of all people on the face of the Earth many of the Preachers and Writers among the Quakers that I know of have been most guilty in this thing and doubled this guiltiness in fathering these sinful Words and their sinful Passion on the Spirit of God as W. Penn did when he called me Apostate and Impostor for defending Christian Doctrine common to all Christendom saying He was transported by the Glorious Power of God For my own part wherein I have at any time either in word or Writ exceeded in giving any uncharitable Names to any or in any uncharitable practise or behaviour I declare I am sorry for it and have begged and do beg God's forgiveness for it for his dear Son's sake and also the forgiveness of any whom I have at any time justly offended in Words or behaviour and I bless God who has taught me more patience by the late Exercises I have gone through of the strife of Tongues and I hope I can in measure say that I witness that place of Scripture fulfilled That tribulation worketh patience and patience experience and this I have divers times acknowledged to my late Adversaries who have made ill use of it against me but I never knew they made any such acknowledgment to any I am sure never to me whom they have most unworthily abused both by Word and Pen. And now before I have quite done with William Penn let me put him in mind of his Promise That he would answer me in the face of the Nation for I think I have made good my word that I have put him to prove his Charge against me that I am an Apostate in the face of the Nation and let him not put off this Work that belongs to himself to any Deputy or busy Intruder as Th. Elwood or John Pennington who have already sufficiently shewn their folly in print but let him perform his Promise by himself and also remind his words in his Christian Quaker pag. 1. who saith I was not willing that any should answer for my faults if any there were and if innocent I osteemed my self both sufficient and obliged to my own relief Some of Tho. Elwood his Vile and Gross Errors truly collected out of his Book falsly called Truth Defended I Shall pass by at present his many Forgeries and Perversions and Abuses against me in this his last Book and his two former Books to the first of which I have answered in print having collected out of his two last Abusive Books above an hundred manifest Perversions Forgeries and Falsities he hath heaped up against me which I have in readiness to shew and which I keep by me for a reserve until I find an occasion to publish them either by print or otherwise therefore I shall only now make an Index of some of his Vile and Gross Errors contained in his last Book called Truth Defended 1. The Blood that came out of Christ's Side its shedding was not done to compleat the Offering because before that Christ said Consummatum est it is finished p. 99. Note this is as much against his Death for before his Death he said it is finished 2. He justifies George Whithead's Doctrine and Words denying that the material Blood of the Beasts were Types of Christ's material Blood and yet fallaciously seems to own it p. 106. 3. He justifies W Penn's Doctrine saying The one Seed cannot be an outward thing for one outward thing cannot be the proper sign of another outward thing p. 113. 4. He denieth that the gift of the Divine Grace or Power within is the real Purchase of Christ's Obedience unto death arguing That if so that would not be the free Gift of God p. 121. This is contrary to Rom. 5.15 Eph. 1.14 and 4.7 8 compared with Psal 68.18 5. He blames me for saying Christ's Body is the same in substance it was on Earth p. 129. now if not the same in substance then that Body he had on Earth is not in being or he must hold the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in that case 6. He denieth that Christ came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary p. 136. and in so doing he must deny him to be the Son of David and Abraham 7. He perverteth the Apostle's Creed in that Clause Conceived of the Holy Ghost p. 138. by which he infers that Christ came not by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary and in so doing he makes the Holy Ghost to be the material Cause of that Generation as if that Holy Thing conceived were of the Substance of the Holy Ghost whereas the Holy Ghost was the efficient Cause thereof but not the material Cause 8. His false way of reasoning against the Man Christ's being created from my reasoning if not created therefore not Man by retorting if created therefore not God and in this he chargeth me to be deeply drenched into Socinianism but this is his ignorance This is as foolish as to argue A. B. is no English Man therefore is no Man whereas it is good arguing A. B. is no Man therefore no English Man 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 p. 139. 9. His blaming me to make light of the work of Generation in comparison of Christ's Incarnation therefore according to him Regeneration is greater than Christ's Incarnation Oh great Blasphemy pag. 155. 10. His saying That the Author of Regeneration is Christ chiefly as he is manifested inwardly in the heart p. 152. This is as absurd as to say The Beams of the Sun that descend on the Earth are the chief cause of the Earth's fruitfulness and not the Sun it self that is in the Firmament My answer to John Pennington's Book falsly called An Apostate Exposed In his said Book he brings no matter against me either as to Doctrine or Life but sets down some Citations out of my Books and the Doctrine in all these Citations I own But that I thought it had been the Doctrine of the Quakers in general and of George Whithead and William Penn in particular in that I own my mistake but this is no contradiction or proof of my Apostacy for I did not positively say they had no Errors but according to the best of my knowledge they had no Errors this is no contradiction for Contradictions according to that true Maxim are secundum idem ad idem eodem loco tempore ratione But he hath not so much either Logick or common Sense to understand that this is no contradiction or what a true Contradiction is as neither his quondam Tutor Tho. Elwood hath As concerning Caleb Pusey his Book falsly called His Modest Account I have a full Answer to it in readiness but there is no present need of its publication But let it be noticed that my Adversaries have owned it as having unity with it and no doubt it was approved by
false Accusation and Defamation and I offer to prove it at the said Meeting Fifthly Whereas the Second Days Weekly Meeting of the People called Quakers in Lombard-street London hath approved or Countenanced the above-mentioned Scandalous Books and another late Book from Pensilvania signed by Caleb Pusey falsly called by him A modest Account from Pensilvania of the Principal Differences in a Point of Doctrine c. I charge them to be guilty of great Injustice against me as also of being guilty of the false Accusations Perversions Forgeries and false Doctrines contained in the said Books by their approving the same and allowing them to be publickly sold next Door to their Meeting-place by one of their own Profession If it happen that few or none of the above-mentioned Persons shall be present at the said Meeting being conscious to themselves of the badness of their Cause yet I do hereby declare and publish my full intention to be present God willing with my Friends at the said Place and Time appointed to make good the Charges against them And any moderate and Friendly People of other Professions have freedom to be present so far as there is room in the place to receive them without Crowd or Throng to hear what shall be said and proved in these matters above-mentioned GEORGE KEITH London the 11th day of the Third Month called May 1696. And here I think fit to give a true Account of the Just Cause I have to intimate such a Meeting IN my book called A Seasonable Information and Caveat against a scandalous book of Th. Elwood I made a profer to Th. Elwood to meet him at any Place and Time that he would appoint to prove him guilty of gross Forgery in matters of Fact c. and also of false Doctrine But he did no wise assent to any such proffer nor gave any rational Excuse for his Rufusal pretending he would not give G K. an Opportunity to gratifie the Rabble and disgrace his Profession he yet made of Truth by so publick a discovery of his ungoverned Passions What is this but great hypocrisie And no doubt if he or his Party thought to get any advantage against me such a Publick Appearance either in regard of the Cause or of what he and they call my ungoverned Passions they would greedily embrace it But the reality of the matter is they are not willing their great injustice as well as their insolent carriage and most unruly Passions in clandestine places should be discovered shutting the doors upon all but themselves that none that were equal and impartial Hearers and Observers might be present to be a check to their rude and insolent carriage against me many speaking to me at once which some among themselves reproved at the first Yearly Meeting I appeared among them Thus they seek to murther the Reputation of the Innocent in secret places And instead of assenting to my just proffer he prints another book against me filled with more than double to what was in his former book of Forgeries Perversions False Accusations and Misrepresentations And I having neither time nor ability of outward Estate to print Answers to him and others that heap book upon book against me with no charge to them they having got a way without any charge or cost to them to Print what they please And things being thus I appeal to all moderate persons whether this my intimation of such a Meeting in the defence of the Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity as the necessity of Faith in Christ as he outwardly suffered at Jerusalem to our Salvation Justification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed the Resurrection of the Body that dyeth and Christs coming without us in his Glorified Body even the same that formerly suffered Death for our sins to Judge the Quick and the Dead All which I offer to prove have been opposed and contradicted by some of them being the common Faith generally and in common professed by Christians in all professions and for the defence of which all sincere Christians are jointly concerned and also in my just vindication both as a man and a Christian be not justifiable and commendable it being the best way I have at present to clear the Truth and my Innocency and discover their great injustice towards me and to Answer the proud and insulting boastings of my Adversaries And whereas in my late Book called A short List of some of the vile and gross Errors of Geo. Whitehead c. I proposed a just demand to William Penn to give me an Opportunity for him to make good his Charge against me at any publick Meeting of the People called Quakers in or about London instead of his assenting to my just Demand there comes forth a Third Book of Tho. Elwood multiplying his gross Forgeries Defamations and Misrepresentations against me and also containing most false and Antichristian Doctrine to the great dishonour of the blessed Name of Christ and the Christian Religion And as if G. W. and W. P. were not alive or not able to Answer for themselves he will needs Answer for them and the said Tho. Elwood puts a most impudent and notorious perversion upon my plain words in my Proposition to W. Penn saying of me as he has worded his Demand he seems to have bespoke a Publick Meeting that he might have done it himself see page 159. and page 160. of his Truth defended As if saith he he wanted such an Opportunity to prove himself an Apostate Let the Reader but read my words in my own Book and at the first sight he will see the Cheat and Forgery Observe Reader my words p. 32. And let him signifie to me the time and place where he will make it to appear I say not when I will that his Charge against me is true May I not well say that ever such a gross and impudent Forgerer Wrester and Perverter of a Mans words should be allowed or permitted to be an Agent Patron or Champion for what they call the Body of the People named Quakers and their Ministry is a sign that they are at a low Ebb when they make use of such Tools as T. E. is whom I can and do offer to prove not only to be guilty of gross Forgeries and Perversions and Antichristian Principles but grosly ignorant in that which he pretends to have knowledge of Humane Learning and who is guilty of Pedantick trifling and quibbling from meer Errors of the Press not so duly corrected yet obvious to any intelligent Reader And to my demanding the like Justice to be done me as some Years ago we demanded of the Baptists against Thomas Hicks he answereth in his last book falsly called Truth defended pag. 158. That betwixt that and this of mine there is in parallel For saith he in that there was a people concerned on each side c. Whereas W. P 's calling G. K. Apostate affects no body that I know of saith T. E. but himself and
judged an Apostate for changing his Opinion of some Men especially when he finds cause so to do Quaker You are fallen from your former Principles G. Keith If you prove me not to have changed in any Fundamental Principle ye ought not to charge me to be an Apostate I know not any Fundamental Principle nor indeed any one Principle of the Christian Faith that I have varied from to this day ever since I came among the Quakers which is about Thirty Three Years ago therefore I ought to be cleared of that Imputation Quaker H. Gâ—ldneâ— began to speak G. Keith Art thou deputed to Answer to what I have Charged them with Stranger They have declined your Meeting and yet several persons it seems are deputed by them to speak Auditors G. Keith go on with your Charge G. Keiâ—h There is another passage in G. Whiteheads book wherein he denies the Divinity of Christ and 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 and no wonder he has deceived me In his pag. 24. Light and Life he saith 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 implyes two Ye see this is positive and he puts this Censure on the Baptists words Thus Nonsense Confusion and Blasphemy is heapt up against the Light within Quaker We tell you that whereas G. Keith hath Printed several Books they have Answered them from time to time and he has left two Books unanswered and whatever he will print to the contrary we will defend our Principles G. Keith They have a Publick Stock I have not they are able to raise some Thousands of Pounds sooner than G. Keith can raise an Hundred Here some Noise being raised in the Meeting by some discontented persons Auditors Let there be a Moderator chosen G. Keith If there be any Offence do not charge it on me I desire you for the Honour of the Nation and of the City of London to be still It is a Mob from Grace-church-street to make a disturbance Then that passage in G. Whiteheads book was read again See here the Son of God his Eternal Generation is denyed If he had a Father then there are two Gods And here is as plain a denying Christ to be God as any Socinian can be guilty of Quaker Nat. Mark The casual dropping of words is no proof G. Keith I have proved to you already he disowns Christ to be God Now I will prove he has denyed him to be Man And then there is that great Article of our Faith lost and the Object of the Christian Faith denyed Here is G. Whiteheads Answer to T. Dansons Synopsis of Quakerism as he calls it p. 18. This is in the book called The Divinity of Christ asserted recommended by W. Penn Reason against Railing p. 185. See how G. Whitehead takes him up and how he banters him If the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both created doth not this render him a Fourth Person c. But the stress I lay is in the words following But herein whether doth not his and their ignorance of the only begotten of the Father plainly appear 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. Here ye see he will not own that Christ had a Created Soul Th. Danson being a Presbyterian Minister did plead That Christ as Man had a created Soul This G. W. makes an inconsistency as if he could not be God also This was the Errour of Apollinarius who said Christ was without a Humane Soul for he was the express Image of his Father But supposing the Soul of Christ were created with the Body c. That which I would have you take notice of is this Where does the Scripture say his Soul was created Quaker Waite That was only a Question G. Keith Well it was his way of Disputing as is ordinary to him and many others Anâ— such way of Questioning plainly imperteth a Denyal Next I prove that G. Whitehead says He has not the Body of a Man And then I hope I shall have performed what I promised See his Nature of Christianity p. 29 41. Here I undertake to prove that G. Whitehead denies that Christ in Heaven has any Bodily Existence without us It he has said otherwise in any of his late Printed Books I am glad of it But let him retract these for these have done much mischief Now when I said he was Orthodox I mean not as he was Heterodox For there is a G. Whitehead Orthodox and a G. Whitehead not Orthodox I did not know G. Whitehead not Orthodox till lately I do not say there are two persons in George Whitehead he is but one and the same person in this and some other things Orthodox and not Orthodox George Whitehead contradicting George Whitehead he is accountable for these Contradictions and not I. I own it that I have cited divers passages out of his later books that are Orthodox to prove him sound but I did not then know when I so cited him that he was guilty of such gross Errors as since I have found by a further search into his books Let him retract his Errors and well enjoy his Orthodoxy Ye know contradictory Propositions cannot be both true I shall read to you p. 29 41. of his Nature of Christianity This is posteriour to his former book In Page 29. Or dost thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a Bodily Existence to save thee according to thy words page 30. If thou dost thou mayst look until thy Eâ—es drop out before thou wilt see such an appearance of him This is but one place that is that Christ will not so appear But why will he not so appear but because he has no Bodily Existence without us That I come now to prove for which I shall read to you in his pag. 41. And that he existeth outwardly bodily without us at God's right Hand What Scripture Proof hath he for these Words And then what and where is God's right Hand Is it visiblâ— or invisible within us or without us only And is Christ the Saviour as an outward bodily Existence or Person without us distinct from God and on that Consideration to be worshipped as God yea or nay And where doth the Scripture say he is outwardly and bodily glorified at God's right Hand Do these Days express the Glory that he had with the Father before the World began in which he is now glorified And where doth the Scripture say And here is the
thing that rivets Where doth the Scripture say that 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 World began Now G. Whitehead's way of writing is to question his Adversaries which is the Socratical way of disputing and arguing against his Adversary But let me go on Again see his Book called Christ ascended above the Clouds All that I have yet cited out of G. Whitehead's Book Light and Life and that of the Divinity of Christ and Nature of Christianity W. Penn has own'd them all in his Reasons against Railing pag. 185 186. This Book was printed and also this called Christ ascended above the Clouds Anno 1669. Now for the Page and Matter p. 21 22. John 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 G. W. answereth These are not the Words of Scripture but added Altho to add or diminish be forbidden under a Penalty Rev. 22.18 19. yet this Man's Presumption leads him to incur that And Christ in the Days of his Flesh when he visibly appeared to the World said Yet a little while and the World seeth me no more Now again I shall read to you John Newman's Words which G. W. doth so much blame From Rev. 1.7 Those that pierced him in his Body of Flesh shall see that Body visibly come again Is there any thing here offensive Nothing but what is the declared Opinion of the Church of Rome the Church of England the Presbyterians Independents Baptists and mine all along tho I have been a Quaker near about 34 Years Quaker Then it is much that in 34 Years thou shouldst not correct them before G. Keith This Assertion that G. Whitehead charges with Heresy see how he answers it These are not the Words of Scripture but added altho to add or diminish be forbidden under a Penalty Why John Newman here only uses the word Body to his coming again and G. Whitehead finds fault with that and G. W. brings a Proof from John 14.19 Yet a little while and the World seeth me no more that those that pierced Christ in his Body shall not see that Body visibly come again Here is a Proof that Christ was evanished The World shall see me no more The Translation will not prove G. Whitehead's Position even as it is But it may be better translated as yet Yet a little while and the World shall not see me As yet the Greek being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet i. e. nondum or not as yet Does this prove that Christ has no Body at all This is very bad Reasoning Quaker If the Translation be not good why do you make use of it G. Keith I own it a good Translation and Thanks be to God we have such a Translation â—et that in some Places it may be better translated the Quakers themselves as well as all 〈◊〉 Professions do acknowledg such as have a little Hebrew or Greek that is one 〈◊〉 there are two or three Places more I will give you only a few of my Proofs and 〈◊〉 rest to a further Opportunity P. 24. says J. Newman By denying any perso◠〈◊〉 â—â—ing of Christ without all Men at the right Hand of God but only a feigned 〈◊〉 within then Remission of Sins must die and Faith also for want of the Object 〈◊〉 This I look on to be good Doctrine And if you deny that G. K. turning 〈◊〉 to his Opponents Henry Goldney and Nathaniel Marke who spoke by turns sometimes one and sometimes another and stood close by him in the Gallery a Favour his Adversaries would scarce have allowed to him in any such Dispute at Grace-Church-street Meeting-place or elsewhere ye may speak to which they not replying G. K. further said I think this is a good Deduction Now to this G. Whitehead answers p. 29. I defend not J. Newman in all he owns but so far as he holds the Truth And if a Papist say the Truth against a Jew I am ingaged to defend him in it This manner of excluding God's right Hand and Christ to a Limitation out of his People in a personal Being which are no Scripture-terms still implies him to be a personal God or Christ like the Anthropomorphites and Muggletonians Conceits of him And again pag. 69. he saith And these Words Christ in Person remote in his Body of Flesh c. and not in any Man are not Scripture but added What strange Conceits would J. N. put upon the unlimited God like the old heretical Monks of Egypt called Anthropomorphites By these Words of G. W. all Papists Church of England-men Presbyterians Independents Baptists who believe that the Man Christ has any bodily Existence in Heaven as he thinks are Anthropomorphites and Muggletonians So you see all of you are Muggletonians as well as I. But mark the Words of John Newman above-mentioned which are sound and I say whoever under a Christian Profession deny Christ to have any personal or bodily Existence without us in Heaven whatever Notion they may have of Christ within it is but a feigned Christ within but who have the true Knowledg and Faith of Christ within to wit of his Spirit Light and Grace within that leads them to own and confess to the Man Christ without as well as to his Spirit within There is no Church-of England-man Presbyterian or Baptist c. that holds that Notion that the Godhead has the Shape of a Man but the Manhood of Christ has the true Nature of Man And what Shape Christ's Body has now that I leave but I believe he has the self-same Body in Heaven that he had on Earth the same I say for Substance and Essence of Body tho wonderfully changed in Manner and Condition Another Quaker Then you reflect on an Act of Parliament which allows the Translation of the Scriptures if they be not truly translated Note This Man's Impertinency and Prejudice as if to say a Place of Scripture may be better translated which all the Learned of all Professions of English Protestants do allow were a Reflection on the Parliament how earnest is this Man with other of his Brethren to make the Innocent an Offender Is this your Christianity G. Keith Here is a Book of G. Whitehead's called The He-goats Horn broken I hope this Meeting will give Satisfaction to many and therefore that it may be profitable I desire you to keep Silence Quaker N. Mark I have a Proposition to make I would not interrupt but I desire to be heard if I may have leave G. Keith Will you speaking to them all four that spoke sometimes one and sometimes another take upon you to vindicate your Friends then you may say what you will Quaker George I desire thy Leave to be heard G. Keith If you will but speak briefly Quaker N. Mark The Proposition is
this 1. I tell you I am here accidentally 2. I observe that G. Keith takes the Liberty of putting his own Interpretation on the Passages of several Books and since G. K. has departed from the Quakers he has taken on him to write several Books which are extant and over and over he makes his Appeal to this Assembly which I desire you to consider how improper and impracticable it is to decide it here Therefore what he purposed to urge here if he will print it and proceed no further in this Meeting I will be at the Charge of whatever he shall print G. Keith I say If he would lay me down five hundred Pounds I would not break up this Meeting till it is over Stranger He will pay for it i. e. N. Marks G. Keith But it is upon Terms Quaker Began to speak thus they oft sought to interrupt him to divert the Proofs G. Keith Thou knowest thou art not so qualified to speak in this Auditory Let me go on with my Proofs I prove further that G. Whitehead writing against one Jo. Horn reflects on him scornfully he calls his Book the He-goats Horn broken Now see whether G. Whitehead has not broken his own Horn rather It is a Shame the Reflections they have made on Men sounder than themselves Let me read the Words The He-goats Horn broken or Innocency c. in answer to two Books against the Quakers Printed London 1660. Now if I understand any thing of true Divinity or Theology the Passage this Man or Men for there are two of them lays down here is a sound Passage which G. Whitehead contradicts Now here is the Passage and do you judg of it And where we lay down this as Tho. Moor's Principle That their Nature is restored in Christ and that their Nature is a filthy Nature This they say is falsly expressed and perverted and yet J. H. and T. M. a little after say thus viz. That our Nature Kind or Being as in us not in Christ is corrupt and filthy in it self yet Christ took upon him our Nature not as it is filthy in us by Sin in it And they say That we might as well have taxed the Apostle of Confusion for saying Men by Nature do the things contained in the Law p. 11 12. Now here is G. Whitehead's Answer We may justly tax these Men for Confusion indeed but not the Apostle for here they cannot discern between the sinful Nature and the pure Nature for the Nature of Christ is pure so that it 's not their Nature for their Nature is filthy and therefore it is not in Christ Observe Christ did not take upon him Jo. Horn's Nature No says he As I have oft told G. Whitehead that he and W. Penn will needs imbrace false Notions in Philosophy they will needs seem to be Philosophers by Divine Inspiration as well as Ministers and Preachers by it But it is a sad thing that their false Philosophy should destroy their Faith Now here is a false Notion that Christ could not take on him Man's Nature except he took on him the Pollution of it As if the Pollution of Sin were an essential Attribute of Man's Nature Now Sin if it be like Scarlet is no more essential to the Nature of Man than Filth to a Garment for a Garment is the same Garment still whether it be filthy or clean Therefore I say our blessed Lord might well take on him our Nature and the Nature in us be sinful and in him pure and holy And Jo. Horn distinguishes so Now judg ye whether G. Whitehead has broken Jo. Horn's Horn yea or no or rather whether has he not broken his own Horn Thus I have done as to the Object of Faith at present at least Now I come to the Act of Faith or the Vertue of Faith See for the Proofs William Penn his Quakerism a new Nick-name for old Christianity p. 12. Printed Anno 1672. This Book is without the Printer's Name and most of W. Penn's Books are without it tho they persecuted William Bradford in Philadelphia for printing some of my Books without putting his Name Here is the Point Jo. Faldo makes this Charge against the Quakers p. 12. Christianity was introduced by preaching the promised Messiah and pointing at his humane Person but Quakerism by preaching a Light within Now if I had this to answer I would have said Any Quakerism I know of that I learned was introduced into my Heart both by believing in Christ without and in Christ within at once and by one Faith but instead of that he answers thus I answer That this is nothing injurious to the Quakers at all but highly on their side for had they preach'd a Christ now coming in the Flesh they had dented his true and only great visible Appearance at Jerusalem which all true Quakâ—rs own Since tâ—en they believe that Appearance but therefore need not preach whâ—t is not to be again And that the whole Christian World besides have so long aâ—d lazily depended on it without their thirsting after his inward holy Appearance in the Conscience c. This is the thing I come to Since then they believe that Appearance but therefore need not preach what is not to be again if every one of them believe there was such a Man that was born of a Virgin and died for our Sins sixteen hundred Years ago they therefore need not preach that he was so born or that he died for our Sins c. Christ is not to be born again is not to die again c. We need not preach it but throw it over the Shoulder and give it up and bury it in Oblivion from Posterity Judg if this â—e not the true Consequence Let them retract these Errors and not say I am an Apostate for telling them of them As I told G. Whitehead there are Errors in thy Books as well as others and either thou or I must correct them and he was very angry with me Lâ—t them retract them and not count me a Liar for telling them of them But let me again râ—ad out the entire Paragraph Since then they believe that Appearance but therefore need not preach what is not to be again There it clinches they need not preach what is not to be again Take notice also of his uncharitable dealing here if he had said many it might have past But he says the whole Christian World has lazily depended on it Is there none in the Christian World but the Quakers that thirst after the Power of God in their Souls I was never so uncharitable to think so There is more yet p. 6. The Distinction between Moral and Christian The making holy Life legal I know none that do so of any that are sincere in all the Professions in Christendon and Faâ—th in the History of Christ's outward Manifestation has been a deadly Poison these latter Ages have been infected with to the Destruction of Godâ—y Living and apostatizing
of those Churches c. Another Proof I bring against W. Penn is out of his Address to Protestants p. 119. printed 1692. the second Edition corrected and enlarged But this Passage remains in it however I will begin a little before the main thing For it seems p. 118. a most unreasonable thing that Faith in God and in keeping his Commands should be no part of the Christian Religion But if a part it be as upon serious Reflection who dare deny it then those before â—nd since Christ's time who never had the external Law and have done the things contained in the Law their Consciences not accusing nor Hearts condemning but excusing them before God are in some degree concerned in the Character of a true Christian for Christ himself preached and kept his Father's Commandments and came to fulfil and not destroy the Law and that not only in his own Person but that the Righteousness of the Law might also be fulfilled in us Now comes the main thing Let us but soberly consider what Christ is and we shall the better know whether Moral Men are to be reckon'd Christians What is Christ but Meekness Justice Mercy Patience Charity and Vertue in Perfection Can we then deny a meek Man to be a Christian a just a merciful a patient a charitable and vertuous Man to be like Christ But in this way of arguing there is a Fallacy these Moral Vertues are a Part of a Christian as Animal is a part of the Definition of a Man and belong to the Genus of a Christian But there are two things in the true Definition of a Man the Genus and the Differentia they have the Genus but not the Differentia therefore it is true to say every Man is an Animal but it is not true nor good Logick to say every Animal is a Man Let us but soberly consider saith William Penn what Christ is what is Christ but Meekness and Justice and Mercy and Patience And now take notice I would not misconstrue what I have read by William Penn's Argument a Man may be own'd to be a Christian and yet disbelieve that Christ is either God or Man if he own or practise a Habit or Quality of Moral Vertue as that of Justice and Meekness c. and practise accordingly tho he believe not in Christ if he have but some Moral Habits So that here the Jew is the Christian the Mahometan is the Christian the Pagan is the Christian and the professed Pelagian is the Christian tho they deny any inward supernatural Principle and call the Light within only natural as many sober and moral Men do why then have they so fiercely contended against such Men denying them to be Christians in whom as much of Moraâ—ity has appeared as in many of tâ—em But it is strange to heathenise all Christendom through calling them the World and christianise Heathens for their Morality See again the Christian Quaker p. 125 126 127. let me but recommend it to you to read the Book This Christian Quaker it is a Folio Book he bestows about three Pages to define what a Christian Quaker is In all this large Deâ—â—nition not one word of the Man Christ who is God over all blessed for ever to be the Object either of this Christian Quaker's Faith Love or Homage it is too large to reciâ—e but I recommend it to you to read it and shall go to the next Again see the Preface to R. Barclay's great Volume p. 36. where he makes the Work of Regeneration greater than the Manifestation of the Son of God in the Flesh R. Barclay is my Country-man I will not be partial to him on that account but I do not now blame any thing in his Book I know he is the soundest Writer among them But the thing I blame is a Preface supposed to be writ by W. Penn and however commended by G. Whitehead and some others By the Stile it is thought to be W. Penn's and it commonly goes under his Name These are the Words O Reader great is the Mystery of Godliness And if the Apostle said it of the Manifestation of the Son of God in tâ—e Flesh if that be a Mystery and if a Mystery it is not to be spelt out but by the Revelation of the Spirit how much more is the Work of Regeneration a Mystery that is wholly inward and spiritual in its Operation Who is sufficient for these things Now pray take notice that I tell you I cast no Reflection on R. Barclay I blame nothing at present in his Books tho there may be things both in his Books and mine that may need Correction If there be any Reflection on him it is chiefly this that such an unsound Preface should be put to his Book for I can sufficiently prove that R. Barclay's Doctrine is plainly Antipodes to this Doctrine O Reader great is the Mystery of Godliness for which is cited 1 Tim. 3.16 Great is the Mâ—stery of Godliness God manifest in the Flesh c. which all Christendom judg to be God manifest in Christ's outward Body of Flesh and but consequentially of his Spirit and Grace in Men and I think it 's the greatest Mystery next to that of the Holy Three in One and One in Three the Manifestation of the Son of God in that Body of Flesh is next to that Now you see how he makes Regeneration in a Believer a greater Mystery than the Manifestation of the Son of God in his Body of Flesh How much more saith he is the Work of Regeneration a Mystery For the other here 1 Tim. 3. â—6 he does not say it is a Mystery but he puts three ifs to it If a Mâ—stery c. Pray was our blessed Lord a mere Shell Was he like the Shell of an Egg without the Meat of an Egg or was he like the Shell of any Fruit and no Kernel in it Was there any Holiness ever in any Prophet or Apostle but it is like a Drop to the Ocean to what was in â—ur blessed Lord Therefore to compare the Work of Regeneration to the Incarnation of our Lord so as to equal it he prefers it and does not equal it only I appeal to you whether is it not a most abominable Error and whether it doth not make every regenerate Man not only equal to the Man Christ but greater for we truly value any Man as more holy according as the Manifestation of God is more in one Man than in another It is not enough to say he has unadvisedly dropt this Doctrine but it is his main Aim in divers of his Books See W. Penn's Rejoinder p. 330 337 340. where he makes Christ in the Gentiles a greater Mystery than Christ incarnate p. 335. J. Faldo is now in his Grave and I confess I never thought I should be raised up to vindicate J. Faldo I cannot say I ever read the fourth Part of this Book of W. Penn's called his Rejoinder till within this
and G. W. over-ruled them and influenced them against me with Prejudice and some they over-awed and frighted There was a Person that came to me and told me he would rather suffer his Life to be taken from him or his Right Hand to be cut off before he would sign a sentence against me And some others that were not free to consent to them did purposely absent and this I told them in their yearly Meeting that there was such a person that had so spoke to me that day they asked me who it was I told them I desired to be excused in not telling his Name that was not convenient After I was gone they called over the Roll one by one and the poor man seeing it coming to him says You need go no further I am the Man now what is this but to set up something like the Spanish Inquisition And there is one viz. T. E. hath applyed that passage in Scripture Master is it I but the question there was Is it thou And tho I had cause to think that divers then present did not in Conscience consent to their false Judgment but thought it too severe as some has since acknowledged yet I did not know as to the last Meeting that of all them that were present that I had one that Sympathized with me they were all silent and were-over awed by G. Whitehead and W. Penn's Party And this poor man above-mentioned has come to me since and disowned that false Judgment and declared to me before two Witnesses he did not joyn with them in it He says I am disowned by them where I live I suppose he means the Scots do I Live among them this is a notorious falshood Stranger All this is very impertinent to the business in hand G. Keith I happened to drop an Expression in Pensilvania finding the same Errors there I have now mentioned in their Books here that no Protestant Society would suffer such Errors as these no not the Church of Rome it self my words were that no Protestant Society would Tolerate them They began with me There was an universal neglect among them of Preaching Christ Crucified and concerning Faith in him Preaching only the Light within and Christ within Whereupon a little while after I began to Preach this and they stood up against me and charged me with new Doctrine and one appealed to the Monthly Meeting whether they ever heard of such Doctrine Preached in the Quakers Meetings directing them to Faith in Christ without us I answered The more shame and it was now full time to begin if it was never Preached in the Quakers Meetings before But that to witness against Error and sharply to reprove it is no Argument of Apostazy I have most effectual Proofs from the Quakers themselves Ed. Burrough's says It is no breach of the Peace to witness against Error Truths Princip G. Fox says He was moved by the Lord to testifie against False Teachers that deceive the People with false Doctrine Now if they be guilty of these things I say I am not to be blamed to withstand their false Doctrine They say I began first to Print which is true but they sent out their defaming manuscripts against me to England Barbadoes Maryland before I Printed a line against them What is the last Remedy against oppression Why Printing Therefore I began G. Fox p. 15. Some of the Principles of the Elect People of God called Quakers I hope this one Testimony of G. Fox will clear me that I am not guilty of the breach of the Peace in the Church for opposing their Doctrines Some Principles of the Elect People of God signed by G. Fox Says G. Fox Moved of the Lord written from the Spirit of the Lord for the cleansing of the Land of all false Teachers Seducers and Deceivers and witches who beguile the People and Inchanters and Diviners and Forgerers and Hirelings and which is for the good of the People Now was this man of a Turbulent Spirit What work did G. Fox and G. Whitehead make What breach upon breach did they make on all other Professions whereof they had been formerly as Church of England Presbyterian Baptists Do not mistake me I Reverence Divine Providence that I became a Quaker But if I had known they had had such Errors among them I would as soon have put my Head in the fire as have owned such among them But I am of the same Faith as I have been above this thirty years Quaker It has been here asserted that he has been a Quaker above thirty years and he has Vindicated their Doctrine he is a Studious man and our Books have been publick always now for him to come now and call over all Books that he has by not opposing consented to it looks as if he had Apostatized from what he formerly held Auditor Did he ever write against these Principles he now holds Quaker He has constantly Vindicated our Principles G. Keith Whereas they say I have not taken notice of their Errors I say I can appeal to W. Penn and G. Whitehead that in the year 1678. three Ministers of London rose up against me and I opposed their Errors at that very time Auditor What Ministers were they G. Keith They were Quakers They accused me of three Principles in my Book called The way cast up The first was That Christs body rose out of the Grave They said it never did 2. That I said It was Lawful to Pray to Jesus Christ Crucified They denied it and dared me to give an Instance of one English Quaker that I ever heard Pray to Christ Whereupon W. Penn said I am an English-man and a Quaker and I own I have oft Prayed to Christ Jesus even him that was Crucified And they answered He is not an Antient Friend of the Ministery and G. Whitehead a man Antient in the Ministery told them there were forty or fifty present It is neither what W. Penn nor what G. Keith says but let Scripture decide it and he took the Bible and oponed it and Read 1 Cor. 1.2 To all that call upon the Lord Jesus Christ both their Lord and Ours Their answer was Paul was dark and ignorant as G. Keith is For our part we know better Quaker Will you say this and not mention their Names G. Keith I will not do it it is not convenient there is one of them a Citizen of very good repute and therefore it will be better to conceal his Name Auditor Go on to the last head Quaker H. Goldney you ought to name his name particularly if thou dost not thou art an Impostor Auditor He has done enough G. Keith I think it not convenient we must use a little Policy as well as you Jo. Delawall Published a Manuscript against me wherein he charges me with Heresy for saying The Light within was not sufficient without something else and that something else was Christ without us Now they say there
for comparing the Books of Friends to the Books of the Greek and Latin Fathers p. 99. For further Discovery In comparing says Tho. Ellwood the Books of Friends to the Books of them called the Greek and Latin Fathers he has not done as a Friend and Brother but as an Enemy in supposing Friends Books to have been written by no better guidance nor clearer sight than theirs who lived and writ in those dark times You see how modest they are here Auditors They gave a shout signifying their dislike that the Quakers Books should be preferred so far to the Greek and Latin Fathers next to the days of the Apostles Quaker N. M. It is very well that the whole Paragraph be read that it may give the more satisfaction to the Auditory which was accordingly done T. Ellwood saith He viz. G. K. turns off and says I reflect not only on him but on the late Christian Teachers and Writers who have corrected the Errors and unsound Expressions contain'd in the Books of them called the Greek and Latin Fathers Now hear what he further says In comparing the Books of Friends to the Books of them called Greek and Latin Fathers ut supra Quaker J. Waite I have made few Observations on the whole one or two particular the other are general The first is that he charges G. Whitehead and W. Penn to destroy the Object of Faith Now when he speaks of some Doctrines that were preached by him in 1678 and that he was reproved for saying it was lawful to pray to Jesus Christ he has vindicated W. Penn as to this Point who said he did so Also he has vindicated G. Whitehead saying that He directed not to what either of them could say but what Scripture says and he cites them a clear passage that was then believed by him and I believed by all Quakers The other particular Observation I did note is that the Quakers have not used recite the whole Author they write against and I appeal to you whether G. Keith in the opposition he has made has ever repeated a whole Author These are my particular Observations The general is that what has been casually dropt and I believe there are none concerned on this occasion but I say they may sometimes be apt to drop some Expressions that they will not stand by But to urge these against the whole Party is too hard and is very uncharitable and therefore I hope you will not conclude the whole body concerned in it And G. Keith hath been conversant among us eight and twenty years or more and has preached the Doctrines owned by us and writ many Books that related to fundamental Articles of Faith I believe him that they were owned by the People he was joyned with And at the yearly meeting the charge against him and his expulsion was not matter of Doctrine but Practice which was turbulent And therefore he has apostatized from what he was before from the meekness and integrity that is agreeable to the Doctrine of Christianity Stranger G. Keith I see you are almost spent I will answer for you He says it was the whole body that was against you it was the worse that the Excommunication should be from the whole yearly Meeting without mentioning any thing in particular For a man to apostatize is to apostatize from the whole Faith but for a man to differ with respect to particular things this is not Apostasie G. Keith The words of the Excommunication run thus I am a man of no Christian Spirit I have dismember'd myself from the Church of Christ If they had said from this particular Society it might have passed but they say from the Church of Christ And why Because there is no Church of Christ on Earth but the Quakers and no Representative of them but the Yearly Meeting in Gracechurch-street You see how weak that man's Objections are The Auditory shouted Quaker H. Goldney This man asserts a Lye and then the People are taken with it as if it were a Truth G. Keith If I have spoken amiss I am willing to be brought to a tryal He says I have answer'd many Books wherein I have not recited all the Books I have answer'd It is true and I blame not them for not doing so But they say I only take bits and scraps here and there I say what cause have I to recite G. Whitehead and W. Penn's whole Books to you when they have not done so I think it sufficient to give an account of their sense from full Periods and Paragraphs He says I have already cleared George Whitehead and William Penn from that charge that they have not destroyed the Object of Faith And I say I have proved that they have destroyed the Object of Faith if they have at other times Owned it let them disown and retract their Errors I am not to account for their Contradictions They have Contradicted themselves they have disowned the Object of Faith and if I have charged them with it this is no Contradiction in me but in them Quaker H. Goldney made an interruption while G. K. was speaking as he oft did and gave great offence to the Auditory with his impertinencies and reflections calling G. K. Lyer Impostor Apostate G. Keith The reading of this Paper if ye please shall conclude this Meeting After T. Ellwood came out with his further discovery I made my Complaint to the Monthly Meeting at Bull and Mouth against the Forgeries and false Accusations that his Book was filled with and I begged of them that they would hear my Charge against him but they would not suffer me they said I might print as T. Ellwood did but I said I could not they have a Stock I have not Whereupon I went to some of the Church-Party that favour'd me and told them if I could not get a meeting to hear me my design was to give forth a printed Advertisement of a Meeting to clear myself of these things and they might be present if they would Some of their Party said to me George do not they or some of them would give me a meeting Accordingly they gave me a meeting They took notice of some of Ellwood's Forgeries and Abuses some of them have I hope that Courage that I believe they would not be offended nor afraid if I named them They have said in their Paper T. Ellwood has done me wrong Quaker H. Goldney Let us know their names who they are G. Keith We must use some little Policy as well as ye Some of them are eminent among you Here is a Copy of a Paper containing an account of the matter There were I think nine or ten of them H. Goldney if I should name them would not deny them to be his Brethren Quaker H. Goldney I dare thee to name their names or else thou art a Lyar an Impostor a Cheat I dare say it is a Cheat. And turning to G. K. he said O thou Lyer thou contentious Creature G.
Keith See this little man's passion now what is he but a Creature and a contentious Creature I contend for Truth he and they against it I will not name them without their consent only bid this angry man Henry Goldney be silent and I will read their Paper containing their Censure against T. Ellwood in divers particulars The true Copy of a Paper containing a Censure and Judgment of a Meeting of Friends owned by Tho. Ellwood's Brethren to be in Vnity with them and generally in good Repute among them held at London the 12th Month 1694 in divers weighty particulars IN Thomas Ellwood 's Book entituled A further Discovery c. pag. 31 Thomas Ellwood blames G. K. for mistating the Controversie and cunningly sliding in the word Within when he knew it was not in the words charged nor in the words proved A true Copy of the three Judgments p. 6. are these words All which are something else than the People called Quakers understand by the Light to wit the light in every man's Conscience which G. K. alledgeth is Proof that G. K. intended the Light within In Benjamin Chambers Letter dated Philadelphia the 24 th of the fourth Month 1693. one of the four credible Evidences against G. K. are these words following The substance of what Tho. Fâ—tzwâ—ters had said to wit that according to his own Apprehension of thee thou didst not believe the Light of Christ within Man is sufficient for Salvation without something else To which words thee didst then in the audience of the Meeting forthwith reply No more I do not without something else In John Delaval 's Letter dated the 24th of the 10th Month 1692. are these words cited out of G. W. 's Book That the Light which is sufficient to convince of Sin and leads out of it is sufficient to guide unto Salvation but such is the Light of Christ in every man John Humphry's Two Letters read and both to the same purpose T. E. Further Discovery c. pag. 101. are these words And this makes a Verbal Confession yea a bare Verbal Confession sufficient to yoke them as he phrases it together in Church-Fellowship Reasons and Causes of the Separation pag. 22. ad finem Tho. Elwood 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 Jesus Christ Pag. 36. That the Church of Christ is the multitude of sincere Believers in Christ who ought to manifest their Faith to one another by the living confession of the Mouth flowing from the living Faith in the Heart accompanied with the seal and confirmation of a Holy and Christian life and conversation Pag. 103. Tho. Ellwood accuseth G. K. for giving of false Quotation or forging Quotation out of Robert Barkly's Book G. K's Quotation compared with Robert Barkly's agrees as quoted Reasons and Causes c. pag. 16. for Substance of Doctrine pag. 24 25 26. in express words pag. 106. T. E. admits of Substance Further Discovery p. 19. Tho. Ellwood accuseth G. K. that he blames Friends that they were gone too much from the outward to the inward But G. K. p. 20. which Tho. Ellwood brings for Proof saith That he blames some persons for not rightly and fully preaching Christ without so that Tho. Ellwood's consequences seems not fair but strain'd Pag. 22. Tho. Ellwood accuseth George Keith of a Fallacy in declaring he refused not to go forth at the Yearly Meeting which Fallacy alledged was That G. K. should refuse to go out some one day of the yearly meeting but that not appearing to us by any Quotation the supposed Fallacy appears not And further whereas Tho. Elwood alledges thaâ— he was led into this Mistake by G. K's obscure way of writing for altho' in pag. 14. nor 18. of the Book Reasons and Causes as Tho. Ellwood unduly argueth yet in pag. 3. Plea of the Innocent quoted by himself pag 19 of his first Book called an Epistle c. we find G. K. gives account the Yearly Meeting at Philadelphia was in the first week of the 7th month 1691. Further Discovery p. 26 Tho. Ellwood saith G. K. asks why they contradicted the sound Judgment of a Monthly Meeting at Philadelphia passing due Censure upon W. S. sixth month thereafter and saith It doth not sound as if it came from a sound Judgment as if a Judgment now were capable of contradicting a Judgment that should be given six months after whereas it appears by the date of the Judgment given by the publick Friends to be nine months after the Yearly Meeting the first being as above the 1 st of the seventh month 91 the other bearing date the 4 th of the fourth month 92 The which Book Tho. Ellwood being so conversant in looks as if he could not be ignorant of the adjourned Meeting being six months after the Yearly Meeting to wit the 27 th of the twelfth month as appears in pag. 10. Reasons and Causes and that wherein the supposed Judgment of the Yearly Meeting is is dated nine months after the Yearly Meeting In the same Book pag. 35. Tho. Ellwood alledgeth That he no where gave that as the only or any Reason why the Meeting could not adjourn to wit because the Book and Clark was gone Pag. 36 37. he adds Let G. K. clear himself fairly of this if he can till then I shall take it for certain that that Monthly Meeting was ended and broken up part of the Friends gone away the Clerk gone the Book in which the Proceedings of the Meeting should be recorded gone before the adjournment was made and consequently that Adjournment not good but invalid Ditto pag. 42 43. Whereas Tho. Ellwood should have brought matter of Fact to prove G. K. guilty of the Separation instead thereof he argues as we think unfairly by logical Nicety Pag. 42. he blameth G. K. greatly for not putting the Printer's name to some of his Books But it 's well known this hath been the frequent practice of the People called Quakers not to put the Printer's name to their Books in times of suffering Pag. 91. Tho. Ellwood alledges 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. K. 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 pag. 8 21 22. with many others G. Keith The Paper is read the Question was not concerning the Light indefinitely but whether the Light within was sufficient to Salvation without the Man Christ and his Death c. Thomas Ellwood accuseth me unjustly That I cunningly slid in the word Light within as if that were not the state of the Question but Light indefinitely comprehending Christ both Light without and within But
meeting me when desired For if they thought that I would show any such Behaviour it would be such an advantage to them that it would rather be an Argument to invite them to meet me that I may discover my self than to disswade them But blessed be God that preserved me at that Meeting when I had great Provocation given me by some of their Party in such a Temper and Moderation of Spirit as hundreds are ready to witness as became a sober Christian when some of them that appeared against me shewed themselves very outragious And as insignificant is their Excuse of declining to meet because it was not an agreed Meeting on both sides As if guilty Persons are not to be tryed without their consent and agreement Was it not more Fair Just and Equal in me and my Friends to give them a fair Tryal with open and free access of all sober Persons as many as the Place could contain without Croud and leave it to the Consciences of the Auditors how to judge and intimate my Intentiâ—n at a convenient time beforehand than for them to condemn me in a clandestine Place without all Tryal fair or unfair and not to let me have access to them but when and how little time they pleased and to suffer none of my Friends to be present to be Witnesses of their unfair proceedings against me Their upbraiding me by insinuating my assuming a Spiritual Jurisdiction over them and summoning them to appear before me is idle and vain The Injurer is Debtor to the Injured and accountable to him But let them tell what Spiritual Jurisdiction they had over me to call me several times to them at their Yearly Meetings 1694 more than I had over them to call them to our Meeting at Turners-Hall 1696 unless they will fly to their common Pretence common to them with the Church of Rome their Infallibility the contrary of which they have manifestly showed and never any Society of People professing Christianity hath given greater Instances of not only their Fallibility but their being miserably deceived than these Men have done And as idle is that other Excuse of theirs that they will not dispute with me viva voce because I am gone off from them but they did thrust me from them by their Vnjust Excommunication when I would have stayed among them so long as I could have any hope to have reclaimed them from their Errors but if my going off be a sufficient Reason why they will not Answer me viva voce it is as sufficient a Reson why they should not Answer me in Print which yet they boast they will do For if I be not worthy nor fit to be Answered by Word nor am I to be Answered by Writ But all this sheweth their confusion and inconsistency They think such a Meeting at Turners-Hall is but in a corner and not in the face of the Nation but they are like to find it hath been so much in the face of the Nation that many in the Nation will notice it possibly more than they would either wish or expect and more than any thing that hath happened to them for many Years past to give the Nation a discovery of them and of their vile Errors and irregular Practices If my Adversaries happen to put out an Answer to this Narrative filled as their manner is with the Falshoods and Perversions and vain Shifts and Evasions I purpose with Leave of the Civil Authority which I hope to obtain as well as formerly God willing to Print a New Advertisement of a Méeting and to give them timely Notice before-hand to detect their Errors and Abuses yet further and to renew the like Practice as oft as they abuse the World and me with their Prints For their unfair way of Disputing in Print is much easier discovered viva voce than by Answering in Print and is more acceptable to all Free and Impartial People who in that way are more capable to judge G. KEITH It is thought proper in the first place to insert the following Advertisement bearing date the 11th of the Third Moneth called May 1696 and sent to those Persons called Quakers chiefly concerned it being the occasion of the following Conference An ADVERTISEMENT Of a Meeting about some Controversies in Religious Matters of Faith to be held by George Keith and his Friends at their usual Meeting place in Turners-Hall in Philpot-Lane London the Eleventh Day of the Month called June 1696. to begin about the Ninth Hour and to be adjourned if Occasion requireth To which Meeting William Penn Thomas Elwood George Whitehead John Pennington and these of the Second Days Weekly Meeting at Lombard-street London called Quakers are justly desired to be present to hear themselves charged and proved guilty of the following things and they shall be freely heard to answer to their several Charges First WHereas William Penn hath accused me George Keith in a Publick Meeting at Ratcliffe of my being an Apostate and Impostor and endeavouring to pluck up the Testimony of Truth by the Roots and that he hath not either then or since after many months proved his Charge to be true tho' he promised to answer me before many Witnesses when I told him I thought to put him to prove his Charge in the Face of the Nation And I being conscious to my self that I am not guilty of his Charge I charge him to be guilty of False Accusation and Defamation and offer to prove him to be so as also I offer to prove him guilty out of his Printed Books which it doth not appear that he hath Retracted or Corrected of most Erroneous and hurtful Principles contrary to the Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith and Religion delivered to us in the Holy Scriptures And also that he is guilty of gross Contradiction to himself Secondly Whereas Thomas Elwood hath Printed sundry Defamatory Books against me I charge him to be guilty of False Accusations Perversions and Forgeries contained in his said books as also of most Erroneous and Hurtful Principles to the great shame of his Profession and Scandal of Christian Religion and I offer to prove him to be so Thirdly Whereas George Whitehead did joyn with a prevailing Party in that called The Yearly Meeting of the Quakers in the Third Month 1695. to pass a most Unchristian Censure of Excommunication against me without any Proof or Charge of either Error in Doctrine or Evil Conversation I charge him to be guilty of False Accusation and of a most false and unjust Censure and offer to prove it against him As also I offer to prove the said George Whitehead out of some of his Printed Books which it doth not appear that he hath Retracted or Corrected guilty of most Erroneous and Hurtful Principles contrary to the Fundamental Doctrine of the Christian Faith and Religion Fourthly Whereas John Pennington hath Printed Defamatory Books against me and hath Accused me to be an Apostate I charge him to be guilty of
be answered They say I did not exhibit to them a Copy of my Charge against them an Indictment they call it they would represent me as a Man setting up a Spiritual Court but my Printed Paper sayes W. Penn and G. Whitehead are justly desired to be present This is no Indictment nor Summons as they falsly call it And for the particulars I intend to prove against them they were expresly mentioned in my Printed Paper called An Advertisement containing Four Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity by them opposed I desired W. Penn to make good his Charge against me in a former Printed Paper which was That I was an Apostate and Impostour endeavouring to pluck up the Testimony of Truth by the roots This he said at a Meeting at Ratcliffe above Fourteen Months ago and while I was peaceably speaking in that Meeting he interrupts me and like a Clap of Thunder falls on me in the midst of my Testimony calls me Apostaâ—e c. I desired him also at the Yearly Meeting of the Quakers at London held 1695. to make good his Charge and I told him If he refused I would put him to prove it in the face of the Nation He justified his calling me Apostate saying He was in no Passion but he was so transported by the Glorious Power of God that he knew not whether he was Standing Sitting or Kneeling And since I have in Print desired him to prove his Charge and now at this Meeting but he declines to appear Ye know the saying Affirmanti incumbit probatio He ought to prove what he has affirmed Quaker H. Goldnay If those that thou didst summon had appeared I do not see thou hadst provided any convenient place for them G. Keith If your Friends had appeared they might have had a place There pointing to a Table and a Bench sâ—t on it opposite to the place where he stood is a place provided for them If you will fetch them they shall have a place or they might have been here with me where I stand Strangers that stood on the Table If they come we will give place to them Quakers N. M. and H. G. We came here to give an account that our Friends think not fit to be here and have given their Reasons for it G. Keith It is a strange thing that thâ—y cannot print a Paper but must have so many Falsities in it They call my Paper a Summons and an Indictment but I meant it not so But to leave that and come to our business The four things which I charge them to be guilty of are these and I appeal to all moderate persons whether my intimation of such a Meeting can be blamed when it is to defend such Points as these Faith in Christ as he outwardly suffered at Jerusalem to our Salvation That is the First Justification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed That is the Second The Resurrection of the Body that dyeth The Third And Christs coming without us in his glorified Body to judge the Quick and Dead That is the Fourth All which have been contradicted by some of them as W. Penn G. Whitehead c. though these are Fundamental Principles belonging to the common Faith and are generally owned by Christians of all Professions Now if you please I shall proceed to my Proofs Most of my business whether they be here or not is to read my Proofs out of their Books that they are guilty of every one of these Four Errors opposing thereby Four Fundamental Truths The first is The necessity of Faith in Christ as he outwardly suffered for us at Jerusalem This is the first But that this is opposed by them I prove thus The Oâ—ject of Faith is opposed by them and therefore the Faith it self must needs be opposed I hope the consequence is clear enough it needs no Proof The Object of Christian Faith is Christ both God and Man and yet but one Christ But so it is that I offer to prove that G. Whitehead and W. Penn by approving of G. Whiteheads Books has denyed Christ both to be God and Man This is the thing which if I make out I make out my first Point And first I offer to prove that G. Whitehead in a Book of his has denyed Christ to be God and W. Penn has owned this Book The Book is called Light and Life recommended by William Penn in his Reason against Railing p. 186. in Answer to W. Burnet a Baptist Preacher Printed 1668. P. 47. Here he first brings in the Baptists words Says the Baptist Now 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 sense came down from Heaven Now here is G. Whiteheads reply What Nonsense and Vnscriptural Language is this To tell of God being Co-Creator wiâ—h 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 I shall read the Baptists words again and see if there be any thing in them offensive to Christian Ears I hope there are not many here but understand what Co signifieth it is with Now see if the words of the Baptist are offensive to Christian Ears As he was God he was Co-Creator with the Father Ye know John saith In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God John 1.1 2. See also Prov. 8. 22,3â— If these words offend any let them speak with all my Heart Quaker N. Mark If I might I desire to have liberty to speak when was the date of the Book Auditors If you will undertake their cause you may speak otherwise not Quaker Pray hear me The Reason why I askt him the date of the Book is because I believe it was a book antiently written and G. Keith did write in Vindication of our Principles and now for him to appear in opposition to our Principles it appears that he has apostatized from our Principles G. Keiâ—h Now let me Answer him I do say if it were my last words I know not that I ever read a line of this book till I came last to England which is about Two Years And if G. Whitehead be wiser since it is very well But then he should have retracted this For this book and some other books of his has leavened the minds of many in America as well as here with Poysonous Errors Stranger A Quaker Then George Keith ought to make a candid and full Retractation of what he has said contrary to Truth before he appeared against them G. Keith I own I have been mistaken in these Men But I hope this Auditory are sufficient Judges of that that if they cannot prove me to hold any Doctrine contrary to my former Principles nor any Unchristian Principle and that they have nothing against me Convâ—rsation they ought not to call me an Apostate I never heard that a Man was
but knows the contrary you know the Substance of the Egg the White and Yolk by the force and heat of the Hen sitting on the Egg is changed into a Chicken Is here any Transubstantiation So that W. Penn and G. Whitehead are guilty of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and not we and abuse the World with false Philosophy They warn People against G. Keith and his false Philosophy and I appeal to you to Judge whether they have not abused the People with false and vain Philosophy Auditors If you will answer one of these two things you that are a Friend of W. Penn do you have excommunicated G. Keith either answer or justifie it G. Keith If they will appoint a Meeting of Friends to prove me guilty of Error I will never refuse to meet them and here are many Persons of discretion I thank God that has given me that humble Heart that if they bring any Passage out of my Books that is not to be justified I will own my Error and shortness Now if they would do the like it would be well But the matter is here T. Danson says Our want of Infallibility is no Argument against our Ministry G. Whitehead says it is they that want Infallibility are not true Ministers Now I hope I have proved they want Infallibility and therefore by their own Doctrine they are no true Ministers of Christ Therefore I think it necessary to have the Passage read G. Whitehead's Voice of Wisdom pag. 33. Says T. Danson As for our want of Infallibility 't is no valid Plea against our Ministry c. Now here is the Answer His falshood here appears plainly for they that want Infallibility saith G.W. and have not the Spirit of Christ they are out of the Truth and are fallible and their Ministry is not of the Spirit seeing they speak not from the Spirit but from their own Hearts which are deceitful when they want Infallibility Quaker N. Marks I do make my further Appeal to you and if I am either impertinent or defective I beg your Excuse G. Kieth Then thou art not Infallible Quaker You may be ashamed to mention that Quaker N. Marks What I have to offer I submit to you The Person that has denoted me to be W. Penn's Friend has hit right and I own I am not capable to represent him And as you are Professors of Christianity I hope you will not conclude that Philosophy or Logick are any Essentials to Christianity G. Keith Who says it is But is it not sad that their false Philosophy should destroy their Faith and deceive so many People and destroy their Faith Quaker N. Marks I hope you will observe too that the Method taken to make the Proofs has been principally by the Rules of Philosophy and Logick Next I beg the Charity of you to consider how much it is the Right of every Man to give his own Interpretation of all he says and writes Therefore I hope you will not believe all you hear having the Illustrations of an Antagonist Next I would Apologize for the Persons they are not here it may be you are not all of you capable of knowing the Reason of things G. Keith has had his Conversation among us many Years between Twenty and Thirty Years G. Keith Between Thirty and Forty Years Quaker N. Marks Now for as much as these Writings were then extant long ago and he was then intirely passive still and quiet under all these Objections he now makes I hope as we know so you will believe it does not arise altogether from the matter of Fact For I do not think this a good way of proving to take a bit here and a bit there Next I say I hope you will reasonably conclude that we who knew the Circumstances of his Life and his Temper knew his Conversation has been such that we could not own him He stands not charg'd with us on the Account of his Principles I do not know but you will find when you have an Answer to what he has offered that those he charges and paraphrases on will agree with him in Principles nor have we any thing against his Conversation among Men in the World It was his Discontents with particular Persons because he was a little troublesome petulant Man and we could not pacifie him and it was for that Reason chiefly that we did disown him G. Keith A little petulant Man Quaker I would have you note I do not pretend to personate any of the Persons challenged Auditors What is this Discourse for then They are ashamed to come Quaker I am coming to give you a further Reason why they do not meet him We have had several Meetings with him before he was put from us And the Reasons why they did not think fit to meet him now you have heard the Paper gives you an Account of it Now since he is disowned by us and also by them where he lives we do not think our selves obliged to submit to such a peremptory Challenge G. Keith I suppose you cannot think I can answer to every particular because my Memory does not serve me He charges me to take a bit here and a bit there out of their Books I have quoted full Periods at length as all Authors do the Quakers when they refute Books of Adversaries do not use to recite the whole Author they write against Stranger About what you say as to Philosphy Dr. Sherlock says the Salvation of the Soul Depends not on such niceties but for you to charge G. Keith as an Apostate is one of the greatest Charges under Heaven and now for you to say that he differs not from you in Principles is to clear him from that Charge Upon which the People made some Shout G. Keith Pray be quiet and regard the Honour of your Nation Let me put you in mind of one very great falshood He says Here one Wyat or Wait a Quaker interrupted G. K. as they did oft on purpose to divert him from his matter Quaker Wait. There is an Apostacy from the Spirit of Christianity as well as from the Principles Friends have excommunicated him not for his Principles but for going from the Spirit of Meekness Charity c. G. Keith The Tree is known by the Fruits I was like a Lamb among I know not what where there were Two or Three Hundred I had scarce One that sympathized with me at their Yearly Meeting when clandestinely with their Doors shut suffering none that were my Friends to be present they passed false Judgment against me without any Trial A Notorious Falshood he chargeth against me and nothing else only he calls me a little petulant man and he is not a Story above my height He says I am Quaker I observe a Contradiction in G. Keith he said he was not disowned by half the Yearly Meeting and now he says by all G. Keith Let me answer that I say Divers in the Meeting were favourable but W. P.
is no diference between them and me I will cite a passage or two out of a Manuscript from Pensilvania it is a thing that will satisfy your Consciences as much as any thing I brought the Manuscripts they were read at the yearly Meeting at London 1694. and something was objected to the hand and it was asked at Samuel Jennings my Adversary whether it was the hand of that man and he said he believed it was and you will find it is matter of Doctrine at the bottom for which they have Excommunicated me however they would cloak it Let them retract their Errors and I will forgive them my Excommunication See the Book called Light and Life pag. 41. See what is here said by G. Whitehead That there is not an outward coming of Christ to Judg the Quick and Dead What I prove from G. Whitehead is proved from W. Penn for W. Penn has Authorized his Book therefore it is the proof of them both Here is the place Moreover Christ said The Son of Man shall come in the Glory of his Father with his Angels c. Matt. 16.27 28. Luke 9.26 27 Now what is that Glory of the Father in which his coming is is it visible to the Carnal Eye And when was that coming to be Is it now to be looked for outwardly But farther we do acknowledg the several comings of Christ according to the Scriptures both that in the Flesh and that in the Spirit which is manifest in several degrees as there is a growing from Glory to Glory But three comings of Christ not only that in the Flesh at Jerusalem and that in the Spirit but also another coming in the Flesh yet to be expected we do not read of but a second coming without sin unto Salvation which in the Apostles days was looked for And as concerning that noted place 1 Thes 4.17 brougt by W. B. to prove Christs coming without us to judgment G. W. denyeth it to be meant of his Personal coming and useth a Sophism to contradict it and wrest it to his inward coming whereas all the stress of his Sophism lies in that We We that remain but the true Sense of these words is those Saints those Believers that shall be living at that day shall not prevent them that dyed in Christ before It is an enallage personae frequent in Scripture putting we for they live that or James therewith bless we God and Curse men Now all these proofs he has Allegorized to Christ within he has allegorized away his Birth his Death Resurrection and Ascension and coming to Judgment and so we have nothing from Scripture to prove Christ's Death to be of any benefit to us and we have no Argument to prove he came in the Flesh And so all the proofs against Jews and Philosophers he has Allegorized away Thus you have had a proof from G. Whitehead and W. Penn. Now if you will adjourn the Meeting to some other time or continue it a while longer I am content And I hope I have proved that I am not Petulant and that I have had just cause to accuse them of these Errors I was presented by a Grand jury at Philadelgpia and the Presentment would have been Prosecuted if the Government had not been changed and I had been accused for endeavouring to alter the Government which is Capital by their Law and they would have found me guilty of Death had they not been turned out of the Government tho I was innocent And when I objected against the Jury they would not suffer one of the Jury to be cast Now it I had been guilty of any Trespass and Offence against K. William and Q. Mary the King is alive and God bless him do you think that Governour Fletcher put into the Government by King William and Queen Mary that was the Governor there if he had found me guilty of High Treason he would have passed me but he ordered them to let fall the Indictment Then the Company desired G. Keith to proceed if he had any more proofs against G. Whitehead G. Keith Yes I have Says G. Whitehead to R. Gordon Dost thou look for Christ's coming again to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence If thou dost thou mayest look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him Now see how G. Whitehead has excused this he says He did not mean it of Christ's coming to Judgment but he meant it thus because R. Gordon would needs have it that Salvation was delayed till Christ's outward coming I am apt to think he abuses R. Gordon not that I would vindicate R. Gordon in every thing for I think he did overcharge the Quakers in some things at that time but now I do not accuse or acquit him But I say he says he only opposed that false Notion of R. Gordon as if the Saints remained under their Pollution till the Resurrection from the Dead Can you think so He was a Protestant and no Protestant will say any such thing We say we are saved by hope I say in a Scripture sense we may expect that great Salvation then even from all charge of Sin tho not from any stain of Sin Not that the sense of Pardon is not made manifest before that day but that in that day all that have Repented and Believed he will clear them before God Angels and Men. The Devil will be ready to accuse them in that day but Christ will then clear them It will be a great solemn Assize and there will be a solemn Acquitment to all that have sincere Repented of their sins and believed in the Lord Jesus Christ Quaker Let the passage be read out G. Keith If we had not had these oppositions we might have saved an Hour I will read the passage Dost thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee according to thy words p. 30. If thou doest thou mayest look until thy Eyes drop out befor thou will see such an appearance of him Ye see these are plain and express words agianst Christ's outward coming The Scripture saith we are saved by hope and hope that is seen is not hope our great Salvation in the full accomplishment of it is at the Resurrection and Christs last coming then will be the great Discharge and Acquitment according to 2 Tim. 1.18 and 2 Tim. 4.16 The Lord grant that we may find mercy in that day and that our sins may not be laid to our charge And Acts 3.19 it is said Repent and be Converted that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshment shall come c. The word is very well Translated when the times of Reanimation shall come the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaker I desire to be heard a word G. Keith I have not done yet I beg of you I shall be but short I had said I had upward of six Manuscripts What
Who would have thought but that the yearly Meeting if they had any regard to the honour of Christ's blood would have shown greater zeal against these Men than to excommunicate me for opposing their vile errors in Pensilvania and for rendring that precious blood shed for us as an unprofitable thing so trampling it under foot But ye see they have little at all censured them and if you will believe their Patron as ye have cause they owning his Books nothing at all Th. Ellwood affirms I am guilty of Forgery for saying that the yearly Meeting passed any reproof on those passages and whereas I was accused for saying the light within was not sufficient to salvation without something else I have a Letter from B. Chambers one of the principal Evidences that were against me he owns that I mean by that something else not humane Learning not the Letter of the Scripture not outward preaching but I mean only the Man Christ Jesus and his death and sufferings and resurrection c. Now here is a new book of Caleb Pusey come out he calls it a modest account of the difference in Principles between G. Keith and his Adversaries and he would father it on me tho it was not in my thoughts that Jesus of Nazareth cannot be something else than the light within I tell you he would father it on me because I say there is but one only Christ Now I say Christ without does not admit of another Christ within and Christ within does not admit of another Christ without us But Christ without us admits of something else within us and that is his Spirit and Grace And Christ within us admits of something else without and that is his man-hood This is not another Christ than what the Scripture speaks of but the Light within is one thing the body of Christ is another thing Now they of Pensilvania and Th. Elwood give out that I differ from them in Doctrine these men say I do not What Confusion is here among them that say they are in Unity I say the Light within is not sufficient without the Light without Christ without us yet the Sufficiency of the Light and Grace of God within in a true sense I deny not but own And whereas they say the most of my Proofs I have brought have been from Philosophy but it has been only that I may by true Philosophy overthrow their false Phylosophy which destroys their Faith I need not bring Scripture to prove these Points because they now profess to own them but the thing is the Honour of Infallibility and that they have accused G. Keith that G. Keith has not charged them truly And here are the two things their own infallibility and that I have unjustly accused them Now whether I have or no see by the Articles But if they grant or yeild that they have any Errors in any of their Books or unsound passages that they need retract and correct then they are found the false Accusers against G. Keith and G. Keith's found Innocent But this will be hard for them to own First That they have Erred And Secondly That they have falsely accused G. Keith for saying they did Err. I have here a Testimony from W. Penn to prove that Bodily Death did not come in by Man's Sin and then it followeth that the Resurrection of the Body doth not come by Christ's Resurrection W. Penn's words are in Answer to Muggleton and Reeve p. 55. If the Flesh of Beasts is capable of Dying rotting and going to dust who never sinned why should not Man have Dyed and gone to dust though he had never sinned You see this is almost expresly in terms And whereas J. H. calleth one of my Articles a Carnal Reprobation There is nothing about Reprobation in my Articles and the word Carnal is not in-any of the Ten. Auditor Now let him that Answers for W. Penn and Geo. Whitehead tell us what he says to them Articles But they said nothing to them good or bad rare Defendents G. Keith I happened to charge W. Penn with self contradiction will you hear that proved It was in my Printed Paper G. Keith has contradicted himself How Not as to Principles or Practices but as to his Opinion of W. Penn and G. Whitehead but I distinguish betwixt G. Whitehead and VV. Penn Orthodox and G. VVhitehead and VV. Penn Hetrodox so far as I quoted them as Orthodox I stand to these quotations but when in other Books and places they have contradicted them they are accountable for their Contradictions and not I. So not the G. VVhitehead Hetrodox and guilty of these vile Errors I have commended but the G. VVhitehead Orthodox and the like of W. Penn. Now I beg your Patience for one or two Quotations more before I have done It is out of Tho. Elwood to shew you that Tho. Elwood charges me with forgery because I said the Yearly Meeting did censure some of these unsound Papers Here is the passage it is but short p. 84. T. Ellwoods further Discovery Here ye see Friends saith T. Elwood that that Paper of the Yearly Meeting is so far from owning them of the other side as he calls them that is the Friends in America to be guilty of unsound and Erronious Doctrines which G. K. here Expresly saith it doth that it doth not undertake to determine whether the Offence said to be given by some persons was throuhg Erronious Doctrines and unsound Expressions or through weakness frowardness want of VVisdom and right understanding And yet this man hath the confidence and falseness meaning G. K. to say positively that paper doth own them guilty of holding unsound and erronious Doctrines This was my Charity to them that I thought they censured them in some part or degree at least Now these are their words in their Yearly Meeting Paper 1694. London from which I gathered that they censured the words of those in Pensilvania And although it appears that some few Persons have given offence either through Erronious Doctrines unsound Expressions or weakness forwardness want of Wisdom and right understanding I construed or to be equivalent to and as sometimes it is Now see if I was not more charitable to the Yearly Meeting than he is to them Here you see that that Paper of the Yearly Meeting is so far from owning them guilty of unsound Doctrines which G. Keith says it does c. By all which it is plain that not only Th. Elwood but all that approve his Books approve and justify all these Vile Errors I have proved them in Pensilvania guilty of and if he may be credited the Yearly Meeting at London 1694. is equally guilty with them Quaker This is only thy different apprehension G. Keith He says the Yearly Meeting has not found fault with any of these Expressions Now let me read one Passage more it is but about six Lines and I have done with the Printed quotations at present pag. 99. He blames me
ye see how the citations they bring in their Paper clear me and shew T. Ellwood his injustice against me You see there is the Light within not the Light without in the Citations they have brought to clear me and to blame T. Ellwood And here is another thing they find fault with as to T. Ellwood's wronging me as if I had made a meer Verbal Confession a sufficient qualification to a Member of the Church of Christ See here they cite my Book Reasons and Causes p. 22. Take notice how they notifie his Forgery that he leaves out my words T. Ellwood says I make a meer Verbal Confession a Qualification for being a Member of the Church But I say not so as if a Verbal Confession were enough but as well a Conversation such as becomes the Gospel is necessary to qualifie a Member So my Book is Such a Conversation as becomes the Gospel p. 36. Reasons and Causes c. I appeal to you is not this more than a Verbal Confession T. Ellwood charges me to say That a meer Verbal Confession is enough to make a man a Member of the Church of Christ Now p. 103 T. Ellwood accuseth me unjustly as his own Brethren do observe for giving a false Quotation out of R. Barclay's Book called the Anarchy c. but they cleaâ— me and declare it to be true as it is T. Ellwood quibbles about Substance finding fault with my Saying Somewhere it agrees in Substance with R. B. as elsewhere in express words Now these men take notice that T. Ellwood is unfair in taking that liberty to himself he will not allow to me They observe he admits of Substance of Doctrine in his own Citations but will not allow it to me Another thing T. Ellwood accuses G. Keith as they observe in their Censure that he blames them for going too much from the outward to the inward But these are not my words nor sence And they censure T. Ellwood for making a strained Consequence on my words for tho' I blamed them for not rightly preaching Christ withouâ— yet not for going to the inward Light for if they did go rightly to God's Light and Gift in their Hearts they would not hold such gross Errors But he says I blame them for going from the outward to the inward which is not so See p. 22. Again they censure him in his blaming me for not naming the Day Month or Year wherein that Yearly meeting at Philadelphia was held which he makes the ground of his perversion and would excuse it You see he argues like a rare Logician He says I do not name the Year nor Day nor is it in p. 14 nor p. 18. But what then I do it in another page This is rare Logick Now I say you have both in p. 3. quoted from The Plea of the Innocent Which p. 3. T. Ellwood has quoted for another purpose but could not see it for that And all this Proof is that I did not tell it in p. 14 nor p. 18 but I did it in p. 3. His Argument is a Sophism and is faulty in not making a sufficient enumeration Again they censure him for charging me with Nonsence Pray may not a meeting held six months after contradict a meeting going before Very well But he has given out that I am so weak a man that I cannot write sence This morning one came to me with Henry Goldney and said People would hoot at me in the Meeting but it is fulfilled on themselves thinking me craz'd And so here is a Paper against me that I cannot speak sence And why Because he feigns that I said a meeting six months before contradicts a meeting held six months after it when there is no such thing but that a meeting six months after contradicts a meeting six months before When Tho. Ellwood could not prove that I began the Separation at Philadelphia by any Evidence of Matter of Fact he essays to do it by false Logick arguing That the Cause must be before the Effect Therefore because I say Th. Loid and they that were Magistrates went away this was the beginning of the Separation and a cause of it And so when he cannot bring a reason in Matter of Fact he will go to false Logick for it So I answer'd his Argument saying All learned men that write of causes and effects acknowledge that a priority of time is not necessary to the cause but it is enough that there be a priority of nature the first moment the Sun was created there was light And then besides the cause cannot be the effect says he if their going away from that meeting were the cause of the separation it was not the effect But I said to him formal and material causes may be both cause and effect As for example The formal and material causes of a man are his Soul and Body and they are the man The material and formal causes of this House are the Stones the Bricks the Timber and the Fashion Now here these causes are the effect Now Th. Loid's going away was a cause of the Separation and yet was a beginning of the Separation And is it not shameful They accuse me of Separation but they run to a perversion of Philosophy to prove it by that the cause is before the effect when they have no other Arguments against me but false Logick and vain Philosophy and Deceit and his own Brethren here in this Paper do censure him for his arguing unfairly by Logical nicety Here is another Observation of these honest men they censure him for saying he did not understand that the Doctrine of the Faith of Christ as he died c. being necessary to our Salvation was reputed a Doctrine in Controversie betwixt us Whereas the principal Doctrine in Controversie between them and me was about the Faith of Christ as he died c. whether necessary to our Salvation Here is something also to take notice of that he blames me as not fair for not putting my Name to my Book nor the Name of the Printer Now the Quakers have done so in England in Suffering Times and yet the Printer in America was prosecuted by an Act of Parliament for not printing his Name to some of my Books and they took away his Letters and Frame But I find that which is Persecution in England is esteem'd good Justice in Philadelphia Quaker N. Marks I have something to propose to you if you please We are all in general very apt and too apt to have a good Opinion of ourselves it is very near to Mankind to do so You have very well answer'd the Design of this meeting in this you have heard him with a great deal of temper I desire you further to consider that all considerate men when they hear one part hear but with one Ear. So far as G. Keith thinks fit to make this publick you may expect an Answer and I hope you will reserve one Ear to hear that
I have a Paper that some persons concerned in this Challenge have sent that they desire may be read Which was consented to G. Keith The truth is I could be almost content to go away and say nothing to it there is so little of value in it They say I began with them but they began with me in Pensylvania I was doing my duty in preaching Christ without and Christ within they charged me with preaching two Christs I went to some of them about it but they took their part against me I laid it before the Ministry at the Yearly meeting they also took their part Now you know he that affirms on him lies the business of proving W. Pen when I was opening a place of Scripture he charges me with being an Apostate and Impostor Here he charges me with being an Apostate I say to him it belongs to make his charge good but he goes away At the Yearly meeting I put it to him to make it good I do not doubt but this meeting will sound through the Nation They urge me to Printing I say again I have not either Estate or Time to print Book upon Book And tho' I have not answer'd the said two Books why may not I say as they do They are not worth answering As for example There is a Book called The Snake in the Grass I would not vindicate all things in it but they have been urged to answer it their Answer is it is not worth answering This man that prints this half-sheet says it cannot be supposed that G. Keith can answer eighteen sheets of Paper in a Meeting Why can it be â—upposed But G. Fox can answer an hundred sheets of Paper in a few Pages He has answer'd Books of ten or twelve sheets in a few lines And as for their upbraiding my Friends for not bearing the charge of Printing my Books they that own me here are not many of them rich and I would not put them to it But now there is the thing the Controversie is whether the rich Church or the poorer Church be the Ch. of Christ G. Keith's is the poor Church and theirs is the rich Church and I am not asham'd of my Poverty seeing I have not done any dishonest thing I have weaken'd my Estate by printing what I have printed already there is a Printer here that can own I have paid near forty pounds to him for Printing Now they upbraid me for my Poverty Their Church is the true Church because the rich Church and ours the false Church because the poor Church Quaker N. Marks You should hear one side but with one Ear and leave the other free for the other side G. Keith I am perswaded the Reasons given in the Paper read at the beginning were no just Reason for their not appearing But though some comparisons are odious yet give me leave to make a comparison May a Malefactor make this excuse You shall not call me before a Justice without my consent If a man rob me I may complain of him as a Robber and without his consent call him to account but here is a strange thing injuring men may not be called to account without their consent it will trespass against the Law and intrenches upon liberty of Conscience I was advised to go before the Lord Mayor of London and I did and told him I hoped it would give no offence to Authority for the things I was concerned in were the common Doctrines of Christianity if there be any Tumult says I it shall not be on my side And the Lord Mayor was pleased to consent to it Now their printed Paper seems to reflect on the publick Authority and not what I have done And thus the Meeting peaceably ended between the second and third hour in the Afternoon 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. W. call'd A short List of the vile and gross Errors which T. Ellwood hath replied to in his printed Book called Truth defended I answer I know not any one of them that he has sufficiently answer'd unto to give the least Satiâ—faction to any sound Christian his Answers being meerly Evasions and Perversions as I should have shown if he had appear'd But beside there are many new Proofs here brought beside the former which I am well satisfied they can never truly answer but by a sincere and free Confession of their gross Errors and a hearty retracting and relinquishing them And if any that were present at that Meeting or may happen to read this printed Account with the proofs brought out of their Books in full Periods and Paragraphs as often as there was any occasion are desirous to see the Books and to read the Proofs in the said Books that were then brought or any others that may be brought I freely offer them that are sober and impartial persons to let them have the free sight and view of them leisurely to read and consider them if they please to call at my House And I the rather make this Offer because divers of these Books are not easily to be had not being in the hands of many And because I had not time enough to read divers other great Proofs that I had being hinder'd with the impertinent Digressions of those that interposed whom we had no just Cause to hear pretending no Deputation from the persons they spoke for and therefore only were permitted by Favour to shew their Impertinencies I therefore think fit to add some other few very considerable Proofs out of these mens Books and perhaps one or two out of Books approved and commended by them and some few more of W. Penn's and George Whitehead's Self-Contradictions AN APPENDIX CONTAINING Some other Considerable Passages for Proofs out of these Mens Books relating to the foregoing Heads and some few more of W. Penn's and G. Whitehead's Self-Contradictions which were design'd to have been read at the Meeting at Turners-Hall 11th of the Month call'd June 1696. but for the Diversions made could not then be read IN George Whitehead's Book called The Divinity of Christ he hath this most unsound and scandalous passage concerning Christ how a Sacrifice and his Blood In his Answer to T. Danson's Synopsis of Quakerism p. 70. first he sets down the words of John Owen thus The Sacrifice denotes his Human Nature whence God is said to purchase his Church with His own Blood Acts 20.28 for He offer'd Himself through the eternal Spirit there was the Matter of the Sacrifice which was the Human Nature of Christ Soul and Body His Soul was made an Offering for Sin Isa 53.10 His Death had the Nature of a Sacrifice Against these sound words of John Owen he quarrels and contradicts thus Answ These passages are but darkly and confusedly expressâ—d as also we do not read in Scripture that the Blood of God by which he purchas'd his Church is ever call'd
the Blood of the Human Nature nor that the Soul of Christ was the Human Nature or was put to death with the Body for the Wicked could not kill the Soul though his Soul was made an Offering for Sin and he poured it out to Death he bore the Sin of many and made intercession for Transgressors but what Death and in what manner was it is a Mystery truly to know for his Soul in his own being was immortal and and the Nature of God is divine and therefore that the Blood of God should be of human or earthly nature appears inconsistent and where doth the Scripture call the Blood of God Human or Human Nature Neither do we read that the Blood which beareth Record in the Earth and agrees in one with the Spirit and which purgeth the Conscience washeth and cleanseth the Believer in the Light from all Sin was ever called by the Apostles the Blood of the Human Nature Nor do we read that the Saints did eat and drink Flesh and Blood that was of a human nature to receive Divine Life in them thereby for the Water of Life and Blood of Christ which are said to wash sanctifie and justifie which agrees with the Spirit in those Works and Effects We never read that they are called in Scripture by the name of Human Nature for the Spirit that quickens is divine and it is the Spirit that gives Life the Flesh profiteth nothing John 6. Now this unsound Doctrine of G. W. doth so well agree with that in John Humphrey's two Letters abovementioned that John Humphrey seems to have been his Disciple in the Case and it is certain this sort of Doctrine of G. Whitehead hath corrupted the Minds of many We see he will not own either the Flesh or Blood of Christ or Soul of Christ to belong to the human nature Annotat. Before I understood the Mystery of Iniquity and Antichristianism that lay hid under the finding fault with this name or term Human Nature of Christ and his Humanity observing that divers found fault with it I was ready to excuse them thinking that tho' they disowned the term Human yet they owned that signified by it to wit the real Manhood of Christ having a real Soul and Body that is not the Godhead but most gloriously united therewith And accordingly I did in part excuse them as in my Book The True Christ owned pag. 20 and pag. 105 I cited some words of Hilarius Lib. 10. de Trinitate Quid per Naturam Humani corporis concepta ex Spiritu S. caro judicatur i. e. Why is the Flesh conceived of the Holy Ghost judged by the nature of an Human Body But neither Hilarius nor I judged that the Body though conceived of the Holy Ghost was any part of the Substance of the Holy Ghost the Particle of in that place denoting the Holy Ghost to be the Efficient Cause of that Conception but not the Material But that my Mind and Sense that Christ had the true Nature of Man of Soul and Body neither of which were the Godhead was sound then as now and the same as now plainly appears from Page 20. of my Book above cited where I say Human Soul may signify the true Soul of Man having all the essential properties of man's Soul and its whole Perfection And if in this sense any will say That Christ hath a Human Soul and call the Manhood of Christ his Humanity there needeth no contention about it For in the Latin Tongue we have not a word so proper as Humanitas to signify the Manhood and if we may say Humanitas in Latin we may say in English Humanity G Whithead his Objection against the word Human as signifying Earthly hath the same force against calling Christ Adam coming from the Hebrew word Adamah that signifieth Earth And the Scripture calleth the Man Christ the second Adam and certainly the Man Christ had not only that which was Heavenly but had even our Earthly part but without sin his Body being nourished with Earthly Food which Body now glorified is Heavenly But that I differed as much in Doctrine from G. Whithead then as now as concerning the Blood of Christ and the sense of that place of Scripture Acts 20.28 what that Blood of God was wherewith he purchased his Church he affirming it was the Blood not of the Human Nature or Humanity but of the Divine Nature as may be seen above appears in my Book above-mentioned The true Christ owned pag. 94. I expresly say I grant that there is such a figurative speech of the Communication of Names and Properties whereby the Man Christ is called God and also God is called Man and God is said to have shed his Blood although Christ as God hath not Blood to shed but only as Man yet by reason of that most rare and wonderful Union betwixt the Godhead and Manhood the Blood of the Man Christ is called the Blood of God Acts 20.28 This may serve as one great Instance to shew That as I am not changed in this Doctrine from what I was many years ago that Book of mine being printed Anno 1679. so I did then as widely differ from G. W. in that great Article of Faith as I do now But I confess I knew not that any such absurd Doctrine was in his Books till of late that I made a more narrow search occasioned by his defending the same Errors in his Pensilvanian Brethren Again In the same Answer to T. Danson's Synopsis T. D having affirmed that there is a continual need of Faith and Repentance in this life G. Whithead answereth That there is a continual need of Repentance this I deny for true Repentance where it is wrought and the fruits of it brought forth this is unto Salvation never to be repented of and is attended with a real forsaking of sin and transgression Annot. G. Whithead's Ignorance greatly appeareth in this that he thinks Repentance and Perfection inconsistent but it is a strange Perfection that destroyeth an Evangelical Virtue and a Fruit of the Spirit such as Repentance is and what is Repentance A change of the mind or a transformation of the mind as the Greek word Englished Repentance implieth or more particularly true Evangelical Repentance is a great aversion and perfect hatred of the soul to all sin and a deep humiliation before God with godly sorrow and contrition of soul for sins past which is very consistent with and very becoming the most perfect and holy men that ever lived since all have sinned It seems it is from this great Error that he and many others of his Brethren seldom if ever pray for Forgiveness of sin at least for themselves for if there be no need of Repentance it will follow that there is no need of praying for Forgiveness But all sound Christians of true spiritual experience do know that both Repentance for sin and praying for Forgiveness of sin are well consistent with the greatest degree
of Holiness attainable in this life Nor doth the praying for Forgiveness imply universally the want of it more than the praying for the Spirit implieth the want of it Again Whereas it was said in the above Narrative That G. Whithead hath allegorized away the Birth Death Resurrection and coming again of Christ without us to Judgment take these plain Proofs 1. His allegorizing away his Birth prophesied of by Isaiah 9 6. Unto us a child is born a Son is given This he expoundeth of Christ born within He-Goats Horn Page 51. 2. He allegorizeth away his Resurrection expresly denying that Christ was bodily seen of Paul and perverting that place in 1 Cor. 15.8 to Christ within Page 51. 3. He allegorizeth away his coming without us to Judgment in these Scriptures Matth. 16.27 28 1 Thes 4 15 16 17 Light and Life Page 40 41. 4. Both he and Richard Hubberthorne allegorize away his Burial Light and Life Page 52. and He-Goats Horn Page 62 perverting that Scripture Isa 53. He made his grave with the wicked he adulterates the true Translation and turns it in the wicked which the Hebrew doth not bear Where see a most absurd account of the Resurrection turning it wholly to the Resurrection of two Seeds in two Bodies within men 5. He allegorizeth away the Resurrection of the Saints Bodies by his perversion of that place of Scripture Who shall change our vile body and fashion it like to his glorious body Phil. 3.21 to a change of the Body that the Apostles and Saints witnessed before death and yet in contradiction to that in his Real Quaker a Real Protestant Page 105. he understands that very place of a change of the vile or low and humble Body like unto the glorious Body of Christ as a thing to come Some other of Geo. Whithead's Contradictions 1. GEO. Whithead in his Light and Life page 69. thinks him a very blind and ignorant man that reckons Bodies Celestial and Terrestrial to be all one in Matter and Substance and yet the same G. W. in malice of the Independant Agent pag. 17. recited and approved by John Pennington Apostat expos'd p. 16. owns that Christ's Body now in Heaven is the same in substance he had on earth So by his own words he hath declared himself to be a blind and ignorant man and yet Infallible otherwise by his own word no true Minister 2. In a late printed Half sheet signed by him and seventeen more he owneth Christ to be both God and Man and owneth the Humanity of Christ making it synonimous with Manhood and yet it is proved in the above Narrative that he neither owneth him to be God or Man finding fault with W. Burnet for saying that Christ as God had a Father and had Glory with God before the world began arguing as the Socinians do that this would imply two Gods sâ—e Light and Life page 47. Again He finds fault with T. Danson for saying that the Man Christ had a Created Soul Answer to T D. 's Synopsis p. 18. And he blames R. G. for saying Christ hath a Bodily Existence without us in Heaven Nat. of Christianity page 41. 3. In his late Answer to the Queries sent to the Yearly Meeting of the people called Quakers at London signed by Dr. Lancaster Chaplain to the Bishop of London he owns the Blood of Christ that was outwardly shed to be a part of the Sacrifice even Christ's Blood that was shed without the gates of Jerusalem together with the whole Sacrifice of himself both of Soul and Body was a true Propitiation and Atonement for man's Reconciliation and Peace with God for Remission of sin through a living Faith and true Repentance c. But in his Light and Life he denieth that the outward Blood was that by which we are either sanctified or justified and calleth it a Type and saith the shedding of it was a wicked man's act from whence he inferreth that we are not justified by the outward Blood but pleadeth that the Offering Passover Blood by which we are cleansed is within as the New Covenant is and not without See in the Narrative above And this sort of Unchristian Doctrine G. Whithead as many others did receive neither from the Spirit of Christ within nor from the Holy Scriptures but as it seems from G. Fox who in a printed Paper of his having this Title To all People in Christendom concerning Perfect Love c. also concerning Christ's Flesh which was offered which printed Paper I have it is joined with some other printed Papers under this general Title Several Papers given forth for the spreading of Truth See Page 55 57 59. hath very unsound and unchristian Doctrine concerning Christ's Flesh that is the Offering in which is the belief by Christ's Flesh meaning not his outward Flesh Some of his words I shall faithfully recite as followeth that to me are very unsound and I believe in general to all sound in the Faith And Christ according to the flesh crucified the Lamb slain that flesh of his which is a Mystery when the first Adam's and Eve's flesh was defiled and so death reigned from Adam to Moses pag 55. And Pag. 57. So Adam's Eve's flesh was defiled but the flesh of Christ the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world yet his flesh never corrupted which flesh is the offering for as he was God he did not dye and this flesh is a Mystery and in this flâ—sh Note is the belief that takes away the sin that never corrupted that is the Offering for sin and the Blood of this flesh cleanseth from sin p. 58. Now they that are in the belief of this flâ—sh and offering sees over all offerings to the beginning into the Glory which was with the Father before the world began for all outward Offerings and Sacrifices was given to man after he fell and the Lamb slain which Offering is a Figure of Christ the Seed to be brought forth and offered up and he the Top stone over all laid to end and finish all the outward Offerings and Types and Shadows and in him there is none Page 59. So through this Offering is the Reconciliation through the offering of his flesh that never corrupted but takes away corruptions and his Blood cleanseth from Corruptions the Life real And so this pure Flesh this Offering is set over all which never corrupted which must be your meat if you live Though there is more in all these things which is hard to be uttered and cannot be uttered Yet Annot. It seems what G. Fox did not so fully utter as to this Mystery George Whithead had a mind to utter in his Book called Light and Life that may be as a proper Key to these dark Sayings of George Fox If any object to me as Th Elwood hath done in his Book falsly called Truth defended That I have in some of my Books owned Christ's flesh and Blood within I answer I confess it but no otherwise but
William Penn has blamed that in another unjustly which most unjustly he justifies in himself and in his Tyrannical Brethren of his Party who for no other cause did excommunicate me but for not obeying their most unjust and unreasonable demand which was To clear the Body of the People called Quakers and their Ministry from some of the Errors charged upon them in Pensilvania which as I at that very Meeting told them I could prove some of them were guilty of and which I have since effectually done And that William Penn thinks it was such a notable Argumentum ad hominem that Rob. Norwood used to them who did excommunicate him Are none the People of God but your selves Have not I the same Argumentum ad hominem against them that excommunicated me who in their Nameless Bull of Excommunication given out against me at the Yearly Meeting at London 1695. call themselves the Church of Christ from which they say I have separated my self And because I could not obey their most unjust and unreasonable Demand they pass this Judgment against me as if they were the only Church of Christ and in their Yearly Epistle this very year 1696. directed to the Quarterly and Monthly Meetings in England Wales and elsewhere they call themselves to wit those that generally go under the Name Quakors professing Unity with them God's whole Heritage and People this agreeth with Solomon Eccles Paper called The Quakers Challenge p. 2 3. 1668. The Quakers are in Truth and none but they The Tabernacle of God is with you and his Dwelling Place is among you and only among you is God known said Edw. Burrough to the Quakers see his Works page 64. 2. In the same Rejoinder page 310. he hath a Passage that is either perfect Nonsense or Antichristian Doctrine or rather indeed both I shall cite it verbatim Seventhly Because that Flesh of Christ is called a Vail but he himself is within the Vail which is the Holy of Holiest whereinto Christ Jesus our High-Priest hath entred Heb. 10.20 21. And as he descended into and past through a suffering-state in his fleshly appearance and returned into that state of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory from whence he humbled himself which was and is the Holy of Holiest then obscured or hid by his Flesh or Body the Vail while in the world so must all know a death to their fleshly ways and Religions yea their knowledge of Christ himself after the flesh or they stick in the Vail and never enter into the Holy of Holies nor come to know him in any spiritual relation as their High and Holy Priest that abides therein Annot. I shall make no large Commentary on these words only in short note 1. His saying Christ has entred into the Holy of Holies within the Vail and that Vail is his Flesh and that Holy of Holies is himself What Nonsense is this Was not Christ always in himself 2. His entring in within the Vail of his Flesh is either perfect Nonsense or it hath this sense That he hath put off his Body he had on earth and is separated from it as one Robert Young a Preacher among the Quakers in Pensilvania at a Meeting affirmed and brought these very words of W. Penn's to confirm it That Christ hath entred within the Vail and Christ's flesh is that Vail whereas it is plain and generally understood by all Christians That the Vail within which Christ is entred according to Heb. 6.19 is not his flesh though elsewhere but in another respect his flesh is called a Vail the word Vail having divers significations in Scripture 3. That he saith That all must know a death to their knowledge of Christ after the flesh it is plain from his words that he hath this unsound sense of it That they must know a death to the knowledge of Christ after the flesh as that flesh signifieth the flesh of Christ as he came in the flesh But this is a perversion of Paul's words as if Paul had rejected the knowledge of Christ as he came and suffered in the flesh as inconsistent with the revelation of Christ in himself which are so consistent that as none have the saving knowledge of Christ as he came and suffered in the flesh without the inward revelation of him in their hearts so none have that inward revelation of him sufficient to Eternal Salvation but who by that inward revelation know and believe that he came and suffered in the flesh and that he is now in Heaven in the same Body that suffered the same I say as to Substance though wonderfully changed in Mannâ—r and Condition 3. W P. in a Book he calleth Truth exalted presented to Princes Priests and People reprinted Anno 1671. he giveth a large description of the Quakers Christ as he calleth him pag. 13 14. without mentioning in the least his Birth in the flesh Death Resurrection Ascension as the Son of Man or the Son of Abraham and David and wholly applying that Isaiah 9.6 7. Unto us a child is born and Deut. â—1 18 A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to the Inward Principle of the Light in all men and thus he describeth the Quakers Christ pag. 14. This is the second Adam the quickening Spirit the Lord from Heaven the new and spiritual man the Heavenly Bread the true Vine the Flesh and Blood that was given for the Life of the World the second Covenant the Law writ in the Heart and Spirit put in the inward parts the way in which the fool cannot err the Truth before Deceit was the Life that 's hid in God eternal in the Heavens glorified before the world began the Power the Wisdom the Righteousness of God the Plant of Renown the Royal Seed that bruiseth the Serpent's head in short that Grace which hath appeared unto all men teaching them to deny Ungodliness c. Annot. By this it is plain he makes nothing of Christ but an inward Principle in all men which yet falsly he calls the second Covenant the Law written in the heart for the Law writ in the heart that is the second Covenant is not in any Unbelievers but only in the hearts of True Believers Again in his large description of the Christian Quaker filling Three Pages of his Folio called the Christian Quaker he mentions not one word of Christ as he was born of the Virgin suffered death for our sins rose again c. as the Object of Faith Hope or Love or Christian Devotion see his Pages 125 126 127. By which it plainly appears that he and G Whithead and many other Teachers among the Quakers have no other Notion of Christ but an Inward Principle which is manifestly contrary to the Gospel preached by the Holy Prophets Evangelists and Apostles who preached Christ chiefly without men as both God and Man and consequentially his Light and Grace and Spirit within men I shall now point at some of W. Penn's most gross and
the 2d Days meeting I only at present note these few gross things in it First He mis-states the Question which was not That the Light within is sufficient for Salvation without something else for the Light within or Grace within Paul and Peter c. is sufficient to Salvation without thousands of some things else as without thousands of Caleb Puseys and all of us but not without the Man Christ without us But the true state of the Question was and is That whereas they blamed my Assertion viz. The Light within is not sufficient to Salvation without something else They are obliged to hold the Contradictory which is The Light within is sufficient to Salvation without any or every thing else true Contradictions being betwixt the one Particular the other Universal but it hath been my Lot to have to do generally with such ignorant Men of late in dispute that know not either by true Logick or common Sense what a true Contradiction is 2. Page 8. His false quotation of my words citing my Book called A Refutation pag 38 39. where he brings me in saying It is a real degree of Blasphemy to say This Light cannot make Satisfaction c. But I use no such words therefore this is a gross Forgery which I charge upon the Second day's Meeting for in all that Treatise I neither said nor intented any thing of the Light within making Satisfaction for the Question there treated of by me was not about Satisfaction but Revelation what the Light within could reveal And I was so far from affirming the Light within as we give Obedience to it to make any Satisfaction for our sins that I plainly said pag. 41. ad finem That man's most exact Obedience to the Light in him cannot be an Atonement or Propitiation unto God for sins past or present 3. His Fallacy or Forgery pag. 12. in feigning a Contradiction on me concerning the express Knowledge of Christ necessary and not necessary whereas I never said it was universally necessary but only to such who have the occasion to hear it preach'd therefore I distinguished betwixt the Express and Implicit saying this last was universally necessary the former only to Particulars 4. Pag. 15. His most gross Assertion which is justly charged on the Second day's Meeting who have approved his Antichristian Book That surely Jesus of Nazareth cannot be something else than the Light Spirit and Power within For at this rate the Jews who own and confess to the Light within and Pagan Philosophers who blasphemed against the Man Jesus of Nazareth yet confessing to the Light within may be said to confess Jesus of Nazareth and if Jesus of Nazareth be not something else than the Light within then it is in vain to preach any Christ without that was born at Bethlehem and conversed at Nazareth But he is guilty of gross Forgery to infer it from my words He says pag. 14. The Word only is alone and admits of nothing else but I answer It admits not of another Christ but it admits of something of Christ without us that is not within us as Christ that died for us is the only Saviour this only admits not of another Saviour or Christ within us yet it admits of something of Christ within us that was not outwardly crucified viz. His Grace and Spirit As concerning the pretended Confession of Faith called Our Ancient Testimony renewed of our Adversaries from Pensilvania subscribed by Caleb Pusey and above Thirty six more though the Scripture-Words as therein recited we own yet seeing they and particularly he who have differed from us in Pensilvania have declared a contrary sense to all these Places of Scripture touching the things in Controversy betwixt us and have neither in that Confession nor elsewhere renounced their former Errors whereof they have been proved guilty their Confession is but a mere Sham and Mock-Confession G. K. ERRATA Page 17. line 7. for Days read Words Page 48. line 44. read clear me A Sermon preached at the Meeting of Protestant Dissenters called Quakers in Turners-Hall London on the 16 th of the Second Month 1696. Being the Publick Day of Thanksgiving for the Deliverance of the King and Kingdom By George Keith To which is added A Testimony of Fidelity and Subjection to King William the Third from the aforesaid People on behalf of themselves and others of the same Persuasion with them Printed for B. Aylmer at the Three Pigeons in Cornhill THE General History of the Quakers containing the Lives Tenents Sufferings Tryals Speeches Letters and Travels of all the most Eminent Quakers both Men and Women from the first Rise of that Sect down to this present time Collected from Manuscripts c. A Work never attempted before in English being written originally in Latin by Gerard Croese and now made publick against their present Yearly Meeting in London To which is added Fox's Conference with Oliver Cromwell The Tryals and dying Speeches of the Quakers executed in New-England An Account of their Marriages and Burials A Quaker's Letter to King Charles II. charging him with several vile Practices Keith's Learned Speech at his Tryal in Pensilvania The Tryals of Mead and Pen. Pen's Speech to the Judges His Conference with the Princess Palatine His Sermon before Her The Princess's Letter to Geo. Fox Margaret Fox's Letter to a General Meeting of Women held at London in the year 1692. A very particular Account of the Women Preachers Hester Bidly's Speech to the late Queen Mary Her Entertainment at Versailles by King James Her Letter to the French King Her Discourses with him The great Sufferings of two Quaker Women in the Island Malta The Rarity of Mary Fisher's Voyage to Adrianople The Audience given this Maiden Quaker by the Grand Signior The Present State of the Quakers As also a Letter writ by George Keith and sent by him to the Reverend Author of this Book containing a Vindication of himself and several Remarks upon this curious History Price Bound 5 s. Printed for John Dunton at the Raven in Jewen-Street †Note There is an additional Postscript by me G. K. put to this Book of G. W. Nature of Christianity the which Postscript I left in a Manuscript at London and with the Quakers printed with this of G. W. I acknowledg my want of due Consideration that I did not better consider G. W. his 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 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 above-mentioned p. 73. where at n. 11. I blame R. G. 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 I confess I happened to find divers Passages in G. W.'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 until that of late I had found them to justify the same and the like unsound Words in my Adversaries in Pensilvania and to hate and excommunicate me for telling them of them * And by this same Argument they need not preach his Example of holy Life nor the Example of the holy Lives of the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles nor the Creation of the World nor any of God's gracious Providences towards his Church and People in former Ages they all being past and Persons not to live again in Mortal Bodies But why do the Quakers labour to keep up the the Remembrance of their deceased Friends and their Works and Sayings and collect them in Print for Posterity Is not the keeping in Memory the Birth Life Death and Resurrection c. of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ infinitely of more Value to be remembred and what is the way to have it remembred according to God's ordinary manner of working if not by preaching O what great Blindness and Ignorance is this of W. Penns * See his and my Answer to the Students in Aberdeer called Quakerism confirmed in the Collection of his Works called Truth triumphant pag. 627. Prop. 3. we say That the same Seed and Life is in us which was in him viz. the Man Christ and is in him in the Fulness as Water in the Spring and in us as the Stream As the natural Life is in all the Members but more principally in the Head and Heart without any Division so this spiritual Life and Nature is both in Christ our Head and in us by which he dwelleth in us as the Spirit of Man doth in the Body Again p. 628. Prop. 10. As for the Satisfaction of Chritst without us we own it against the Socinians c. And pag. 629. The Doctrines of the Incarnation Sufferings Death and Resurrection of Christ c. are necessary every where to be preached See the Places at more length than which nothing can be more contradictory than W. Penn's Doctrine as will appear in divers Places in this Treatise from his own Words faithfully quoted out of his Books ‖ This Writer is J. Reuclinus de verbo mirifico lib. 3. cap. 2. Gal. 3.16 ‖ But is not the Serpent or Devil without Men as well as within many Men (a) See W. Penn's Rejoynder pag. 284. And G. W. Light and Life p. 44. (b) See his Book pag. 35. called The Capital Principles (c) It is no more Nonsense than many good Christian Teachers have used to expound and open the Types of the Old Testament and to shew how they directed to Christ the Antitype yea divers Quakers Preach the Types as directing to Christ and his Spirit within And G. Fox used much to Preach upon the Types of the Old Testament as the Booths they made at the Feast of Tabernacles and the Lamps in the Temple and the Snuffers how they had a Spiritual signification And shall any Christian say that none of these Types signified Christ without but only Christ within (d) See for this in the Church-History of Socrates Scholasticus lib. 2. c. 7. and c. 25. (e) Note The Meeting was for most part orderly and attentive if any little Disorder happened it was by occasion of W. Pen's Party and particularly by Henry Goldney that threw printed Papers among the People in the Meeting on purpose to make a Disturbance but what Disturbance happened it was soon ended by the Care and Diligence of the Marshal sent by the Lord Mayor to prevent any Disorders (f) Note here two Gods of one Kind and Nature by his absurd Logick and false Philosophy one that worketh another that is wrought Oh gross Darkness and Ignorance in G. Whitehead (g) The Saints are partakers of the Divine Nature and so are they of the Holy Ghost is therefore the Holy Ghost a Work or Effect wrought in us This is to comfound the Creator with the Creature and is a Divinity more fit for Bedlam than any sober Society of People (h) And in Egypt we hear that Chickens are bred of Eggs simply by heat without the Hen. (i) N. Marks doth not profess himself to be Infallible being not of the Ministry But whence is it that the Laicks should own themselves Fallible and the Minâ—stry Infallible But at last it is come to this that some of the Ministry are Fallible also but such Principal Ministers as G. W. are not (a) Tho some in Scotland being influenced with their false reports have seemed to disown me yet others have not and some of them have writ kindly to me and owned me (a) Arthur Cook a Preacher and Justice of Peace in Pensilvania (b) Too high a Title for such who are quilty of such gross Errors (c) The third was 〈◊〉 they blamed me for saying the best Saints had need to come alwaâ—s to God by the 〈◊〉 â—or the Man Christ Jesus they said They could come to God withâ—ut him and this 〈◊〉 of Doctrine is to be found in W. Shewen's Book a Quaker greatly owned by them Treatise of Thoughts see pag. 37.38 (a) And I was cleared by a publick Writ signed by the Deputy Governor C. Markham and the Counsel in Philadelphia which I have to show See the Nature of Ch. pag. 29. * The real Quaker A real Protestant Nature of Christian p. 29 * G. Keith doth not charge it on the whole but only on the Guilty and such as cloak and excuse them * Note They told me It was sufficient to name a Few of Many to prove T. E. guilty of wronging me in his Books Let the Quotations be read out of R. B's Anarc * There is not mentioned any Day Month or Year wherein the yearly Meeting at Philad was held (a) Note W. Penn as is proved hath said We need not preach it the necessary consequence whereof is They need not believe it (b) So nor have they answer'd my Book Gross Error and Hypocrisie detected nor my Book against Samuel Jennings So here are Two for Two But I think I have effectually answer'd them here as to the main and so I hope will many others judge (c) I call it not G. Keith's Church otherwise than as related to them as one of them as I call the other their Church N. Mark 's Church i. e. to which he is related but he did well to own his Fallibility seeing he gave so great a Proof of it not long ago by severely accusing a poor innocent Maid-servant of his of Theft whose Innocency soon after was manifest to him * Called the Christian Faith