I did neglect to hear them to tell it to the Church that they might have dealt with me But he having done none of this only showing somewhat of his private dissatisfaction with the Hypothesis which he could not charge upon me as positive as neither he did Is not he much more blame-blame-worthy and hath he not brought a great Reflection on himself and also on George Fox that they did so Connive at my supposed great Error and so long yea and for all that time thereafter to own me as a Friend in Truth as they both did and writ to me from England to America calling me dear George Keith yea G. Fox in his Letter particularly desired me to visit Friends in New-England and to travel in the Service of Truth in that Country as accordingly I did until now that G. Whitehead hath risen up against me and raised up also many with him against me for no other Cause as is well known but for opposing the Vile Errors I found among them both there in America and here in England And whereas some in Print and George Whitehead in writing has accused me of Hypocrisie for having formerly called him dear George Whitehead and since that I have changed my thoughts concerning him If it be no Hypocrisie in him to have formerly called me so and yet now to have other thoughts of me why should he make it hypocrisie in me to have done but that to him which he hath done to me Doth not this prove him guilty of Hypocrisie with a witness But leaving G. Whitehead a while let me return a little to the Book Postscript pag. 32. When they cannot by fair and direct means prove their charge against me to render me odious they essay to do it by unfair that is by their Consequences not so much from my Words but from the Words of Scripture as from my saying in Truth Advanced pag. 23. As it is observed by some neither Adam nor any of his Posterity living a compleat Thousand Years which in Scripture signifies sometimes a Day Psal 90. It may be said he lived not a whole Day Now say they that this is a Principle of the Revolutionists is plain to all that know their Principles and that it is his also is manifest But what a lame Evidence and Argument is this let all intelligent Persons judge If they had said It is the alone Principle of the Revolutionists and proved it so they had argued somewhat to the purpose Sure I am Just in Martyr held it for I have read it in him Doth it therefore follow that he was a Revolutionist If it doth then the Notion of the Revolutions is not so great a Crime as to render a Man an Apostate or gone from Truth And not only Justin Martyr but many others Worthy Antient and late Christian Writers have held the same Principle that a thousand Years in Scripture sometimes signifies a Day and particularly the renowned L. Neper of Mareheston in his Exposition on the Revelation Surely these Men have greatly missed their aim who thinking to disgrace and reproach me with the Revolutions by allowing me so good company Men highly esteemed for their Christian Piety have rather contrary to their Designs greatly honoured me but Malice is always Blind and throws its Possessor into the Ditch he makes for another And if the reckoning a Thousand Years for a Day prove the Revolutions I shall not only have the above-named worthy Persons for my Companions but David or as others think Moses see the Title of that Psalm and Peter who both so reckoned Psalm 90. 4. compared with 2 Pet. 3. 8. But that these Men may still give me more good Company they will needs have Paul to bear me company in the Notion of the Revolutions and long after him Beza a Renowned Man among Prot stants both for Piety and Learning for thus they argue from my Words or rather the Words of Paul and Beza's Translation pag. 42. Truth Adv. who are under the Law and obey it according to what their Ability doth reach they are held there as in a Custody or Place of Safety as the Man slayer in the City of Refuge in the time of the Law till the Faith came to be revealed This Word say they till the Faith came to be revealed is a plain Indication of his Notion though he dare not defend it for they dying in this City of Refuge say they when should the Faith be revealed to them except in some other Revolution Now that they make Paul and Beza equally alike guilty with me in the case of the Revolutions will be plain if the Words of Paul Gal. 3. 22. 23. be but well considered Let us look back a little to the 19th Verse Wherefore then serveth the Law it wa◠added because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom thē Promise was made This Seed was Christ according to the Flesh together with the Spiritual Blessings of Life that accompanied him Then Vers 22. But the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin not only Jews but Gentiles who had no other Law but the Law within that the promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe But before Faith came we were kept under the Law Note Beza doth excellently well translate it according to the Greek sub legis presidio in his Latin Transsation i. e. Under the safeguard of the Law we were kept shut up unto the Faith which should afterwards be revealed Where a manifest Allusion is made or rather a real Exposition by way of Anti-Type answering to that Old Testament-Type of the Man-slayer that was kept safe in the Custody of the City of Refuge though as a Prisoner or confined until he heard of the Death of the High Priest Now let the Intelligent Reader judge whether there be any real difference in Sense betwixt Paul's Words Unto the Faith which should afterwards be revealed and my Words Till the Faith come to be revealed and if my Words infer the Revolutions do not Paul's Words infer them as much or rather more he using the Word afterwards which I use not Well if they judge me guilty of the Revolutions and condemn me to be an Apostate and gone from Truth on that account while they give me so good Company as Moses David Peter and Paul I need not fear great Reproach to fall on me for the same But in very deed they said well that I dare not defend it as I never did but this not daring to defend it did not proceed in me nor doth from fear of being defamed for if I were perswaded and assured of it as I am of the great Truths of the Christian Faith I should not fear to avouch it But seeing I pretend to no such assurance in the case as I never did nor ever was positive to conclude it so much as in my secret thoughts therefore I let it alone neither justifying nor condemning what I have no certain
Christ is said by Paul to have been kept secret since the world began but now is made manifest and by the Scriptures of the Prophets according to the commandment of the everlasting God made known to all Nations for the obedience of faith Rom. 16. 25 26. Now what is made manifest but expres And what is kept secret but implicit So that this very distinction which my ignorant Adversaries blame in me as new and odd is the very distinction of Paul in equivalent terms And seeing they will not allow that distinction as applied to the Knowledge of Christ without us of express and implicit it is plain they hold that not any Knowledge not the least grain of the knowledge of Christ without men is universally necessary to Salvation neither express nor implicit which how Antichristian and Unscriptural it is I leave to all true Christians to judge But why will they not allow it as well with respect to the knowledge of Christ without us as of Christ within us Will they say that Men may be saved without all knowledge of Christ within either express or implicit If yea then we shall see what ignorant Persons they allow shall be saved and what a prodigious Ignorance they establish If nay then they must answer me with the same distinction in the same terms or in terms equilvalent and if they use that or any other the like distinction it shall be found new enough to them at least as new or rather much more new as that I have used in this case nor needs G. Whitehead blame me for using new Distinctions seeing both himself and William Penn have used them in several Cases to serve a turn a phrase they apply to me pag. 19. as in excusing Geo. Fox his saying Christ is not distinct from the Saints the Soul is a part of God And when they excuse Is Pennington's saying ' Can outward Blood cleanse And George Whitehead his excusing his former Sayings in divers of his old Books ' that Christ is not in all Men. He comes off with this distinction of late saying ' He is not in all Men unitedly or by union Which distinction I used not only in my Book of Universal Grace which was written in the Year 1669. though not printed till the Year 1671. but also in my Answer to the Thirty Queries sent by the Bishop of Aberden expresly mentioned in the Preface to Robert Barclay's Answer to VVilliam Mitchel in his Preface to it called Truth cleared of Calumnies The which Answer of mine to the said Thirty Queries was given in the Year 1666. before R. B. printed any thing or before he was a Quaker And I the rather mention this my Answer to these Thirty Queries because in these chief things which my Adversaries charge me to be changed in my Faith is the same now as it is there declared as well as in my other Printed Books which Answer I have in Manuscript writ 30 Years ago Copies of which are in several Hands and which I shall be ready to show to any sober Enquirers And what pittiful unsound and odd as well as new Distinctions hath G. Whitehead used to excuse G. Fox his saying Your Gospel Matthew Mark Luke and John are Dust and the Serpents Meat He saying It was to be meant of the Ink and Paper which would turn to Dust. But who did ever call the Ink and Paper the Gospel or who did ever think that the Serpent which is the Devil doth eat Ink and Paper Oh for shame let these Men cease to blame me for new Distinctions when they have made so many False and Nonsensical new Distinctions more Foolish than ever were heard of And his excusing Solomon Eccles Blasphemy in saying The Blood that came out of Christ's Side was no more than the Blood of another Saint Behold his most Unlearned and Foolish Distinction inconsistent with and contradictory to that known great Principle of the People called Quakers That Christ dyed for all Men and shed his Blood for all His meaning was said G. Whitehead as to Papists and you viz. Baptists whose Minds are Carnol But another idle impertinent Cavil they make against the distinction of express Knowledge of Christ's Death c. and implicit is ' That I use that Word express as a word of Course and of no ' Force as when I said That many of Adam's Posterity suffer disadvantage by his ' Disobedience who never knew it expresly But that ever any perished by Adam's Sin who never knew it either expresly or implicitly as they alledge seeing they bring no proof of it I reject as false and fictitious It is evident from the Heathen Philosophers Writings and particularly from Plato that they knew at least implicitiy the Fall of Man and the degeneration of Mankind in general for Plato not only mentions the Fall of Man but Tò 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. an imbred Evil in Men that is born with them And how can any Impartial Reader that reads my Books when I so oft caution restrict and limit the Words on that subject with the term Express and at other times with the Words clear Distinct Knowledge and at other times with the Words Historical Outward Knowledge all which and the like Words R. Barelay hath used in several Places of his Apology after my Method and divers Years after I used that Method of Expression and I well know we were of One Mind in that thing and I published his Latin Theses in Holland first of all and carried them over with me out of Scotland at his desire whereof I can bring sufficient Witness and we used to Discourse together frequently on that Subject and both of us on purpose used these Cautions and Restricted Words as express clear distinct historical outward and in the outward viz. in the outward History or Letter to signifie that we did not intend that any were saved with Eternal Salvation without all Knowledge or Faith of Christ without though without the express they might and still may where it is not revealed And they are as Nonsensical and Ignorant in seeking to marr my Distinction by falsly alledging I have marred it by their dictator-like saying There is no Medium between knowing very darkly in Vails and Figures implicitly in a very obscure Degree and not knowing at all pag. 15. But to confute their Ignorance let any Man of common Sense answer me Is there no Medium between knowing very Darkly and not knowing at all Is the Particle or little Word very Superlative in the highest Degree or is it not rather Comparative Is there no medium betwixt a Mans being very ignorant and knowing nothing at all If there be none then by George Whitehead's Logick who hath either writ this Book that I answer or approved it because he is very Ignorant as I have sufficiently proved he knoweth nothing at all But surely the most ignorant may and do know some things therefore G. W. is as ignorant in true
Light Citing Rector Corrected pag. 150. But where is my Contradiction here Did I ever say That men may believe in the Light or Christ within and never at any time from first to last believe in Christ without either expresly or implicitly For this they bring no proof and I believe they can bring none Fifthly In pag. 26. they most Ignorantly and Antichristianly blame my sound Christian Assertion where I say The work of Sanctification is ascribed in Scripture to Christ's Blood and Sufferings as well as to his Inward Appearance and to both indispensably necessary and to Faith therein Thus we see plainly they place all upon Christ within and nothing upon Christ without O bold Antichristianism published in the Face of a Nation prosessing Christianity But wherein I have contradicted that Assertion they show not 6thly They bring me in guilty of a Contradiction for saying Nor is the outward Name that which saveth but the inward Nature Virtue and Power signified thereby which was made manifest in them c. But they no where shew how I contradict this I say still It is not the outward Name either of God or Christ that saveth without the Inward Nature Virtue and Power which Inward Nature Virtue and Power dwelt and dwells in all Fullness in the Man Christ Jesus and of whose fullness we all receive and Grace for Grace and all that believe in him who hath the fullness they receive rich supplies out of his Fulness daily of more Grace which they that do not believe in him do not receive Seventhly They charge me with Contradiction because formerly I said That these Gentiles had the Gospel preached unto them who were not under any outward Administration of the Gospel But they bring no place to prove where I contradict this Assertion as I do not at present contradict it but own it in a true sense and the former Distinction will serve here of express and implicit and I still grant that the Gospel implicitly is Preached to all Men in some measure after some sort Samuel Fisher calls it a Gospel-Dram somewhere in his Rusticus ad Academicos as I have read it in him but few have obeyed it as so preached but whoever did obey it I question not but they were accepted But here let it be Noted that whereas they would divert the Main Part and Branch of the Question which was and is betwixt them and me of the Necessity of our Faith in Christ crucified to our Salvation who are professed Christians wholly to the Case and State of the Gentiles who have it not outwardly Preached to them by the Ministry of Men or Books I have sufficiently proved against them at our late Meeting at Turners-Hall 11th of the 4th Month 1696. And in the printed Narrative that they have affirmed That it is not necessary to our Salvation to believe that Christ dyed for us c. This Charge lyeth at their Door which is the main Thing in Question But how the most Pious and Upright among the Gentiles were saved by Faith in Christ Crucified who had not Faith outwardly Preached is neither the great or chief Question nor so proper for us to determine seeing God hath ways to have done it unknown to us whose Ways are above our Ways as the Heavens are above the Earth and it may be one of these Secret things that belong to God and not to us till he please to reveal it Eightly pag. 30. They charge me with a Contradiction for saying He Christ left not the other Nations destitute of the Main and Principal Thing even the Manifestation of the Light c. which would have given them the Knowledge of God c But if they think or would have others to think that by the Main and Principal Thing I meant the Light within compared with Christ without in whom all fulness of Light and Grace dwelleth they both deceive themselves and seek to deceive others For by my following words it is manifest I call the Light within the Main Thing in Comparison with outward Things as is plain from my following words cited by them out of my Book pag. 12. Universal Grace and not in Comparison with Christ without in whom the Fulness of Light dwells As for their suggestion of my holding the Revolution of Humane Souls in pag. 31. and more particularly in pag. 3. of G. Whitehead's Postscript who calls it my Notion of Twelve Revolutions of Humane Souls they have rendred themselves so foolishly impertinent as well as malicious thinking thereby to cast a great Odium upon me for holding such an odd Opinion that I need say little or nothing in answer to them having so fully and plainly in the openness of my Heart answered to that Charge in my Printed Treatise called Truth and Innocency Defended in Answer to John Delavall who was one of the first that charged me with the same and since that no less than Four several Persons have charged me with it in Print whereby they have sufficiently manifested both their Folly and Malice besides the many Whisperings and Mutterings they have used and spread abroad against me far and near on that account their Folly is sufficiently manifested that not one of all my Accusers have brought the least Authentick Evidence against me to prove their Charge And as I have fully cleared my self in the case in my Answer above-mentioned Printed at Philadelphia some Years ago so in my Appendix to the Book called The General History of the Quakers lately Printed at London in this Year 1696. But let us hear G. W. his Evidence to prove his Charge against me He saith That I argued from these Scriptures John 11. 9. Psal 90. 4. 2 Pet. 3. 8. and some others If I mistake not saith he Is this like Infallible George Whitehead If he says I do let him give us a plain State of his own Opinion herein Now would such an imperfect and lame Evidence pass current before any Judicatory The thing is so and so if I mistake not And as to the Manuscript he mentions that I shewed him it is true there was such a Manuscript which I read both to him and George Fox wherein I did undertake to Answer to some Objections against the Universal Principle and there were some things in that Manuscript modestly proposed concerning the Revolutions of some Souls but no ways as any positive Conclusion but simply as an Hypothesis or Supposition and if such a Manuscript or the Contents of it were such a Crime in G. K. to render me an Apostate and gone from Truth why did not G. Whitehead before twelve Years past for so long ago it is since that Manuscript was read to him deal with me by giving me Gospel-Order since what I had writ in that Manuscript was so offensive to him after his telling me my Fault in private and I not amending should he not have observed Christ's order to have taken with him one or two more Matth. 18. 6. And if
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-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