Wesley Corpus

‘The materiality of the angelic kingdom was spiritual’ (Part II. p. 27). What is spiritual materiality Is it not much the same with immaterial materiality ‘This spiritual materiality brought forth the heavenly flesh and blood of angels’ (page 57). That angels have bodies you affirm elsewhere. But are you sure they have flesh and blood Are not the angels spirits And surely a spirit hath not flesh and blood. ‘The whole glassy sea was a mirror of beauteous forms, colors, and sounds, perpetually springing up, having also fruits and vegetables, but not gross, as the fruits of the world. This was continually bringing forth new figures of life; not animals, but ideal forms of the endless divisibility of life.' (Part I. pp. 18-19.) This likewise is put into the mouth of God. But is nonsense from the Most High What less is ‘a mirror of beauteous sounds’ And what are ‘figures of life’ Are they alive or dead, or between both, as a man may be between sleeping and waking What are ‘ideal forms of the endless divisibility of life’ Are they the same with those forms of stones, one of which Maraton took up (while he was seeking Yaratilda) to throw at the form of a lion [See Spectator, No. 56, May 4, 1711, where Addison describes the Indian visionary's adventures in an underworld of unrealities.] ‘The glassy sea being become thick and dark, the spirit converted its fire and wrath into sun and stars, its dross and darkness into earth, its mobility into air, its moisture into water’ (Part II. p. 29). Was wrath converted into sun or stars, or a little of it bestowed on both How was darkness turned into earth or mobility into air Has not fire more mobility than this Did there need omnipotence to convert fire into fire, into the sun, or moisture into water ‘Darkness was absolutely unknown to the angels till they fell. Hence it appears that darkness is the ground of the materiality of nature.’ (Page 33.) Appears -- to whom Nothing appears to me but the proving ignoturn per ignotius.