[Page 1] THE Anti-Christs and Sadduces DETECTED Among a sort of QUAKERS: OR, Caleb Pusie of Pensilvania, and John Pennington; with his Brethren of the Second Days Meeting at London, called Quakers, Proved Antichrists and Sadduces, out of a Printed Book lately published by them, falsly called, A modest Account of the principal Differences in point of Doctrine, betwixt George Keith, and those of the People called Quakers in Pensilvania, &c.)
Being an ANSWER to the said Book, Signed particularly by Caleb Pusie, but expresly recommended in Print by John Pennington, and approved by the Second Days Meeting at London.
With some few Remarks on John Penningtons late Book, entitled, The People called Quakers cleared, &c. And Geo. Whitehead his Postscript, shewing some of their gross Perversions, Falsehoods, and Groundless Calumnies against G. K.
And a POSTSCRIPT, Containing an earnest Expostulation, with the most Pious and Learned Persons, whether in the Church of England, or among other Protestant Dissenters; and a serious Invitation unto them, to employ some of their Time and Labour, by their Pious and Learned Writings, to oppose and refute those vile Errors boldly avowed, and publickly broached, in the late Printed books of some Leading Men, among a Gang, and sort of Quakrs.
By GEORGE KEITH.
London, Printed for the Author, and are to be sold at his House at the Golden Ball over-against Red-Lyon-street in White-Chappel.
THE Anti-christ's and Sadduces DETECTED, Among a sort of QUAKERS.
IN the first place, it is fit I should give the Readers some Information who the Second Days Meeting at London is. It is a Meeting of the Ministry of them, called Quakers, of William Penns and George Whiteheads Party, belonging to London, and some of the Country that may happen to be present, who Meet at Whitehart-Court in Lombard-Street, every Second day of the Week, and assume a Power to License and Approve of all Books that are to be Printed by any of their Party, and have approved this Book, falsely called, A Modest Account, and all the late scandalous Books of Thomas Elwood and John Pennington, come forth against me, and claim Authority over all other Meetings (the Yearly Meeting perhaps excepted) sending out their Circular Letters to all other Meetings in all parts of the World, as they think they have occasion, and to whom the Meetings from all places, direct their Letters upon any occurrence of difference (as the Churches and Bishops of other Countries had wont to direct their Letters to Rome, which was the Rise of that Roman Hierarchy) the which Meeting may be fitly compared to the Conclave of Cardinals at Rome, but who is the Metropolitan of this new erected Hierarchy at London, at present, is not certainly known, as whether W. P. or G. W.
He doth acknowledg, 1st. differences in point of Doctrine. 2. Principal differences. How doth this agree with many of them called the Church Party here, who say, They do not deny G. K's Doctrine.
[Page 4] P. 8. As concerning the Sufficiency of the Light, without something else (that he saith you have made such a pudder about of late) for this he brings a Proof from my Book, Light of Truth, p. 12. and 6. where I say the express Knowledg and Belief, &c. Is not universally of absolute necessity unto Salvation, and so I say still, annd so saith R. Barclay, whom he abuseth as well as me, for we both frequently caution and limit the matter, saying the clear distinct express Historical Knowledg is not universally necessary. See my Book, Universal Grace, p. 117. ad Finem. But whereas he Of Christ Crucified. states the difference in point of Doctrine betwixt some in Pensilvania, and me, as if I said, it were an Error to affirm, 'the Light within were sufficient, without something else, which I never so said, nor thought, for the Light within is sufficient without, not only something else, but without thousands of somethings else; But my assertion was and is, 'The Light within is not sufficient to Salvation without 'something else, which they blaming, they ought to hold the contradictory assertion, viz. The Light within is sufficient to Salvation, without any thing else, for two contradictories are not betwixt two particulars, but one particular, and another Universal; now seeing they hold, 'that the Light within 'is sufficient without any thing else, it is plain they Exclude the Man Christ without us, and his Death, &c. from being concerned in our Salvation.
P. 8. He basely forges me to say, It is a real degree of Blasphemy to say this Light cannot make satisfaction for sins past, citing pag. 38. 39. Refutation. See the place, I have no such words, but plain contrary. I say, Refut. p. 42. 43. Neither is the Saints greatest inward Righteousness or Holiness wrought in them by the Spirit of God, an Atonement or Propitiation for their sins, but Christ alone, who Dyed for us, the just for the unjust.
P. 9. He cites my Book, Looking-glass for Protestants, p. 10. That Magistrates may Preach, which he thinks a contradiction to my late Testimony with Friends in Pensilvania, that Friends of the Ministry should not meddle to be Justices and Judges in Criminal Cases; but this is no contradiction, for it is one thing occasionally to Preach, or Teach, or Exhort, as any Christian can do, and another to exercise the Office or Function of a Minister of the Gospel of Peace one day, that saith, Resist not Evil, and our Weapons are not Carnal, and another day to hang Men for Murder, &c. Which scarce any that profess to be Ministers do in Christendom, but the Quakers in America.
P. 9. That I say of Christs Body now in Heaven, It being no more a Body of Flesh, Blood, and Bones, but a pure ethereal, or Heavenly Body. This he brings to prove a contradiction to my self, leaving Citing Way cast up. p. 113. false quot. true quot. p. 131. out the foregoing words,—Which remaineth the same in Substance, that it was on Earth, &c. So that by my saying, it being no more a Body of Flesh and Blood, I mean it in the Apostles sense, 1 Cor. 15. Flesh and Blood cannot inherit, &c. See my words cited by himself, p. 10. a Testimony against the false and absurd Op. The Flesh that is mortal, gross and corruptible, is not the Flesh that shall be raised up immortal and incorruptible.
[Page 5] P. 12. He makes me to contradict my self in saying, Presb. and Indep. p. 133. The Express Knowledg of Christ, his becoming Man, and suffering, was positively denied to be of necessity to Salvation, but now I furiously quarrel with Friends about it, that it is. But his fallacy lyeth in this, that I say, the express Knowledg is not universally necessary, but some knowledg, if not express, yet implicit, is, and this is no Contradiction.
P. 15. He Argues from my Book, The Light of Truth, p. 8. That the Light within is the only Christ, and he saith, p. 14. the word only admits of nothing else, than Light, Power and Spirit within.
Answ. 1. Here it is manifest, he placeth all on the Light within, so that the man Christ Jesus of Nazoreth without us, is nothing of Christ; but as his Assertion, and Consequence is Blasphemous, so it follows not from my words; for as I then said, so I still say, Christ is but one, and there are not two Christs, one within, and another without; but it will not follow, that there is nothing of Christ without us, but what is within us. Suppose Caleb Pusey's Head is without the House, and some, or most of his Body is within the House, as is possible, the Caleb Pusey that is within, is the same that is without, yet there is something of him without, that is not within, it is the same Body of Water in the Complex, that is in the Thames, and in the Sea, yet it follows not that there is nothing of the great and vast Body of Water, but what is within the Thames. But when Men that have neither Learning, nor good Exercise of Human Reason, will meddle to Dispute, we see how ignorant they prove themselves to be in the face of the World, or how they expose themselves in Print, neither to be true Christians, nor Men of true Reason; he had better kept with working at his Mill, being by profession a Miller, than enter into a Dispute of matters wherein he is so grosly ignorant.
But seeing the Second Days Meeting at London hath countenanced his 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, Saducism and Antichristian Doctrine to be theirs.
And seeing my Book, called, The Light of Truth, in Answer to R. Gordon, was approved by the Second Days Meeting, and that he would infer from my words, That Jesus of Nazareth cannot be something else than the Light, Power and Spirit within, it is plain, that it is both their Sense and his, that Jesus of Nazareth is nothing at all of Christ without us, which is a plain contradiction to themselves, and to himself in his following words. But no such consequence doth really follow from my words.
P. 17. He so mingles my words with his own, that no man can distinguish the one from the other, but the Reader that doth not compare my words in my own Book, with his Citations, would think them to be mine, for whereas my words are in the pag. cited by him.—For whereas thou not only affirms that Salvation and Justification hath a necessary respect to Christ his taking on him the form of a Servant, or Man in the outward, and humbling himself therein, even to the outward Death, (which we also grant, God [Page 6] having so ordered it to be) &c. He makes as if I said, (his words are for as G. K. saith) the Lord having ordained it so to be, how can or dare we say therefore, that he was, or is not sufficient, by his Light, Power and Spirit, to save without something else. But see Reader his Forgery, I say no such words, but my words are a plain contradiction, by necessary consequence to his presumptuous assertion, for seeing God had Ordained it so to be (as I have said) that our Salvation and Justification hath a necessary respect to Christ his taking on him the form of a Servant in the outward, therefore it evidently followeth, that God could not save us without respect to the Man Christ in the outward, otherwise he could or should contradict his own Ordination; but as God cannot lye, so nor can he contradict his own Counsel and Ordination, and therefore the presumption is his and not mine. And seeing they grant that God in the Man Christ without us, cannot save us without an inward work of his Power and Spirit within us, to Regenerate and Sanctify us, which is a Truth, and yet is no Reflection on his Sufficiency and Omnipotency, so nor is it any reflection on him, that God in us cannot save us without the Man Christ without us, for he is as truly God without us, and incomparably more manifest in the Man Christ without us, than in us.
P. 19. He saith, I exposed Friends to the World in Print, for retaking a Sloop, without ever admonishing them before hand for it, and that when I reckoned my self an Elder in the Church among them.
Answ. This is a gross falshood and Forgery, I Printed nothing about their retaking a Sloop, till a considerable time, after 28 of the Ministers had Excommunicated me at Philadelphia; to which Sentence, some that gave a Commission to retake the sloop by force of Arms, did put their hands, and all the rest consented, and they have disowned me to be any Member of their Church, and how then could I own my self to be any of them? which I did not. So that this whole passage is false, and a wilful piece of Forgery.
P. 20. He also alledgeth, That I came to them, and commended them for what they did, and said, It was very well done, adding, methinks you should consider these things.
Answ. But what proof brings he for his Affirmation? None at all, and he having sufficiently discovered his gross forgery in other things, rendreth his credit of no value in this; and I well remember that at the retaking of the Sloop, I was not in the Province; but that I commended them that they had done well, to send Armed men to retake the Sloop, I affirm is an absolute forgery, for it never was my Principle, since I was called a Quaker, and I have many to bear me witness, that it hath been my constant Principle that Friends should not in any case use the Carnal Sword; and the same Principle Robert Barclay, in his Apology, hath largely asserted, and whom we have quoted, and it is well known that many of greatest note among the Quakers hath declared the same. And suppose I did say, that they who did retake the Sloop did well, which I do not remember, all this might have been well said without any contradiction, or equivocation, for it was Peter Bosse, and one or two more with him in a little Boat, having neither Gun, Sword nor Spear, that [Page 7] retook the Sloop, when a great many Armed Men that filled several Boats stood off at a distance, and were afraid to come within shot, and so the praise of that work belonged to him, and not to them, and the Magistrates did ill reward him, for they not long after Fined him 6 Pounds, and put him in Prison for some passages writ to Sam. Jennings in a private Letter, and kept him in Prison 20 miles remote from his Family, till the Magistrates that were Quakers, and had cast him into Prison, were turned out of the Government by G. Fletcher, who was made Governour of Pensilvania, by a Commission from K. William and Queen Mary, and how soon he came unto the Government, he Released him, after inquiry, that they had nothing justly against him. See a further Account of this in the printed Tryal of G. K. T. B. and Peter Bosse, first printed at Philadelphia, and Reprinted at London.
And concerning Peter Bosse his retaking the Sloop without Force of Arms, John Homes, a Baptist Teacher, and either then, or some time not long after a Justice of Peace (whose Name, and Christian Behaviour is mentioned in the said printed Tryal, in refusing to give Judgment against G. K. whithout hearing) did write some English Verses, which are these following.
P. 22. Whereas he makes me to say, in one Book, The express knowledg of Christ's Death and Sufferings, as Man in the outward, is not universally necessary to Salvation: And in another, That the express Knowledg of Christ's Death, is universally necessary.
Answ. In this he useth (after his manner) gross deceit, and greatly abuseth his Reader and me also, for tho he citeth a passage in one of my Books, to prove the first, viz. Presh. and Indep. Vis. p. 133. Yet he cites no passage in any of my Books, for the second that I can find, tho I have narrowly searched, but the only proof I can find he brings is, that he saith, p. 15. I furiously quarrel with Friends about it, and confess it to be a main matter of Controversy with Friends there. This is false, I never had any Controversy with any, whether the express Knowledg and Faith of Christ's Death and Sufferings be universally necessary to Man's Salvation, so as necessary to be had by all and every one before Death. But the true state of the Question betwixt them and me, was and is, Whether the express Knowledg and Faith of Christ's Death and Sufferings, &c. be not necessary to Salvation, to all Professing Christianity, and who have the opportunity and help of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, whereby to receive it, the Holy Spirit inwardly co-operating to produce the Faith of it in them that hear or [Page 8] read that Doctrine, as delivered in the Holy Scriptures; and whether the Doctrine of Christ should not be Preached, as he Died for our Sins, and rose again, &c. as a main Doctrine of the Christian Religion in order to Salvation! For I have always distinguished betwixt simple Heathens or Gentiles, who have not the occasion to have the Faith outwardly Preached, and those in Christendom under a Christian Profession, who have the occasion to hear it Preached; to the former I have said; the express Knowledg and Faith of that Doctrine is not necessary, tho the implicit in some degree is, but how much, or what measure or degree of it is universally necessary I have never affirmed? And that this is the true state of the question betwixt my Adversaries and me, I need go no further for a Proof than from my present Adversary, who makes it a great Error in me, to say, the Light within is not sufficient to Salvation, without something else; for if that be false, the contradictory is true, viz. The Light within is sufficient to Salvation, without any thing else, but the Death and Sufferings of Christ, and his Blood outwardly shed, and his Intercession for us in Heaven without us, are all something else, and if the Light within be sufficient without all these, then there is no need to believe or Preach any of them, but only and alone the Light within.
P. 24. He spends his Pages from 24. to 28. in some base insinuations against me, about the 12 Revolutions, and telling some Stories, most of which are absolutely false (and that little that's true, in any of them, is not fairly, nor duly related) and which he brought no proof for, but his own forfeited Credit, or the report of such as are of as ill Credit as himself, and known to have been prejudiced Persons against me.
P. 29. What he saith of my Praising the Quaker`s Doctrine to Cotton Mather in New-England, was before that Party rose up aginst me in Pensilvania, to oppose the same Doctrine I delivered in my Printed Books, in answer to Cotton Mather, which Doctrine they seemed to own, and all my former Books were Approved of by most of the Ministers of best note in Pensilvania, that were writ, in Answer to Cotton Mather, and his Brethren in New England, before they were Printed; so that it was a most astonishing thing to me to find how suddenly they who professed to own the Doctrine contained in these Books, turned against the very same Doctrine, after W. Stockdale had accused me, of Preaching two Christs, because I Preached Faith in Christ without, and in Christ within, therefore this sudden Alteration began in them, and until I came to England, (and found the greatest part of their Teachers here in England, and particularly G. Whitehead, and W. Penn, to favour and support those in Pensilvania, whom I have sufficiently detected guilty of vile Errors) I had but too good an Esteem for them, wherein I confess I was mistaken; and this put me on a further search into their Books, which formerly I did not much Read (and many of them not at all) and what I did Read, I did not so well consider; and upon my further search, I found sufficient [Page 9] cause to change my Judgment concerning these Men. But none can charge it on me, that either by word or writing I ever agreed with them in those vile Errors, which since I have discovered and reprehended in them, so that this is no change or contradiction in any Doctrine or Principle of Faith, and what change of Judgment I have of these Men, they have the like of me, and will readily confess they have been as greatly mistaken in me, as I have been in them; and therefore they can have no advantage against me in that respect.
And whereas he Insinuateth, pag. 24. 25, 26. That I have dropt here and there some passages in my late Books, from which they cannot but conclude, That either I did intend to conform Friends to some Doctrine, of which, by what follows, the Doctrine of the 12 Revolutions may be supposed to be not the least in his Eye, or else to separate from them. Some of which expressions he mentions out of my late Books Printed in Pensilvania, all which were generally approved by Friends of the Ministry, out of which he hath gathered them; and if he thinks these Expressions will prove the Doctrine of the 12 Revolutions, he should have proved it by positive Arguments, and not give simple Queries for Arguments; all which I could easily Answer, without the Doctrine of the 12 Revolutions, but that I have no mind to answer his curiosity, or gratify such a prejudiced Adversary; and he might much rather query, whether G. F. did not hold the Doctrine of the Revolutions, that hath said in some of his Printed Books, before Languages were▪ he was; and his Charging the Blood of many that were slain above a thousand Years ago upon the People living in his time, in the City of Leichfield, as he declareth in his Journal, and how he went in Blood a great way, and was commanded to pull off his Shoes, &c. This and some other like passages has occasioned some to think G. F. favoured the Revolutions, but I do not say he did. And whether the Disciples did not hold that Doctrine, that said, Master, who hath sinned, this Man, or his Servants, that he was born blind; and many other places of Scripture there are on which he might as much and much more query concerning the Revolutions, as any expressions he hath mentioned of mine, as well as he might query, concerning the Revolutions, all Friends generally who hold, That God hath given to every one a day of Visitation, wherein he may be saved, and that a Time of God's long suffering is extended to every one wherein he may repent and be Converted, seeing many Dye, in the Morning, as it were of their Age, without all signs of Conversion, and have had but little Time given them, between their Birth and Death, wherein to Repent. And as to his Question, If an honest Indian, or Poor infant dye without that outward Knowledg, &c. He quite misseth the matter; I never affirmed the absolute necessity of an outward Knowledg, universally to Salvation, besides that, properly all knowledg is inward, and not outward, the subject of it being the mind and understanding that is inward. And seeing it is certain, that there are honest men, both among Indians, and them called Christians, that are not born again, I return his own Query upon him to Answer, what becomes of them [Page 10] when they dye, seeing without being born again, there is no entring into the Kingdom of God, and what becomes of many called Quakers, and others, that before they dyed, had no signs that they were arrived at that high state of a sinless perfection, for tho Friends have earnestly contended for the Doctrin of Perfection, as attainable by the Grace of God in this Life, yet they have generally acknowledged, that many in whom the work of Sanctification is begun, have not as yet arrived to that state, but have many sinful imperfections remaining in them, and the Flesh lusting against the Spirit; now let him tell me, or any for him, what becomes of such when they Dye, and I may give him the like Answer, or some better, what becomes of honest Indians when they Dye, if he or they say, they who are in measure Sanctified, but not Perfected in Sanctification before they Dye, are made perfect in Holiness at the instant of Death, tho this Answer Friends have blamed, when given by those against whom they have contended, yet if they think fit to allow of it, as current now, as it will in great part end the Dispute about Perfection, and Answer the great Objection about the Popish Purgatory; so it is as valid to Answer that Question, What becomes of honest Gentiles, that before they Died, had no Knowledg nor Faith of Christ Crucified, to wit, that it is given them at the instant of Death, by the internal Operation, and illumination of the Holy Spirit: But if any say, this Answer is more alledged than Proved, I reply, it hath the same probability in the one case, as in the other.
P. 30. To prove my inconsistency and contrariety with my self, in the Doctrine of the Resurrection, with a most blasphemous presumption, he finds fault with Scripture Doctrine it self, and like a scoffing Sadducy, or rather Atheist, goeth to fix a contradiction on the Scripture it self; for thus he brings me in, contradicting my self, that which riseth is the mortal, that puts on immortality, and the corruptible which puts on incorruption; citing my Book, called, A Testimony against that absurd Opinion, p. 3. But in another place, p. 10. he citeth me, saying, The Flesh that is mortal and corruptible is not that Flesh that shall be raised up immortal and incorruptible. And citing my Book, called, Truth Advanced, he brings me saying of that which riseth, That it is a pure noble part, that consumeth not, nor corrupteth. And then he querieth, If that which riseth be the corruptible, p. 31. how is it, that that which riseth is incorruptible and corrupteth not again? Now Reader, I desire thee to notice how he quarrels not so much with me as with the Scriptures, to prove a contradiction in them, for my saying, That which riseth is the Mortal that puts on Immortality, and the Corruptible that puts on Incorruption, this is plain Scripture, 1 Cor. 15. 53. For this Corruptible must put on Incorruption, and this Mortal must put on Immortality. And for the next Citation, which he makes a contradiction to the former; it is also most plain and evident in the Scripture, The Flesh that is Mortal and Corruptible is not that Flesh that shall be raised up Immortal and Incorruptible; for the Scripture saith Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 15. 50. And surely that is the Flesh that is Mortal and Corruptible. And p. 37. That which [Page 11] thou sowest, thou sowest not that Body that shall be: And v. 42. It is sown in Corruption, it is raised in Incorruption, &c. And to his question, which implyeth a negation and opposition to plain Scripture; I answer, That which riseth, is incorruptible, and corrupteth not again, because it is made incorruptible and immortal by the mighty Power of God, and to question the immortality and incorruptibility of the Bodies of the Saints after they are raised from the Dead, is to suppose that they shall dye again, and has this necessary consequence, that they shall sin again, for the wages of sin is Death: But this contradicts the Testimony of Christ, and all his Holy Prophets and Apostles, and is a plain Introduction to Epicurism and Atheism. And that I said in my Book, Truth Advanced, which he findeth fault with, as being a contradiction, that that which riseth is a pure, noble part that consumeth not, nor corrupteth. This I say still, and is no contradiction; for in my Book in that very place cited by him. p. 113. I bring a similitude of a grain of Corn, which very Similitude the Scripture bringeth, to demonstrate the Resurrection, 1 Cor. 15. 37. Now all but fools and idiots know, that as there is a Grain of Corn that corrupteth, and turneth to Earth or Dust, so there is another part in it, that is more Noble, that corrupteth not, but by the corruption and dissolution of the other part, is, as it were, set out of Prison, and gets a new Life and Multiplication, and as true Philosophy and right Reason, and Ocular Experience teacheth, that the generation of one thing followeth the corruption of another, yet there is something in the new generated thing, that was in the old corrupted thing; so every Husbandman, that has common sense, knoweth, that his Seed which he soweth, doth not all perish or rot in the ground, but a part remaineth in every Grain, that multiplieth, except in some extraordinary case, of immoderate Rains and Colds, that altogether destroy the Seed in the ground, as sometimes happeneth; and then he expects no Crop, unless he sow again. And that this man will needs meddle with Philosophical matters, to confirm himself by false Notions in gross Sadducism, and opposition to the plain Doctrine of Holy Scripture, is a lamentable case; and that he hath got the Second Days Weekly Meeting at London, to approve his book, in order to disperse it all over the Meetings of the People called Quakers, to corrupt and leaven them more and more into Sadducism and unbelief, who have been in any degree formerly corrupted, as I find too many are; and to spoil and defile the minds of young People, is yet more lamentable.
Page 32. He goeth on not so much in contending with me, as against the Scripture it self. But that which seemeth mightily to vex and disquiet his Thoughts, is, that he cannot conceive how there can be an incorruptible part lodged or placed in the corruptible body, and how the body can have any incorruptible part in it before the Resurrection; for then he thinks it would be both corruptible and incorruptible at once; and also it needs not be changed from an incorruptible body to an incorruptible body? And what change is that? I question if any Sadducee did ever argue so ignorantly against the Resurrection of the body as this bold ignorant doth. Shall I send him to his Mill, or own Trade of grinding, or sawing Timber, for further instruction? Doth he [Page 12] not know that Corn hat [...] two parts in it, the one Husk, the other Meal? And hath not a Tree in it two parts, the one Wood, the other Bark? And is not the one more Noble than the other? And when a man eateth Corn with the Husk, and swalloweth down at least a good quantity of the Husk or Bran, together with the Food that is mixed with it, doth the Husk become any part of his body? or, rather, doth it not belong to the Excrement, with other gross parts of the food? Is there not in all food one more Noble part that becometh not Excrement, but is transmuted into real flesh, in man? And did not what our Saviour eat, turn into his real flesh, and become incorruptible, seeing his flesh saw no corruption? And was not his body of flesh, that did not see corruption, yet further changed, after his Resurrection and Ascension, from a lower degree to a higher degree of Glory? Bus if it were not for the sake of others, to whom I hope this may be serviceable, I should think my time lost to trace this ignorant man, that is so stubborn and presumptuous in his ignorance, (and it might seem like casting Pearl before Swine) that so dares to tread under his dirty feet, such precious Truths of Scripture. But I hope what he arrogantly treads under, and his ignorant Sadducean Fraternity with him, others will gather up, and value, for the worth of them. And besides the Scripture Similitude of Corn, I brought another Similitude in that same Page of my book, p. 113. comparing the mortal and corruptible body of man to a Mass, or Mixture, that hath both Gold and Dross in it, which Mass is an Heterogeneous body, and is not pure Gold. And though Gold is not in the highest or strictest sense incorruptible, yet it is the most incorruptible of all Metals or Minerals, or other such visible bodies; and therefore in comparison of many other bodies, it may be said to be incorruptible. Now why may it not be said, of a Mass that hath both Gold and Dross in it, it is a corruptible body; for all Heterogeneous bodies are corruptible; and yet it hath that in it which in a certain respect is incorruptible; for we know not any thing that can corrupt it, seeing it endureth the hottest fire that can be put to it.
P. 33. My Similitude taken from the Soul of Man, that remains the same in substance, after its sanctification, that it was before, when unsanctified, and defiled with sin, he saith, is short of the matter; for such a change is surely rather a purification than a transmutation, even as the washing of a body besmeared with dirt, when cleansed, is a purification, and not a transmutation. But still this ignorant presumptuous man runs himself rashly upon the sharp pricks. Formerly he hath laboured in vain to destroy the felicity of the body of a Saint, and now he laboureth as much in vain to destroy the felicity of his Soul; that he makes the work of Regeneration in the Soul of Man, to be nothing else but a purification from sin, as when a Body besmeared with dirt, is cleansed, that is a Purification, and not a Transmutation. I never heard, nor read a more ignorant and nonsensical Assertion. This is like that other most nonsensical Assertion of one of their great Preachers here at London, Jacob Talner, and a Member of their Second Days Meeting, who said in a publick Conference at Turner's-Hall, London, 28. 3d. month, 1696. desired [Page 13] by himself, That Adam, before his Fall, was neither Holy, nor Righteous, nor Wise; and from this False Assertion, he brought an Argument, That Spiritual Death could not be an effect of Adam's Sin: Both which Assertions are flatly contrary, not only to Scripture, but to the common manner of Preaching among the People called Quakers; and this he boldly affirmed in the hearing of some hundreds, many of which were his own Party. What is this but to make the Souls of the Saints, nothing but as so many Tabulae Rasae, washed Tables without any Beautiful Colours, or lively Portraiture on them? Is then the Image of God in the Saints no positive thing, but a Freedom from sin, or a Negation of it. Is Holyness nothing but a Negation of unholiness? Is the ardent Love of God in the Saints nothing, but a meer negative of hatred of God? Doth not the Scripture plainly distinguish betwixt the finishing Transgression, and bringing in everlasting Righteousness? O wrerched ignorance! And O lamentable shame that falls upon the Second Days weekly Meeting of the People called Quakers, for approving such Antichristian Doctrine, worse than Heathenism; for I never heard that ever any Heathen Philosopher said or taught, That Virtue in the Soul of a Man, was nothing but the absence of Vice. The Holy Scripture doth not only Teach us, That the Saints are washed, but Sanctified, and Transformed, Rom. 12. 2. And what is now become of G. Foxes frequent Doctrine in his Preaching, and Printed Epistles, That Christ, the Second Adam, brings up them that follow him, not only to the state of the First Adam that fell, but unto his Image that never fell, and is the Holiness of the Second Adam, nothing but a freedom from sin and unholiness; he may as well say, Heat is nothing but the absence of cold, Sweet is nothing but the absence of Sower, or Bitter; Light is nothing but the absence of Darkness, and that the best things, are meer Negatives, and nonentities; and 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, [Page 14] 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 [Page 15] 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 body, should be the body that is raised, why should any among themselves, especially, have asked such a needless question, as with what Body do they come? I answer, Such who asked that Question, were such among them, that said, there was no Resurrection of the Dead, as such there were, 1 Cor. 15. 12. How say some among you, there is no Resurrection of the Dead? And therefore Paul thought it not needless to propose their Question, on purpose to answer it; and that he might take occasion thereby the more fully and amply to declare it.
His second Question is, Would not the Apostle have answered more to the matter? I answer, He answered very well to the matter, after he had reproved them as Fools, for querying from their unbelief, and their ignorant manner of arguing against it, as many do at this day, he proceeds to show the manner how it is raised, having in the foregoing Verses proved the Truth of the Thing, he doth next show the manner of it; and the Question which he answers, is not concerning what is raised, or who are raised, but how are the Dead raised, and with what manner, or with what quality of body do they [Page 16] come; so the truest, and best Translation out of the Greek, which hath it not [...], but [...]. i. e. not quo corpore, sed quali corpore; not with what, but with what quality of body do they come? But this their querying was a sort of arguing against the thing it self, of the Resurrection. And by an Argument which they thought to take from the manner of it, they argued against the thing it self, even as the Sadducees argued with Christ against the Resurrection, from the false conceit of the manner of it, that they had, as if the Body were to be raised up in the same manner as it is now, so as to be fit for generation, and the use of marriage, which Christ confuted; so many at this day, and especially this Sadducy, Caleb Pusie, and his Sadducean Fraternity in Pensilvania, and here in England and elsewhere, they argue against the Resurrection of the Body it self, from the manner of it, as thus, If the same body for substance shall be raised, then it must be raised, for manner, such as it is now, but that is impossible. Now the Apostle answers, by donying, that it shall be raised in the same manner, but it shall quite be changed and transformed, not transubstantiated, from mortal and corruptible, and Natural or Animal, to immortal, incorruptible and spiritual. Oh, say they, this connot be, this would be a Transubstantiation, like that of the Papists. But I say, this Caleb Pusie, and his Fraternity, that profess to hold a Resurrection of the body, but not of that same substance, fall in with the Popish Transubstantion; for Transubstantiation is a change of a thing from one substance to another, as the Papists say; and therefore Caleb Pusie, and his brethren, who deny that the body is the same in substance, but changed from one substance to another, are clearly one with the Papists, in their absurd Doctrine of Transubstantiation: And thus the Pit he and his Saddueean brethren have digged for me, he and they are fallen into both together.
And it is manifest Hypocrisie in Caleb Pusie and his brethren, for him and them to say, they think it not necessary to be curiously prying into the manner of it, when they are most absurd in determining the manner of it, contrary to all Scripture and Reason. For they will needs have it, that the change is a change of the substance, and not of the Quality and Condition: The Body, say they, that the dead are raised with, is another body in substance, so they will needs have it. But then let him tell us, when the deceased Saints get this other body, that is another in substance: I suppose he will say with his brethren, in the same ignorance and unbelief, G. W. and W. P. that they get it immediately after Death; for they both argue against the deceaed Saints expecting any Resurrection of the body, that this implies the Soul to be in a kind of Purgatory or Disquietness, till the supposed Resumption of the body.
Page 41. He chargeth G. K. to be guilty of belying the Magistrates at Philadelphia, Printing, That the Magistrates not only countenanced the hiring men to fight, but also gave them a Commission so to do, signed by Three Justices of Peace, whereof one was a Preacher, citing Appeal from the 28, &c. And from thence he justifieth their Persecution against G. K. in fining him Five [Page 17] Pounds. But now how he proves this to be false, first, he saith, it was more than they had power to do, being Civil Magistrates. But this is no Proof; for ignorant men, such as they were, might go beyond their power. However, he grants, if it was not a Commission, it was a Warrant of a Hue and Cry, signed but by Two Justices of Peace, and neither of them a Preacher. But what Proof brings he for this? None but his bare Affirmation. But so it was, that some of them who received the Commission, told us, it was a Commission signed by Three Justices, whereof one of them was a Preacher. And when this very matter was debated before the Yearly Meeting at London, 3d mo. 1694. Samuel Jennings pretending it was not a Commission, but a Hue and Cry, Thomas Lower contradicted it in my hearing, and the hearing of many others, saying, it could be no Hue and Cry, for no Hue and Cry had any power to extend beyond dry Land; but this was to go to the Water, which I leave to men better skill'd in Law to determine: However, whether a Commission, or Hue and Cry, which is but a Nicety of Phrase in Politicks and worldly Government, it confirms the substance of what was affirmed, That some Quakers signed a Paper, commanding and giving power to men, by Force of Arms, to retake a Sloop; which is sufficiently known to be against the professed principles of the Quakers here in England, who have witnessed by divers Printed Books and Testimonies, That they are against all use of Carnal Weapons, so much as in self-defence, and have declared against Ship-masters, that were Quakers, their carrying Arms, so much as in self-defence.
Page 41. Another falshood he chargeth on G. K. is, That he said, the Ministers there, viz. in Pensilvania. bad ingrossed the Worldly Government. And this he offereth to prove to be false, for there were many that were not Ministers, nor Quakers neither, then in the Government. But this he only saith, and it is a notorious Falshood, well known to them that lived there; for on the contrary, very few, but Quakers, were Magistrates, and for most part Preachers, and these few that were not Quakers, nor Ministers, they were but as meer Cyphers, the Ministers ruled all, and did all, and the small number of the rest signified nothing, in that properly called the Province of Pensilvania; and Ministers were not only 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 [Page 18] 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 [Page 17] [...] [Page 18] [...] [Page 19] 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 other bodies in substance, from what they were here on Earth, which this Caleb Pusie hath affirmed 6thly, Where doth the Scripture say, The Regeneration, or Conversion of the Soul, is only a purification from sin, as the washing of a body besmeared with dirt, when cleansed, is a Purification, and not a Transmutation, as Caleb Pusey hath also affirmed, as above? And though I remain still in the same mind, That no Article of Faith should be urged on any but what is contained in plain express words of Scripture, (or so agreeable to express Scripture, as the common sense of all mankind, that hears Scripture words, must acknowledge, as though it is not said, in Scriptures, That Egypt, Arabia, Palestine, Mesopotamia, are Places without us, yet common, Sense tells us so); Yet I see not why I should be so confined to express Scripture words in things that I require no Man to own or believe, as Articles of Faith, but leave them to their Liberty, and others take their Liberty to use great variety of other words; and I think I may say it without vanity, the manner of my Preaching and writing has been full as much Scriptural, as to Phrase, as most of the Preachers and Writers among the Quakers.
As for his querying, pag. 56. where are the express Scripture words that say, The four hundred pieces of Silver that Abraham Purchased the Burying Place with, signifies four hundred Vertues. I Answer, The Scripture saith that as much, though not expresly, yet implicitly, as it saith, The Treasures we are to lay up in Heaven. are Spiritual and Divine Vertues, which are the true Riches, and the Wells that Abraham Digged, and Isaack, signified the Spiritual Wells of Water within them; and Egypt signified the power of Darkness, and Canaan that slowed with Milk and Hony, signified the Kingdom of God, for the Old Testament abounds with such Allegories. But if any do not believe my interpretation by way of Allegory on that place of Scripture (while they and I own the literal Sense) or any others of the like nature, I am far from urging it upon them, but leave them to their free Judgment, and as God shall be pleased to Enlighten them. For there are many things both in my Book, called, Truth Advanced (so reproachfully mentioned by him) and in many other of my Books, wherein I may possibly differ from others in Judgment; yet I leave them to their Liberty to Dissent, as I desire to be left to my Liberty, to believe as I judg God has perswaded me. But such as differ from me, so far, and so wide, as this Person doth, Caleb Pusie, and these of the Second Days Meeting, that have Countenanced and Approved his most Antichristian Doctrines, directly contrary to the great fundamentals of Christianity, affirming Jesus of Nazareth to be nothing else but the Light within; and saying, [Page 20] The Light within is sufficient to Salvation, without any thing else; so Excluding our Lord Jesus of Nazareth, his Death, and Sufferings, his Resurrection, Ascension, Mediation for us in Heaven; all which are something else than the Light within, from being concerned in our Salvation, I can by no means own them to be my Christian Brethren, but esteem them to be worse than Mahometans, and than other Sober and Honest Heathens or Gentiles, for their opposing so great Truths so plainly exprest in Holy Scripture; and it is not the Light in them, but gross Darkness that leads them into these abominable Errors, and the very Spirit of Antichrist Possesses them, and they are such Antichrists, concerning whom John Testified, 1 John 2. 18. and 1 John 9. 3. Every Spirit that Confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the Flesh, is not of God. And this is that Spirit of Antichrist, &c. For notwithstanding their seeming confessions to him, yet seeing they own not Justification by his Blood outwardly shed, and Salvation by Faith in him, as he Dyed for us, and Rose again, their Faith and Confession is vain, and Hypocritical.
Some REMARKS on John Pennington's late Book, entituled, The People called Quakers cleared, &c. and G. Whitehead his Postscript. Shewing some of their gross Perversions, Flashoods, and Groundless Calumnies against G. K.
Pag. 3. THeir blaming me for appointing a Meeting, to which their Consent was neither sought, nor made Necessary.
Answ. They got timely Notice a Month before-hand, and were desired to be present and why might not I appoint a Meeting without their Consent, to Detect their Errors, and to show the Unjustness of their Sentence of Excommunication against me, as without my Consent, they appointed a Meeting to Excommunicate me; I desired them again and again in former Prints to consent to Time and Place; yea, to appoint Time and Place, and I should stand to their Appointment; But they still refused, Offenders use not to consent to their Tryal.
P. 3. Their charging me with Spleen and Malice. I reject as false and fictitious.
P. 4. Their telling of two Books lying on my Hand unanswered, and my having given them Ground to expect an Answer to two of them.
Answ. To the first, some of their own Church have sufficiently answered, to show the Badness of their Cause, in that Censure they gave against Thomas Elwood, which was read at the Meeting at Turner's-Hall, 11th. of the 4th. Month. 1696. and is Printed in the Exact Narrative, pag. 46. To the second, and all the other I answered at that Meeting, and have sufficiently detected their Abuses, Fallacies, Perversions, as well as False Doctrines; though I have a great deal more in reserve. But all impartial Men will clear me of any blame, in not answering them in Print, when I have offered to Answer them viva voce, at a Meeting; for there is no end of answering them in Print; and they can, and do more securely Forge, Pervert, and Abuse their Readers and me also, in Print, because they know few will be at the pains to compare their Books with mine, to see who is innocent or blame-worthy: But Face to Face, and by Word of Mouth, it is easily made apparent; and beside, as I have formerly told, to print Books to answer all their Books, is too great a Charge for me.
P. 4. They alledge, 'I have vindicated their Principles from their Common Adversaries.
Answ. Such as I did think were their Principles, I did formerly vindicate; but most of them, which I did think were their Principles, I have found of late were not their Principles, though I retain them still as mine; and I challenge them, or any Man, to prove, that ever I did vindicate any of these four abominable Principles, which I have proved G. W. and W. P. guilty of at the late Meeting, 11th. 4th Month, 1696. and whereof the late Printed Narrative gives an Account And though they alledge, I have changed my Principles, yet they have not made it to appear, nor I believe they ever shall, that in any one Article of the Christian Faith that are reckoned among the Simpliciter credenda, I have changed any one Principle, Only as to the Sense of some Places of Scripture, relating to Water-Baptism, and the Supper, I own I have changed my Mind, but to the better; and also as to some other places of Scripture, improperly alledged to prove some real Truths.
P. 4. to p. 10. As concerning these several Testimonies they bring out of my Books in all these pages, I own every one of them still, as things sincerely believed by me, [Page 22] and I believe by many others also, so far as they relate to Doctrine But that I held them forth as the Principles of the Teachers among the Quakers universally, or as the Principles of G. W. and W. Penn, seeing I have since found them so palbably to contradict them in their Printed Books, I freely acknowledge my shortness and mistake therein. But they most uncharitably alledge, That it is hardness in me, to have changed my Opinion, or Perswasion of these men, seeing they have given me so great and just occasion so to do, by boldly defending and excusing these vile Errors.
The next thing they charge me with, is my Inconsistency and Self-contradiction; but this is a False Charge, their manifest failure in their undertaking will sufficiently, I hope prove. The first Self-contradiction they think they have catched me in, is what they bring in pag. 111, 2. viz. That I said, (Nameless Bull, pag. 11.) ‘Seeing this true Faith is wrought in God's ordinary way by Preaching, therefore the true Faith of Christ's Death and Sufferings ought to be one of the first and chiefest things that every true Minister ought to Preach, &c.’ But they think I contradict this, [Way to the City of God, pag. 3.] ‘The knowledge of his inward coming, is that which is the more needful, and in the first place, as being that by which the true and comfortable use of his outward coming is alone sufficiently understood.’
Answ. As I have somewhere else said, It is my Lot to have to do with Men, that have neither so much true Logick, nor Common Sense, as to understand what a true Contradiction is. Let any Man of common sense judge, if it be a contradiction, or least inconsistency to say, The true Faith of Christs Death is one of the first things that ought to be Preached, to bring Men to witness the true Faith of Christs Death, and being made Conformable to his Death: And also to say, The knowledge of his inward coming is the more needful in the first place: As it is no contradiction to say George Whitehead was one of the first Quakers in the North of England; George Fox was the first Quaker. But for the better understanding of the Case, the distinction betwixt general Religion and Christian Religion, is to be considered, (which distinction I have used in my Book, called Divine immediate Revelation and Inspiration continued in the true Church, Printed at London, 1684. and which was read and approved by the Second Days Meeting, when I was present, and therefore G. W. is bound to own what is in that Book, unless he will say, their Ministers are changed in their Principles) see pag. 44. where I also distinguish betwixt general Revelation in Men, and special; the general I said was common to all Mankind, the special given to true Christians. By general Revelation, (which is that common illumination given to all Mankind, men are taught to know that God is, and that he is the maker of all things, and that he hath given a Law to Men, in their Hearts, which they are to obey; and when they disobey this Law, they make themselves guilty before God; and by this general Revelation, or illumination, Men generally know that they are Sinners, all having sinned; and by this inward Law, and illumination, common to all men, is the knowledge of Sin, and of the Wrath of God, that is due for Sin: and by this General or Common illumination, many of the Gentiles came so far as the Servants state, and had acceptance with God as Servants, but were short of the state of Sons. because they had not the Faith in Christ Crucified, according to Gal. 3. 26. This same distinction of general and special Revelation, in other terms I held forth in my Book of Universal Grace, approved also by the Second Days Meeting and Printed in the Year 1671. which is about 25 Years ago; see pag. 8, 9, 10. of that Book, where I largely treat of a twofold inward Appearance of Christ in Men, the first and second, and how the first prepareth for the second; and how the first is not to be rested in, but that we ought to press forward into the second, pag. 9. ad finitum. And I said, the first was that of the Law, the second that of the Gospel, pag. 8 The former that of the first Covenant, the latter that of the second Covenant. And I say expresly, pag. 8. 'The Gospel lay hid within the Law, as within a Vail, [Page 23] which the outward Tabernacle did plainly figure and hold forth: And notwithstanding that I have held forth this distinction in Print 25 Years ago, yet many of my present Adversaries cry out against it as New Doctrine, and contrary to Friends Principles. And it most evidently appeareth from the express Words of my Book of Universal Grace, pag. 120. That I did not then hold that the Light within was sufficient to Salvation without any thing else, or without Christ's outward coming, and his Obedience, Sufferings and Death, (as my Adversaries Caleb Pusie, and the Second Days Meeting that hath approved his Book do affirm, and as these Men also do, who have given out their Scandalous Book, called The People called Quakers cleared) for I say expresly in that pag. 120. ‘The Light within, and Christ's outward coming with his Obedience, Sufferings and Death, are both sufficient, useful and necessary in their own kind and way,’ Consummating, and being Consummate in another. And here Note, that though I did not say, Christ within, and Christ without, are two Christs; yet I said his Light within, and his Coming in the Outward, with his Obedience, Sufferings and Death, were two things, Consummating and being Consummated in one another. Now to wipe off the Injurious Charge of my Adversaries G. W. and J. P. in this particular (which I thank God, I can as easily do, and all other their Injurious Charges against me, as Paul did throw off the Viper from his Hand, I say conform to the Doctrine of my former Books, and in good Consistency with all the passages in them, the Light within (which in a true sense is God and Christ the Eternal and Essential Word) is to be Preached in the first place, to Heathens and Gentiles, or any other called Christians, who have not any true knowledge of God, or fear and reverence of him, and to all bold and presumptuous Sinners, and briefly to all Men whatsoever, not really and truly converted to the Christian Religion, to bring them in the first place to some knowledge of God, and some true fear and reverence of him, and also to some true knowledge and sense of their sinful state and condition, and that they are liable to the Wrath and Displeasure of God for their Sins; all which are in good order previous or prior to the true Christian Faith, which is a Faith in Christ crucified and therefore may be Preached before that Faith. But that the Christian Faith it self may be received by Preaching, that Faith is one of the first things that is to be preached. as being one of the first Principles of the Christian Religion, as is clear from these Scriptures, Acts 20, 21. where Repentance towards God, and Faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ, are joined together as first Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, compared with Heb. 6. 1, 2. And these Ignorant Men so deeply Prejudicod against the Preaching of Christ Crucified (to wit, G. W. and J. P.) as being one of the first things needful to be Preached, and Faith in him, in Order to make Men true Christians, might by the same Silly Sophistry and Quibling, accuse Paul and John contradicting each other and inconsistent; yea, the Holy Ghost himself, who did inspire them both, in what they wrot: For whenas Paul told the Corinthians, when he Preached the Gospel unto them, 1 Cor. 15. 3. that he delivered unto them First of All (Note these Words, first of all) that which he also received, how that Christ dyed for our Sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, &c. And yet John Preached not that the first thing, but began with Preaching the Word that was in the beginning, and how in that Word was Life, and the Life was the Light of Men; and that Light was the true Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world, John 1. 1. to 9. But in this there is no Contradiction nor Inconsistency betwixt Paul and John; for John begins with that Principle of Doctrine that is necessary to General Religion, and to the Knowledge of God as Creator; Paul begins with the Preaching CHRIST Crucified, as one of the first things necessary to Christian Religion, and the knowledge thereof: And such Order is necessary in teaching Practical Arts and Sciences, as in order to teach [Page 24] Astronomy, some first Principles of Arithmetick and Geometry are necessary to be taught in the first place, as to add and substract in Arithmetic, &c. And to make a Perpendicular Line, or draw a Paralel, to bisect an Angle, &c. Yet none of these are properly Principles of Astronomy, as it is a peculiar Science: But the first Principles of Astronomy are not to be taught before Arithmetick and Geometry, but after them. And so the first Principles of Medicine, are to be taught after the first Principles of the Physicks; and thus the first Principles of Christian Theology are to be taught after the first Principles of Ethicks, or Ethology, which was the Gentile Religion, and which did teach many true and excellent things of God, as is to be seen in Aristotle's Ethicks, who wrote of [...] i. e. something Divine in Man, by which he could live virtuously; and yet who but he that is no true Christian himself will say, that Aristotle's Ethicks, or Socrate's and Platoe's Morals, are enough to teach the Christian Theology. Thus I hope I have made it appear, that as my Adversaries have not proved me inconsistent with my self, so they have proved themselves inconsistent with true Christianity, and no true Christians in their Principles, but Heathens, and falling short of Heathen Morals, in Falsly accusing the Innocent, a Vice contrary to true Morality.
The second part of their Charge, in pag. 10. is, ‘That I did formerly hold that Christ's Inward coming saves,’ where the Outwardis unknown. But here they are guilty of gross Forgery and Perversion; first of Forgery, seeing they cite no passage in any of my Books, where I express these Words, where the Outward is unknown, and seeing by their Words, where the Outward is unknown, they mean Christ's coming without us, I say they are guilty of grosly perverting my Words and Sense, as if I did hold, that Christ's inward coming saves, with Eternal Salvation, without all knowledge of Christ's outward coming; and in contradiction to themselves, they grant I have distinguished betwixt the express or explicit Knowledge and Faith of Christ's Death and Sufferings, in order to Eternal Salvation, and the implicit Knowledge and Faith of it; asserting this last, but not the first, as universa'ly and indispensibly necessary. They object against this distinction idlely and falsly, that it is said by me, pag. 14. 'That the distinction betwixt explicit and implicit, is a late distinction: But the place of my Book, cited by them, saith no such thing. But I mention how in divers of my late Books I have distinguished betwixt the express and implicit Knowledge and Faith; but this proves it not to be a late distinction, for it is an antient distinction, and sufficiently implied and understood in my oldest Books, when I treat on that subject; for whereas they confess that I have used the Word express in my oldest Books, that proveth that I did then make that distinction, though I did not express the other term of implicit, which though not expressed, yet was really understood by me, as in many cases it is enough to express the one Term or Member of a distinction, as when we call a Man a rational Creature though we express not the Word Irrational, yet we sufficiently distinguish betwixt a Man and a Bruit, that Man is rational, and a Bruit is irrational; and when I say, some or many things commanded us, are jure divine, this sufficiently implyeth and intimateth, to any of common sense, that some things may be commanded us, that are not jure divino, but jure humano; yea, all things done and practised by the People called Quakers, are not jure divine, as themselves confess; therefore as jure divino implieth the other term of the distinction, when not expressed, viz. jure humano, so the term express implieth the other term implicit, though not expressed. And though my ignorant Adversaries would make their ignorant Followers think, this is only a new and odd, distinction of mine, yet all true and Orthodox Christians do hold it as well as I, and have used it, as they do at present, and hath its Foundation in Scripture; for when Paul said, Ephes. 3. 6. That the Mystery, how that the Gentiles should be fellow Heirs, and of the same Body, and partakers of his Promise in Christ by the Gospel [Page 25] in other Ages was not made known unto the Sons of Men, as it is now revealed unto his Holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit, he plainly implieth this distinction, for in other Ages, yea, in all Ages it was at least obscurely and implicitly made known but not expresly as in Paul's Age, and the Ages succeeding; and that Great Mystery of 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, [Page 26] 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 Logick, as in true Divinity.
Another Forgery and Perversion they put upon my Words, in pag. 15. when they make me say, ‘Men have been saved without the express Knowledge of the one, viz. Christ's outward coming,’ but not of the other, viz. his inward coming. But I never said or thought any such thing, I have judged charitably, and so I still judge that many have been saved, and may be saved without the express Knowledge, as truly of his inward coming as of his outward; for many have felt and enjoyed the blessed Vertue and Power of Christ within them, and so have had an implicit knowledge of it, and it hath been saving to them, though they had not that clear and express knowledge to call it by all, or many of these Names that the Scriptures call it by expresly; and shall we say they must all perish, who though they own the Grace and Spirit of Christ, and its operation in them, yet are shy and fearful to call it Christ in them; and to be sure, as few of the Gentiles knew this inward Principle of Truth in them, by the express Knowledge and Names of Jesus and Christ, as knew him to be Man in the outward by these Names. And here Note, that ten several times at least in the Words and Passages they have quoted out of my Books, they bring me in, using the Word Express still, saying, ‘The Express [Page 27] Knowledge and Faith of Christ's Death is not universally necessary to Mens Salvation.’ And seeing in all my late Books, and also at present, I say the same. I appeal to all moderate Persons of common sense, if this be any contradiction, or rather doth not this false and unfair way of their Arguing, evidently prove them wonderfully ignorant and blinded with Prejudice against me: and let any School-Boy, or Tiro, or Person of Common Sense judge, if these two Propositions held by me, and thousands more are contradictory, The express Knowledge and Faith of Christ is not necessary to all that shall be saved. Some Knowledge and Faith of Christ is necessary to all that shall be saved: Even as whether these two Propositions be contradictory, The clear Light of Sun, Moon, Fire or Candle, is not necessary to see and read with? Some light of Sun, Moon, Fire, or Candle is necessary to see and read with.
Their next Head is, pag. 23. ‘That I said in my former Books, the Inward Principle is to be Preached in the first place, and the Effects thereof.’
Answ. This I grant still, and how and in what sense, in the Words aforegoing I have sufficiently declared, and I further add, That some true knowledge of God springing from the Inward Principle, in concurrence with the serious Consideration of the Works of Creation and Providence is necessary as previous and prior to the knowledge of Christ's Death and Sufferings for our Sins; for in God's ordinary way, we are first taught that there is a God, before we are taught that there is one only Son of God, that proceeded from him by an Eternal Generation, and who became the Son of Man by Generation in the Fullness of Time. The first of these Lessons or Doctrines belong to all Men to know; and they are rather Bruits than Men who know it not. The second of these Lessons is proper and peculiar to Christians, and may well be called at least one of the first things needful to be preached, known and believed among them called Christians; and as the Doctrine of Christ's outward coming is truly and duly Preached by enlightned and well qualified Preachers, that more excellent and peculiar Influence and Ministration of the Spirit, that accompanies the Faith of Christ crucified, is also preached; and not only preached, but freely given and imparted by God, through Christ, to all such who hear it and believe it sincerely as it is preached. Therefore what is necessary in the first place to be preached to them that have little or no true Knowledge of God, or of an Inward Principle, is one thing, and what is first to be preached in order to bring Men to the Christian Faith and Religion more immedately and proximately, is another: as what is necessary in the first place to be Preached, to Men, that they may know God, and believe in him, as a Creator, King, and Lord over all, is one thing; and what is necessary to be preached to Men in the first place, that they may know God, and believe in him as a Gracious Father, pardoning their Sins freely for Christ's sake, and accepting them in him and that also they may believe in Christ crucified, is another thing: All which proveth sufficiently what I have delivered both in my former and latter Books, to be well consistent on this very Head, viz. That the Faith of Christ's Death and Sufferings is one of the first Principles of the Christian Religion, and therefore is so to be preached, together with the Resurrection of the Dead, and Eternal Judgment, and Repentance from dead Works, according to Heb. 6. 1, 2. which according to the Greek, is there called The Word of the Beginning of Christ. But what do my Adversaries bring against me on this Head, to prove my Self-contradiction? Nothing at all; therefore they show themselves stronger in Falsly Accusing, than in justly Proving.
Their following Head is pag. 25. Where they charge me with a Self-contradiction in saying, ‘The Gentiles were savingly enlightned, who knew not the History of Christ's outward coming, &c.’ And they think I contradict my self, when I said in my Book, called A further Discovery, pag. 10. of one called a Friend, that lately Preached, ‘That he was a bold ignorant Soul, for preaching, that the Blood which [Page 28] cleanseth from all Sin, was the Life, and the Life is the Light, calling it a perverse Exposition.’
I Answer; That it is a perverse Exposition, and that he who gave it, was a bold ignorant Soul, I still affirm, and I charge them to be guilty of gross Forgery, until they prove that I have said the same, and gave that Exposition on that place of Scriptrue, 1 John 1. 7. which I do not in the least remember; but no proof they bring any where that I have so said; and their Argument is Fallacious and Deceitful like themselves, that because I have said, It is the Life that saveth, Rom. 5. 10. citing pag. 115. of my Book called Universal Grace, therefore that by Blood in that place 1 John 1. 7. I did mean the Life, which is the Light within: And the Fallacy and Sophistry of their Argument lieth in this, that because I have granted the Life within saveth, or cleanseth from Sin, that therefore the Blood mentioned, 1 John 1. 7. is the Life. Now if I had said, Nothing but the Life within saveth, or cleanseth from all Sin, they might have justly so argued: But seeing I ever held as I do at present hold, that there are several concurring Causes in the great Work of our Salvation, and cleansing from Sin, which though agreeing in one Harmony, yet the one Cause is not the other, therefore their Argument is as vain and false, as who did argue, the little Mustard-Seed causeth the Herb Mustard to grow, and the Earth in which it is sown causeth it to grow, and the Sun and Rain cause it to grow, therefore that little Seed is the Earth, is the Sun, and is the Rain. Our Salvation and cleansing from Sin, dependeth on divers Causes; 1st. chiefly on God, who gave his Son to Dye for us; 2dly. on Christ, who shed his Blood outwardly to cleanse us from Sin; 3dly. on the Spirit, Life and Grace of Christ inwardly given us, helping and enabling us by a Living Faith, to apply the Merit, Virtue, and Efficacy of that Blood of Christ outwardly-shed, for our Salvation, and cleansing both from the guilt of Sin, and the inward filth and stain of it. But before I finish my Answer to this Head, let me give Notice to the Reader of several gross Perversions, Falsities, and Abuses they put on my Sound Words, cited in their several pages, on these last Heads, from pag. 15. to pag. 33. First, in pag. 16. they pervert my Plain Words, where I said, ‘Though Prophets and Apostles preached him as in the Form of a Man; yet they preached him also, and that more generally,’ as a Light to the Gentiles, yea, and to Jews also: Where they put a false and perverse sense upon the Word more generally, as if I did signifie by it more frequently, which I did not; but by more generally, I did and do understand, that his Inward Appearance by his Light and Grace in Men, is, and ever was more general than his Outward Appearance, in the outward and visible form of a Man; therefore what was in it self more general they Preached it to be so; but this doth not infer that they Preached him more frequently within Men, than without them, for if they preached, as they wrote, in their Writings, where once we read of Christ within, we read some Scores of times, of Christ, as he was outwardly manifest, was Born, Dyed, Buried, Rose again, Ascended, and is gone into Heaven, where he remains our Advocate, and Mediator with the Father. Secondly, They perversely infer from my Words, ‘that whereas I formerly made the Knowledge and Faith of the History of Christ's outward coming not essential to Religion, now I did make it essential.’ But in this they are guilty of palbable Forgery; for as none of the citations they bring, prove it, so I do not remember that ever I so said or writ; but the Knowledge and Faith of the History is one thing; and the implicit Knowledge and Faith of Christ, as he is without us, is another thing; and therefore for them thus to confound thing, so differing, argueth great Ignorance, or Prejudice; and however it argueth great Falsity and Unfair Dealing. Thirdly, That they make it an Inconsistency and Contradiction in me to have formerly said, Cornelius was a Devout and Religious Man, one whose Prayer God heard; and yet of late to have said, Cornelius had not the Holy Ghost in his Gentile estate, although he had a great measure of Gentile Sincerity and [Page 29] Righteousness. But this is no real Contradiction, although it may seem so to their Ignorance and Darkness; it is easie to show out of Scripture, that none had the Holy Ghost, or are said to have the Holy Ghost, but Believers in Christ Crucified, who did witness that special Office of the Holy Ghost to sanctifie them, by giving them the Holy Faith in Christ crucified. And though the Holy Ghost is holy, as well in his Nature, as in his special Office of sanctifying them, who witness his indwelling in them, and union with him, yet he is commonly called so in Scripture, by virtue of his special Office and [...]nfluence in the Hearts of Believers; and therefore as he is not said to be the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit in wicked men, so nor in pious Gentiles, or in such only, as are but as Servants, and under the first Ministration of the Spirit, and G. Whitehead's distinction, how Christ is not in all men, will serve in this case as well for me, as for him, to wit, by Union, which I think was mine in Print, before it was in Print his, according to which as Christ is only said to live and dwell in true Believers in Christ, even CHRIST Crucified, and none but such have Christ by a real Interest in him, and right to him, as a Woman hath to her true Husband; So none but true Believers have the Holy Ghost, or the Spirit of Christ, to wit, by Union, Right and Interest, for that is only the Portion of Children not of Servants, as it was said of Abraham, he gave Gifts to the Children of Keturah, but he gave All, to wit, the Inheritance to Isaac: so God giveth Gifts to such as are but only Servants in his House, but giveth himself, and his dear Son, and Holy Spirit, to be the Inheritance of his Children.
And as to their Question, which they think in their Ignorance is unanswerable, 'Whether any Prayer is heard by God, but what is put by his Spirit?
I Answer, Nay, but Servants and Pious Gentiles, such as Cornelius was in his Gentile state, may be, and are helped to Pray by the Spirit, having the Influence of the first Ministration of the Spirit, which though remotely Preparatory, yet doth not instate the Soul into union with the Spirit, that being reserved for the second Ministration of the Spirit, that is more noble, and enableth the Soul that hath it, not only to Pray more effectually and acceptably, but also to perform all other Acts of Love and Obedience. And were not my Adversaries extream blind and ignorant, they might understand how the Apostle calleth one and the same Spirit, in them who are but Servants, the Spirit of servitude (so the Greek) and in them who are Sons, the Spirit of Adoption Rom. 18. 5. And elsewhere he distinguisheth thus, calling the one the Spirit of Fear and the other the Spirit of Power, of Love, and of a Sound Mind, 1. Tim. 1. 7. Which are thus distinguished, not in Nature and Being, but in Office. And here let it be noted, how by these mens arguing, That Men may be eternally saved, perfectly sanctified, and endued with the Holy Ghost, who have no Faith or Knowledge of Christ without them; do sufficiently declare what Heathens they are, and of what little value they make the Faith and Knowledge of Christ crucified, and that their Religion is nothing but Deisne, under a Mask & Disguise of a Christian Profession.
Fourthly, They make it an Inconsistency and Contradiction in me, to have said, pag. 22. ‘That many who never had the Scriptures, if they have been faithful unto God, in what he hath revealed unto them, by the Light of Christ in them; who dare or can say, that they have not been accepted, yet not without Faith in Christ in some measure; for they that believe in the Light believe in Christ, who is that 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 [Page 30] 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 [Page 13] 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 abovementioned, 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 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-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) [Page 32] 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, [Page 33] 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 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, its well it was no such Matter as might have brought any real Infamy on me, its 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 [Page 34] 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 by their Censure it is evident, they think none such to be found in all Christendom, but themselves, who hold the Head, and build on the true Foundation: for thus they say, VVhich whosoever pleases to bestow the reading on, will see whose Communion he labours to insinuate himself into next, as holding the Head, and only differing in some lesser Matters. But unless they be so Unchristianly uncharitable, (as they too evidently show they are) as to judge none in Christendom differing from them in Profession, to hold the Head, or are sincere Professors of the Lord Jesus Christ, but they only) Why should I be blamed for owning my Christian Communion with them, in things that are not simply unlawful? Ought I not to be of David's Mind, who said, I am a Companion of all them that fear thee? &c.
But more particularly as to the Case of Water-Baptism, and the Supper, as I have freely declared of late Years, viva voce, so now as freely I publish it in Print, That I am not ashamed to own my general Mistakes I have been under concerning divers [Page 35] Places of Scriptures, particularly relative to Water-Baptism and the Supper, as Matth. 28. 19. and 1 Cor. 11. 26. and some other places of Scripture, relative to some other matters, especially in the Misapplication of some places, to prove certain Truths, which these places did not prove, (a thing but too common to many Writers, and to none more than to some called Quakers) for though every place of Scripture prove some Truth, yet every place proves not that Truth in particular which some may bring for to prove it; and I am so far from being ashamed to publish this Confession, that I have great Peace and Joy in it; and I also declare, that I am justly ashamed, that I have been so long deceived and byassed with such weak Arguments, as both they called Friends and I have used, (being too much influenced and byassed by their pretended authority) to perswade and draw away the Minds of People from the true Sense of these places of Scripture. And the Arguments that we have mostly used against these two things, are so weak, that they have the same force against the Bible it self, and all Books and outward Testimonies, and outward acts of Worship, and therefore are void in themselves; for seeing they have no force against the latter, they have as little against the former. However I continue in my faithful Testimony against the abuse of these things, and the dead, empty and formal way that too many practise them; and except the Lord be found to bless and accompany them who use them, with his Power and Spirit, they are but as empty Shadows, and Shells: But who find the Lord to bless them with his Presence, I judge them not; and in this I am not singular, for divers of good Note among the People called Quakers, even Preachers, have said the same, or equivalent, as particularly John Crook, and Robert Barclay: And it can no more be an evidence of my Apostacy, to correct my former Mistakes on these two places of Scripture, Matth. 28. 19. and 1 Cor. 11. 26 Which mistakes of mine, were, That I judged the Apostles were not commanded to practise these things, and did not practise them by Command, but by Permission, of which I am now convinced of the contrary, more than it will prove John Crook an Apostate, which they will not dare to say, who hath owned the same, viz. 'That the Apostles and Primitive Believers did do these things by Command. And J. N. in his Love to the Lost, hath said as much: Yea, both J. N. and Stephen Crisp, allow the practise of the Supper at this Day to weak Believers, as is evident from their Books in Print.
Pag. 43. They blame me for opposing it as an Error, That the Garden of Paradise was some part of this visible Earth; and for my saying the Hebrew Word translated to dress, signifies to Work in it, blaming my saying, ‘It cannot be well understood that it needed Dressing after the manner of our common Gardens.’ Now whereas G. Whitehead hath approved this Book, and boasts that I have fallen into other Hands to deal with me, &c. Let us see how their Hands at present agree: Ye see they blame me for opposing it as an Error, that the Garden of Paradise was some part of this Visible Earth, and will needs have that it needed Dressing, after the manner of our common Gardens. But in plain Contradiction to this, G. Whitehead in his Printed Book, called, A Serious Account, in 35 Reasons, &c. Giveth this as one of his 35 Reasons, why the People called Quakers have left the Men called Priests, pag. 23. Reas. 9. ‘Also the Priests Ignorance and Gross Darkness (saith he) hath appeared, who have affirmed, That the forbidden Fruit, which the Serpent tempted Eve to eat of, was an Apple: From which Dream of theirs the picture of a Snake, and an Apple in its Mouth in a Tree, with the Image of a Man a Woman, are set up at the beginning of Bibles, and in many other places; from which some have imagined that the Serpent which beguiled Eve was a Visible Creature or Beast of the Field, which for that time had power to speak, and to present an Apple to deceive Eve withal; when as God said to Man and Woman before the Fall, Behold I have given you every Herb, hearing Seed, which is upon the face of all the Earth; and [Page 36] every Tree, in the which is the fruit of a Tree yielding seed, to you it sha'l be for Meat, Gen. 1. 29. and the fruit of such a Tree that beareth seed, is an Apple; So that could not be the Forbidden Fruit And the Serpent was that which tempted Man from the Simplicity of the Truth, and through subtilty led him out from the Innocency and Life (wherein God had placed him) to feed upon the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, which was desirable to the Carnal, or Woman's part, that was not content with the pure, innocent and simple Being wherein God at first placed Man over the rest of the Creation.’ Now if the Trees of the Garden were not visible, and particularly the Tree of the forbidden Fruit, as G. W. saith it was not, then to be sure the Garden by his judgment was not visible, as an Apple, or any other visible Fruit growing on this visible Earth; and seeing he gives this as a Reason, why he left the Men he calleth Priests: And it is now his own Faith, by the same Reason, all the Quakers should leave him. In the next place, let us hear what G. Fox saith in that famous Book, called his Journal, pag. 17. ad finem. ‘Now (saith he) was, I come up in Spirit through the Flaming Sword into the Paradise of God, all things were new, &c.’ I appeal to all Intelligent Readers, whether G. F. did mean by the Paradise or Garden, here any part of this Visible Earth? And if any think, he meant it of any part 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 [Page 37] 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 Garden, they should not have been afraid, for they were already saefe. But doth not the Scripture say, God's Mercies are over all his Works? and doth not the Clemency and Mercy of God extend to them that are not yet in Christ? have they not [Page 38] that understanding, to distinguish betwixt the Mercy of God in general to all Men, and his Mercy in special to Believers; and seeing they will needs have this Place where Adam hid, some outward Trees on this Earth, by the same Carnal Mind they must understand, that this walking of God, was an outward and Bodily walking, and his Voice an outward and Bodily Voice: and so they make not only Adam, but Moses who writ these Words, to be an Anthropomorphit and Mugletonian, or rather the Father and Founder of the Anthropomorphits and Mugletonians; for Mugleton himself draweth his Arguments from his Carnal Understanding of these Places, as these Men do.
Pag. 44 They also blame me, for saying, Adam and Eve's Nakedness was the fruit of Transgression. And they argue against it, by Quering, What Sign or Token of Impudence is it in People to endeavour to cover their Nakedness.
I Answer; Taking Nakedness Metaphorically, as I do in that place, Gen. 2. as it is taken, Rev. 3. 17, 18. It is a sign of Impudence to endeavour to cover their Nakedness: Have not some called Quakers gone naked through the Streets, as a sign of the People's Nakedness: And what Nakedness was that? Is not Sin a Nakedness, metaphorically taken? and when Men cover their Sins, with false and sinful Excuses, it is a sign of their Impudence, as is too manifest in these men, George Whitehead and John Pennington▪ And what Nakedness was that of the Serpent, Gen. 3. 1. for as I said in Truth Adv. p. 25. the Hebrew Word is the same in both places, viz. Gen. 2. 25. and 3. 1. Was it bodily Nakedness that he wanted some outward Garment to cover it? And can we suppose, that God who cloatheth every Lily of the Field, made Adam without a suitable Cloathing; Did he not Crown him with Glory and Honour? Psal. 8. 5. And if his Head was not naked how could his Body be naked? But it is not to be supposed, that Aadm's Cloathing before the Fall was any other than that Beauty and Glory that God had put on him, both with respect to Soul and Body; but this gross Ignorance of these Men here, touching Adam's state before the Fall, is like that of their Ignorant Brother of the Ministry, Jacob Talner, who asserted in a late Meeting at Turner's-Hall, before some hundreds That Adam before the Fall, had neither Holiness nor Wisdom, nor Righteousness; and denyed that either Spiritual or Temporal Death was the effect of Adam's Fall; and used the very same Argument against G. K s Ministry, that the Papists used against the People called Quakers, and all Protestant Ministers, calling for Miracles, or Church-Authority. Another most foolish and ignorant Argument they bring against my saying, God cloathed them inwardly with the Righteousness of the Lamb. They say, Did he cloath them with the Righteousness of the Lamb, and yet at the same time debar them access to the Tree of Life? See Gen. 3 21, 22. What strange Doctrine is this. But at the same time is their addition: If by the same time, they mean the same Instant, or Hour: I say nay. But the time was not long betwixt their Fall, and their Restoration, so far as they had access to Christ, signified by the Tree of Life. What they call monstrous Doctrine, of a Body a top of a Body, is none of mine, but their own invention, and foolish arguing. Is a Mass, wherein there is a mixture of Gold and Dross, a Body a top of a Body? They quarrel with my Translation, for rendring the Word Rib to be Side; and though I bring several places of Scripture to prove it a true Translation, they bring nothing to disprove it. Surely a Side of Adam bears more proportion for Adam's Wife, than a Rib. Plato a Heathen, had a better understanding of Man's state before the Fall, then these Men have, for all their high pretence to high divine Illumination, and they who in their conceit are first in the ranck of Christians, are last in many respects for their extream Ignorance, beyond most Professors of Christianity,
[Page 39] I shall not need to Notice his idle and impertinent Clamour, against what he calleth my Arbitrary and Extrajudicial Proceedings, and new Court of Judicatory, and as contrary to the intent of the Law, having sufficiently answered it in any Preface to the Printed Narrative. But I cannot but observe his great Hypocrisie and Impudence in his saying, He is not conscious to himself of Error, either in reference to the Resurrection, Christ's Satisfaction, or Sacrifice, or his visible coming again, in his glorified Body without us, to raise the Dead at the Great Day of Judgement. Seeing I have proved him Guilty in all these things, as manifestly as the Light at Noon-day in the Printed Narrative, and in that Meeting at Turners-Hall, 11th. 4th. Month, 1696. to which I expect his Answer, before they Print any more. But whereas he accuseth me, That I have dealt very unfairly by him, in leaving out [Blood and Bones] after the Words, Body of Flesh. I Answer, There was no unfairness in it, seeing it was no designed Omission, but an oversight either in the Print, or Transscribing; and the adding Blood and Bones to the Word Flesh, doth not in the least excuse his gross Error. For if Christ did rise with the Substance of his Flesh, so did he with the Substanc of Blood and Bones; for he could not eat and drink after his Resurrection, without Blood in his Body: and if he hath the Substance of his Flesh now in Heaven, though wonderfully changed in Conditon from Animal to Spiritual, surely he hath also the Substance of his Blood [so much as remained in his Body] and also of his Bones. But that he seems, pag. 6. to apply my words, the Husk, or Drossy part, not the true Body, to Christ's Body; as if I held his Body had any husk or dross in it, is unfair in him, for I hold no such thing, nor ever did.
He is very impertinent and weak in his complaining, That I gave them no Copy of that he falsly calls the Particulars of my Indictment, or Charge before Tryal, or of the Books and Pages referred unto therein for a due preparation to answer, alledging, I would not be so served or surprised. I sent them, and particularly I sent him to his House, a printed Copy of the Advertisement, wherein the Four Heads were particularly expressed, that I charged them with, and which I have made good against them. G. W. that prosesseth so great skill in Law, and has more Law than true Gospel in his Books, knoweth that it is not the manner of Indictments, suppose my printed Advertisement had been such as it was not, to put in the Evidence against the Delinquents or Criminals, and were they armed with Truth and Righteousness, they needed not have complained of want of due preparation (its odd and a new sort of Language for one called a Quaker, to tell us of his not being prepared) the Scripture saith (1 Pet. 3. 15.) Be ready always to give an Answer to every Man that asketh you a Reason of the Hope that is in you. When I was most falsly and uncharitably accused by John Voughton, John Field, and Thomas Ellwood, at the Yearly Meeting, 1694. I sought no Particulars of Quotations, and Pages referred unto, nor did any intimate to me before-hand the particular Passages in my Books that they justly excepted against, I intirely relyed on the Assistance of God to help me, what to answer to the many false Accusations and Perversions, that my Accusers used against me. and I found him a present help to me. I had offered in Print before to Tho. Elwood, that he would appoint Time and Place, and I would stand to his Appointment: And I make the same Offer to you again, I freely allow you to serve me, as I have served you; Give out your Advertisement in Print, appoint your Time and Place, and let me have your Charge without your Proofs until we meet, and then bring them forth against me; I premise (God permitting) to meet you, provided the Meeting be free and open to all Sober Persons.
A POSTSCRIPT,
Containing an Earnest Expostulation with the most Pious and Learned, whether in the Church of England, or among other Protestant Dissenters; and a serious Invitation unto them, to employ some of their Time and Labour, by their Pious and Learned Writings, to oppose and refute those vile Errors boldly avowed, and publickly broached, in the late Printed Books of some Leading Men among a Gang and sort of Quakers.
IT may seem strange, how it comes to pass, that while so many Pious and Learned Men are judged to be found in this Nation, not only of the Church of England, but among the Dissenters and Nonconformists, there are found so few among them all, that do imploy their Gifts to oppose such Vile Errors as are boldly and avowedly promoted among a sort and Gang of the People called Quakers, not only as bad as any Popery, but much worse than the worst of Popery, in divers respects; and I am confident if such Antichristian Errors and Heresies were but the tenth part so avowedly broached in the City of Rome, or any where else, in Popish Countries, these esteemed Watchmen among them, would be more alarmed to oppose them by Word and Writing, than most among Protestants do, which would seem to cast a great Reflexion on the Protestant Churches, if some able Men, and of good esteem among them, both for Piety and Sound Knowledge, be not awakened to bestow some of their time and labour by their Writings to oppose such Vile Errors; and such a Work would be so far from unbecoming the ablest and most valuable Persons in this Nation, for Piety and Learning, that it would turn much to their Honour and real Advantage, to bestir themselves in this Work. It frequently happeneth, that Books are more valued, and the Contents of them the more regarded and considered, and the more universally read and recommended, that Persons of publick Note and Fame, when Pious and Learned are the Authors of them.
And whereas many of the chiefest Teachers and Leaders among the People called Quakers, have formerly with great boldness, provoked such as have differed from them to publick Disputes, viva voce, and have oft gloried over them, who refused to answer them, that their Cause was bad, and that they had not Truth on their side; and in these days there was no such Cry to be heard from them, as now, That such publick Disputes will offend Authority, and break the Civil Peace; yea, how oft have some of their Teachers assaulted the National Ministers in the Face of their Congregations, and provoked them to dispute with them; and on their refusal, have cryed out against them to be Fugitives and Hirelings when the said National Ministers way of Religion and Worship was approved by Authority, and that of the People called Quakers was not: Would it not therefore be a most equal, reasonable, and commendable Practise for any Persons of true Piety and solid Learning, moved with the Zeal of God's Glory, and love of Truth, and with a Holy Indignation against these Vile Errors that are publickly avouched by some Leading Men [Page 41] among the Quakers, as appeareth both by their former and later Printed Books, and with a tender Compassion to the Souls of so many Thousands in this Nation, that are in danger to perish by the Infection of these Errors, openly and publickly to call them forth to a publick Hearing, and to press them by earnest Perswasions, to retract and condemn those vile and damnable Errors contained in their Books, or if they continue to justifie them, to refute them openly in the Face of their own Meetings, and in the presence of them that do so much admire and follow them. And thus to serve them, at they have served others; and with what Measure they have met to others, with the sone to mete to them again. And it would be a Commendable and Praise-worthy thing, for the Civil Authority, to encourage such a Practise throughout the Nation, that Men of true Piety and solid Learning might be allowed and Countenanced to Refute these Vile and Abominable Errors of these chief Teachers and Leaders anong them called Quakers, in their Meeting-Houses, at the end of their Meetings, or at other fit times: Surely such a Practise as this, as it is no ways inconsistent with the Civil Peace, and Liberty of Conscience granted to Dissenting Protestants, (notwithstanding of the idle Clamour of such Men, who have an Evil Conscience and a lad Cause) would be more effectual to Preserve the True Protestant Christian Religion in these three Nations, than all the severe ways in former times used against then, of Fines, Imprisonments, &c. And though it is far from me to desire the least Suffrings to come on these Mens Persons or Estates, yet if such a zeal were raised in them bearing Authority in this Nation, to give order that all such Books of them called Quakers, as can readily be found, (as great store of such there are) that contan such Vile and Abominable Errors, to the dishonour of the worthy Name of Christ and the Christian Religion, and the great danger of many Souls, be diligently searched and examined by the most Pious and Judicious Persons in the Nation, and after due search and Examination, be found guilty; that by publick Authority all such Books may be suppressed and witnessed against. I may freely say, these Men should have no just Cause to Complain, that their Books should be so dealt with, for they have done the like to Books that have opposed their gross Errors, witness a Parcel of Books writ (by me) some Four Years ago, that came to London from Pensilvania, opposing the gross Errors of some called Quakers in that Province, which were designed to have been Sold in single Books, and dispersed through City and Country for a general Service: But the Quakers here at London gave large Money to the Man that had them, that they might get them all into their Hands, on purpose to suppress them; as accordingly they did, and hinder the Service of them; and these very Books generally lie in these Mens Custody suppressed unto this very Day, and some of them have burned, others have torn, and trod under Feet in open view, Books that have opposed their vile Errors.
Advertisement.
WHereas there is lately Printed a Scandalous Libel against me, with this Title, Master George Keith at Turners-Hall in Philpot-Lane, London, in 1696. contradicting, &c. Signed only with two Letters, W. C. wherein he laboureth in vain to prove my Inconsistency and Contradiction, betwixt my Book of Immediate Revelation, and the late Exact Narrative; the Author of which [Page 42] Scandalous Libel, seemeth to profess himself to be a Member of the Church of England, but his Speech bewrayeth him to be a Counterfeit, and rather one of that Gang and sort of Anti-Christ-Quakers, above-mentioned, seeing he doth so eagerly patronize them, against the known Doctrine of the Church of England, as well as of all true Christians. I give this publick Intimation, that I desire this W. C. to appear and meet me at any convenient time, at our Meeting-place at Turners-Hall, which time I allow him to appoint, and give Notice of before-hand; and I doubt not but by God's Assistance, to prove him guilty of divers Forgeries, and palpable Falsities, Perversions, and Wrestings of my Sound Woros, contained in his said Scandalous Libel, together with his base Reflexions and False Surmises against me. And if he refuse this my fair Proposal it will be manifest he is a Cowardly Spirit, and smiter in the dark, and as well Unmanly as Unchristian, thus in a Clandestine way by palpable Falsities and Perversions, to seek to deceive his unwary Readers, and to divert me from a Business of greater Concern by his trifling. And I judge no Impartial Observer of the state of this Controversie betwixt my open and professed Adversaries, G. W. and W. P. and others of their party and me, will think me obliged to Print Answers to such Clandestine Enemies, and Smiters in the dark, or to regard their Nameless Libels, which might prove as much an Unprofitable as an Endless Work.
I also desire the Friendly Reader to take notice, that the Corrections and Explanations of some Passages contained in my former Books (which I have freely declared, did need Correction in some things, and Explanation in others) are in great part already given in this Treatise; and indeed the greatest Mistakes that I find I have been under, were my mis-understanding these places of Scripture, Matth. 28. 19. and 1 Cor. 11. 26. and others the like places relating to these outward Practices of Baptism and the Supper, which in the foregoing Treatise I have freely acknowledged; and this may suffice at present to silence the Clamour of such that cry out, I should first acknowledge my own Errors, before I charge others with their Errors: For as I had done it in general in the first place, so since I have done it in particular in great part, and may yet more fully do it, as God shall be pleased to give me an Opportunity. But I bless God I have no such Errors to retract or correct, as my Adversaries have; for put all my Mistakes and Errors together in one Bundle, and they will not weigh the one thousand part of the weight that one of these four Errors do weigh, that I have proved my Adversaries guilty of, both in the Exact Narrative, and in this fore-going Treatise, and in other late Treatises. And [Page 43] were but my Adversaries so sincere and ingenuous to acknowledge either in general, or in any particulars wherein they have been mistaken, and need to correct their Sentiments, it would give great Satisfaction to many, as well as to me. But this they will hardly do, nay, it is impossible they can do it, so long as they seek to keep up in their credulous Followers, their esteem of their Infallibility; and beside, to own that they are changed from their former Sentiments, would be either to acknowledge themselves as great Apostates, as they now charge me to be for some small change in me, touching lesser Matters, or rather to clear me of that foul Charge of Apostacy they have so invidiously cast upon me. And it is great dis-ingenuity in them, and Hypocrisie, to blame me for saying, I did not know they held such Principles, till of late times; for it is certain, that as these their Erronious Principles were unknown to me, which I call Anti-Christian and Sadducean; so what they call my Presbyterian and Priestly Principles, were unknown to them; or if they did know them, they were great Hypocrites if they judged them false, not to discover them before now. For whereas now they commonly say I hold Priests and Professors Principles; I know no such Priests and Professors Principles that I now hold, but I am able to prove, I have held them ever since I came among the People called Quakers, as touching all the Articles of Faith, commonly called the simpliciter credenda; and wherein I am changed in my Judgment, as to the Sense of these places of Scripture, relating to Baptism and the Supper, I can prove my agreement with some of chiefest Note among the People called Quakers, therefore for that I am no Apostate.
Pag. 5. That an Unbelieving Iew is no Christian. | That a Believing Iew in Moses time was a Christian. |
That which makes one a true Christian, is the Spirit of Christ, the anointing in him. | Faith in Christ without us, wrought by the Spirit of Christ in us, is universally necessary to make Men true Christians. |
Pag. 6. The History, or Historical and express Knowledge and Faith of Christ crucified, is not universally necessary to make Men true Christians. | Some Knowledge and Faith of Christ crucified (though not the Express and Historical, yet Implicit) is universally necessary to make Men true Christians. |
The Manifestation of God in the Flesh of Christ, and his Incarnation, is a greater Mystery than mens Regeneration. | Christ's inward Ministry and Teaching by the Spirit in our Hearts, is more than his outward Ministring and Speaking was to them who outwardly heard him and saw him. |
[Page 44] Pag. 7. Christ crucified in whom the Fulness, dwelleth, is a greater Mystery than Christ in the Gentiles. | Jesus Christ revealed in Man is the Foundation of the true Church. Note, I did not say Christ only within, &c. |
Pag. 8. Christ without us, as he is both God and Man, the Emmanuel, as well as his inward Appearance in us, is the Object of Saving Faith. | The Internal Revelation of Christ is the formal Object of Faith Note His Ignorance, in not understanding the distinction betwixt the material Object of Faith, and the formal Object, also betwixt the objectum formale quod, and objectum formale quo, maketh him think the two above-mentioned Passages to be Contradictions; but for his Instruction, I send him to R. B. his Apology on that Head, and his and my Answer to the Students of Aberdene. |
Pag. 11. The wisdom described, Prov 8. is Christ the very fulness of God. Note, His abominable Forgeries and Falsities, in saying, I give all these Names he mentions p 11 to the Light within, which is a notorious Falshood, as the Reader will see, that will be at the pains to view the several pages he refers to; for though some of these Names I give to the Light within, yet not all of them, but some I give to Christ, as he is both God and Man; and I divers times in that same Book, and near to these places that he cites, call the Light within a Measure of that Fulness of Life and Spirit, whose Fulness is in the Man Christ without us. | The Light in us is the Voice of Wisdom, the Path of Wisdom, a Measure of that Fullness. See my Book, Immediate Revel. pag. 117. 243, 245. |
Mary was the Mother of Christ, according to the Flesh, and in that respect Christ is the Seed of the Woman in the literal sense of Gen. 3. 15. And as in all his Instances, he grosly prevaricates, so he is guilty of most gross Forgery in saying, That I Allegorize his Birth [in the Flesh] and his Miracles, Crcucifixion and Resurrection. But his Ignorance proceeds from his not understanding to distinguish betwixt an Allegorical Allusion warranted by Scripture, and turning the true Literal Sense of places of Scripture into an Allegory, so as to destroy, or make void the Literal Sense, which I have proved G. W. guilty of: But this Libeller has proved no such thing on me; and he is most shamefully deceitful, in saying, the Word away, we must justly drop on both sides, I having accused G. W. that he hath Allegorised away Christ's Births, Burial, Resurrectionn, and proved him guilty of so doing in my Narrative, by Allegorising away the Literal Sense of these places of Scripture, Isaiah 9. 6, 53. 9. and 1 Cor. 15. 8. | Believers are the Mother of Christ in an Allegorical Sense, not grounded on Gen 3. 15. but on Matth. 49. 50. and Rev. 1 [...]. 5. And in this Allegorical Sense, Christ is formed in the Saints, Gal. 4. 19. and by his Power in them, he (the Seed of the Woman) bruiseth the Serpent's Head. |
ERRATA.
Pag. 9. line 29. for servants read parents. p. 11. l. 17. after is, r. a part in. p. 22. l. 50. r. ad finem. p. 26. l. 11. after books, r but think that I did so distinguish. p. 29. l. 40. r. deisme. p. 34. last line, for general r several. p. 35. l 47. r. Man and Woman.