of this visible Earth What that part was unless they will say it was that Mountain in Yorkshire he mentions where he had his Vision but surely that could not be Paradise for the Barrenness of it A third Evidence for me and against these Men that have given out this Book is William Shewen a great Man among them lately deceased who to perswade us of his Infallibility hath told us Treatise of Thoughts pag. 14. That he cannot write contrary to Scripture being in unity with them And pag. 19 20. plainly tells us That the Man was not deceived with the Beauty of an Apple or some other outward Fruit nor by the Talk or Perswasion of any Creature like our English Snakes as vain Man in his carnal Mind imagins So we see his Censure of G. Whitehead and J. Pennington that they are vain who have so imagined in their Carnal Minds How G. Whitehead will clear himself of this and many other gross Self-contradictions I leave to the Tryal Pag. 36. Their Abuse and Perverson is manifest in seeking to fix a Contradiction on me for affirming in my Book Help in time of Need That the Scriptures are not that Word to wit that living essential Word more than a Map or Description of Rome or London is Rome or London or the Image of Caesar is Caesar or Bread and Wine is the Body and Blood of Christ And for Querying Truth Advanced Que. 5. Whether it may not be said there is one Baptism as that there is one Land ca led America though the Map or Figure of it is also called America even as there is but one Spiritual Baptism with the Holy Ghost though the outward Baptism with Water is also called Baptism Now beside that this last is only a Query but let it pass for a Position let the Intelligent judge what Contradiction is here or least Inconsistency Contradictories can never be true but both these are true 1. The Scriptures are not that Living and Essential Word which is Christ this is a Truth that all called Christians acknowledge But that they may be called the Word as a Map of America is called America I never denyed but have oft said and which is agreeable to many Protestant Writers who have used such a phrase a Map or Scheme of the Gospel Nor is the Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ though it be so called Now if these Men deny this to be a Truth they must hold with Papists that the Bread and Wine is really the Body and Blood of Christ 2. That though there is but one Spiritual Baptism yet that the outward Baptism with Water is also called Baptism is also true for John's Baptism with Water is called in Scripture the Baptism of John And after they have thus shown their own Folly and Ignorance in a scoffing Spirit they call me Rabby though its the known way of the Quakers not to call a Man Master that is in Hebrew Rabbi Matth. 23. 7 8. yet to Indulge a Scoffing Humour they will transgress their Rule Here this Rabbi say they hath foiled himself sorely But let the Intelligent judge whether they have not foiled themselves sorely all along their abusive and scandalous Book that excepting these Sound Passages and Testimonies they have collected out of my Books which greatly make for me and show that I am constant in my Principles as to the Faith of Christ contains little else than a heap of Falsities and Perversions But that they say He once boasted in his Serious Appeal pag. 29. That he hath the Gifts both of Sound Knowledge and Expression with manifold other Mercies bestowed on him In this they falsly accuse me for there is nothing in that place that either expresses or implyeth any boast in the least For whereas my Opponent had charged me with marveous Ignorance Falshood and Giddiness I said among other things I doubt not but judicious and impartial Readers who compare his Books and mine will have another judgment concerning me and acknowledge to God's praise the Gifts both of Sound Knowledge and Expression with his manifold other Mercies bestowed on m for which I desire to Praise him forever But to make it look like a Boast they leave out these last Words and also the foregoing Words and its evident I used these Words only Comparatively and not Absolutely for I never judged my self absolutely Infallible nor have been a Self-Praiser as too many of them are and I may now say let their Books who have appeared against me of late as W. Penn G. Whitehead T. Ellwood and others be compared with mine and I doubt not but judicious and impartial Readers will have another judgment concerning me than these my prejudiced Adversaries and acknowledge to God's Praise the Gifts of sound Knowledge and Expression that God hath given me for which I desire forever to Praise him but this I understand only Comparatively for I never had such thoughts of my self nor have but that the Sentiments of my Mind and Expressions of my Mouth and Pen in divers things may admit of Correction though as to the main every true Christian as well as I may say We have a Sound Knowledge and Faith And whereas they pass another Scoff upon me pag. 34. calling my Book Truth Advanced His bulky Book which is but of small bulk in comparison of the bulky Volumns of G. Whitehead W Penn and divers others I am not doubtful to say that Intelligent Readers who compare their great bulky Books with that one small bulky Book of mine will say there is more Sound matter of Doctrine in it and the Contents of it are more for Edification than in their great bulky Books Yet I have been so modest a thing I never found in any of them to acknowledge that in some things I may receive some Correction and better information See my Pref. Truth Adv. pag. 45. Pag 44. They quarrel my expounding Adam and Eve's hiding themselves among the Trees of the Garden to be in a Tree of the Garden and that one Tree may be well understood to be the divine Mercy or Clemency I had said in my Book Truth Adv. the Hebrew doth bear it in a Tree of the Garden pag. 25. But I must excuse their Ignorance in the Hebrew that they will not admit of this true Translation And are they not Carnally Minded to think that Adam thought he could hide himself either among the Trees of an outward Garden or in any one Tree of it so as God might not see him this is to think at least that Adam was an Anthropomorphit or Mugletonian as having such a gross Opinion that God had bodily Eyes as a Man and that an outward Tree could hide him from God And their Argument is as foolish against my saying That Tree might be the Divine Mercy or Clemency They say The Divine Mercy is in Christ Jesus and if they were got there when they heard the Voice of the Lord God walking in
the putting on the New Man is nothing else but the putting off the Old Man and so at this rate the Scripture is vain and false which doth distinguish them as much as betwixt the putting off a filthy Garment and the putting on a new clean Garment But if on better consideration he be ashamed of his rash Assertion and come to acknowledg that the Soul by Regeneration not only is purified from Sin but wonderfully changed and transformed from Natural or Animal to Spiritual from Earthly to Heavenly and yet the same in Substance let him acknowledg that the mighty Power of God through Christ that thus hath changed the Soul retaining the same substance can and will change the low Body of a Saint and fashion it like the Glorious Body of Christ as the Scripture plainly Testifieth Phil. 3. P. 34. But nothing will satisfy him unless I can demonstrate how a Natural and Corruptible Substance can be turned into a Spiritual one Well if I can demonstrate that this actually was done will that satisfy him I fear his unbelief will still harden his Heart against this excellent Doctrine of holy Scripture But however I will try a little more to Convince him The Food which our Saviour received into his Body was it not before he received it corruptible or to use his Phrase a Corruptible Natural Substance Yea surely it was and what part of that Food became part of his Body and Flesh it was turned or changed into incorruptible for as his Flesh saw no Corruption so without all doubt it is at present an incorruptible Substance which G. W. after his former wrangling hath acknowledged Malice of the Indepen Agent p. 17. P. 34. His wrangling and quibling from his own gross misunderstanding of some places of Scripture helps him nothing as that David slept with his Faethers and saw Corruption Acts 13. 36. And that of Job I have said of Corruption thou art my Father If he will take these Scriptures strictly and literally he must as much contend against the Immortality of the Soul as the Resurrection of the Body the Mortal Body of Man is truly said to be Corruptible because it consists of two heterogeneous parts the one Noble the other ignoble to wit the Husk Dross or Cortex and after the Separation of the Noble from the Ignoble it is not corrupt but pure yet at the Resurrection it is raised up to an higher Dignity and made immortal and incorruptible as it neither shall nor can return to be united with that drossy part again and so is truly incorruptible as well as immortal But he will not leave off until as the Man-Eater or Anthropophagus eateth Mans Flesh he Eat or swallow up with his devouring Throat thereby thinking to destroy it the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body And he joyneth with Atheists and Sadducees here in arguing against the Resurrection of the Body being the same in Substance from the Man-Eaters And to my Answer to their Objection from the Man-Eaters he Replyeth first Repeating some of my words but omitting the Explanatory part I shall therefore cite them as they are in my Book p. 118. Truth Adv. I say Allowing there is a great change or renewing of the gross material and visible Parts of Mans Body yet the Radical Body or Radix and Principal Substance of the Body remaineth the same and is of a durable and lasting Nature and tho it may be encreased in Man while he liveth yet it is not diminished nor the parts of it separated asunder and tho Man-Eaters may Eat the gross part of Man's Body yet that more subtil and invisible part they cannot nor can that which belongeth to one be given to another hence by way of Allegory and Metaphor it is called Bone in Scripture Isa 66. 14. From this most nonsensically he infers That I affirm the Man-eaters Eat the Accidents of Man's Body but not the Substance and will needs have it the same or equally absurd with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation But this sort of quibling comes partly from his gross ignorance and partly from the perversion and prejudice of his Spirit for I neither said nor thought that the Man-Eaters eat only the Accidents but I distinguished betwixt the Radix and principal Substance of Man's Body and that which was but the drossy part which is also a substance and if he deny it to be a substance to wit the Dross or Drossy part of any Body which is frequently separated from the Noble Volatile part by Chimical Operations and otherwise he is guilty of the Popish false Notion of Transubstantiation and not I for the Dross is frequently separated from that more Noble Substance that it was mingled with and if he says that Dross is not a Substance but an Accident then here is the Popish Doctrine affirmed by him with a witness But let this Miller-Philosopher who as the Shooemaker goeth beyond his Last so goeth beyond his Sphere of Knowledge in all his undertaking against these great Truths of the Christian Faith tell me doth he think that a Man-eater can properly speaking eat Iron Silver Gold Lead if he swallow it down will it not go forth at the draught with the Excrement and yet is no part of the Excrement This is a thing usually known that some to save their Gold from Robbers have swallowed it down but did they eat it If he say nay then I say to him no more can a man-eater eat that radical and principal substance of a Saints body to make it a part of his body for as every body has a distinct seed so the Radix of every body is a distinct Radix P. 36. But behold the man's great hypocrisie after all his so much contending against the Resurrection of the Body and charging the Scripture it self with inconsistency and contradiction yet he has the impudence to say we firmly believe there shall be a Resurrection both of the Just and Unjust And again he saith We do not think it a necessary business to be curiously prying into the manner of it Neither saith he do we find the Primitive Christians come to any Result about what their Bodies should be But this is a plain Contradiction to the holy Scripture That the Primitive Christians believed and all true Christians do now believe which saith This corrrptible shall put on incorruption and this mortal shall put on immortality Now what is this mortal It is not the Soul which he thinks I suppose is not mortal therefore it must be the Body And concerning the manner of it the Scripture is very plain and express It is sown natural it is raised spiritual it is sown in corruption it is raised in incorruption it is sown in weakness it is raised in power it is sown in dishonour it is raised in honour P. 36. But he goeth on still querying 1. If it was the common belief of the Primitive Christians that the very same matter and substance of this corruptible
justices but Criminal Judges a thing no where so practised that I know any where in Christendom beside But however whether G. K. was rightly informed in these Particulars or not that was not the Thing he was fined for but for calling Sam. Jennings an ignorant presumptuous and insolent man and saying he was too high and imperious in worldly Courts And this was and is well known to be a Truth And he since remains sufficiently under that Character And have not many called Quakers used greater liberty than all this to reprove the Pride of greater Men in Magistracy here in England in Times past under their sharp Persecutions And for a witness to it let the Trial of William Penn and William Mead Printed at London declare as well as other Printed Trials and Books not a few But it is but waste of Time and Paper to answer to all his Impertinencies One thing is greatly worth noticing That though these men showed great warmth to fine imprison and otherwse prosecute for some pretended Offences against them that were had they been real but small and had better become them to have passed them by being not against them as Magistrates but as Quakers and Neighbours Yet they did not only tolerate but support and countenance Persons guilty of blasphemous Speeches against both God and Christ and with an unbounded Liberty did abuse me in particular as well as my Friends one of them in a publick Meeting calling me Wicked Fellow another calling me Ranter wicked Man while I was in Prayer on my Knees in the Meeting And though they would not allow us to distinguish betwixt them as being Quakers and Magistrates yet they did so distinguish when they told us They were not for fighting as Quakers but as Magistrates which how apt and proper a distinction it was for them to use I leave to the intelligent to judge Page 46. He saith Now to be plain This is to shew That G. K. may be as well as others have been a man of great Knowledge in Chronology yet being led by a Wrong Spirit what doth it profit But how hath he proved that G. K. is a man of a Wrong Spirit What One Evil Thing hath he proved against me in all his book either in Doctrine or Conversation I know none Though I have proved him guilty of many And taking it for granted That G. K. on extraordinary great Provocations and Abuses did drop once or twice some unadvised yet true Expressions doth this prove him to be a man of a Wrong Spirit He hath been more ingenuous than all his Adversaries who have far exceeded him in heat and hard words to acknowledge it which I never knew that any of them did Page 47. He pretends he has got a great Advantage against me upon the Account of a Citation out of my book called Truths Defence page 169. which he recites though not so truly as is in my book But however as it is I agree to it as to matter and substance And though he saith Page 53. That they do not question that in the least that G. K. is of another mind now It is a false Insinuation I remain in the same mind still That I would have nothing urged nor pressed as Articles of Faith but what is delivered to us in plain express Scripture-words which is the substance of that large Citation And it is as false in him to say That this was so often desired but could not find place viz to take their Confession in express words for this we never refused but I said again and again We shall take your Confession in Scripture-words as many can bear me witness provided ye will condemn your Errors that are contrary either to express Scripture-words or to the plain and manifest Sense of them obvious to every intelligent Christian But this they would never do And whereas he querieth How know we that they have a Sense contrary to Scripture-words I answer They have sufficiently discovered it not only by One or Two unsound Expressions but multitudes of them as their Letters and Manuscripts there and the Printed Books here sufficiently prove And we need go no further for a Proof than the most gross and Antichristian Expressions and Sayings of Caleb Pusie himself in this very Treatise For whereas he hath plainly affirmed p. 15. ad finem That Jesus of Nazareth cannot be something else than the Light Power and Spirit within Now can there be any thing more contrary to express Scripture than this Assertion Was not Jesus of Nazareth a real man consisting of Soul and Body in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily and who above measure was filled with all fullness of Grace and Truth And is that Body and that Soul and that Fullness nothing else but the Light within us Oh Abominable Nonsense and Perversion and Contradiction to Scripture and all true Reason He may as much say The great body of water in the Ocean with the Channels and Places that receive it is nothing else than the River Thames and that little narrow Tract of Earth in which it runs And at this Rate whatever is declared of Christ as born at Bethlem or conversing with his Disciples in Judea teaching them and working mighty Signs and Miracles among them And lastly Crucified on the Tree of the Cross at Golgotha must be understood of nothing else but the Light Power and Spirit within If this be not as great and gross Ranterism as ever was among men I leave all sober Christians to Judge Again seeing he pretends so much to express Scripture let him tell me 1. Where doth the Scripture say That Jesus of Nazareth is nothing else than the Light Power and Spirit within I am sure it is no where to be found in the Holy Bible but in Antichrist's Bible it may be found and is found 2. Where doth the Scripture say That the Light within is sufficient to salvation without any thing else or that it is an Error to say The Light within is not sufficient to salvation without something else Which Two being contradictory if the one be false the other must be true 3dly Where doth the Scripture say it is sufficient to Eternal Salvation only to believe and obey the Light within without all Knowledge and Faith of Christ Crucified and raised again seeing the Scripture plain contrarywise makes it the Terms of Salvation in great part to confess with the mouth and believe with the heart that God hath raised Jesus from the Dead Rom. 10. 9 10. 4thly Where doth the Scripture say The Blood that was shed without the Gates of Jerusalem is not that Blood whereby we are justified which was John Humphreys Assertion a Minister in Pensilvania which we could never get him nor any of you all to condemn and no wonder for G. W. in his book Light and Life hath said as much 5thly Where doth the Scripture say The bodies of the Saints at the Resurrection shall be
knowledge of And but that it would be too tedious a digression and not so proper here I could easily shew how weak their Arguments are against it as it is common to them as well as others to use weak Arguments to defend Truth and oppose what they call Errour And let them make the worst of it they can suppose that twelve Years ago most of which time since they have owned me in Unity with them I was in an Error in holding the Revolutions will that prove I hold them still And seeing they judge me changed greatly in my Principles of late Years why may they not judge me also changed in that Or what ground have they to think I am not If they say because I have not cleared my self of the Charge I say I have done it sufficiently several times in Print and oft by Word of Mouth That I hold it not either as any Article of the Christian Faith or as any positive Dogma in Philosophy yet I dare not nor will not positively condemn it universally until I see better and stronger Arguments than they have as yet brought against it And if it be so great and dangerous an Error why do they not refute it in Print and Answer to all these things brought in favour of it as a probable Hypothesis in the 200 Queries which hath been in Print upwards of 12 Years For they have Scribled and Printed many Books on Matters far less material than this is But since G. Whitehead hath Printed that which I committed to him as a Secrecy without my Consent it s well it was no such Matter as might have brought any real Infamy on me it s too probable if he could have revealed any Secret that would have taken away my Life he would have done it But I had no such Secret to impart to him or any that I need be afraid or ashamed for their revealing it Pag. 33. In their Head on the Glorified Bodies of Christ and the Saints they are Guilty of such gross Perversions as none but Men infatuated would be They infer That I have very Carnal Conceptions of the Resurrection at present like those Sadduces Matth 22 29. And why Because I say in Truth Adv. pag. 11. Paul distinguisheth between the Belly and the Body saying God will destroy the Belly but he doth not say he will destroy the Body for seeing after the Resurrection of the Dead Men shall need none of the Meats of this corruptible World nor shall they need a Belly to put them in as Guts and Draught or any gross parts as Men have now Let the Reader observe these mens Infatuation and Nonsense Do these Words prove that I have Carnal Conceptions of the Resurrection like those Sadduces Did not the Sadduces altogether deny the Resurrection But doth my saying that after the Resurrection of the Dead they shall need neither Belly Guts nor Draught nor any gross parts prove that they shall have them O astonishing Blindness And they are again guilty of the same Perversion or rather downright Forgery in their pag. 34. ad finem by their most false insinuating against me as if I did hold That the resurrection-Resurrection-Bodies of the Saints shall have Belly Guts and Draught For say they had G. K. retained these Sentiments of Spiritual Bodies when he wrote his bulky Book stiled Truth Advanced he needed not have told us of Belly Guts and Draught But how did I tell them that Men after the Resurrection shall have them By no means but that they should not have them because they shall have no need of them and surely what they need not they shall not have as not to need in Scripture-phrase is not to have Rev. 21. 23. But that I remain in my Ancient Faith of the Resurrection-Body as formerly is clear from that very Book cited by them to wit That the Body that is raised shall be a Spiritual Body not gross material Flesh but wonderfully changed in manner and condition yet retaining the same Substance the Husk or drosly part excepted see particularly pag. 113 and 119. ad finem And that this was my Faith thirty Years ago is evident from my Answer to the 30 Queries of the Bishop of Aberdene above-mentioned and particularly noticed in the Collection of R. Barclay's Books called Truth Triumphant pag. 2. In which Answer that was extant thirty Years ago I expresly say in answer to the Bishop's Question which was Shall that same Body in Substance which dyeth be raised again at the last Day Answer Yea as far as a Natural Body and Spiritual Body is the same It is sown a Natural Body it is raised a Spiritual Body Where it is plain I both believed and declared it shall be the same Body in Substance that dyeth and shall be raised though wonderfully changed in Condition and Quality from Natural to Spiritual And this Answer was given in the Year 1666. being the third Year after I came among the Quakers and which I gave conform to John Crooks Words in his Truths Principles wherein I judged him before ever I saw him to be of the same Mind and Faith with me in that great Article of the Christian Faith as well as in others and since that I have spoke with him and had it from his own Mouth Pag. 35. As to their 5th Head concerning Water-Baptism and the Supper whereon they spend seven pages reciting some Passages in my former Books with their Uncharitable Observations and they are at great pains to show an Inconsistency and Contradiction betwixt my former Books and my late Book called Truth Advanced in reference to Water-Baptism and the Supper and that from some few Queries I proposed at the end of that Book only proposed by way of Query and not as Positive Conclusions for I expresly distinguish them from the Positive Conclusions going before being each ten in number And as to the Ten Positions I judge many or most called Quakers of the more intelligent sort will stand by them and may well enough own them without any Inconsistency to their former Principles And here I appeal to the Impartial Readers whither it be not great disingenuity in them to charge these Queries simply proposed by me as Queries but plainly distinguished from Positions upon me as plain Positions when to some of their unsound Assertions expressed as Queries but whose plain Sense did import them to be Positions they have made that excuse They did but Query as lately at Turners-Hall some of G. Whitehead's Advocates did plead in his behalf Is this to do as they would be done by And how extreamly Uncharitable they show themselves not to me only but to all Christendom in so severely accusing me for my Charitable Title to these Queries saying tending to Love Peace and Unity among all the Sincere Professors of the Lord Jesus Christ who hold the Head and build on the true Foundation and yet differ in some lesser matters they so severely tax me for this as