would have expected any other than that he would have read some Sentence out of some Book of G. Whitehead's wherein he had denied Faith in Christ as he outwardly suffered at Ierusalem because he said Most of my business is to read my Proofs out of their Books But instead of that he attempts to prove it Logically Thus he begins That this is opposed by them I prove thus says he The Object of Faith is opposed by them and therefore the Faith it self must needs be opposed I hope says he the Consequence is clear enough it needs no Proof Let us see then how he proves his Premise The Object of Christian Faith says he is Christ both God and Man and yet but one Christ. Here he hath shifted the Terms of his Proposition already First he spake of Faith in Christ as he outwardly suffered at Ierusalem By the words outwardly suffered at Ierusalem I take him to mean as is thereby generally understood his suffering Death upon the Cross. Now he says The Object of Christian Faith is Christ both God and Man But did he outwardly suffer at Ierusalem as God Was the Godhead crucified and put to Death He will not say it sure If then the Object of Christian Faith be Christ both God and Man why did he before place it only in Christ as he outwardly suffered for us at Ierusalem I only touch this transiently and that not to deliver my own sense but to shew how he blundered at the very entrance of his Work and that he is not an exact and clean Disputant However he goes on thus I offer to prove that G. Whitehead has denied Christ both to be God and Man To the same purpose he spoke in his Gross Error p. 14. How Deny'd him both to be God and Man What does he own him to be then if noâ— her God nor Man There have been some who have denied Christ to be God acknowledging him to be Man there have been others who have denied Christ to be Man acknowledging him to be God Both Condemnable But who ever heard of any before that denied Christ both to be God and Man Yet this he charges on G. Whitehead And first offers to prove that G. Whitehead in a Book of his called The Light and Life of Christ within has denied Christ to be God It were strange one would think that G. Whitehead should deny Christ to be God and yet about the same time too write a Book of above 20 sheets to assert and prove the Divinity of Christ calling his Book The Divinity of Christ and Vnity of the Three that bear Râ—cord in Heaven with the blessed End and Effects of Christs Appearance coming in the Flesh Suffering and Sacrifice for Sinners Confessed and Vindicated by his Followers called Quakers Which Book G. Keith cannot pretend Ignorance of for he picks somewhat out of it though as his manner is perversly in this very Narrative of his The proof he now offers against G. Whitehead is out of a Book of his called The Light and Life of Christ within p. 47. in Answer to VV. Burnet a Baptist Preacher who writing of Christ said As he was God he was Co-Creator with the Father and so was before Abraham and had glory with God before the world was and in this sence came down from Heaven To which G. Whitehead replied What Nonsense and Vnscripture-like Language is this to tell of God being Co-Creator with the Father Or that God had glory with God Does not this imply two Gods and that God had a Father Let the Reader judge In these words G. Whitehead blamed not the matter expressed but the manner of expressing it He did not deny Christ to be God nor that as God he was Creator and before Abraham c. But he excepted against the word Co-Creator as unscripture-like Language and implying two Gods For since Co contracted from the Prepositive Particle Con signifies Cum or Simul with or together with he that says God or Christ as God was Co-Creator must intend he was Creator with himself or Creator with another To say God was Câ—eator with or together with himself is that which G. Whitehead call'd Nonsense To say God was Creator with or together with Another is to imply two Gods two Creators which is that G. Whitehead called Vnscripture like Language For as God is a pure simple undivided Essence or Being so the Language of Scripture concerning God is that God is One Gal. 3.20 Mark 12.29 32. And although in some respect this One is said to be Three 1 John 5.7 yet in this respect of Essence Being and Godhead those Three are there said to be One Not only as of the Three that bear witness in Earth vers 8. to agree in One but to be One. And Christ himself with respect to his Godhead says I and my Father are One John 10 30 G. Keith adds another Passage of G. Whitehead's or rather the same Passage in another place of the same Book wherein he says p. 15 G. VVhitehead denies the Divinity of Christ and that he deceives the Nation and the Parliament by telling them They own Christ to be both God and Man and believe all that is Recorded of him in the Holy Scripture In this G. VVhitehead hath not deceived either the Parliament or the Nation or any one in it For certain it is that the People called Quakers do own Christ to be both God and Man and do believe all that is Recorded of him in the Holy Scriptures But G. Keith did endeavour then to deceive his Hearers and since to deceive his Readers by suggesting to them that G. VVhitehead or any of the Quakers did ever deny the Divinity of Christ or not own Christ to be both God and Man The other Passage which G. Keith now brings Nar. p. 15. taken out of p. 24. of G. Whitehead's forementioned Book called The Light and Life of Christ within whereupon the Baptist's calling God the Word Co-Creator with the Father G. Whitehead answer'd To tell of the Word God Co-Creator with the Father is all one as to tell of God being Co-Creator with God if the Father be God and this is to make two Gods two Creators c. For God Co-Creator with the Father plainly implies two This as I noted is one and the same Passage in Sense and almost in Words with the former and the same Answer serves to his Cavil against both It is plain to any considerate and unbyassed Reader that G. Whitehead did not by these Words deny the Divinity of Christ or disown Christ to be God but rather that he did own Christ to be Gâ—d and both the Father and He to be one God and one Creator not two And therefore blamed the Baptist for using such Expressions God Co-Creator with the Father as implyed two Gods two Creators But that G. Whitehead did then as well as now own Christ to be God is plain from several passages in that very Book
after all he is fain to come to Printing again where we told him before-hand he must come and where we knew we should have a time to meet with him and talk with him with less danger of Disturbance in a more sedate and quiet manner and before more compâ—tent Judges than the shouting Mobb at Turners-Hall For twice in one page viz. p. 45. he says the Aâ—ditory shouted and no wonder considering what an Auditory it was and how he acted the Terraesilius or Prevaricator not to say Merry-Andrew to stir them â—p thereto What a sort of Auditory he had got how sit for his purpose and how disposed to his service some of them were may be gathered from the Account himself has given of them and their Behaviour in his Narrative For at the very opening of the Meeting when the Paper giving some Reasons for our not being there was read and G. Keith had said I offer to answer to every one of the Reasons if you desire it his easie Auditory immediately replied No it is neâ—dless Nar. p. 13. When a Friend of ours proposed a most just and reasonable thing viz. That the Scriptures urged against us by G. Keith should be read and introduced his Proposal in such soft and modest terms as I beg a Favour G. Keith had an Auditory or rather perhaps some ready prepared and disposed in his Auditory which he makes to answer There is no need go on Nar. p. 27. When G. Keith had told a strange and improbable story against three Persons whom he called Quakers concerning words which he said they spake in the year 1678 about 18 years ago on purpose to defame both them and us and did not name them and thereupon a Friend of ours prest earnestly on him to name them he had an Auditor ready to help him off by saying He has done enough Nar. p. 39. Nay when G. Keith had read a passage out of a Book of G. Whâ—tehead's and a Friend of ours desiring to know when that Book was writ did thus modestly say If I might I desire to have liberty to speak When was the date of the Book He was immediately thus taken up by the Auditors If you will undertake their Cause you may speak otherwise not Nar. p. 15. Yet in p. 45. he had an Auditor at hand who seeing him at a loss says G. Keith I see you are almost spent I will answer for you From these few instances the indifferent Reader may see how far from being indifferent that Auditory was And from the whole I doubt not but it will appear That G. Keith had no Reason to appoint that Meeting and summon us to appear at it That we had good Reason not to come there and that he was very unfair and unjust to traduce and defame us there behind our Backs when he knew we did not shun him in the most open way of Trial but provoked him to it It is very idle therefore in him to insinuate as in his Pref. p. 7. that W. Penn has shown great Cowardice and his Party charged by not appearing at all Since as it is no sign of want of Courage in a Man that uses the outward Sword to refuse Scuffling with his Antagonist in a Chamber while he boldly offers to meet him in the open Field So it can never be judged by considerate Men a token of Cowardice or Diffidence in us to refuse to meet a Brawling Adversary in a By-Place especially upon unfair terms while we most readily offer to meet and engage him in the most open free and clear way of deciding Religious Controversies the Press where he first began as himself says Nar. p. 38. What says he is the last Remedy against Oppression Why Printing Therefore I began And seeing G. Keith himself first opened the Press to this Controversie by â—alling upon us in Print we needed not have given any other Answer to him than he formerly gave to his and our Opponent Rob. Gordon in the like case viz. Seeing thou camest forth in Print against us though under a Cover what ground hadst thou to expect another way of Answering than by Print See his Postscript to a Book called The Nature of Christianity in the true Light Asserted p. 60. This was his Answer to Gordon and this might have been sufficient from us to him But because we were willing to inform and satisfie others we published the fore-going Reasons which I doubt not have given and will give satisfaction to all dis-interessed and impartial Persons Now as to the Errors or false Doctrines which he hath charged upon any of us and which he pretended to prove against us at his irregular Meeting at Turners-Hall they being mostly such as not only he himself hath formerly held maintained and defended while he was amongst us but hath since his departing from us charged before in Print upon some of us and his Charge hath been already Answered and Refuted in Print particularly in a Book of mine published the last year called Truth Defended which he hath never yet Replied to though he once made as if he would Although we might with reason excuse our selves from giving any new Answer until our former Answers already given had been enervated at least replied to by him and only refer thereunto yet for the sake of others whom he endeavours be false Accusations to prejudice and harden against the holy Truth and Principles which we hold and profess Partly also because he hath added in his Narrative some few passages to his former Charge to make iâ— seem not wholly the same I am content to follow him through his Narrative also which comprehends another Book of his called Gross Errors and Hypocrisie Detected and hope to manifest both that we are sound in the Faith in those very Particulars wherein he charges us to be unsound and that he is unjust envious and wicked in his falsely accusing us Yet do I not intend hereby to acquit or discharge him from answering in Print what Books already written lie at his door unanswered but rather to engage him the more to answer both the former and this also The Doctrines he sets down Nar. p. 14. as denied by us or some of us are these four 1. Faith in Christ as be outwardly suffered at Ierusalem to our Salvation 2. Iustification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed 3. The Resurrection of the Body that dieth 4. Christs coming without us in his glorified Body to judge the Quick and the Dead The first Head of G. Keith's Charge viz. That we deny Faith in Christ as he outwardly suffered at Ierusalem to our Salvation Considered The denial of this he charges directly on G. Whitehead on W. Penn but by consequence for approving G. Whitehead's Books After he had made his Enumeration of Doctrines he says Now if you please I shall proceed to my Proofs Most of my Business is to Read my Proofs out of their Books Who from these words
Nature upon him and became in the likeness of sinful Man being born of the Virgin Mary c. G. Whitehead Answer'd p. 12. This Assertion opposeth the Deity and Divinity of Iesus Christ and contradicts the faithful Testimonies of the Holy Men of God in the Scriptures of Truth Again p. 14. Though Jesus signifies a Saviour and Christ Anointed yet to coâ—sine those Names only to the Manhood still agrees with the erroneous Doctrine before that Christ was not the Word from the beginning whereas he took upon him the Manhood in Time in which tho' we own him as the anointed of God yet he was also Gods anointed as he was his only begotten and Delight and so the Son from his Eternal Being or Substance before the Mountains and Hills were settled And in p. 15. he expresly calls that Opinion Heretical that denies the Divinity of Christ. Again p. 16. To say Christ cannot dwell in Man doth not only oppose his Spirituality Deity and Omnipotency bar c. And if He be perfect God he can dwell in his People as he hath promised Again p. 18. It still strictly limits or tyes up the Name Jesus Christ to a Body of Flesh and Blood and so coverâ—ly denies his Being before he took on him that visible Body of Flesh Blood and Bones and so opposeth his Divinity as before Again p. 68. What a gross Error is it to affirm that Christ was not from the beginning or that he was not the Word in the beginning and what a denyal of his Divinity like the old Hereticks Again ib. Much more might be said on the behalf of the Divinity of the Son of God or Christ who was the Word in the beginning and with the Father in his Glory before the World began In another Book also of G. Whitehead's called The Nature of Christianity c. Printed in the Year 1671. to which G. Keith himself writ a Postscript in the Epistle p. 3. G. Whitehead speaking concerning the true Saviour or the Man Christ Jesus says Whom we have frequently Confest both as to his Divinity and as to his taking upon him the Body prepared for him to do the Will of God in according to the Scriptures of Truth yea both his outward and inward Appearance his suffering Nature and glorified State and his Divinity in both we have always truly Believed and Confessed even his Dignity Spiritual outgoing from of old from Everlasting as also his outward Birth c. And in the Book p. 36. G. Whitehead replies upon his Opponent What is this but to deny the Divinity of Christ c. Again p. 40. That the Holy Prophets Apostles and Ministers both pointed and testified unto Jesus Christ both as Man born of the Virgin or to his coming in the Flesh and unto his Divinity and Manifestation in Spirit this is owned Again p. 41. I perceive he is ignorant of Christ both as the Son of God and as the Son of Man For according to the Spirit he was the Son of God c. Again p. 52. says he to his Opponent R. Gordon Thou having confest that his Christ's out-goings were from Everlasting hast thereby granted to what I said that the Son of God and his Light are not under a Limitation as to Time and Place especially if thou wilt own his Divinity or that he ever was the Son of God before he took a Body in the Womb of the Virgin but if thou dost not own that the Son of God was before then than thou dost not own his Divinity nor him no more than a Finite Creature I choose to confront G. Keith out of these Books rather than others because these are some of the Books he hath cited and out of which he hath pretended to make good his Charges against us and therefore he may not be supposed to have been ignorant that these Passages were in them But how horribly unjust and wicked he must be in charging G. Whitehead with denying the Divinity of Christ or that Christ is God who hath so fully and frequently asserted and maintained his Divinity against others and that at the same time wherein he is charged to have denied it I leave to the Reader 's Judgment The next part of his Charge against G. Whitehead is That he has denied Christ to be Man Nar. p. 16. For proof of which he cites that Book of G. Whitehead's which I lately mentioned called The Divinity of Christ c. p. 18. but the Reader must take Notice It is in the Second Part of that Book for the Book is by its Pages divided into two parts The Words G. Keith cites first are these If the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both Created doth not this render him a Fourth Person c. There G. Keith breaks off with an c. But it follows in G. Whitehead's Book thus For Creation was in Time which contradicts their Doctrine of three Distinct Increated Co-Eternal Co-Essential Persons in the Deity seeing that which was Created was not so This shews the occasion of those Words and that they weâ—â—â— ad hominem to shew his Opponent T. Danson the absurdity of his Assertions about the Personalities of the Deity But this Passage though G. Keith mentioned it to make the greater noise and flourish he leans not on For without Commenting on it he says But the stress I lay is in the Words following which he gives thus But herein whether doth not his and their ignorance of the only begotten of the Father plainly appear There he leaves out these Words And their denyal of Christs Divinity which he knew would make against him and then goes on thus Where doth the Scripture say That his Soul was Created For was not he the brightness of the Fathers Glory and the express Image of his Divine Substance But supposing the Soul of Christ was with the Body created in Time c. There G. Keith breaks off again with an c. But in G. Whiteheads Book it follows thus I ask if from Eternity he was a Person distinct from God and his Holy Spirit without either Soul or Body And where doth the Scripture speak of any Person without either Soul or Body Let 's have plain Scripture This further shews that this whole Passage related to Danson's strange Notions of the Personalities of the Deity to shew his Confusion therein and also to bring him back to the Scripture which he with the rest for there were several other Priests concerned also at that time in the Controversie had set up for the only Rule in Religion but would not keep to Therefore did G. Whitehead put it upon them Where doth the Scripture say Let 's have plain Scripture But G. Keith perverts the whole Passage and abuses G. Whitehead for he tells his Auditors Here ye see He will not own that Christ had a Created Soul Th. Danson being a Presbyterian Minister says he did plead That Christ as Man had a Created Soul Nay
A Quaker did observe to him That G. Whitehead did find fault with the Letter G. VVhitehead's saying He did not make S. Eccles's Expression an Article of our Faith which is as much as to say I don't believe what he says in that matter or am one with him in it is not a disowning with G. Keith But if he reasons well when he says p. 31. He that doth not testifie against a thing when he has just occasion for it justifies it May I not with as good reason say He that doth not justifie a thing when he is put upon it disowns it There is an implicit as well as an explicit owning or disowning of a thing But G. Keith is in and out In one place he says He can find nothing of blame or censure at all A few lines lower he says But I find not that he censured it all It did not all deserve censure Next says G. Keith G.W. tells you in what sence he owns it understands by it not the Letter but the Blood shed viz. That Blood had a peculiar signification I told him says G. Keith so had the Blood of Beasts a peculiar signification for their Blood signified Remission of Sin but was no satisfactory Offering for sin But the signification which that Blood had did peculiarly excel that of the Blood of Beasts For the Blood shed was a satisfactory offering for sin and did obtain Remission of Sin for all those that truly believe in and faithfully follow the Lord Jesus Christ. But G. Keith did not fairly by G. Whitehead in saying He tells you in what sense he owns it viz. That Blood had a peculiar signification and stops there as if that were all G. Whitehead had said For G. Whitehead went on and shewed wherein he owned that Blood shed to be more than that of another Saint in many particulars of great weight He confesses that I say G VVhitehead does own That the Blood of Christ is more than the Blood of another Saint But what Blood says G. Keith The Blood of Christ within says he and then says There 's the Trick He is full of his Tricks and it were well that he had not more Tricks than are good But such Tricks as these he never learnt among the Quakers Neither will his putting these Tricks upon us hurt us so much as himself For the Just God who knows our Innocency and his Envy will clear us and give him unless he unfeignedly Repent the Reward due to him for his wicked and unjust Accusations In the mean time he himself shall Convict himself of Falshood in this foul Charge Here he makes me to mean by the Blood of Christ which G. VVhitehead said he owns is more than the Blood of another Saint the Blood of Christ within Yet in the same page p. 30. had said before He T. Ellwood is so unfair he will have it that G. VVhitehead ownâ— that the material Blood of Christ is that by which we are justified How hangs this together That I would have the Blood which G. Whitehead then treated of and owned to be the Material Blood of Christ And yet at the same time I would have the same Blood to be not the Material Blood but the Blood of Christ within Besides G. Whitehead spake of that Blood mentioned in the Letter which S. Eccles said was forced out by the Soldier and expresly said he owned the Blood shed was more than the Blood of another Saint And will G. Keith call that the Blood of Christ within Do these things square Does not this manifest the Trick to be G. Keith's Yet upon this Trick of his he cries out Is not this enough to Cheat all the World Have not I more cause to say Are not such false Trick as these enough to belie abuse defame slander all the World What Man can be secure from such a Tricker as G. Keith is He goes on with his Trick further They have says he a double meaning as Arius had They say they own the Blood of Christ and every other thing said of him according to the Scripture so adds he said the Arians and Macedonians when at other times they discovered their meaning to be quite contrary to Scripture Is not this Man past shame He says we have a double meaning as Arius had He must say this either from Supposition or Knowledge If from Supposition what can be more horribly wicked than to brand a People or Persons with so great a Blemish upon Supposition only If he will pretend to know that we have a double meaning he must pretend to have that Knowledge either from our Books or our Mouths From our Books he can know it no more than another Man they being publick and common to all neither has he proved nor can he prove it from our Books If he will pretend to have had it from any of our Mouths let him name the Person I provoke him to it He says in his Solemn Appeal p. 7. He thinks he should know and doth know these called Quakers and their Principles far better than Cotton Mather his then Opponent or any or all his Brethren having been conversant with them in publick Meetings as well as in private Discourses with the most noted and esteemed among them for about 28 Years past and that in many places of the World both in Europe and America Now if we had a double meaning as he says we have so as to say one thing and mean another he who has had as he pretends so close and intimate a Conversation with us for so many Years must needs in that time have observed it discovered it known it been privy to it and consequently be able to make a plain demonstrative evidential Discovery and Proof thereof which I again provoke him to Had he that Trick when he was among us He complains in his Book called The Christian Faith c. printed but in 1692. p. 3. of Christian Lodowick such another Apostate as himself that Whereas divers of us says he declared sincerely before many People their sincere Faith as concerning the Lord Iesus Christ of Nazareth and what the holy Scriptures testifie of him yet he did continue to accuse them still as denying the true Christ alledging They had another sense than the Scripture-words did bear Appealing to their Consciences whether it was not so Thus making himself Judge says G. Keith over our secret thoughts as having a secret Sense in our thoughts of Scripture words contrary to the true Sense of them though we have not given him or any other occasion to judge so rashly and uncharitably of us and our Consciences bear us witness in the sight of God that we do sincerely believe and think as we speak Thus G. Keith but four years ago even after he had begun his quarrelling in Pensilvania yet the very same thing he then blamed C. Lodowick for doing towards him he now does himself towards us Would one not think he had
have no Money I expect he will as he uses to do pay me off with Ignorance and Folly for questioning any thing of his Philosophy But 't is no matter if he do I learnt when I was a Boy Sâ—ultitiam Simulare loco Prudentia Summa est That little Skill I have I know when where and how to use and how to hide It were well if he knew how to make better use than he doth of his greater Stock But Breaking off this short Digression which I hope will be excused for though I cannot dress out Dishes nor serve them up so elegantly as he yet I expect he should allow me Interferre meis interdum gaudia curis He sees I rather chuse to change the Verb than break the Poet's Head and thereby hazard the breaking of my own if I had chnaged the Mood of Interpono I return to the matter again where I observe that he makes the outward Blood not at all the Efficient Cause I mean the worker of Sanctification in the Heart but the Spirit and the Blood no more the Cause of Sanctification than Money is the Cause of Health and Nourishment to the Body to wit by procuring the Spirit to Sanctify as Money procures Medicine and Bread to Cure and Nourish the Body And in that sense perhaps as he says he agrees with all true Christians we may agree with him provided he will under the Name of Blood take in the whole Offering of Christ his Obedience and Sufferings both inwardly and outwardly and not divide the Sacrifice At the close of this page he tells his Auditors he has now done with the two first Heads and asks them Shall I go on to prove the other two or shall we adjourn to another Day And truly his Auditors seem'd to have had so fully enough of that Days work that they would rather endure the Fatigue of one half Hour more than be troubled with him another Day And bid him if half an Hour would do go on So on he goes The Third Head of G. Keith's Charge viz. That We deny the Resurrection of the Body that dieth Considered The Third Head says he p. 34. to be proved is That the Body that dieth riseth not again First says he from W. Penn 's holding the Resurrection immediately after Death in his Rejoynder p. 138. I think adds he this will be enough for W. Penn if I give no more It may be so indeed but I don't think it will be enough for G. Keith if he intends to make a Proof against W. Penn about the Resurrection For that place in that Book treats of the Scriptures but not a Word of the Resurrection The poor Man in his over-eager haste mistook his Books and quoted Rejoynder instead of Reason against Railing in which latter I have found the place he quotes I defend Truth and therefore need not take advantage of Errors of the Press if this had been the Printers Error as it is not but his own fumbling mistake though he hath most unworthily done so against G. Whitehead and that after it hath been proved unto him Before I recite the Quotation which I find he cited also before in his Gross Error p. 12. and perverted there as here I cannot but take notice of the Medium he uses to prove his Charge by viz. That W. Penn holds the Resurrection immediately after Death So that G. Keith to prove one Charge makes another which needs Proof as much as the former Now let us see how he attempts it T. Hicks says he argues thus for the Resurrection of the Body That if there be no Resurrection of the Body the Ioys of Heaven should else be imperfect Now here says G. Keith is W. Penn's Answer to it I answer Is the Joy of the Antients now in Glory imperfect Or are they in Heaven but by halves If it be so unequitable that the Body which hath suffered should not partake of the Joys Coelestial is it not in measure unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul held-by many Baptists on I am mistaken But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Widow and so in a state of Mourning and disconsolateness to be without its beloved Body Which state is but a better sort of Purgatory Thus far he gives out of W. Penn then adds G. Whitehead argues the same way but does not tell where naming neither Page nor Book But he gives his words thus If the deceased Saints in Heaven or their Souls have not all that they expect to all Eternity all the Resurrection they look for then they must be in Purgatory for the time But if the latter be not then not the former Upon this G. K says But this Contradicts many Scriptures that especially in Act. 26. That Christ should suffer and should be the first that should rise from the Dead Now says he according to this Doctrine of W. Penn and G. Whitehead Christs Resurrection was later than that of many Millions Tho' he has much curtail'd W. Penn's Answer and given no direction whereby to find G. Whitehead's neither have I upon diligent search found it and G. Whitehead deniâ—â— the words above given as his to be his yet from the words of each which he has given I find that neither of those Quotations will answer the End for which he brings them They both relate to one and the same Objection That if there be not a Resurrection of the same Body the Joys of Heaven should be imperfect To shew the absurdity of that Objection they both argued That if the Joys of Heaven to the Souls already in Heaven depend upon the Resurrection of the same Bodies in which those Souls lived on Earth then the Joys of Heaven to the Saints already there should have been imperfect hitherto and must continue to be imperfect until the same Bodies shall be raised But this does not at all conclude that they held the Resurrection immediately after Death but rather the contrary For they did not argue That the Souls of the deceased Saints have perfect Joy in heaven because their Bodies in which they lived on Earth have had a Resurrection already but because the Joys of Heaven do not depend upon the Resurrection of those Bodies This then is no proof that they held the Resurrection immediately after Death nor consequently that they contradicted that Scripture Acts 26. That Christ should be the first that should rise from the dead which whether in a strict Sense he was has been questioned by some who have urged the Instance of Lazarus and some others before him But it seems as if he did not intend those Words of G. Whitehead for a Proof because after he had passed his Sentence upon that he says Now if you will hear a Proof from G. Whitehead you may and cites p. 353. of the Book
though that Book not treating so directly of that Subject hath not so many Instances in it as are in other Books of his In that very Page 47. out of which he takes his first Quotation against G. Whitehead upon Iohn 17.5 And now O Father glorifie me with thine own self with the Glory which I had with thee before the World was G. Whitehead says Was not he the true Christ the Son of God that so prayed unto the Father And in the same Page just after the Words G. Keith carps at upon the Baptist's saying Which Word was God yet he was not a Saviour as he was the Word or Creator of the World c. G. Whitehead replies How then doth He say I am God a Saviour c. And in Page 48. upon the Baptist's saying He was not a Saviour as the Root and Creator of Man but as he was to be the Offspring of Man c. G. Whitehead Answer'd Do but mark the Confusion and Darkness of this Man who hath denyed that God the Word or Creator of Man is a Saviour and Christ as he was the Root and Creator of Man and as He was the Eternal Son of God from the Days of Eternity he hath denied to be a Saviour but as he was the Off-spring of Man Do but Eye the tendency of this Doctrine thus to deny the Son of God to be a Saviour whereas it is through the Son of God that Eternal Life is received Iohn 3.16 And God's Love was manifest in sending his only begotten Son into the World So here the Efficacy of the Son of God and the Eternal Word is proved against the Baptist's false and unscripture like Distinction It was in the Year 1668. that this Book was Printed In the Year 1669. G. Whitehead writ another Book which I mentioned before called The Divinity of Christ and Vnity of the Three that bear Record in Heaven with the blessed End and Effects of Christ's Appearance coming in the Flesh Suffering and Sacrifice for Sinners Confessâ—d and Vindicated by his Followers called Quâ—kers In that Book between the Epistle and the first Chapter giving a brief Account of what we own touchâ—ng the Divinity and Godhead of Christ he says That there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and that these Three are one both in Divinity Divine Substance and Essence not three Gods nor separate Beings That they are called by several Names in Scripture yet they are Eternally One in Nature and Being One Infinite Wisdom one Power one Love one Light and Life c. Then adds We never denied the Divinity of Christ as most injuriously we have been accused by some prejudiced Spirits who prejudicially in their perverse Contests have sought occasion against us as chiefly because when some of us were in Dispute with some Presbyterians we could not own their unscriptural Distinction and Terms The Father's begetting the Son and the Spirit 's being sent we witness to and own Yea the Son of God is the brightness of his Glory and the express Image of his Substance So the Manifestation of the Father of the Son and Holy Spirit we confess to c. And that Iesus Christ being in the Form of God thought it no robbery to be equal with God and yet as a Son was sent of the Father c. So that the Deity or Divinity of Christ in his Eternal Infinite Glorious State we really confess and own In the Book it self p. 18. He says He Christ was equal with God in Glory before the World was Again p. 19. It was never any Design or Plot of ours to endeavour to prejudice the Minds of any against the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost as falsly and blasphemously we are accused by this our prejudiced Opposer Again p. 22. We never disowned the Deity of Christ or Holy Ghost as falsly and injuriously is insinuated against us Again p. 26. Charging us with designing to blast and overthrow the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost upon which Blasphemers and Blasphemy and damnable Speeches are hideously cast upon us but most unjustly and falsly For no such design ever had we as either to blast or overthrow the Deity of Christ or Holy Spirit we having openly professed and declared the contrary both in Words and Writings Again p. 32. That the Divine Essence or Godhead can be but one and this in each of the Three we never denied Again p. 38. I have heard of some beyond the Sea who were accused with denying the Divinity of Christ but I know of none here that either deny the Divinity of Christ or him to be of one Substance with the Father Again p. 41. Christ being the Brightness of the Glory of God and the express Image of his Divine Substance as also truly called the Son of his Love c. Second Part of the same Book p. 3. We never denied the Deity or Divinity of either Father Word or Holy Ghost Again p. 39. His Opponent T. Danson having charged the Quakers with denying Christ to be God G. Whitehead Answers This is an apparent slander cast upon us as our Books and Writings do shew that we never denied Christ to be God or his Divinity c. Again p. 54. As to Socinianism as he calls it we are neither discipled in it nor baptized into Socinus his Name neither do we own him for our Author or Pattern in those things which we believe and testifie nor yet do we own several Principles which I. O. relates as from Socinus and principally that of Christ's being God but not the most High God It was never our Principle for tho' we do confess to his Condescension Humility and Suffering in the Days of his Flesh wherein he appeared in the form of a Servant being made in Fashion as a Man Yet his being in the Form of God and being glorified with the same Glory he had with the Father before the World began and his being God over all blessed for ever These things we professed and believed in the beginning and do the same still it never being in our Hearts in the least to oppose or desert them Again p. 58. As to a great part of his I. O's Book wherein he goes about to prove the Divinity or Deity of Christ c. We are unconcerned therein having never denied Christ's Divinity Here one would think were Instances enough of G. Whitehead's and ours owning and confessing Christ to be God to make G. Keith blush for charging him with denying it But because I know G. Keith hath too far and too long abandoned Modesty and Vertue to be easily drawn to blush I will add some more out of another Book written by G. Whitehead and Printed the same Year 1669. called Christ ascended above the Clouds c. in Answer to one Iohn Newman a Baptist who having it seems asserted that The Word was in the beginning but Christ was in time not till he had taken
I ask him â— seeing he would restrain all to the fleshly Appearance and make all the Apostles c. to have pointed to Jesus the Son of Mary this Son of Man with an Hosannah to this Son of David and to none before him If he hath so considered him to be God the Saviour or the Son from the Substance of the Father as some of his Brethren have confessed the Son is And what Scripture-Proof hath he who pretends so highly to Scripture and blames us though falsly for not holding to it for these VVords He existeth outwardly bodily without us at God's right Hand And where doth the Scripture say He is outwardly and bodily glorified at God's right Hand Do these Terms express the Glory that he had with the Father before the VVorld began in which he is now glorified The Exception here is not against the thing but the Terms by which it is exprest The Thing that Christ hath a bodily Existence without us and is therein glorified and that at God's right hand is so far from being denied that it was never doubted But that this should he exprest in such Terms as the Holy Scripture doth not afford and which would limit Christ to any certain place or exclude him by the Word outward from being in his Saints is justly excepted against as contrary both to the Nature of Christ and Scope of the Scriptures And therefore G. VVhitehead asks his Opponent what Scripture-Proof hath he VVhere doth the Scripture say so And the more to lay open his Opponents absurdity in this Case goes on questioning him in the same place p. 41. thus And then VVhat and where is Gods right Hand Is it visible or invisible within us or without us only Now G. Keith might as well from hence infer and charge G. VVhitehead with denying that God has a right Hand as he doth from the other Questions That Christ hath no bodily Existence without us and both a like absurdly and falsly For he himself says in another place also of his Book called Truth 's Defence p. 165. When his Opponent would have drawn a Conclusion and inferred a Charge from a Query What is proposed in the Query is not positively concluded one way or another as the Nature of a Query doth plainly demonstrate And blaming his then Opponent for urging Matters of Doctrine in unscriptural Terms he says in Truth 's Defence p. 169. Why is it that the Scriptures are so full and large in their Testimony to the Doctrines and Principles of Religion but to let us understand that all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith which God requireth in common of all Christians are expresly there Delivered and Recorded And therefore says he for my part what I cannot find expresly delivered in Scripture I see no Reason why I should receive or believe it as any common Article or Principle of the Christian Faith or Life And p. 170. he adds Now if this were but received among those called Christians that nothing should be required by one sort from another as an Article of Faith or Doctrine or Principle of the Christian Religion in common to be believed but what is expresly delivered in the Scripture in plain express Scripture Terms of how great an Advantage might it be to bring a true Reconcilement among them and beget true Christian Unity Peace Love and Concord Yet G. Keith himself who but in the Year 1682. wrote thus doth now which shews his inconsistency with himself and Injustice to G. Whitehead charge G. Whitehead with denying the thing it self because he did but ask his Opponent for a Scripture-Proof of a thing laid down not in Scripture Terms So industrious is he now to seek an Advantage instead of furthering a Reconcilement among them called Christians to hinder any such Reconcilement and cause a greater distance between them and instead of begetting true Christian Unity Peace Love and Concord to break and destroy as much as in him lies that Love and Peace that hath been and but for him and such other Incendiaries might be and increase among them But though G. Whitehead did reject the Baptists unscriptural Terms yet that he owned the Manhood of Christ as well as his Divinity may be seen in another Book also of his called The Quakers Plainness detecting Fallacy a Book not written t'other Day but in 1674. two and twenty Years ago where p. 18. answering an Objection that we own nothing but the Divine Nature to be Christ he answers Where proves he these words to be ours Have we not plainly and often confest also that the Divine Nature or Word Cloathed with the most holy Manhood and as having taken Flesh of the Seed of Abraham was and is the Christ. Before I pass to G. Keith's next Proof I must here take notice of a Marginal note which G. Keith makes in his seventeenth p. relating to the Book he last cited of G. Whitehead's called The Nature of Christianity The Reader may take notice that in p. 15. when it was Objected to him that the Book which he then mentioned was written Anâ—â—eâ—tly and that he had written in Vindication of our Principles since He there to turn off the Objection says I do say If it were my last Wordâ— I know noâ— that I over Read a line of this Book till I came last to England But here quoting another Book of G. Whitehead's which he could not pretend Ignorance of in as much as he himself was not only concerned with G. Whitehead in the controversy on which that Book was written but had also a part in the same Book against his Country-man Rob. Gordon whom he Principally had undertaken to Answer in another Book called The Light of Truth Triumphing Published but the Year before Now to secure himself if he could from the like Objection he adds here his Marginal note thus Note There is an Additional Postscript by me G. Keith put to this Book of G. Whitehead Nature of Christianity the which Postscript I left in a Manuscript at London and with the Quakers Printed with this of G. Whitehead I acknowledge says he my want of due Consideration that I did not better consider G. Whitehead's words in that Book having many Years ago Read it but too overly and not having seen it since for many Years till of late Does this sound likely Does it savour of Sincerity and plainness Or does it not rather look like a silly shifting Excuse for his Condemning that now which he owned then and yet pretending to be the same in Judgment that he was then He goes on in his note thus But I am sure I did really then believe as I now do that Christ as man did outwardly and bodily exist without us for proof of which see my words in that Additional Postscript p. 73. where at N. 11. I blame R. Gordon for saying That the now present Glorified Existence of that Body or man Christ that suffered at Jerusalem is denied
by some Teachers among us And to be sure he did then really believe and had good cause so to do that G. Whitehead and all the Quakers did so believe as well as himself which he had no cause since to disbelieve and therefore he did than Vindicate them all as well as himself charging Gordon with a Lye and false Accusation for saying the contrary And yet whatever pretence he may make of his Ignorance what was in other Books of G. Whitehead's written but a little before he may not be supposed Ignorant of what was in that Book which he himself had a share in out of which yet he now makes his greatest Cavil on this Head against G. Whitehead He adds in his note I confess I happened to find Divers Passages in G. Whitehead's and other Quakers Books that seemed to me unsound but in an excess of Charity I did construe them to be better meant than worded and that they had rather unwarily slipped from them than that they were the expressions of their unsound mind c. How long it is since this Accident befel him that as he words it he happened to find those divers passages which seemed to him unsound he does not tell But the tenour of his words import it to have been long ago For if ever he did to be sure he has not exceeded in Charity towards the Quakers of late Years But whenever he had found any passages either in G. Whitehead's or other Quakers Books that had seemed to him unsound had he been really sound himself and soundly tho' not excessively Charitable he would have Charitably and Friendly in a private manner have opened such passages to the respective Authors of such Books and have understood from themselves their Sense and Meaning therein that thereby he might have both inform'd and reform'd their Minds and Judgments in the passages if they had been really unsound or they have rectified his mistaking understanding by manifesting to him the soundness both of their minds and words And this Friendly Office he might more easily and inoffensively have undertaken if as he says he construed those Passages which to him seem'd unsound to be better meant than worded and that they had rather unwarily slipt from them than that they were the expressions of an unsound Mind But tho' he has not told us when that excessive Charity of his began yet he pretty plainly intimates when it ended and why by saying I construed those passages better meant than worded until that of late I had found them to Iustify the same and the like unsound words in my Adversaries in Pensilvania and to hate and excommunicate me for telling them of them Ay there 's the Hing of the business their Excommunicating him as he calls it that is their declaring him to be gone out from them and their Communion and to be no longer one of them From that time forward and some time before his excess of Charity turned to an excess of Enmity and then he saw the same things and Persons to be far worse than he saw them before because he saw them with a far worse Eye But to go on to his Charge and Proofs The next Proof he brings that G. Whitehead has denied the Existence of Christ in a body without us is out of a Book of G. Whitehead's called Christ ascended above the Clouds Printed in 1669. in answer to Io. Newman a Baptist. The Quotation begins thus p. 17. Io. Newman his Opponent's words were from Rev. 1.7 Those that pierced him in his Body of Flesh shall see that Body Visibly come again p. 21 22. G. Whitehead answereth These are not the words of Scripture but aâ—â—ed altho' to add or diminish be forbidden under a Penalty Rev. 22.18 19. Yet this Mans presumption leads him to incur that There G. Keith breaks off with a dash thus thereby leaving out what follows next in G. Whitehead which is thus See also for answer to him Rev. 1.8 and 13 14.16 In none of which is Iesus Christ either called or represented as a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones visibly to come again The leaving out these words was not fair in G. Keith because they shew upon what ground G. Whitehead opposed the Baptists and what sort of Body it was they disputed about viz. a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones Certain it is indeed that that Body which was pierced on the Cross was a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones And the Baptists from Rev. 1.7 said Those that pierced him in his Body of Flesh shall see that Body visibly come again not so much as mentioning any change in it G. Keith thereupon Nar. p. 17. says Is there any thing here offensive Nothing adds he but what is the declared Opinion of the Church of Rome the Church of England the Presbyterians Independents Baptists and mine all along He had forgot it seemes tho' I lately put him in mind of it that in his Book called The way cast up Printed 1677. long after the Book he carps at he said That Body that was crucified on the Cross at Ierusalem and is now ascended and glorified in Heaven is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure Ethereal or Heavenly Body p. 131. And although to shew his own Confusion he there says That Body notwithstanding its being changed from being a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones to be no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure Ethereal or Heavenly Body re-mains the same in substance that it was on Earth making the change from being a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones to be no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones to be a change not in subsâ—â—â—ce but in mode and manner only of its being Yet he had no reason to cavil with or blame G. Whitehead for opposing the Baptists notion of a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones now in Heaven since he himself declares it is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure Ethereal Body which the Baptists I am confident never dreamt of and which I suppose none of the Churches or People he has named will agree with him in if he will now agree with himself But he would have found less cause or colour to quarrel with G. Whitehead about that description of Christ in Rev. 1. if he had considered what himself hath writ further upon that Subject in his said Way cast up p. 141 142. N. 6. Where treating of Christ the Heavenly Man he says And as Iohn Rev. 1. describeth him he is a wonderfully great Man even that Son of Man whom Iohn saw after his Ascension in the midst of the Golden Candlesticks even he that liveth and was dead ver 18. to shew that it was the Man Christ and he had in his right Hand seven Stars which are expounded to be the Seven Angels or Pastors of the Seven Churches Now mark This sheweth saith he it is not his external Person or outward Body
he knows wâ—re Io. Horn's terms But I observe he takes occasion from hence to make Sport with G. Whitehead and W. Penn their Philosophy even so far as to ridicule Divine Inspiration For he says he has oft told G. Whitehead that he and W. Penn will needs embrace false Notions in Philosophy they will needs seem to be Philosophers by Divine Inspiration as well as Ministers and Preachers by 〈◊〉 Had not the Philosophy himself so much dotes on and glories in been as his own phrase was a Ditch and a foul Ditch too he would have been more cleanly in his Expression and not have made Divine Inspiration the Subject of his Frothy Flout But it is high time for him to tack about and deny Divine Inspiration if he aspire to Preferment in that Church against which he has formerly said so much for it Thus having answered all his Quotations against G. Whitehead concerning the holy Manhood or Divine Existence and spiritual Being of Christ in Heaven as he is the Heavenly Man shewed that G. Whitehead hath not denied it I shall give a few Instances out of G. Whitehead's Books those especially which G. Keith has pickt his Cavils out of to manifest his owning the Holy Manhood or Bodily Existence of Christ in Heaven In his Book called The Light and Life of Christ within p. 9. refuting the slander of his Opponent he says False it is That the Quakers Christ is not Gods Christ or that they deny the Man Christ or the Christ that is in the Heavens In his Book called Christ ascended above the Clouds p 16. when his Opponent had asserted that Christ cannot dwell in Man and given this as his Reason For Christ is perfect Man as well as perfect God He does not deny that Christ is perfect Man as well as perfect God but denies the Consequence that therefore Christ cannot dwell in Man Mind his Answer which is this To say Christ cannot dwell in Man doth not only oppose his Spirituality Deity and Omnipotency but also is contrary to the Apostles plain Testimonies of Christs being in the Saints And if he be perfect God he can dwell in his People as he hath promised and surely his being perfect Man doth not put a Limitation upon him as a Let or Hinderance to disable him from being in his People whilst he who was Christ as come in the Flesh was also truly Jesus Christ within in his spiritual Appearance and we do not confine him under this or that particular Name Again p. 17. I grant that Christ arose with the same Body that was crucifiâ—d and put to Death and that he ascended into glory even the same glory which he had with the Father before the World begun Many more Instances might be added But the Reader may take notice that in my last Book called Truth Defended written about a year ago in Answer to two Books of G. Keith's and which he hath not yet replied to I gave a dozen Instances out of those Books which G. Keith has carped at to shew that G. Whitehead did own the Manhood of Christ one of which seeing he hath not taken notice of them I may repeat here referring the Reader to p. 161. of that Book of mine for the rest That which I now repeat is out of a Book called The Christian Quaker and his Divine Testimony Vindicated Part 2. p. 97. where G. Whitehead saith To prevent these Mens scruples concerning our owning the Man Christ or the Son of Man in glory I tell them seriously That I do confess both to his miraculous Conception by the Power of the holy Spirit over-shadowing the Virgin Mary and to his being born of her according to the Flesh and so that he took upon him a real Body and not a fantastical and that he was real Man come of the Seed of Abraham and that he in the days of his Flesh preached Righteousness â—rought Miracles was Crucifiâ—d and put to Death by wicked hands that he was buried and rose again the third Day according to the Scriptures and after he arose he appeared diversly or in divers forms and manners he really appeared to many Brethren 1 Cor. 15. and afterwards ascended into Glory being translated according to the Wisdom and Power of the Heavenly Father and is glorified with the same glory which he had with the Father before the World began c. Is it not strange Reader that G. Keith should have the face to charge G. Whitehead with denying the Manhood of Christ who hath so often and so plainly confessed to it What else is this but to pin a wrong Belief upon a Man to make him seem erroneous whether he will or no But this is worst of all in G. Keith who hath so often taken upon him to defend our Principles and Us against Opposers in his former Books And even but lately in his Serious Appeal printed in America 1692. in Answer to Cotton Mather of New-England having justified G. Whitehead and W. Penn in their Answer to Hicks and Faldo says p. 6. I do here solemnly charge Cotton Mather to give us but one single Instance of any One Fundamental Article of Christian Faith denied by us as a People or by aâ—y One of our Writers or Preachers generally owned and approved by us And in p. 7. he adds According to the best knowledge I have of the People called Quakers and these most generally owned by them as Preachers and Publishers of their Faith of unquestioned Esteem amongst them and worthy of double Honour as many such there are I know none that are guilty of any one of such Heresies and Blasphemies as he accuseth them And I think says he I should know and do know these called Quakers and their Principles far better than C. M. or any or all his Brethren having been conversant with them in Publick Meetings as well as in private Discourses with the most noted and esteemed among them for about 28 years past and that in many places of the World in Europe and for these divers years in America This more generally But with respect more particularly to our owning the Man Christ hear what he said in the Appendix to his Book of Immediate Revelation 2d Edit p. 133. And here says he I give the Reader an Advertisement that although the Worlds Teachers and Professors of Christ in the Letter accuse us as Deniers of Christ at least as Man and of the Benefits and Blessings we have by him yet that the Doctrine and Principles of the People called Quakers as well as the People do indeed more acknowledge the Man Christ Iesus and do more impute all our Blessings and Mercies that are given us of God as conveyed unto us through him unto the Man Iesus than any of them all And he gives the Reason too Inasmuch says he as we do believe and acknowledge that a measure of the same Life and Spirit of the Man Iesus which dwelt in him in its Fulness and
p. 152. of the same Book in Answer to a Question Whether the knowledge of the outward coming sufferings and Death of Christ is not of absolute necessity unto every one He says Though express knowledge of his outward coming sufferings and Death is very profitable to beget Faith and Love in Men towards God as aforesaid and ought to be highly valued in its place Nevertheless this express knowledge is not of absolute necessity unto Faith and Love c. And in p. 153. How many thousand have been saved before Christ's coming in the outward who knew it not expresly And a little lower Seeing then that some had Faith and Love to God and were saved without the express knowledge thereof to wit of Christ's coming in the outward before he came outwardly why not also after his coming where his coming outwardly hath not been preached nor revealed For now Christ is inwardly come in a Seed of Life and Light in all which is the Word of Reconciliation by which men may be Reconciled with God as they joyn and apply their Minds thereunto Such passages as these abound in his former not yet retracted Book which it would be tedious to transcribe Yet inasmuch as he says here Nar. p. 23. that though Regeneration is no â—light thing yet comparing Christ's Incarnation with the Work of Regeneration I do affirm the Work of Regeneration is a light thing tho' not light in it self I will shew him though it be some what beside the present Business how much he formerly prefer'd the inward Appearance and Manifestation of Christ in Spirit to his outward Appearance in the Flesh. In his Book called Immediate Revelation not ceased nor retracted p. 59. he says If his Bodily presence was not sufficient to the Church his teaching them outwardly by word of Mouth Face to Face but he said It was expedient that he should go away from them and he would send another Teacher who would do greater things and more Manifestly and Gloriously reveal unto them God and the things of his Kingdom If Christ's Bodily presence in the Flesh was not sufficient of it self to Minister though he spake as never Man spake yet I say If this Ministration was not sufficient but a more Glorious they were to expect and as they waited they witnessed it fulfilled and come unto them Then far less is the outward Administration of any other Man c. Seeing the knowledge of Christ after the Flesh was not sufficient nor to be rested in but they were to look for a better a more clear and full manifestation in themselves he appearing in a Spiritual Glorious Heavenly Mysterious way in their Hearts c. And in p. 120. having cited before many Scripture sayings out of the Old and New Testament Concerning Christ he says All these Glorious things both he in the Days of his Flesh and the Prophets before that his appearance in that Body of Flesh declared neither only nor principally concerning his coming in the Flesh namely in that Vessel or Temple which appeared at Ierusalem but mainly and principally concerning his Spiritual Appearance in his Saints after his being Crucified Risen and Ascended for till then the Son of Man was not Glorified And though he was Bodily present with his Disciples yet he told them they were to see greater things And p. 121. He told them It was expedient he should go away that he might come again in a more Glorious and Comfortable Appearance by the Revelation of his Glorious Power in their Hearts for his Kingdom was not of this World but an inward Kingdom and he said that it was within and pointed to this Spiritual Appearance by his Light in their Hearts under many Parables and Figures c. Again p. 107. he says The Iews and People of Israel who lived in Moses's time and were saved it was through Faith in this Word in this Prophet raised up in them in their Hearts not at a distance but nigh the Word is nigh in thy Heart And this is Christ in them the hope of Glory the Mystery hid from Ages and Generations but was ever made manifest in his Saints but in the latter Days more clearly Christ in all that believe the hope of Glory Does he not here plainly make that Mystery which the Apostle and he from him calls the Mystery which hath been hid from Ages and from Generations Col. 1.2.6 to be the inward Appearance of Christ the hope of Glory in all that believe and says It was ever made manifest in his Saints He pretends Nar. p. 23. to have some other principal Proofs remaining about this Gross Error as he calls it of W. Penn But he brings forth but one that I find and that the same which he charged formerly in his Book called The True Copy c. And which I answered at large in my Book called Truth Defended from p. 113. to p. 123. Of which he takes no notice Had he been either fair or manly he should first have refuted the former Answers before he had renewed his Charge Yet not only here but in his Gross Error p. 18 19. he repeats this same Charge without so much as owning that it had been answered to before So that with respect to him it is to little purpose to answer at all since he has so little honesty as to wink over the answer and repeat his Charge a new as if there had been nothing said to it But for the undeceiving of them whom he labours to deceive and by false Accusations and Calumnies to bring into a dislike of our Principles and us I shall here wipe off some of his Abuses and refer the Reader for further satisfaction to my former Book called Truth Defended The Quotation he now gives is out of a Book called The Christian Quaker p. 97.98 It is a Controversial Book and the Controversy in that part of it is Whether Christ as Christ was before he took Flesh of the Virgin or no Which the Adversaries denied W. Penn affirmed and gave many Arguments from Scripture and Reason to prove it which the Reader may there see at large from p. 92. to p. 99. Amongst those many Arguments one was drawn from the promised Seed which all acknowledge to be Christ and therefore as a fit Medium was used by W. Penn to prove that Christ as Christ was before he took that Body of Flesh upon him and therefore that that Body simply considered as a Natural Body which was the Notion the Adversaries had of it and from whence they Spake so much of Christ's Humane Nature was not properly the Christ but he most properly who was the Heavenly Spiritual Man who came down from Heaven and took upon him that outward Body in as much as the Seed is a Spiritual Substance Now to prove that the Seed is inward and Spiritual he argued thus which is the passage G. Keith quotes As Abraham outward and natural was the great Father of the Jews outward and
scandalized with those words unless he be altogether run back to the most rigid Presbyterians in the strictest Notion of Satisfaction rejected by the Church of England whose Hands he seems most desirous now to kiss perhaps that he may lick some Advantage therefrom if he would have seen what was so obvious that he must wink to avoid seeing it that those words relate to and are expresly spoken of that rigid or extream Satisfaction which those Presbyterians and some Baptists affirm God required and exacted of his Son For thus VV. Penn introduced those words which G. Keith cavils at in Reason against Railing p. 90. I shall now said he be as good as my word and that is to produce an Argument or two against the common Doctrines of rigid Satisfaction and Justification as they have been opposed by me in this short Discourse and that out of my Book called The Sandy Foundation shaken c. Then out of that Book he produced first an Argument drawn from Mic. 7.18 p. 90. and in p. 91. from Mat. 6.12 another Argument in which are those words G. Keith takes offence at What sort of Satisfaction W. Penn there opposed appears from that Book called The Sandy Foundation shaken out of which he transcribed those words Now in the Title Page of that Book that which is undertaken to be Refuted on that Head of Satisfaction is The impossibility of Gods pardoning Sinners without a Plenary Satisfaction In the Epistle p. 8. it is called God's Incapacity to forgive without the Fullest Satisfaction paid him by another In the Book it self p. 16. the Doctrine oppugned is That Man having transgressed the Righteous Law of God and so exposed to the Penalty of Eternal Wrath it is altogether impossible for God to remit or forgive without a Plenary Satisfaction and that there was no other way by which God could obtain Satisfaction or save Men than by inflicting the Penalty of Infinite Wrath and Uengeance on Jesus Christ the Second Person of the Trinity who for Sins past present and to come hath wholly born and paid it to the offended infinite Justice of his Father This shews plainly enough what a sort of Satisfaction or rather Notion of Satisfaction W. Penn meant which he said is totally excluded namely a plenary or full Satisfaction by inflicting the penalty of Infinite Wrath and Vengeance on Jesus Christ without which it is altogether impossible for God to forgive and there was no other way by which God could obtain Satisfaction Which too rigid Notion of Satisfaction G. Keith himself whilst he stood in The way to the City of God was as much against as W. Penn For in his Book that bears that Title p. 140. he saith That he Christ did bear the wrath of God either in that manner or measure which the Damned in Hell do or we should have done had not the Lord recovered us I altogether deny for he could and did satisfie the Father well and acceptably without bearing it in that way But though the Word Satisfaction with respect to Christ be not a Scripture-term nor was used by W. Penn's Opponents in a Scripture-sense Yet that W. Penn did not deny the Thing Satisfaction rightly understood appears in the same Book wherein he treated of it Sandy Foundation shaken p. 32. where he says I can boldly challenge any Person to give me one Scripture-phrase which does approach the Doctrine of Satisfaction much less the Name considering to what degree it is stretched not that we do deny but really confess that Jesus Christ in Life Doctrine and Death fulfilled his Fathers Will and offered up a most satisfactory Sacrifice But G. Keith himself to his own Condemnation and Shame has justified W. Penn yea and G. Whitehead too in that for which he now condemns them For in his Postscript to the Nature of Christianity p. 63. he tells Gordon who had charged him with something of this tendency Both G. Whitehead and I expresly affirmed that Christ was a Sacrifice most acceptable and satisfactory so said G. Whitehead yea and W. Penn in his Book said as much whom thou falsly hast accused and a Ransom a Propitiation and Offering for the Sins of the whole World but not that Men should be justified while in their Sins but in having forsaken them G. Keith observes that W. Penn in the Book he Quoted gives nine Arguments to prove that the Notion of Christ's Satisfaction for Sin brings with it nine irrational Consequences and Irreligious But he says they are so weak and insignificant that it were but loss of time to mention them here or answer them From whence I observe that those Arguments were not against Christ's Satisfaction but the Notion of it that is the Notion which his Opponents both Presbyterians and some Baptists had of it which I have shew'd was A Plenary or Full Satisfaction by inflicting the Penalty of iâ—finite Wrath and Vengeance on Jesus Christ without which they held it was altogether impossible for God to remit or forgive and the nine Arguments he mentions how weak so ever he may repute them are levelled he knows against that Notion which he himself seems not yet to be fully come up to For he says Satisfaction is not the strict Solution that is Payment of a Debt in all respects and circumstances yet their Notion makes it a strict solution and they say Christ hath wholly Born and Paid it And G. Whitehead in his Book called The Divinity of Christ c. p. 45. of the first Part pressing T. Vincent to prove by Scripture that Christ did suffer under infinite Wrath saith He should have produced his plain Scripture for Scripture we own and Christ's Satisfaction as rightly Stated and what a most acceptable Sacrifice he was to the Father for all Yea his Suffering as Man or in the Flesh without the Gates at Ierusalem was all acceptable to God his Soul also was made an Offering for Sin c. Yet so unjust is G. Keith that though he knows it was that false Notion of Satisfaction which W. Penn opposed yet he here Charges G. VVhitehead and VV. Penn as also he did in his Gross Error p. 20. with having thrust out of Doors by their false Logick Christ's Satisfaction without us and then that they own that Christ in us offereth up himself a Sacrifice to appease the VVrath of God For which he cites VV. Penn's Rejoynder p. 284. and G. VVhitehead's Light and Life p. 44. in both which Places the Words he mentions are a Passage taken out of a Book called a New Catechism written by VV. Smith Deceased objected against by Burnet and Faldo and explained and defended by G. VVhitehead and VV. Penn But neither of them admits that those Words of VV. Smith have any tendency to make void the Sufferings or Sacrifice of Christ without But it appears that the Words were in Answer to a Question about Christs being a Mediator within mediating with God on behalf of any of his
People that commit evil and so appeasing the Wrath of God by being a Propitiation for them according to 1 Iohn 2.1 2. This one would have thought might have gone down with G. Keith it being so agreeable to his own Doctrine For in his VVay cast up a Book not yet retracted p. 157. he said And thus Christ doth declare himself to be the Mediator betwixt God and Man as he is in them Thou in me and I in them here Christ is the Middle-man or Mediator as being in the Saints Which Confutes the gross and most comfortless Doctrine of the Presbyterians and others who affirm that Christ as Mediator is only without us in Heaven and is not Mediator in us whereas he himself in this place hath declared the contrary And lest G Keith should again Cavil at the Words offereth up himself c. I will remind him that he himself in his Additional Postscript to G. VVhitehead's Book called The Nature of Christianity p. 66. answered his Opponent Gordon thus Because Christ is called the one Offering and that he once offered up his Body c. Thou wouldst exclude him as in us from being one Offering but herein thy VVork is vain for Christ Iesus is the one Offering still and though he offered up his Body outwardly but once upon the Cross yet he remains still an Offering for us within us For he is a Priest for ever and every Priest hath somewhat to offer and he is both the Offering and the Priest who liveth for ever to make Intercession for us This is too good Doctrine still in G. Keith to be retracted by him for though he has mentioned this very Postscript of his in his Narrative yet â—e has not retracted any thing in it though he can condemn the same in others unjust Man as he is Before I leave this place let me put G. Keith in Mind seeing he seem to have forgot it of a necessary Caution he gave in his VVay to the City of God p. 127. thus Therefore we are not too nicely to distinguish betwixt the Influences of his inward and outward Coming and the Effects thereof but rather to take them conjunctly as in a perfect Conjunction having a perfect Influence upon all Mankind for their Reconciliation and Renovation unto God as obtaining that Measure of Light and Grace from God unto all and every one whereby it is possible for them in a Day to be saved And again p. 139. thus But as I said above so I do again repeat it that it may have the more weight viz. that we are not too nicely to make a difference betwixt the Influence and Effects of his Outward and Inward Sufferings but to understand them in a perfect Conjunction c. And so the People called Quakers do say I. Having had a fling at VV. Penn he says Let me come to G. Whitehead again And that he might stir up the People to Lightness he tells them You shall have here a rare Dish of Divinity and then to provide himself some Defence or Excuse after he had done it he adds Not that I would provoke any to Lightness What Hypocrisie is this Then to garnish his rare Dish he says I have read many Books in my Time but I never read such a Book except the Ranters in my Life Popery is Orthodoxy to it no Popish Priest will argue as he has done See how he Banters him Nar. p. 22. The Book he quotes is called The Light and Life of Christ within c. p. 8. where he says G. VVhitehead blames VV. Burnet for saying The Blood shed upon the Cross sprinkles the Conscience Sanctifies Iustifies Redeems us And in p. 18. of his Gross Error where he carps at the same Passage and gives the Quotation more at large but not truly he says Note Here it is plain that G. Whitehead doth altogether deny Iustification by that outward Blood or that it was the meritorious Cause of Salvation But this is a manifest Falshood and Abuse put upon G. VV. For he did neither deny the outward Blood to be the meritorious Cause of Salvation Nor did he there undertake to discuss blame or censure any of Burnet's Doctrines or Assertions That was to be done and with respect to some of them was done in the after part of the Book to which that former Part was but as an Introduction wherein Burnet's Contradictions were collected and exposed and therefore immediately after those Words of Burnets p. 7. partly cited by G. Keith viz. The Blood shed upon the Cross the material Blood meritorious to Salvation sprinkles the Consciences Sanctifies Iustifies Redeems us c. G. VVhitehead added thus But in Contradiction p. 40. That Blood shed is not in being says Burnet but he compares it to a price lost Upon which G. VVhitehead made this Observation p. 8. Observe said he here a twofold stress is laid upon that Blood 1. Merit to Salvation 2. VVork to Sanctification and so he hath set it up above God For God could not save he saith and yet it is not in being this G. Keith in reciting G. VVhitehead's Words left out gross Absurdity VVhereas Sanctification being a real VVork inward that is certainly in being which Effects it This plainly shews that that which G. Whitehead blamed his Opponent for was his Self-contradiction in saying that Blood shed Sprinkles Sanctifies Justifies Redeems which are all of the present Time and yet withal saying that Blood shed is not in being This part G. Keith as I noted concealed and then falls upon G. Whitehead as he had done before Gross Error p. 22. for wronging Burnet in charging him with having said God could not save And he makes as if he would help Burnet out but he quickly pulls in his Horns saying Nar. p. 25. But I wholly wave that Dispute I think it is above Mans capacity Whether antecedently to God's purpose he could have saved us without the Death of his own dear Son Truly I doubted nothing had been above G. Keith's Presumption because I have scarce seen him stick at any thing before how much soever above his Capacity But though he is willing to wave that Dispute yet to help off the Baptist and fall in with other Opposers he says But God having so ordained it consequentially to his purpose it viz. That God could not save may be as safely and truly said as when the Scripture saith God cannot lye Is it any Reflection says he to say God cannot lye and that he cannot contradict his Purpose But I would know of him whether to contradict or to alâ—er ones Purpose be the same thing as to Lye But it is probable G. Keith might borrow this Notion from Io. Owen who in his Book against the Quakers called A Declaration c. has a touch of this kind if I mistake not in p. 178. G. Keith gives another Proof against G. Whitehead out of the same Book called Light and Life p. 38. and having set down the Baptists
Habitation for a Glorified Soul in Heaven to dwell in nor to be the same Body that it was when it was a Natural and Carnal Body if it cease to be a Natural and Carnal Body and be made wholly Spiritual 3. From the uncontroulable Testimony of the Holy Apostle who says expresly That Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdoms of God 1 Cor. 15.50 And by a Metaphor borrowed from Agriculture says That which thou sowest which is the Body that dies and is put into the Grave thou sowest not that Body that shall be ver 37. which is alike as if he had said in so many Syllables The Body that shall arise is not the same Carnal Body that dies and is put into the Grave No the Body that is put into the Grave or is sown is a Natural Body But the Body that is raised is a Spiritual Body It is sown a Natural Body it is raised a spiritual Body says the Apostle ver 44. And that none might think this spiritual Body was the same with the Natural Body he adds There is a Natural Body and there is a spiritual Body He does not say the Natural is made a spiritual Body or the Natural Body and the Spiritual Body is but one and the same Body But he sets them in Opposition as two distinct Bodies There is a Natural Body and there is a Spiritual Body The Apostle illustrates this Difference between the Body that dies or is sown and the Body that is raised from the two Adams the first and the last saying The first Man Adam was made a living Soul the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit ver 45. Is this quickening Spirit the same with that living Soul Is the last Adam and the first Adam but one and the self same Adam The first Man is of the Earth Earthly the second Man is the Lord from Heaven ver 47. Will G. Keith say This second Man which is the Lord from Heaven is the same with the First Man which is of the Earth Earthy As is the Earthy such are they also that are Earthy and as is the Heavenly such are they also that are Heavenly ver 48. Does not the Apostle here plainly shew that as the second Man the Lord from Heaven is not the same with the first Man of the Earth Earthy So the Heavenly Bodies which the Saints shall have are not the same with the Earthy Bodies which they have had And says he as we have born the Image of the Earthy we shall also bear the Image of the Heavenly ver 49. This shews we shall bear the Image of another Body in Heaven than that which we bore on the Earth consequently not the Image of the same Body But if by Heavenly Body were meant the same Body that was Earthy then we should bear the Image of the same Body hereafter in Heaven which we have born here on Earth quite contrary to the Apostle's Doctrine who to clear the matter fully that in all this Discourse of his about the Resurrection he did not mean the same Body of Flesh and Blood that dies should be raised concludes thus ver 50. Now this I say Brethren that 〈…〉 Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God But the 〈◊〉 that dies every one knows is a Body of Flesh and Blood therefore that Body cannot inherit the Kingdom of God but it must be a Body which is not of Flesh and Blood and that cannot be the Body of Flesh and Blood that dies This is so fully handled in those Books of W. Penn and G. Whitehead out of which G. Keith took his pretended Proofs as well as in other Books of theirs that G. Keith needed not have fetched a Round to prove it by alledging that they hold the Resurrection immediately after Death but that he had a Mind to fix if he could that slander on them which they no where say nor do the Places he has quoted prove it For they therein only argued against the absurd and gross Notion of their Opponents which was that the Body which is raised is the same Carnal Body that Died and was Buried which he if he have a Mind may undertake the Proof of But though we cannot subscribe to that gross and carnal Notion yet both the Quakers in general and they in particular do own and always have owned a Resurrection and that of Bodies So said W. Penn in the Book G. Keith quoted or should have quoted if he had not mistaken and quoted another for it Reason against Railing p. 133. We do acknowledge a Resurrection in order to Eternal Recompence and that every Seed shall have its own Body and we rest contented with what Body it shall please God to give us But as we are not such Fools as curiously to enquire What So must we for ever deny the gross Conceits of T. Hicks and his Adherents of whom G. Keith is now become one concerning the Resurrection And having refuted those gross Conceits he spaâ—â— of he concluded thus in p. 140. For our parts 〈…〉 we believe and of Bodies too unto 〈…〉 What they shall not be I have briefly said 〈…〉 roved what they shall be we leave with God 〈…〉 will give every one a Body as pleaseth him and 〈…〉 Fool belongs to the unnecessary medler G Keith himself but a while ago undertook W. Penn's Defence in this Point of the Resurrection against Cotton Mâ—ther in his Serious Appeal p. 9. where he says As for his citing W. Penn's Words arguing against that same Numerical Body its rising at the Resurrection it is clear that he understandeth the same exact Number of the small Particles or Dusts neiâ—her more nor less than what is commonly buried and what hurt is there in that Said G. Keith then If G. Keith has a Mind now to maintain and defend the contrary and will undertake to prove that it is the same Numerical Body with all its Numerical Particles that rises which was buried let him do it Scripturally not only Philosophically and that by false Notions of Philosophy lest he make People suspect he intends only a Resurrection of Philosophers or at most but a Philosophical Resurrection I advise him to keep to Scripture-Terms because he hath so often recommended that to others and blamed his Opponents formerly for going from it And particularly in his Book called Truth 's Defence p. 169. is Positive That all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith which God requireth in common of all Christians are expresly delivered and recorded in the Scriptures and therefore says he there for my part what I cannot find expresly delivered in Scripture I see no Reason why I should receive or believe as any common Article or Principle of the Christian Faith or Life The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead is a common Article of the Christian Faith which we find expresly delivered in the Scriptures and accordingly we sincerely believe it But we do not find it expresly
the Conclusion of it is thus Which G. Keith alledgeth is Proof that G. Keith intended the Ligh within Here G. Keith's pretended Advocates instead of shewing that the Word Within was in the Words charged or in the Words proved which they should have done if they would have convicted me of mischarging him in saying he had cunningly slid in the Word Within come no nearer the Matter than to say that something or other not naming what G. Keith alledgeth is Proof that G. Keith intended the Light within They don't adventure so far as to say that that something or All which whatever it was is a Proof but that G. Keith alledgeth it is a Proof And a Proof of what I Pray Why a Proof that G. Keith intended the Light within But is not that a fair Proof at least by Implication that G. Keith did not express the Word Within whatever he intended and consequently that I said true in saying He knew it was not in the Words charged nor in the Words proved for how should it when it was not in the Words spoken as is here implicitely acknowledged but only in his Intention Was G. Keith so dull he could not see that this was so far from being a Defence for him that it wholly makes against him and for me To peice out this there is added in his Paper a Passage in one Ben. Chamber 's Letter Another Passage in Iohn Delaval's Letter And then is added Iohn Humphrey's two Letters read and both to the same Purpose It may be so And yet all to little or no purpose For what were all these Letters I pray Were they made publick in Print Or only private Letters lying in G. Keith's Pocket How then could it be expected I should know or take notice what was in them But I can assure G. Keith and his Advocates too if he hath any that I went upon surer Ground than the Letters in his Pocket could be to me For when I said He knows the Word Within was not in the Words charged nor in the Words proved I had G. Keith himself for my Author and I thought I could not have a better against himself than himself He in his Seasonable Information to which I then answered speaking of T. Fitz-water's Charge against him p. 12. said His Charge was That I denied the sufficiency of the Light Here 's not the Word VVithin and therefore he knew if he knew what he writ that the Word VVithin was not in the Words Charged Then three Lines lower in the same Page speaking of what the Witnesses proved he says They proved against me That I did not believe the Light was sufficient without something else Here 's not the Word VVithin and therefore he knew if he knew what he writ that the Word VVithin was not in the Words proved This I think were enough on this Head to clear me But to manifest more fully that I had good ground to say as I did viz. that he knew the Word VVithin was not in the Words charged I add that in the same Book p. 17. he says I stand recorded on the Monthly Meeting Book at Philadelphia by the Monthly Meetings Judgment given out against me and clearing T. Fitz-water for his accusing me that I denyed the sufficiency of the Light and the Evidence says he against me was That I said I did not believe the Light was sufficient without something else Here he has set down the VVords charged and the VVords proved as they stand recorded if he may be believed on the Monthly Meeting Book at Philadelphia and yet here is not the Word VVithin either in the VVords charged or in the VVords proved And this both he and his pretended Advocates might have seen in my Further Discovery p. 62. Yet further in his Book called Reasons and Causes p. 8. where he gives this Matter as the first Cause of the Separation he sets down T. Fitzwater's Charge against him thus T having openly in the Face of the Meeting accused G. Keith for denying the sufficiency of the Light Here is not the VVord VVithin And lower in the same Page telling what others witnessed for him he says they said They heard him both then and at all occasions that he delivered his Mind on that subject always bear Testimony to the sufficiency of the Light to Salvation Here 's not the VVord VVithin And this I noted formerly in my Further Discovery p. 63. whom would G. Keith have me to believe if not himself Yet G. Keith has the Face in his Comment upon this Head Nar. p. 48. to say The Question was not concerning the Light indefinitely but the Light within And that I accuse him unjustly The Second Head of that Paper is That in my Further Discovery p. 101. are these Words And this makes a Verbal Confession yea a bare verbal Confession sufficient to Yoak them as he phrases it together in Church-Fellowship To this they oppose Reasons and Causes of the Separation p. 22. ad finem Tho. Ellwood leaves this out viz. Touching these necessary and Fundamental Principles of Christian Doctrine as well as that their Conversation is such as becomes the Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ. They add also another Sentence out of Reasons and Causes p. 36. But as this last Sentence relates not to those Words of mine which were expresly restrained to the Quotation there given out of Reasons and Causes p. 22. So they or he for them for that it is his Work whoever he got to Patronize it I don't doubt leave out the former part of my Words which explain the latter The Dispute between him and me there was not about Conversation or how far he either admitted or required that as a Term of Communion with him but it was about a verbal Confession of Faith or Principles as a Door of Admittance into Society or Fellowship or Terms of Communion therein See my Epistle p. 59 60 and 61. In his Answer to which called A Seasonable Information p. 34. Sect. 37 38. He mentioned not a Word of Conversation but excepted against the Words Door of Admittance and said he made not a verbal Confession the Terms at all of Church-Communion when the Profession is but barely verbal but when the Confession or Profession floweth from the living Faith of Christ c. To this I replying in my Further Discovery p. 101. shewed that he had not guarded his Expression about a verbal Confession so before in the Place I had quoted of his which was that in Reasons and Causes p. 22. Then reciting the Words again viz. We are convinced and perswaded in our Consciences that God calleth us to separate from such Vnbelievers and not to be yoaked together in Church-Fellowship and Discipline with any that we have not proof of by Confession of the Mouth that they are sound in Faith I thereupon made this twofold Inference So that he makes a verbal Confession a Proof of their being sound in the Faith and this
think unfairly by Logical Nicety Thought the Proverb says is free and I cannot help it if they would think so But I think and I have found others think that I have in that Book sufficiently fix'd the Guilt of the Separation upon G. Keith and that by fair Reasoning drawn from Matter of Fact throughout twenty pages and more from p. 36. to p. 59. And I am content to stand to the Readers Judgment in it But if the Persons whom G. Keith pretends to have had this Paper from did draw it up themselves I wonder not at their thinking as they say they do For in the Close of the former Head the Judgment of the Yearly Meeting is called the Supposed Judgment of the Yearly Meeting which word doth so exactly resemble G. Keith's Style that if any others brought it sorth â—or him I cannot think but he begot it in them Upon this Head G. Keith makes a large Comment But it is little else than a Repetition of the 10 th Section in p. 13 14. of his Seasonable Information already answered in my Further Discovery p. 42 43 44. Only I observe he here makes it a perversion of Philosophy to put the Cause before the Effect Which perhaps may be as true as it would be a Perversion in Husbandry to set the Oxen before the Plow which is their proper place The Eighth Head being only about setting the Printâ—r's Name to Books I think too trivial to take notice of here further than to observe That it shews G. Keith and they that he says favoured him were hard put to it to pick up Matter out of my Book to Cavil at when they were fain to stoop for such silly stuff as this The Ninth and Last Head is That T. Ellwood alledges p. 91. He did not understand that the Doctrine of the Faith of Christ as he died being necessary to our Christianity and Salvation c. Was by him reputed a Doctrine in Controversie between G. Keith and others in America when in several Places of his Books it plainly appears it was the principal Doctrine in Controversie See Reasons and Causes p. 8 and 21 22. with many others They must excuse me in that What appears very plain to some does not always appear so to others And I do assure them that which they say appeared so plain to them neither then did nor yet does appear plain to me For I do not believe whatever he may pretend that there was any real Controversie between Friends there and him whether the Faith of Christ as he died is necessary to our Christianity and Salvation But that the Quâ—stion controverted was Whether that Faith is absolutely and indispensibly necessary to all Mankind throughout the Vniverse so that none could be saved without it though they had not the means Opportunity or Capacity to know or receive it And that this was indeed the state of the Controversy there I have since Read in the state of the Case p. 11. written by Samuel Iennings while here in England It was not that I thought there was any thing of worth or moment in this Paper that made me bestow this little pains in answering it nor that the particular Passages therein though G. Keith to set them off calls them Weigâ—ty ParticulaÌ„rs haâ—e any other weight in them than what is likely to fall upon his Head who brought them forth whatever it may upon any others that assisted him therein But the chief reason which induced me at this time to take any notice of them at all was that I might wholly take from him all pretence of having answered that Book of mine out of which these Cavils were taken so that that Book called A Further Discovery as well as my last called Truth Defended may still lie with their full weight on him unanswered in any part In p. 51. The Meeting being over and Narrative ended he adds this Note If any of my Adversaries object That divers of these Proofs here brought were brought formerly in my Book against W. Penn and G. Whitehead called A Short List of the Vile and Gross Errors which T. Ellwood hath replied to in his Book called Truth Deâ—ended I Answer says he I know not any one of them that he has sufficiently answered unto to give the least satisfaction to any sound Christian his Answers being meerly Evasions and Perversions as I should have shewn if he had appeared Alas poor man he might with the more ease have shewed it I not appearing to his Imperious Summons if he could have shewed it at all Why should he excuse himself by my not appearing Neither G. Whitehead nor W. Penn appeared any more than I they not owning his Vsurped Iurisdiction any more than I and yet that hindred him not from repeating those broken Charges against them which I had answered before in Print If he would needs be doing he should have proceeded methodically and fairly and have first given his Auditors an account that he had formerly exhibited those Charges in Print and that I in Print had answered them Then he should have read my Answers and reâ—uâ—ed them if he could and when he had done that it had been time enough then for him to have renewed and reinforced his Charge But he had rather answer my Book by repeating the Charge which my Book was an Answer to that he thought would be the easiest way As for my former Answer whether it is sufficient and satisfactory or no he must give me leave or I will take it to tell him notwithstanding he has set himself on the Bench and called me and others to the Bar to hear our selves charged and proved guilty that he and I are both too near a kin to the Cause to be proper and competent Judges of the sufficiency of my Answer His Book and mine are both abroad the World has them and the World will judge of them as they see cause whether we will or no and so let them with my good will But withall let me tell him that until he has answered them they stand and will stand as sufficient against him And as such I still leave them upon his Head and expect his Answer to both them and this And whereas he saith there are many new Proofs here brought besides the former it is not unlikely but some there may be though I think not many for that 's the way of Shuffling Writers to add some New Scraps to an Old Book and then set it out with a New Title for a New Book Yet very little I think there is if any thing in his Narrative which was not published before either in his former List of Vile and Gross Errors which I answered before or in his Book of Gross Error and Hypocrisie detected now answered in this And therefore I think I may justly call this Answer to his Narrative an Answer to them all and as such I intend it G. Keith's Appendix to his Narrative and the several Charges contained
he is altogether unjust in raising this Cavil for he knows that in this Place as well as in the other upon which he grounded his last pretended Error where I defended S. Crisp against R. Cobbet and him I expresly spake of Christ not only with respect to his Body which was born of the Virgin but as he was the Son of God by an Eternal Generation as he was conceived by the Overshadowing of the Power of the Highest as he was the Promised Seed which G. Keith had confessed was not the Manhood only but the Godhead and Manhood united And in these respects it was that I argued he was not produced by Coagulation which was one of Cobbet's Terms nor came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary which was another of Cobbet's Terms But before I part with G. Keith on this Head let us see whether He who is so forward to brand me with this Error has not himself trod too near that which he charges me with For in his Book called The way to the City of God p. 131. He says Even according to that Birth He Christ was the Son of God no less than the Son of Man having God for his Father as he had the Virgin Mary foâ— his Mother But as he was the Son of God having God for his Father was he produceâ— by Coagulation or did he come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary Now the Child says he we know doth partake an Image or Nature from both Parents and thus did Christ who did partake of the Nature and Image of Man from the Seed of Mary but did partake of a Nature and Image much more excellent than that of Man in its greatest glory from God and his Seed who did really sow a most divine and heavenly Seed is not that a Substance in the Virgins Womb which as it supplied the Males Seed so it had much more in it and brought forth a Birth which as it had the true and whole Nature of Man so I say it had a Perfection above it and that not only in accidental Qualities as men will readily confess but even in Substance and Essence The Eighth Error he slanders me with he calls my false way of reasoning against the Man Christ's being created from his reasoning if not created therefore not Man by retorting if created therefore not God p. 139. This is as meer a Cavil as the former and both the one and the other arose from hence that he would make the Manhood only to be Christ without the Godhead or else subject the Godhead to the same Condition of Generation or Creation with the Manhood either of which is an Error This made me give him that retorting Answer which has so much displeased him Thus it was in my former Book His Third Observation is That S. Crisp's denying that Jesus the Saviour was created or calling for Scripture to prove it doth sufficiently prove that he understands Christ only to be God and wholly excludes the Manhood of Christ from being Christ or any part of him Doth it so said I Then let G. Keith look to himself For by retortion I return upon him That his holding that Iesus the Saviour was created which he doth by condemning S. C. for denying it doth sufficiently prove that he understands Christ to be only Man and wholly excludes the Godhead of Christ from being Christ or any part of him which to hold is a gross and vile Error Let him acquit himself as he can He cannot acquit himself therefore he is angry and wrangles with me for retorting this on him He says I charge him to be deeply drenched into Socinianism My words are I confess I did not think him so deeply drencht into Socinianism He says This is my Ignorance The Socinian Error is not That Christ is a Creature but that he is a meer Creature viz. only Man and not both God and Man I was not ignorant of this nor am of the folly of his Arguing neither can he be ignorant that my Answer by retortion implied him to hold that Christ is not only a Creature but a meer Creature only Man wholly excluding the Godhead which is full Socinianism And until he will leave Cavilling and come down in his Stomach and distinguish as he ought to do betwixt Christ as he was the Son of God by Eternal Generation the divine Word which was in the beginning with God and which was God and that which he took of the Virgin he shall never be able to free himself from the Imputation of this Error For so far as he makes Christ to be created so far he makes him a meer Creature The Ninth Error he ascribes to me he calls my blaming him to make light so he expresses it of the work of Generation I take him to mean Regeneration in comparison of Christ's Incarnation therefore according to him says he Regeneration is greater than Christ's Incarnation Upon which he crys out O great Blasphemy p. 155. In this he mistook me whether ignorantly or designedly I know not for I did not intend nor now do to draw a Comparison between those two Appearances or Manifestations of Christ Outwardly in the Flesh at Ierusalem and Inwardly in the Hearts of his People so as to prefer the One to the Other for I have all along told him I do not like to divide Christ. But the drift and scope of my words which here he carps at was to shew him that he had done so As for the Charge it self of making Regeneration greater than Christ's Incarnation he had charged it before but falsly on W. Penn in his Narrative p. 22. And I have Answered it already in p. 82. of his Book to which I refer the Reader for satisfaction concerning it His Tenth and Last Error he flings at me is my saying that the Author of Regeneration is Christ chiefly as he is manifested inwardly in the heart p. 152. My words which best shew my meaning were these And very idle is he in saying Seeing the Work of Regeneration and Sanctification in the Saints is a great Mystery must we not own him who is the Author and great Cause of it to be greater For who ever questioned that We all own the Workman to be greater than the Work the Author and great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification to be greater than the Regeneration and Sanctification wrought And this Author and great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification we say is Christ and that chiefly as he is manifested inwardly in the Heart For he worketh it not in any but those in whom he is so inwardly manifested These words shew that when I said Christ is the great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification chiefly as he is manifested inwardly in the Heart it was with respect to him as he is the nearest and most immediate Cause thereof and as he actually works the work of Regeneration and Sanctification in the Heart and