False Notions of Philosophy destroyed their Faith and hindered them to believe that necessary and Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith that Christ's Body that he had on Earth is the same in Substance it was in Heaven for if it is not the same in Substance it is in no respect the same Obs We are not of the Opinion of a great Man among the Romans who said If they had been deprived of Aristotle's Philosophy they should have wanted several Articles of their Faith We do not esteem Heathenish Philosophy Essential to our Religion neither do we matter how Ignorant we are in that our principal Care being to make our Calling and Election sure That the Quakers Ignorance and false Notions of Philosophy destroyed their Faith G. K. dogmatically asserteth but how doth he prove it Why he saith They do not believe that Christ's Body that he had on Earth is the same in Substance it was in Heaven How doth he make out that the Sameness of a Spiritual Body which was once a Natural Body consists only in its Substance may not his ipse dixit when supported with a great Assurance be credited Then he hath another notable Argument which is reserved till last and probably as he thinks the most conclusive viz. If it be not the same in Substance it is in no respect the same How precarious is this Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith as G. K. terms it if it hath no better a Foundation than an If to support it I have two Queries to propose to G. K. on this Head to which I shall expect his Answer when he thinks fit to reply First I desire him to demonstrate Wherein the Sameness of a Natural Body doth consist Because if he cannot demonstrate wherein that consists I shall give little heed to what he magisterially asserteth concerning the Identity of a Spiritual Body Secondly Whether he doth apply the Term Substance to God finite Spirits and Body in the same or different Significations If it stands for the same Idea when it is predicated of so different Subjects Whether it will not follow that God Spirits and Body agree in the same common name of Substance Which in my Opinion is a very odd Doctrine But if he saith it stands for three different Idea's for one as God is said to be a Substance for another as an Angel is said to be a Substance and for a third as Matter is called a Substance Then I shall desire him to make known how we may distinguish these several Kinds of Substances because without knowing what precise Idea's Substance stands for it is impossible to discourse about it intelligibly Whatever G. K. and his Associates falsely insinuate the Quakers sincerely believe that the same Jesus Christ which died without the Gates of Jerusalem is risen from the Dead and ascended into Heaven from whence he will at the last day come with Glory and Majesty and Judge the Living and the Dead according to their Deeds done in the Body The Substance of this I told G. K. at Turners-Hall was my Faith To this he replied Thou art no more a Quaker than I am to say Thee and Thou and not to pull off the Hat makes a Quaker This Passage I do not find in his Narrative whether it was omitted designedly or accidentally he is best able to inform the Querist We likewise believe the Resurrection of the Dead both of the Just and of the Unjust tho' we do not positively determine what Qualities c. are altered or what remains the same when a Natural Body is changed into a Spiritual Body therefore we determine nothing magisterially concerning the Change the Resurrection Body shall receive at the Sound of the last Trumpet but what the Holy Ghost hath been pleased to reveal in the Scriptures viz. That this Corruptible shall put on Incorruption that this Mortal shall put on Immortality How great an Alteration there is in a Corruptible Body when it hath put on Incorruption or in a Mortal Body when it hath put on Immortality I am not ashamed to acknowledge my Ignorance therein With what Body shall the Dead arise was a Query in the Apostle Paul's time What Answer he gave the curious Inquirer then may be seen 1 Cor. 15.36 c. and may also serve G. K. now 1 Cor. 15.36 c. Thou Fool that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die And that which thou sowest thou sowest not that body that shall be but bear grain it may chance of Wheat or of some other grain But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him An Answer that in my Opinion should deter all Christians from determining any thing Dogmatically wherein the Sameness of the Resurrection Body doth or doth not consist conceiving that we should rest satisfied in what the Scriptures say on this subject which is That the Dead shall arise In this Chapter the Apostle discourseth very largely concerning the Resurrection of the Dead 1 Cor. 15. yet seemeth very cautious here in wording his matter about it neither in this Chapter nor in any other place of his Writings affirming In totidem terminis the Resurrection of the Same Body But where he speaks of the Resurrection he doth not say of the dead bodies but simply of the Dead as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Resurrection of the Dead 1 Cor. 15.13 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Resurrection of the Bodies of the Dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 16. Ver. 18. Ver. 22. if the Dead are not risen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they that sleep 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all shall be made alive Here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two Adjectives and an Article all three of the Masculine Gender if they had any reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bodies they must have been of the Neuter whereby it demonstratively follows the Apostle did not predicate these Terms of Bodies neither do I find in any place of my Bible in express words the Resurrection of the Same Body affirmed It hath always been our principal Concern to word our Discourses especially when we speak of the Principles of our Faith as much as may be in Scripture-Terms if others did the like we are inclined to believe there would be more Love and Unity amongst the Professors of Christianity than now there are We think it a great piece of Presumption and Arrogance in any Mortal Dictator-like positively to determine wherein the Sameness of a Natural Body when it is changed into a Spiritual Body doth and wherein it doth not consist As G. K. confidently affirmeth that * P. 93. the Change was not in Substance but in Accidents For saith he Take away the Substance of any thing and no Accidents can remain of any thing Suppose I should say Take away all the
Argument ad hominem whereby I am induced to believe that if one of G. K's Inferences is conclusive it will undeniably follow that all the Orthodox Doctrines c. contained in any of his Books that have been Countenanced by the Second-Days-Meeting at London and have been allowed to be sold by the Quakers there are to be Esteemed as their Principles from these following Words * Ancich and Sadd. p. 5. Seeing the Second-Days-Meeting at London hath Countenanced his i. e Caleb Pusey 's Book and the Quakers generally at London allow it to be sold next Door to their Meeting-House in Grace-Church-street they make his Ignorance Unbelief Sadducism and Antichristian Doctrine to be theirs Then with a parity of Reason all the Knowledge Orthodox Faith and Christian Doctrine that is contained in G. K. or any other person's Books that have been Countenanced by the Second-Days-Meeting at London or are generally allowed to be sold next Door to their Meeting-House in Grace-Church-street are theirs I asked D. Phillips what he said to my former Question Fourth Narr p. 58. Did Men by their Sins really wound God in them as some of their Preachers have affirmed After some demur he said he would not give a positive Answer but take it into further Consideration whereupon some of the Auditory did commend him Obser My Answer to his Query is here mis-stated whether Designedly or Accidentally I shall not positively affirm but this I can say He hath not related one Sentence in Terminis as it was delivered by me Therefore to undeceive his Reader I shall give him a Summary Account why a Priest did speak favourably of an Answer I gave which was on this occasion G. K. holding a little Book in his Hand read a Passage in it as soon as he had done reading it he asked my Opinion thereof I replyed D. P. I must take time to Consider it Minist That is Modestly said Another Minister But you should either have owned or disowned it D. P. Would it have been Prudence in any Man either to Justifie or Condemn a Book meerly on the reading of one or two Lines of it without considering the Context Scope or Drift of the Author Minist But you should have consider'd this Book D. P. I do not know where to procure it Minist You may have it at Mrs. Sowle's D. P. I am satisfied of the contrary because most of these Books here produced were out of Print before I was Born and if I would give Ten times their value I do not know where to buy them If thou wilt but oblige us so far as to give us the same liberty to defend our Antient Friends Books that Bishop Kidder takes in defending the Holy Scriptures against the Jews I doubt not but we may easily defend our Antient Friends Writings against all the Cavils of our Mercenary Adversaries Minist But who can tell where to have you seeing you may hereafter see cause otherwise to Word the Matter and yet your Intentions the same D. P. Yes indeed we can sometimes use Neco other times Occido and yet intend the same thing conceiving Neco and Occido to be Synonymous Terms and I am apt to think that variety of Synonymous Expressions is acceptable to most Readers Obser I always was and yet am of Opinion that it was and also is a great hardship for any Subject to be tried as a Criminal without a Copy of his Indictment even for a Fact that he himself hath Committed But a Barbarity nay a Tyranny not to be Parallell'd to impeach a Man and try him as an Offender for a Fact his Ancestors or some Friend of his Communion perpetrated and it may be before he was Born without favouring him with the sight of what he is in particular not in general Terms to be tried for This was the State of the Case of the Poor Quakers at West-Dereham they were there to be Tryed Judged and Condemned by their professed Enemies for pretended Blasphemies which their deceased or absent Friends were affirmed to be Guilty of and most if not all their pretended Proofs were to be taken out of certain Old Books and Manuscripts A Copy whereof was often and in the Opinion of very Judicious Persons justly by the Quakers desired nevertheless it was as often by the Arbitrary Priest denied To this Method of indicting People in general Termes G. K. is no Stranger How easie is it for a Critick to pick and cull a Sentence or by splitting it in two to render it thereby Obnoxious to the Ears of an Auditory to which as I conceive it would not be Prudence for any Man to give a present Answer until he had maturely consider'd the Context Scope and Intent of the Author How Unjust how Illegal how Arbitrary then is it for G. K. or any other to demand a direct Answer to a particular Sentence pick'd out of a Book which his Respondent never saw before I leave to the Determination of every moderate Man Would our Adversaries grant us that favour which I am confident they would expect if not demand from their Opponents being as it appears to me nothing but a right All Authors are Intituled to viz. where a Writer treats on any Subject Concisely or Dubiously if the same Person Writes on the same Matter more Prolixly and Perspicuously in some other part of his Works that is to be the Standard whereby the former is to be regulated If this would be admitted I doubt not but to demonstrate that all our Primitive Friends were sound in the Christian Faith even in express Terms as worded by themselves but it hath been our Lot to have our Writings wrested by our Enemies to the worst whereas Christian Charity should have given them the best Sense they will bear and many times directly contrary to the Scope Intent and formal Expressions of the same Author in some other Page of his Writings The very Errors of the Press I am satisfied are imputed to us as often as they render the Sense Obnoxious Should any without Prejudice seriously consider that noted Expression of G. F. which was objected against him as a vile Error about 45 Years since by his Adversaries and as I am subject to believe hath been Reprinted against us with the greatest Aggravations imaginable a Hundred times as a most horrid Error viz. * Saul's Errand p. 8. He that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus Christ is equal with God may easily by considering the Context and the Text of Scripture there cited in the Margin Rom. 8.11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the Dead dwell in you he that raised up Christ from the Dead shall also quicken your mortal Bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you determine what he meant and that there is a word or two either Redundant or Deficient take away what is Redundant i. e. he that hath and it will read thus The same Spirit that raised up Jesus Christ
that is Written or the Thing that is Written tho' the Quaker's Affirmation may be now of little Authority with him Yet I conceive he will not presume to contradict his Right Reverend Father in God so call'd but allow his ipse dixit sufficient to Patronize this Interpretation The third and last Quotation which I shall now examine to prove the Scriptures are the Word of God is brought by him from Acts 1.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primum Librum het Eersse Boetk Le premier Traitte the former Book but in the Greek saith G. K. it is Word He might e'en as well have said but in Greek 't is Christ 't is Communication 't is Utterance 't is Reason 't is Preaching or Doctrine for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in all these and several other Significations one whereof I remember G. K. makes mention of and that is Treatise and quoted Acts 1.1 to prove it in a * Presh Inde Vis Churches Book he writ about ten Years since notwithstanding G. K. the Episcopalian now asserts the contrary which brings to my remembrance an old Saying ☞ Conveniet nulli qui secum dissidet ipse Cato Before I leave this subject concerning the Equivocalness of words I shall concisely Anatomize one Query G. K. exultantly relates he put to John Whiting which was * Fourth Narr p. 41. whether he was of G. Whitehead 's and Edward Burroughs 's Faith who said Christ was not in Heaven in our Nature or that of W. Penn 's who said Christ took our Nature and triumphed in our Nature 'T will be necessary here before I proceed to explain at least summarily a few of the many Senses the ambiguous Term Nature is used in because on the Equivocalness of that Term is hinged the Opposition that G. K. would insinuate there is between G. W. E. B. and W. Penn. The word Nature is variously sensed By the School-men it is used as a Synonymous Term with God and is called by them sometimes Natura Naturans by Seneca 't is affirmed to be one of the Names of God By Physicians it is considered as an Aggregate of Powers existing in a living animal Body as when they say Nature is strong or weak or that the Morbifick Matter is by the strength of Nature expelled from the Center to the Circumference as in the Eruption of the Small Pox Measles c. and also for an Essential Property as Alees naturally Purges Creeus Metallerum naturally Vomits By Natural Philosophers the settled order of things is understood as Fire naturally burns the Blood naturally circulates out of the Arteries into the Veins after a Summer naturally follows a Winter the Children of all Women have their solid parts naturally organized alike and in the texture of their Fluids naturally there is no visible difference The Terraqueous Globe is also comprehended under this Term as there is no such thing in Nature as a Salamander Phoenix c. By Theologists the State our first Parents by disobeying their Creator fell into wherein the Unregenerate Man now is is typified as the Ungodly Man is in the State of Nature but the Godly is in the State of Grace Besides these here recited there are several other Significations of this ambiguous word Nature too long here to be enumerated By what hath been said it is certain that there is a possibility the Term Nature may be variously considered and it is as clear as the Sun at Noon from G. Keith's Quotations out of their Books that when G. Whitehead and E. Burroughs said Christ was not in Heaven in our Nature as G. K. would infer from their words they spoke it of sinful wicked Devilish Nature but W. Penn when he said Christ took our Nature and triumphed in our Nature considered him as the Son of Mary a true and perfect Man having a Body organized like other Men. That this was their meaning is demonstrable from their own words as cited by G. K. in his * P. 39. fourth Narrative where G. Whitehead as the Narrator affirms doth severely blame John Horne and Thomas More in his †P. 11 12. He Goat's Horn c. for saying Christ took upon him their i. e. Sinful Nature Ed. Burroughs is very plain in distinguishing the subject of the Controversie by answering his Opponent as follows * E. B's Works p. 301. Thou sayest in that Answer that Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father in your Nature Mark now thy Nature and your Nature who are one with thee is sinful and wicked and of the Devil for so are all Lyars and it is Blasphemy to say sinful wicked devilish Nature is at the right hand of God in Heaven If G. K. hath different thoughts of Christ being in Heaven than E. B. here demonstrates he hath let him plainly declare it I do acknowledge I am not of opinion that Christ is in Heaven in the Nature of Lyars which is the thing E. B. here opposes W. Penn saith That * Prim. Christ p. 85. Jesus Christ took our Nature upon him and was like us in all things Sin excepted What Shadow of a Contradiction is here in these Proofs even as cited by G. K. he that can perceive it must have a more penetrating sight than I pretend to I acknowledge that I see nothing but a perfect Harmony G. Whitehead blames some for saying Christ took their i. e. sinful Nature on him E. Burroughs saith Christ is not at the right hand of God in that Nature which Lyars are in W. Penn faith Christ took our i. e. as he was the Seed of the Woman Nature upon him and was like unto us in all things Sin excepted The two first consider Nature as it is predicated of the Unregenerate as they are in a State of Enmity to God The last considers Nature as 't is predicated of a Being that hath the Essential Properties of a Man and a Body organized as our Bodies are Note G. K. did not propose his Question to John Whiting in the terms of G. W. who said their Nature nor of E. B. who said your Nature thy Nature his Nature the alteration of a material word in a Proposition savours very much of Sophistry If G. K. had demanded an Answer of me to this Query I am subject to believe that I might have given him the same Reply that J. W. did tho' it may be with a distinction viz. That I was of the Faith of both for I do not favour any Opinion that would insinuate that Christ was or is in Heaven in sinful Nature Yet I do believe that he was a true and perfect Man not imagining Sin to be Essential to our Nature or deducible from the abovesaid Premises as G. K. would * Narr p. 40. infer and then cry out from a false Consequence this is a most vile and gross Heresie If G. K. thinks I have by saying that I am of J. Whiting's Faith in this matter