personal God or Christ WITHOUT VS is as Ridiculous to G. W. as the Anthropomorphit or Muggletonian conceit of God's having a Body in shape and circumscription like to ours Can we imagine these Men so Ignorant as to know no Difference betwixt Person and Body but to think every Person to be a Body because in common speaking when we say such a Person we mean a Man and this Man has a Body This sure must be the Size of their Philosophy though it is hard to believe it that Men who are Writers and trouble the World with Books should remain in such Childish Ignorance as to think that no Spirit is a Person for which only reason they Deny Personality to God and by this fall into the same Muggletonism with which they charge the Baptist For if God cannot be a Person without having a Body then He must have a Body or have no Existence because every Intelligent Being is a Person that is the Meaning of the word Person Which if the Quakers have not hitherto understood Let them go to School again and Learn to Read before they Write and to Humbly themselves Greatly before God and confess their Fault before Men for Causing so Grievous a Schism in the Church and Branding so many Christians all the World but themselves as Limbs of the Devil and Deserters of the Faith upon a Mistake which Proceeds meerly from their own Ignorance But though God be a Person without a Body yet Christ has now and ever will have a Body an Human Body in His Person even the same Body which he took of the Blessed Virgin in which He Suffer'd Rose from the Dead and Ascended into Heaven And for G. W. to call this the Anthropomorphit or Muggletonian Conceit shews his Utter Ignorance and Blind Heresie for both these give a Body to God i. e. to God the Father to the very Nature of the Deity Which has no Relation to those who acknowledge only the Body of Christ but own no Body of the Father But G. W. puts both in the same Bottom and makes the one as absurd and contradictory as the other to shew how sound and orthodox he is in the Christian Faith And T. E. makes no other Defence for G. W. but his Old False Suppose that this Baptist was an Anthropomorphit Nay p. 53. he finds fault with G. K. for saying that There is no Church of England Man Presbyterian or Baptist that holds that notion That the Godhead has the shape of a Man T. E. tells him that he is too slight a Voucher for all of these Communions Insinuating as if some of them did hold that Notion against his own Heart which knows the contrary All the World knows it That all these Communions do Detest and Abominate any such Notion Nor can I tell him in all Christendom where to find except himself and Partners any Associates for the Muggletonians in this Point but only their Brethren the Bidleite Socinians or Vnitarians for Bidle was a Profess'd Anthropomorphit as he has Publish'd in his Socinian Catechism But T. E. takes great pains to prove that G. W. do's acknowledge in what Sophistical sense he understands and we too now understand them a Body of Christ now in Heaven Let him free himself then upon this Hypothesis from Muggletonism and he will at the same time
the notion of Inward Blood of the Light within they knew no more than Bruit Beasts Therefore Repent says he for God will suddenly overthrow your Faith i. e. in the outward Blood and your Imputative Righteousness too for the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness which He did at Jerusalem and without the Gates the Pope the Episcopal the Presbyterian Independants and Baptists shall fare all alike and shall sit down in Sorrow short of the Eternal Rest But the true Imputative Righteouss of Christ we own but it is Hid from you All Till the Lord do open an Eye within you i. e. To see the Righteousness of The Light within which is Imputed that is as some Learned Quakers have Expounded it before those I can name In-putted Putted within them Now here by Sol. Eccles's Words the Quakers have a Notion of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness which none in the World have but themselves Others mean by it The Merits of and Satisfaction made by the OVTWARD Obedience and Sufferings of the OVTWARD Jesus which are Imputed that is Apply'd to us by our INWARD Faith in Him and Obedience to His Laws So that here is both Outward and Inward The Object of our Faith and Meritorious Procuring Cause of our Redemption wholly outward or without us i. e. The Man who is also God Christ Jesus The Inward is the Application or Imputation of His Righteousness or Full and Compleat Obedience to the Law of God and Undergoing the Curse of it as the Satisfaction Requir'd for our Transgressions of it Apprehended and fully Believed on in our Hearts Now the Quakers opposing this by setting up the Inward shews that they wholly throw off the outward Else they do not oppose this But T. E. would fain have it to pass That they only speak against those who wholly throw off the Inward which none ever did He says p. 121. That they oppose those only who Deny Him Christ to be with Respect to these Offices At all within and shut Him Wholly out making the Work of Mediation Sanctification Justification and Salvation to be Only and Altogether outward Who ever made the Work of Sanctification c. to be WHOLLY outward This is the Impudent and Impious Fiction I have so oft taken Notice of of Imposing the most gross and Notoriously False Principles upon others that in such a Dust as they have Raised their own Vile Heresies may Pass Undiscover'd The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and the Shedding of His Blood as above Explain'd is the Common Belief of Christendom Now T. E. is Desired to tell us in his next what that Blood of Christ was and what the Imputation which Sol. Eccles said that the Pope the Episcopal the Presbyterian c. knew no more of than Bruit Beasts What other it could be than the Imaginary Blood and Sufferings of their Light within If it was any thing else they will please to tell us V. W. Burnet G. W's Antagonist seeing how they Endeavour'd to depreciate the Outward or Material Blood of Christ and turn all the Merit of the Redemption of Man to the Inward or Mystical Blood shed within them argues thus All things under the Law in the Type was Purged with Blood and this Blood was Material Blood and not Mystical and that Blood which Christ shed in Order to the Effecting the Salvation of Man must needs be Visible and Material Blood To this G. W. Replys as quoted by T. E. p. 118. To say that Material Blood was the Type of that which was Material is to give the Substance no Preheminence above the Type or like as if one should say one Type was the Type of another By this G. W. makes Christ's Outward or Material Blood not to be the Substance or Anti-Type whereof the Legal Sacrifices were a Type But that it self is a Type iâ—e of the Mystical Blood or Light within And his Proof is That no Material thing can be the Anti-Type and therefore that Christ's Material Blood could be no more than a Type and therefore that iâ— it was Typify'd by the Legal Sacrifices one Type was the Type of another which he makes the Absurdity And T. E. Retorts thus upon W. â—uâ—â—â— p. 122. This is to give the Substance no Preheminence above the Tyâ—e when the Substance or Anti-Type is Denyed to be Mystical and made Only Material because the Type thereof was only Material and not Mystical Ans 1st W. Burnet never said that Christ was ONLY Material as if there had been no Mystery in His Incarnation Passion c. no Christian ever said this This is the Quakers never failing Artifice of Imposing Manifest Lyes upon their Adversaries that they may Consute them But W B. Disputed only against those who would not Allow Christ's outward Material Body and Blood but only their own Light within to be that which was Typified by the Sacrifices under the Law and even by the Sacrifice of Christ Himself 2dly T. E's Consequence is not good for supposing that Christ was only Material it will not follow that His Body had no Preheminence above that of a Bullock such as was Sacrificed under the Law And none who had any Reverence for the Body and Blood of Christ Durst have made such a Blasphemâ—us Comparison 3dly None say that the Legal Sacrifices were only Material and nâ—t Mystical for they were Types of Christ and so Mystical So that T. E's Premises are all False and his Inference not Conclusive Next he comes to Excuse that Aphâ—rism of G. W's That one Type cannot be the Type of another And he says that G. W. in Words following those above cited applies this to Circumcision What then Let him apply it to what â—â— he will But do's he not apply it in this place to Christ Let any one that can Read English judge VI. G. Keith objects G. Ws Explanation of Acts xx 28. The Church of God which He Purchased with His own Blood viz. Now the Blood of God says G. W. 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 This Excludes the outward blood of Christ from being the Blood of the New Covenant And from so much as Relating to God unless G. W. holds with the Anthropomorphits and Muggleton That God is Material and has a Body For he says That the Blood of a Spirit can only be Spiritual To this says T. E. p. 131. 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 c. No. G. Keith nor any body else will say so except such as T. E. G. W. c. And this is nothing at all in Excuse of G. W. But exposes him and his Stickler much more For suppose Christ's Blood had some Spirituality in it and in some Sense might be called
oppos'd this Article of the Resurrection First His Excuse for the Quakers opposition to the Doctrine of the Resurrection He would as in Former Cases Deceive his Readers by Supposing against all Sense and Reason That we so understood the Resurrection as if the Body were to Rise in the same Grossness and Carnality that it has in this Life And that this was all that they oppos'd But such a gross Notion of the Resurrection no Christian ever held And G. Keith has sufficiently Explain'd himself even as quoted by T. E. p. 145. 146. That the Body when Raised again shall be the same as to Substance but not as to the Grossness and Carnality as now and did Illustrate it by the Chymical Extraction of Spirits out of Herbs c. and by the Change that is wrought in the White and Yolk of an Egg whereof a Chicken is made out of the same Substance Yet T. E. will not understand him But gives us a Dull Piece of Buffoonry and tells him p. 147. That if he and G. K. were Fellow-Commoners at a Chicken he would take the Substance and leave the Rest to G. K. And p. 148. That to make his Instance of the Extraction of Spirits to be Parallel with the Notion of the Resurrection which the Quakers oppos'd the Gross Body of the Herbs which he says may be made so Subtile and Volatile must still remain the same Gross Body of Herbs that it was before notwithstanding of its almost unconfinable subtilty by Chymical Operation And in the same page Explaining what sort of Resurrection they oppos'd says We have always Denyed the Body which shall be Raised to the same Body that Dyed with Respect to GROSSNESS and CARNEITY Which all that they oppos'd Denyed as much as they And p. 145. he says That which W. Penn reputed as absurd was that a Body should be Changed from an Earthly or Animal Body to an Heavenly Body and yet after such Change continue to be the same Earthly or Animal Body that it was before And Mr. Penn might Repute this to be Absurd And Disprove it Effectually and get the Victory over it and Triumph But he can name no body that ever held any such Absurdity That an Earthly Body Changed into an Heavenly Body may be the same Body it is True But that it should be the same Earthly Body none ever said It is a Contradiction it is to say that it is Changed and not Changed But how is it possible says Mr. Penn ibid. that it should be the same and not the same Very easily Is Mr. Penn the same Man as before he turn'd Quaker No sure There is a Great Change wrought in him Yet it is the same W. Penn or else He never Changed But says he in his Reason against Railing p. 134. If a thing can yet be the same and notwithstanding Changed for shame let us never make so much stir against the Doctrine of Trans-substantiation for the Absurdity of it is rather out-done than Equal'd by this Carnal Resurrection But Mr. Penn is so far out in his Reasoning here That a thing being Changed shews it to be the same If you Dye one piece of Cloth it is no change in another piece of Cloth And it were no change in the Cloth if it was not the same Cloth that was changed And if Mr Penn thinks Trans-substantiation a Less Absurdity than this we may yet see another change in him But to return to T. E. Notwithstanding of all that can be said or Done he still holds to it That we believe no Change of the Body in the Resurrection and puts it upon G. Keith p. 143. So that it seems says he according to G. Keith it must be a Terrestrial Elementary Body after it is Re-united to the Soul in Heaven Though G. Keith has not only said but Argu'd to the Contrary even as quoted in the same place by T. E. Therefore we see he is Resolv'd He will not Badge an Ace It must and shall be so For otherwise the Quakers are Undone Because if this be not the Notion of the Resurrection which they oppose then there is nothing left but that they down-right oppose that Doctrine of the Resurrection which has been all along Receiv'd in the Catholick Church and makes one of the Articles in her Creed But this will yet further appear in the second Point viZ. That T. E. has not only Negatively as in the first Point but even Affirmatively and in Plain Terms Deny'd the Resurrection in this his seeming Vindication of it By the Resurrection as ever Understood in the Church is Meant the Resurrection of the same Body which Dyed It is not otherwise a Re-surrection i. e. a Rising again For that cannot Rise which never Lay down and that which was not Before cannot be Again The Quakers will sometimes say as T. E. p. 151. that there is a Resurrection and that of Bodies and that there is an Heavenly Body Because these are Express words of Scripture But they Deny the Resurrection of our Dead Bodies Or that ever they will be made Heavenly Bodies What they Mean by a Heavenly Body themselves nor all the World can tell One of their She-Preachers told a Friend of mine That it was the Holy Ghost But that they Deny the Resurrection of the same Body which Dyed T. E. makes very Evident p. 149. where he Disputes That the Natural and the Spiritual Body are Two Distinct Bodies and not the same Body in Different States and Qualifications Thus he Expounds the Apostle's words 1 Cor. xv 44. 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 And The Body says he that is put into the Grave is a Natural Body but the Body that is Raised is a Spiritual Body and that none might think this Spiritual Body was the same he adds There is a Natural Body and there is a Spiritual Body Thus T. E. understands that Scripture and goes on to Prove it further by the Comparison of the first and second Adam and says that the Spiritual and Natural Body are no more the same Body than the first and second Adam are the same Man i. e. than Christ and Adam are the same And to shew their utter Ignorance of the Doctrine of the Resurrection T. E. p. 140. c. quotes W. Penn and G. W. and joins with them himself in Proposing as a Great Absurdity that the Soul hath not its Perfect and Compleat Happiness before its Re-Vnion with the Body and Ridicules this by saying that the Deceased Saints are in Heaven but by Halves That the Soul is in a state of Widowhood which is a sort of Purgatory And that it is Vnequal the Soul should be Rewarded so long before the Body its Beloved Companion But it is rather Punished if it be in Purgatory as these Men presume to
these Subjects which he call'd The Christian Quaker Against whom one Christopher Taylor Wrote what he stiles An Epistle of Caution to Friends Printed 1681. Where p. 4. he says And for his Calling his Book The Christian Quaker c. It is Notoriously Blasphemous Now this W. Rogers was then and is still a Quaker And at this day in Communion with them and own'd by them as one of the Friends But no matter for all that If he touch upon the Authority of the Quakers Inquisition or Plead for the Original Freedom of the Light in Particular Persons by which they throw off all Lawful Authority against the In-Errable Sanhedrin of Grace-Church-street if any be who he will Dare turn their Cannon upon themselves it is Notorious Blasphemy Or to Censure one word of G. Fox's Infallible Dictates what Higher Blasphemy What Greater Abomination What more Horrible Wickedness But if a Friend who submits Implicity to their Church and will not dispute Her Authority shall say or Preach or Print That the Blood of Christ is no more than the Blood of another Saint And this shou'd be Tax'd as Blasphemous O then have a Care Blasphemy is an Heavy Charge And they that understand it aright are not so Forward as G. K. it seems wou'd be to Brand Persons with it for every unsound Expression What one said severly of the Church of Rome That there was but one Sin in her Communion viz. To oppose the Authority of the Church Is much more true of the Quaker-Church which Asserts her Authority Higher and requires a more Implicite obedience than Pope or Conclave So far are they gone from the Original Principle by which they seduc'd Men from under all other Church-Authority Viz. The sufficiency and Independency of the Light in every Particular Person And consequently That all outward Impositions were Anti-Christian But that Principle like the Fair Pretences of Vsurpers is onely Calculated to Begin a Rebellion and withdraw our obedience from those to whom it is due Till they can get into the Saddle But then like Scaffolding it must stand no longer And such Deluded Subjects find when 't is too late That they have Chang'd their Masters But not their Slavery 2. This will appear yet more in the Quaker severity against those who dare to Speak or Write against them who shall Presume so much as to Countenance or any ways Contribute towards the least Mutiny or Rebellion from their Authority They fell upon the Printer one John Bringhurst a Quaker who Printed that Book above-Nam'd of W. Rogers's till he was forc'd to Sign a Condemnation of himself for what he had done Which he has Printed and Prefixed with his Name to it to C. Taylor 's Epistle of Caution mention'd before And so made his Peace But John Barnet a Quaker-Merchant who had sold some of W. Rogers's Books And refus'd to Sign such an Instrument of Condemnation against himself according to their Discipline because he had done it as the Printer too alledged before their Church had Censur'd it And being wrote by a known Quaker And the Title of The Christian Quaker upon it there was no Ground to suspect it Yet all that wou'd not do he must without disputing come under them And Condemn himself tho he thought himself Innocent Which because he was not free to do they without more Ceremony Excommunicated him and he stands still Excommunicated ever since the 4th Day of the Eleventh Month. 1681. On which Day their Brutun Fulmâ—n bears Date and was given forth from The Monthly Meeting at Demonshire-House And it bears no other Crime against J. B. But his felling of this Book which they said was Prejudicial to the Truth by Corrupting Peoples Mâ—nds tending also to draw them into Disesteem of many of the Lords Servants c. For it told of some of G. Fox's Tricks and others And which was Intolerable Prov'd what he said For which The Epistle of Câ—â—ion above-nam'd Pâ—â—â— Says mildly This Cursed Spirit of Satan is now entered into the Heart and Soul of W. Rogers and such of his Abettors as own the Printing and Publishing of his wicked Bâ—ok aforesaid wherein he has Accused the Faithful Brethren at Large If he had onely said That Christ was no more than anâ—ther Man he had come off and been Excus'd by the whole Fraternity and Reperenc'd as well as Solomon Eccles But to Level G. Fox with other Mortals Or touch the Faithfull Brethren To draw Men into Disâ—esteem of these the Lords Servants This was no less than Blasphemy And to be Prosecuted without Mercy And not onely Authors but Printers and Publishers must be struck with their Ecclesiastical Tâ—under But in Pensilvania where the Law was in their own hands this did not serve turn For there they gave forth Carnal Warrants Seiz'd and Imprison'd Printers and Publishers of what was wrote against them And improv'd it like other Inquisitors to a Design against the Government and Try'd some of them for their Lives But their Chief Governor being superseded and Colonel Fletcher a Church of England Man coming in his Room before they had run through all the For as of their Process he put a sudden stop to their Proceedings and this has left us onely to Guess whether all they did was meerly out of Love and but In Terrorem to Fright their opposers into Better manners However some were Ruin'd by it and William Bradford the Printer forc'd to â—ly out of their Dominions to New York where he now Lives If you wou'd know what was the Cause of all this wrath It was onely for Expostulating with them whether their Granting Commissions and â—iring Indians to Fight for the Recovery of a Sâ—â—p the Pâ—â—ates had taken from them was not contrary to their formerly declar'd Principle of the Vn-Lawfulness of using the Carnal weapon tho â—n their own defence This they constru'd to be an Implicite Dis-Arming the Government of the Right or Power to Muntaâ—â— it self And by this Innuendo they Prosecuted Printers Publishers c. As above is told Of which there are full Narratives and the tryals in Print Published by the Persons concernâ—d to which I refer the Reader 3. But tho they Guarded so severely against any Printing or Publishing against themselves Yet they restrained not to Print and Publish every day most virulent Invectives against the other Protestants and dispers'd them by order of their Yearly Meetings for the Propagation of Truth as they called it And not onely what they cou'd do themselves against us but they took pains to Re-Print and Publish the Bitterest and most Venemous Darts which the Church of Rome threw at the Protestants especially of the Church of England And that visibly with Approbation and siding with them against the Protestants There was a Man of great Name among the Quakers Josiah Coal who wrote a Book call'd The Whore un-vailed Printed 1665. Wherein he undertakes to prove the Quakers to be the true Church against the Church of Rome