p. 152. of the same Book in Answer to a Question Whether the knowledge of the outward coming sufferings and Death of Christ is not of absolute necessity unto every one He says Though express knowledge of his outward coming sufferings and Death is very profitable to beget Faith and Love in Men towards God as aforesaid and ought to be highly valued in its place Nevertheless this express knowledge is not of absolute necessity unto Faith and Love c. And in p. 153. How many thousand have been saved before Christ's coming in the outward who knew it not expresly And a little lower Seeing then that some had Faith and Love to God and were saved without the express knowledge thereof to wit of Christ's coming in the outward before he came outwardly why not also after his coming where his coming outwardly hath not been preached nor revealed For now Christ is inwardly come in a Seed of Life and Light in all which is the Word of Reconciliation by which men may be Reconciled with God as they joyn and apply their Minds thereunto Such passages as these abound in his former not yet retracted Book which it would be tedious to transcribe Yet inasmuch as he says here Nar. p. 23. that though Regeneration is no â—light thing yet comparing Christ's Incarnation with the Work of Regeneration I do affirm the Work of Regeneration is a light thing tho' not light in it self I will shew him though it be some what beside the present Business how much he formerly prefer'd the inward Appearance and Manifestation of Christ in Spirit to his outward Appearance in the Flesh. In his Book called Immediate Revelation not ceased nor retracted p. 59. he says If his Bodily presence was not sufficient to the Church his teaching them outwardly by word of Mouth Face to Face but he said It was expedient that he should go away from them and he would send another Teacher who would do greater things and more Manifestly and Gloriously reveal unto them God and the things of his Kingdom If Christ's Bodily presence in the Flesh was not sufficient of it self to Minister though he spake as never Man spake yet I say If this Ministration was not sufficient but a more Glorious they were to expect and as they waited they witnessed it fulfilled and come unto them Then far less is the outward Administration of any other Man c. Seeing the knowledge of Christ after the Flesh was not sufficient nor to be rested in but they were to look for a better a more clear and full manifestation in themselves he appearing in a Spiritual Glorious Heavenly Mysterious way in their Hearts c. And in p. 120. having cited before many Scripture sayings out of the Old and New Testament Concerning Christ he says All these Glorious things both he in the Days of his Flesh and the Prophets before that his appearance in that Body of Flesh declared neither only nor principally concerning his coming in the Flesh namely in that Vessel or Temple which appeared at Ierusalem but mainly and principally concerning his Spiritual Appearance in his Saints after his being Crucified Risen and Ascended for till then the Son of Man was not Glorified And though he was Bodily present with his Disciples yet he told them they were to see greater things And p. 121. He told them It was expedient he should go away that he might come again in a more Glorious and Comfortable Appearance by the Revelation of his Glorious Power in their Hearts for his Kingdom was not of this World but an inward Kingdom and he said that it was within and pointed to this Spiritual Appearance by his Light in their Hearts under many Parables and Figures c. Again p. 107. he says The Iews and People of Israel who lived in Moses's time and were saved it was through Faith in this Word in this Prophet raised up in them in their Hearts not at a distance but nigh the Word is nigh in thy Heart And this is Christ in them the hope of Glory the Mystery hid from Ages and Generations but was ever made manifest in his Saints but in the latter Days more clearly Christ in all that believe the hope of Glory Does he not here plainly make that Mystery which the Apostle and he from him calls the Mystery which hath been hid from Ages and from Generations Col. 1.2.6 to be the inward Appearance of Christ the hope of Glory in all that believe and says It was ever made manifest in his Saints He pretends Nar. p. 23. to have some other principal Proofs remaining about this Gross Error as he calls it of W. Penn But he brings forth but one that I find and that the same which he charged formerly in his Book called The True Copy c. And which I answered at large in my Book called Truth Defended from p. 113. to p. 123. Of which he takes no notice Had he been either fair or manly he should first have refuted the former Answers before he had renewed his Charge Yet not only here but in his Gross Error p. 18 19. he repeats this same Charge without so much as owning that it had been answered to before So that with respect to him it is to little purpose to answer at all since he has so little honesty as to wink over the answer and repeat his Charge a new as if there had been nothing said to it But for the undeceiving of them whom he labours to deceive and by false Accusations and Calumnies to bring into a dislike of our Principles and us I shall here wipe off some of his Abuses and refer the Reader for further satisfaction to my former Book called Truth Defended The Quotation he now gives is out of a Book called The Christian Quaker p. 97.98 It is a Controversial Book and the Controversy in that part of it is Whether Christ as Christ was before he took Flesh of the Virgin or no Which the Adversaries denied W. Penn affirmed and gave many Arguments from Scripture and Reason to prove it which the Reader may there see at large from p. 92. to p. 99. Amongst those many Arguments one was drawn from the promised Seed which all acknowledge to be Christ and therefore as a fit Medium was used by W. Penn to prove that Christ as Christ was before he took that Body of Flesh upon him and therefore that that Body simply considered as a Natural Body which was the Notion the Adversaries had of it and from whence they Spake so much of Christ's Humane Nature was not properly the Christ but he most properly who was the Heavenly Spiritual Man who came down from Heaven and took upon him that outward Body in as much as the Seed is a Spiritual Substance Now to prove that the Seed is inward and Spiritual he argued thus which is the passage G. Keith quotes As Abraham outward and natural was the great Father of the Jews outward and
A Quaker did observe to him That G. Whitehead did find fault with the Letter G. VVhitehead's saying He did not make S. Eccles's Expression an Article of our Faith which is as much as to say I don't believe what he says in that matter or am one with him in it is not a disowning with G. Keith But if he reasons well when he says p. 31. He that doth not testifie against a thing when he has just occasion for it justifies it May I not with as good reason say He that doth not justifie a thing when he is put upon it disowns it There is an implicit as well as an explicit owning or disowning of a thing But G. Keith is in and out In one place he says He can find nothing of blame or censure at all A few lines lower he says But I find not that he censured it all It did not all deserve censure Next says G. Keith G.W. tells you in what sence he owns it understands by it not the Letter but the Blood shed viz. That Blood had a peculiar signification I told him says G. Keith so had the Blood of Beasts a peculiar signification for their Blood signified Remission of Sin but was no satisfactory Offering for sin But the signification which that Blood had did peculiarly excel that of the Blood of Beasts For the Blood shed was a satisfactory offering for sin and did obtain Remission of Sin for all those that truly believe in and faithfully follow the Lord Jesus Christ. But G. Keith did not fairly by G. Whitehead in saying He tells you in what sense he owns it viz. That Blood had a peculiar signification and stops there as if that were all G. Whitehead had said For G. Whitehead went on and shewed wherein he owned that Blood shed to be more than that of another Saint in many particulars of great weight He confesses that I say G VVhitehead does own That the Blood of Christ is more than the Blood of another Saint But what Blood says G. Keith The Blood of Christ within says he and then says There 's the Trick He is full of his Tricks and it were well that he had not more Tricks than are good But such Tricks as these he never learnt among the Quakers Neither will his putting these Tricks upon us hurt us so much as himself For the Just God who knows our Innocency and his Envy will clear us and give him unless he unfeignedly Repent the Reward due to him for his wicked and unjust Accusations In the mean time he himself shall Convict himself of Falshood in this foul Charge Here he makes me to mean by the Blood of Christ which G. VVhitehead said he owns is more than the Blood of another Saint the Blood of Christ within Yet in the same page p. 30. had said before He T. Ellwood is so unfair he will have it that G. VVhitehead ownâ— that the material Blood of Christ is that by which we are justified How hangs this together That I would have the Blood which G. Whitehead then treated of and owned to be the Material Blood of Christ And yet at the same time I would have the same Blood to be not the Material Blood but the Blood of Christ within Besides G. Whitehead spake of that Blood mentioned in the Letter which S. Eccles said was forced out by the Soldier and expresly said he owned the Blood shed was more than the Blood of another Saint And will G. Keith call that the Blood of Christ within Do these things square Does not this manifest the Trick to be G. Keith's Yet upon this Trick of his he cries out Is not this enough to Cheat all the World Have not I more cause to say Are not such false Trick as these enough to belie abuse defame slander all the World What Man can be secure from such a Tricker as G. Keith is He goes on with his Trick further They have says he a double meaning as Arius had They say they own the Blood of Christ and every other thing said of him according to the Scripture so adds he said the Arians and Macedonians when at other times they discovered their meaning to be quite contrary to Scripture Is not this Man past shame He says we have a double meaning as Arius had He must say this either from Supposition or Knowledge If from Supposition what can be more horribly wicked than to brand a People or Persons with so great a Blemish upon Supposition only If he will pretend to know that we have a double meaning he must pretend to have that Knowledge either from our Books or our Mouths From our Books he can know it no more than another Man they being publick and common to all neither has he proved nor can he prove it from our Books If he will pretend to have had it from any of our Mouths let him name the Person I provoke him to it He says in his Solemn Appeal p. 7. He thinks he should know and doth know these called Quakers and their Principles far better than Cotton Mather his then Opponent or any or all his Brethren having been conversant with them in publick Meetings as well as in private Discourses with the most noted and esteemed among them for about 28 Years past and that in many places of the World both in Europe and America Now if we had a double meaning as he says we have so as to say one thing and mean another he who has had as he pretends so close and intimate a Conversation with us for so many Years must needs in that time have observed it discovered it known it been privy to it and consequently be able to make a plain demonstrative evidential Discovery and Proof thereof which I again provoke him to Had he that Trick when he was among us He complains in his Book called The Christian Faith c. printed but in 1692. p. 3. of Christian Lodowick such another Apostate as himself that Whereas divers of us says he declared sincerely before many People their sincere Faith as concerning the Lord Iesus Christ of Nazareth and what the holy Scriptures testifie of him yet he did continue to accuse them still as denying the true Christ alledging They had another sense than the Scripture-words did bear Appealing to their Consciences whether it was not so Thus making himself Judge says G. Keith over our secret thoughts as having a secret Sense in our thoughts of Scripture words contrary to the true Sense of them though we have not given him or any other occasion to judge so rashly and uncharitably of us and our Consciences bear us witness in the sight of God that we do sincerely believe and think as we speak Thus G. Keith but four years ago even after he had begun his quarrelling in Pensilvania yet the very same thing he then blamed C. Lodowick for doing towards him he now does himself towards us Would one not think he had
glorious State Yet doth not his entring into this State imply that he has put off his Body he had on Earth and is separated from it For that Body being glorified is in Heavenly Glory with him But it is probable he raised this Cavil as to defame VV. Penn so also to introduce a Story which hereupon he tells of one R. Young in Pensilvania who he says affirmed this But that he did so G. Keith gives no Proof but his own Word which is justly in things of this kind of no Credit with me who have so often found and proved him false He makes a Third note upon those words of W. Penn before cited and that with as little Honesty as before For from W. Penn's saying All must know a Death to their Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh G. Keith says 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 the Flesh signifieth the Flesh of Christ as he came in the Flesh. But as this Comment is not very perfect sense and yet I will not call it perfect Nonsense so it is plain that he perverts W. Penn's words to a wrong sense and therein Abuses him For W. Penn's words are All must know a Death to their Fleshly ways and Religions which word Fleshly ways and Religions G. Keith left out see his Abominable Falshood and Treachery Yea their knowledge of Christ himself after the Flesh c. Which words Fleshly ways and Religions shew what sort of Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh he meant all must know a Death to viz. Their Fleshly Knowledge as Fleshly is opposed to Spiritual or that Knowledge which they in their Carnal Minds have comprehended or gathered in and in which too many rest without pressing after the Divine and Spiritual Knowledg of the End of Christ's coming in the Flesh and the Blessed effects thereof and manifold Benefits that accrue thereby to them that receive him in his Spiritual Appearance But how malicious a mind must he have who from those words would infer that W. Penn would have all to Die to the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh so as not to know that he ever came in the Flesh. In p. 58. G. Keith cites a Passage out of a Book of W. Penn's called Truth Exalted and with all rents a Quotation he gave before in his Narrative p. 21. out of a Book called The Christian Quaker which the Reader may find answered before From both which he infers that he and G. Whitehead and many other Teachers among the Quakers have no other Notion of Christ but an Inward Principle This is such a known Falshood and Apparent Slander Contradicted by almost all our Books and so fully disproved in many places of this Book that it neither deserves nor nâ—eds any other Answer here than a bare Denyal To his unjust Charge of unsound Passages he adds two or three seeming Contradictions which he would fasten upon W. Penn. The First is That in A Treatise of Oaths mentioned before he is earnest against all Oaths under the Gospel and yet in his Reason against Railing p. 180. he useth saith G. Keith the greatest Oath that ever was used among the Jews The Instance he gives is in these words directed to T. Hicks O that these heavy things might not be laid to thy Charge for so sure as God liveth there 's his Catch great will be the wrath that shall follow Yea God will visit for these unrighteous Dealings And I testify to thee from God's living Spirit if thou desist not and come not to deep Repentance the Lord will make thee an example of his Fury and thy Head shall not go down to the Grave in Peace c. This I take to be a meer Cavil and a very weak one too For first That form of Speech as the Lord liveth though it was sometimâ—â— used among the Jews of Old as an Oath yet it was not always so nor do I think G. Keith will take it to be intended for an Oath in all those places where he Reads it in the Bible as particularly in 1 Sam. 25 26. Where Abigail used it to David Concerning his Enemies See also Chap. 26.10 and Chap. 29.6 1 Ki. 17.12 and 18.10 2 Ki. 22.4.6 and Chap. 4.30 Iob. 27.2 with many other places in the Books of Samuel and the Kings where it is used sometimes singly as the Lord liveth sometimes with this Addition and as thy Soul liveth Yea and sometimes this latter Expression as thy Soul liveth is used without the former as in 1 Sam. 1.26 and 17.55 2 Sam. 11.11 14 19. Yet neither with it nor without it was intended for an Oath Secondly There is a difference between those two forms of Speech As the Lord liveth and so sure as God liveth for though the former was formerly used as an Oath yet the latter never was so used or taken but is only a Persuasive Form of Speech used to set forth the unquestionable Certainty of the thing delivered from the acknowledged Certainty that God lives In which sense and no other it is evident W. Penn there used it to express the Assurance he had of the Truth and Certainty of the Testimony he then gave against and to Tho. Hicks But none I think besides G. Keith would be so extravagant as to think that in these words W. Penn intended to take his Oath that the wrath of God which should follow those unrighteous dealings of T. Hicks would be great So to think were great Folly How mean a Cavil then is this And how meer a Caviller hath G. Keith shewn himself therein The latter part of W. Penn's words before cited G. Keith says imply some Prophecy against T. Hicks which he suggests was not fulfilled But he should have observed that what was there spoken of T. Hicks was Conditional if he desisted not and came noâ— to Repentance That he desisted is certain that he did not â—ome to Repentance I suppose G. Keith will not adventure to say that he did come to Repentance I have heard which that G. Keith also may do I wish His second Instance of Contradiction he gives in p. 59. out of two Books of W. Penn's One called Iudas and the Iews p. 13. the other An Address to Protestants p. 152. in the second Edition p. 151. in the first Edition the Passage is concerning the Power of the Church from those words of Christ Mat. 18.17 Go tell the Church This place in both those Books W. Penn expounded of Private Offences or Personal Injuries between Brethren which has no shew of Contradiction in it 'T is true that in the former he inferr'd from those words of Christ That Christ gave his Church Power both to try and reject Spirits In the other he denies that those words of Christ do Impower the Church to define and Impose upon all People under Temporal and Eternal Punishment Articles of
would have expected any other than that he would have read some Sentence out of some Book of G. Whitehead's wherein he had denied Faith in Christ as he outwardly suffered at Ierusalem because he said Most of my business is to read my Proofs out of their Books But instead of that he attempts to prove it Logically Thus he begins That this is opposed by them I prove thus says he The Object of Faith is opposed by them and therefore the Faith it self must needs be opposed I hope says he the Consequence is clear enough it needs no Proof Let us see then how he proves his Premise The Object of Christian Faith says he is Christ both God and Man and yet but one Christ. Here he hath shifted the Terms of his Proposition already First he spake of Faith in Christ as he outwardly suffered at Ierusalem By the words outwardly suffered at Ierusalem I take him to mean as is thereby generally understood his suffering Death upon the Cross. Now he says The Object of Christian Faith is Christ both God and Man But did he outwardly suffer at Ierusalem as God Was the Godhead crucified and put to Death He will not say it sure If then the Object of Christian Faith be Christ both God and Man why did he before place it only in Christ as he outwardly suffered for us at Ierusalem I only touch this transiently and that not to deliver my own sense but to shew how he blundered at the very entrance of his Work and that he is not an exact and clean Disputant However he goes on thus I offer to prove that G. Whitehead has denied Christ both to be God and Man To the same purpose he spoke in his Gross Error p. 14. How Deny'd him both to be God and Man What does he own him to be then if noâ— her God nor Man There have been some who have denied Christ to be God acknowledging him to be Man there have been others who have denied Christ to be Man acknowledging him to be God Both Condemnable But who ever heard of any before that denied Christ both to be God and Man Yet this he charges on G. Whitehead And first offers to prove that G. Whitehead in a Book of his called The Light and Life of Christ within has denied Christ to be God It were strange one would think that G. Whitehead should deny Christ to be God and yet about the same time too write a Book of above 20 sheets to assert and prove the Divinity of Christ calling his Book The Divinity of Christ and Vnity of the Three that bear Râ—cord in Heaven with the blessed End and Effects of Christs Appearance coming in the Flesh Suffering and Sacrifice for Sinners Confessed and Vindicated by his Followers called Quakers Which Book G. Keith cannot pretend Ignorance of for he picks somewhat out of it though as his manner is perversly in this very Narrative of his The proof he now offers against G. Whitehead is out of a Book of his called The Light and Life of Christ within p. 47. in Answer to VV. Burnet a Baptist Preacher who writing of Christ said As he was God he was Co-Creator with the Father and so was before Abraham and had glory with God before the world was and in this sence came down from Heaven To which G. Whitehead replied What Nonsense and Vnscripture-like Language is this to tell of God being Co-Creator with the Father Or that God had glory with God Does not this imply two Gods and that God had a Father Let the Reader judge In these words G. Whitehead blamed not the matter expressed but the manner of expressing it He did not deny Christ to be God nor that as God he was Creator and before Abraham c. But he excepted against the word Co-Creator as unscripture-like Language and implying two Gods For since Co contracted from the Prepositive Particle Con signifies Cum or Simul with or together with he that says God or Christ as God was Co-Creator must intend he was Creator with himself or Creator with another To say God was Câ—eator with or together with himself is that which G. Whitehead call'd Nonsense To say God was Creator with or together with Another is to imply two Gods two Creators which is that G. Whitehead called Vnscripture like Language For as God is a pure simple undivided Essence or Being so the Language of Scripture concerning God is that God is One Gal. 3.20 Mark 12.29 32. And although in some respect this One is said to be Three 1 John 5.7 yet in this respect of Essence Being and Godhead those Three are there said to be One Not only as of the Three that bear witness in Earth vers 8. to agree in One but to be One. And Christ himself with respect to his Godhead says I and my Father are One John 10 30 G. Keith adds another Passage of G. Whitehead's or rather the same Passage in another place of the same Book wherein he says p. 15 G. VVhitehead denies the Divinity of Christ and that he deceives the Nation and the Parliament by telling them They own Christ to be both God and Man and believe all that is Recorded of him in the Holy Scripture In this G. VVhitehead hath not deceived either the Parliament or the Nation or any one in it For certain it is that the People called Quakers do own Christ to be both God and Man and do believe all that is Recorded of him in the Holy Scriptures But G. Keith did endeavour then to deceive his Hearers and since to deceive his Readers by suggesting to them that G. VVhitehead or any of the Quakers did ever deny the Divinity of Christ or not own Christ to be both God and Man The other Passage which G. Keith now brings Nar. p. 15. taken out of p. 24. of G. Whitehead's forementioned Book called The Light and Life of Christ within whereupon the Baptist's calling God the Word Co-Creator with the Father G. Whitehead answer'd To tell of the Word God Co-Creator with the Father is all one as to tell of God being Co-Creator with God if the Father be God and this is to make two Gods two Creators c. For God Co-Creator with the Father plainly implies two This as I noted is one and the same Passage in Sense and almost in Words with the former and the same Answer serves to his Cavil against both It is plain to any considerate and unbyassed Reader that G. Whitehead did not by these Words deny the Divinity of Christ or disown Christ to be God but rather that he did own Christ to be Gâ—d and both the Father and He to be one God and one Creator not two And therefore blamed the Baptist for using such Expressions God Co-Creator with the Father as implyed two Gods two Creators But that G. Whitehead did then as well as now own Christ to be God is plain from several passages in that very Book
though that Book not treating so directly of that Subject hath not so many Instances in it as are in other Books of his In that very Page 47. out of which he takes his first Quotation against G. Whitehead upon Iohn 17.5 And now O Father glorifie me with thine own self with the Glory which I had with thee before the World was G. Whitehead says Was not he the true Christ the Son of God that so prayed unto the Father And in the same Page just after the Words G. Keith carps at upon the Baptist's saying Which Word was God yet he was not a Saviour as he was the Word or Creator of the World c. G. Whitehead replies How then doth He say I am God a Saviour c. And in Page 48. upon the Baptist's saying He was not a Saviour as the Root and Creator of Man but as he was to be the Offspring of Man c. G. Whitehead Answer'd Do but mark the Confusion and Darkness of this Man who hath denyed that God the Word or Creator of Man is a Saviour and Christ as he was the Root and Creator of Man and as He was the Eternal Son of God from the Days of Eternity he hath denied to be a Saviour but as he was the Off-spring of Man Do but Eye the tendency of this Doctrine thus to deny the Son of God to be a Saviour whereas it is through the Son of God that Eternal Life is received Iohn 3.16 And God's Love was manifest in sending his only begotten Son into the World So here the Efficacy of the Son of God and the Eternal Word is proved against the Baptist's false and unscripture like Distinction It was in the Year 1668. that this Book was Printed In the Year 1669. G. Whitehead writ another Book which I mentioned before called The Divinity of Christ and Vnity of the Three that bear Record in Heaven with the blessed End and Effects of Christ's Appearance coming in the Flesh Suffering and Sacrifice for Sinners Confessâ—d and Vindicated by his Followers called Quâ—kers In that Book between the Epistle and the first Chapter giving a brief Account of what we own touchâ—ng the Divinity and Godhead of Christ he says That there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and that these Three are one both in Divinity Divine Substance and Essence not three Gods nor separate Beings That they are called by several Names in Scripture yet they are Eternally One in Nature and Being One Infinite Wisdom one Power one Love one Light and Life c. Then adds We never denied the Divinity of Christ as most injuriously we have been accused by some prejudiced Spirits who prejudicially in their perverse Contests have sought occasion against us as chiefly because when some of us were in Dispute with some Presbyterians we could not own their unscriptural Distinction and Terms The Father's begetting the Son and the Spirit 's being sent we witness to and own Yea the Son of God is the brightness of his Glory and the express Image of his Substance So the Manifestation of the Father of the Son and Holy Spirit we confess to c. And that Iesus Christ being in the Form of God thought it no robbery to be equal with God and yet as a Son was sent of the Father c. So that the Deity or Divinity of Christ in his Eternal Infinite Glorious State we really confess and own In the Book it self p. 18. He says He Christ was equal with God in Glory before the World was Again p. 19. It was never any Design or Plot of ours to endeavour to prejudice the Minds of any against the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost as falsly and blasphemously we are accused by this our prejudiced Opposer Again p. 22. We never disowned the Deity of Christ or Holy Ghost as falsly and injuriously is insinuated against us Again p. 26. Charging us with designing to blast and overthrow the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost upon which Blasphemers and Blasphemy and damnable Speeches are hideously cast upon us but most unjustly and falsly For no such design ever had we as either to blast or overthrow the Deity of Christ or Holy Spirit we having openly professed and declared the contrary both in Words and Writings Again p. 32. That the Divine Essence or Godhead can be but one and this in each of the Three we never denied Again p. 38. I have heard of some beyond the Sea who were accused with denying the Divinity of Christ but I know of none here that either deny the Divinity of Christ or him to be of one Substance with the Father Again p. 41. Christ being the Brightness of the Glory of God and the express Image of his Divine Substance as also truly called the Son of his Love c. Second Part of the same Book p. 3. We never denied the Deity or Divinity of either Father Word or Holy Ghost Again p. 39. His Opponent T. Danson having charged the Quakers with denying Christ to be God G. Whitehead Answers This is an apparent slander cast upon us as our Books and Writings do shew that we never denied Christ to be God or his Divinity c. Again p. 54. As to Socinianism as he calls it we are neither discipled in it nor baptized into Socinus his Name neither do we own him for our Author or Pattern in those things which we believe and testifie nor yet do we own several Principles which I. O. relates as from Socinus and principally that of Christ's being God but not the most High God It was never our Principle for tho' we do confess to his Condescension Humility and Suffering in the Days of his Flesh wherein he appeared in the form of a Servant being made in Fashion as a Man Yet his being in the Form of God and being glorified with the same Glory he had with the Father before the World began and his being God over all blessed for ever These things we professed and believed in the beginning and do the same still it never being in our Hearts in the least to oppose or desert them Again p. 58. As to a great part of his I. O's Book wherein he goes about to prove the Divinity or Deity of Christ c. We are unconcerned therein having never denied Christ's Divinity Here one would think were Instances enough of G. Whitehead's and ours owning and confessing Christ to be God to make G. Keith blush for charging him with denying it But because I know G. Keith hath too far and too long abandoned Modesty and Vertue to be easily drawn to blush I will add some more out of another Book written by G. Whitehead and Printed the same Year 1669. called Christ ascended above the Clouds c. in Answer to one Iohn Newman a Baptist who having it seems asserted that The Word was in the beginning but Christ was in time not till he had taken
I ask him â— seeing he would restrain all to the fleshly Appearance and make all the Apostles c. to have pointed to Jesus the Son of Mary this Son of Man with an Hosannah to this Son of David and to none before him If he hath so considered him to be God the Saviour or the Son from the Substance of the Father as some of his Brethren have confessed the Son is And what Scripture-Proof hath he who pretends so highly to Scripture and blames us though falsly for not holding to it for these VVords He existeth outwardly bodily without us at God's right Hand And where doth the Scripture say He is outwardly and bodily glorified at God's right Hand Do these Terms express the Glory that he had with the Father before the VVorld began in which he is now glorified The Exception here is not against the thing but the Terms by which it is exprest The Thing that Christ hath a bodily Existence without us and is therein glorified and that at God's right hand is so far from being denied that it was never doubted But that this should he exprest in such Terms as the Holy Scripture doth not afford and which would limit Christ to any certain place or exclude him by the Word outward from being in his Saints is justly excepted against as contrary both to the Nature of Christ and Scope of the Scriptures And therefore G. VVhitehead asks his Opponent what Scripture-Proof hath he VVhere doth the Scripture say so And the more to lay open his Opponents absurdity in this Case goes on questioning him in the same place p. 41. thus And then VVhat and where is Gods right Hand Is it visible or invisible within us or without us only Now G. Keith might as well from hence infer and charge G. VVhitehead with denying that God has a right Hand as he doth from the other Questions That Christ hath no bodily Existence without us and both a like absurdly and falsly For he himself says in another place also of his Book called Truth 's Defence p. 165. When his Opponent would have drawn a Conclusion and inferred a Charge from a Query What is proposed in the Query is not positively concluded one way or another as the Nature of a Query doth plainly demonstrate And blaming his then Opponent for urging Matters of Doctrine in unscriptural Terms he says in Truth 's Defence p. 169. Why is it that the Scriptures are so full and large in their Testimony to the Doctrines and Principles of Religion but to let us understand that all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith which God requireth in common of all Christians are expresly there Delivered and Recorded And therefore says he for my part what I cannot find expresly delivered in Scripture I see no Reason why I should receive or believe it as any common Article or Principle of the Christian Faith or Life And p. 170. he adds Now if this were but received among those called Christians that nothing should be required by one sort from another as an Article of Faith or Doctrine or Principle of the Christian Religion in common to be believed but what is expresly delivered in the Scripture in plain express Scripture Terms of how great an Advantage might it be to bring a true Reconcilement among them and beget true Christian Unity Peace Love and Concord Yet G. Keith himself who but in the Year 1682. wrote thus doth now which shews his inconsistency with himself and Injustice to G. Whitehead charge G. Whitehead with denying the thing it self because he did but ask his Opponent for a Scripture-Proof of a thing laid down not in Scripture Terms So industrious is he now to seek an Advantage instead of furthering a Reconcilement among them called Christians to hinder any such Reconcilement and cause a greater distance between them and instead of begetting true Christian Unity Peace Love and Concord to break and destroy as much as in him lies that Love and Peace that hath been and but for him and such other Incendiaries might be and increase among them But though G. Whitehead did reject the Baptists unscriptural Terms yet that he owned the Manhood of Christ as well as his Divinity may be seen in another Book also of his called The Quakers Plainness detecting Fallacy a Book not written t'other Day but in 1674. two and twenty Years ago where p. 18. answering an Objection that we own nothing but the Divine Nature to be Christ he answers Where proves he these words to be ours Have we not plainly and often confest also that the Divine Nature or Word Cloathed with the most holy Manhood and as having taken Flesh of the Seed of Abraham was and is the Christ. Before I pass to G. Keith's next Proof I must here take notice of a Marginal note which G. Keith makes in his seventeenth p. relating to the Book he last cited of G. Whitehead's called The Nature of Christianity The Reader may take notice that in p. 15. when it was Objected to him that the Book which he then mentioned was written Anâ—â—eâ—tly and that he had written in Vindication of our Principles since He there to turn off the Objection says I do say If it were my last Wordâ— I know noâ— that I over Read a line of this Book till I came last to England But here quoting another Book of G. Whitehead's which he could not pretend Ignorance of in as much as he himself was not only concerned with G. Whitehead in the controversy on which that Book was written but had also a part in the same Book against his Country-man Rob. Gordon whom he Principally had undertaken to Answer in another Book called The Light of Truth Triumphing Published but the Year before Now to secure himself if he could from the like Objection he adds here his Marginal note thus Note There is an Additional Postscript by me G. Keith put to this Book of G. Whitehead Nature of Christianity the which Postscript I left in a Manuscript at London and with the Quakers Printed with this of G. Whitehead I acknowledge says he my want of due Consideration that I did not better consider G. Whitehead's words in that Book having many Years ago Read it but too overly and not having seen it since for many Years till of late Does this sound likely Does it savour of Sincerity and plainness Or does it not rather look like a silly shifting Excuse for his Condemning that now which he owned then and yet pretending to be the same in Judgment that he was then He goes on in his note thus But I am sure I did really then believe as I now do that Christ as man did outwardly and bodily exist without us for proof of which see my words in that Additional Postscript p. 73. where at N. 11. I blame R. Gordon for saying That the now present Glorified Existence of that Body or man Christ that suffered at Jerusalem is denied
by some Teachers among us And to be sure he did then really believe and had good cause so to do that G. Whitehead and all the Quakers did so believe as well as himself which he had no cause since to disbelieve and therefore he did than Vindicate them all as well as himself charging Gordon with a Lye and false Accusation for saying the contrary And yet whatever pretence he may make of his Ignorance what was in other Books of G. Whitehead's written but a little before he may not be supposed Ignorant of what was in that Book which he himself had a share in out of which yet he now makes his greatest Cavil on this Head against G. Whitehead He adds in his note I confess I happened to find Divers Passages in G. Whitehead's and other Quakers Books that seemed to me unsound but in an excess of Charity I did construe them to be better meant than worded and that they had rather unwarily slipped from them than that they were the expressions of their unsound mind c. How long it is since this Accident befel him that as he words it he happened to find those divers passages which seemed to him unsound he does not tell But the tenour of his words import it to have been long ago For if ever he did to be sure he has not exceeded in Charity towards the Quakers of late Years But whenever he had found any passages either in G. Whitehead's or other Quakers Books that had seemed to him unsound had he been really sound himself and soundly tho' not excessively Charitable he would have Charitably and Friendly in a private manner have opened such passages to the respective Authors of such Books and have understood from themselves their Sense and Meaning therein that thereby he might have both inform'd and reform'd their Minds and Judgments in the passages if they had been really unsound or they have rectified his mistaking understanding by manifesting to him the soundness both of their minds and words And this Friendly Office he might more easily and inoffensively have undertaken if as he says he construed those Passages which to him seem'd unsound to be better meant than worded and that they had rather unwarily slipt from them than that they were the expressions of an unsound Mind But tho' he has not told us when that excessive Charity of his began yet he pretty plainly intimates when it ended and why by saying I construed those passages better meant than worded until that of late I had found them to Iustify the same and the like unsound words in my Adversaries in Pensilvania and to hate and excommunicate me for telling them of them Ay there 's the Hing of the business their Excommunicating him as he calls it that is their declaring him to be gone out from them and their Communion and to be no longer one of them From that time forward and some time before his excess of Charity turned to an excess of Enmity and then he saw the same things and Persons to be far worse than he saw them before because he saw them with a far worse Eye But to go on to his Charge and Proofs The next Proof he brings that G. Whitehead has denied the Existence of Christ in a body without us is out of a Book of G. Whitehead's called Christ ascended above the Clouds Printed in 1669. in answer to Io. Newman a Baptist. The Quotation begins thus p. 17. Io. Newman his Opponent's words were from Rev. 1.7 Those that pierced him in his Body of Flesh shall see that Body Visibly come again p. 21 22. G. Whitehead answereth These are not the words of Scripture but aâ—â—ed altho' to add or diminish be forbidden under a Penalty Rev. 22.18 19. Yet this Mans presumption leads him to incur that There G. Keith breaks off with a dash thus thereby leaving out what follows next in G. Whitehead which is thus See also for answer to him Rev. 1.8 and 13 14.16 In none of which is Iesus Christ either called or represented as a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones visibly to come again The leaving out these words was not fair in G. Keith because they shew upon what ground G. Whitehead opposed the Baptists and what sort of Body it was they disputed about viz. a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones Certain it is indeed that that Body which was pierced on the Cross was a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones And the Baptists from Rev. 1.7 said Those that pierced him in his Body of Flesh shall see that Body visibly come again not so much as mentioning any change in it G. Keith thereupon Nar. p. 17. says Is there any thing here offensive Nothing adds he but what is the declared Opinion of the Church of Rome the Church of England the Presbyterians Independents Baptists and mine all along He had forgot it seemes tho' I lately put him in mind of it that in his Book called The way cast up Printed 1677. long after the Book he carps at he said That Body that was crucified on the Cross at Ierusalem and is now ascended and glorified in Heaven is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure Ethereal or Heavenly Body p. 131. And although to shew his own Confusion he there says That Body notwithstanding its being changed from being a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones to be no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure Ethereal or Heavenly Body re-mains the same in substance that it was on Earth making the change from being a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones to be no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones to be a change not in subsâ—â—â—ce but in mode and manner only of its being Yet he had no reason to cavil with or blame G. Whitehead for opposing the Baptists notion of a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones now in Heaven since he himself declares it is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure Ethereal Body which the Baptists I am confident never dreamt of and which I suppose none of the Churches or People he has named will agree with him in if he will now agree with himself But he would have found less cause or colour to quarrel with G. Whitehead about that description of Christ in Rev. 1. if he had considered what himself hath writ further upon that Subject in his said Way cast up p. 141 142. N. 6. Where treating of Christ the Heavenly Man he says And as Iohn Rev. 1. describeth him he is a wonderfully great Man even that Son of Man whom Iohn saw after his Ascension in the midst of the Golden Candlesticks even he that liveth and was dead ver 18. to shew that it was the Man Christ and he had in his right Hand seven Stars which are expounded to be the Seven Angels or Pastors of the Seven Churches Now mark This sheweth saith he it is not his external Person or outward Body
he knows wâ—re Io. Horn's terms But I observe he takes occasion from hence to make Sport with G. Whitehead and W. Penn their Philosophy even so far as to ridicule Divine Inspiration For he says he has oft told G. Whitehead that he and W. Penn will needs embrace false Notions in Philosophy they will needs seem to be Philosophers by Divine Inspiration as well as Ministers and Preachers by 〈◊〉 Had not the Philosophy himself so much dotes on and glories in been as his own phrase was a Ditch and a foul Ditch too he would have been more cleanly in his Expression and not have made Divine Inspiration the Subject of his Frothy Flout But it is high time for him to tack about and deny Divine Inspiration if he aspire to Preferment in that Church against which he has formerly said so much for it Thus having answered all his Quotations against G. Whitehead concerning the holy Manhood or Divine Existence and spiritual Being of Christ in Heaven as he is the Heavenly Man shewed that G. Whitehead hath not denied it I shall give a few Instances out of G. Whitehead's Books those especially which G. Keith has pickt his Cavils out of to manifest his owning the Holy Manhood or Bodily Existence of Christ in Heaven In his Book called The Light and Life of Christ within p. 9. refuting the slander of his Opponent he says False it is That the Quakers Christ is not Gods Christ or that they deny the Man Christ or the Christ that is in the Heavens In his Book called Christ ascended above the Clouds p 16. when his Opponent had asserted that Christ cannot dwell in Man and given this as his Reason For Christ is perfect Man as well as perfect God He does not deny that Christ is perfect Man as well as perfect God but denies the Consequence that therefore Christ cannot dwell in Man Mind his Answer which is this To say Christ cannot dwell in Man doth not only oppose his Spirituality Deity and Omnipotency but also is contrary to the Apostles plain Testimonies of Christs being in the Saints And if he be perfect God he can dwell in his People as he hath promised and surely his being perfect Man doth not put a Limitation upon him as a Let or Hinderance to disable him from being in his People whilst he who was Christ as come in the Flesh was also truly Jesus Christ within in his spiritual Appearance and we do not confine him under this or that particular Name Again p. 17. I grant that Christ arose with the same Body that was crucifiâ—d and put to Death and that he ascended into glory even the same glory which he had with the Father before the World begun Many more Instances might be added But the Reader may take notice that in my last Book called Truth Defended written about a year ago in Answer to two Books of G. Keith's and which he hath not yet replied to I gave a dozen Instances out of those Books which G. Keith has carped at to shew that G. Whitehead did own the Manhood of Christ one of which seeing he hath not taken notice of them I may repeat here referring the Reader to p. 161. of that Book of mine for the rest That which I now repeat is out of a Book called The Christian Quaker and his Divine Testimony Vindicated Part 2. p. 97. where G. Whitehead saith To prevent these Mens scruples concerning our owning the Man Christ or the Son of Man in glory I tell them seriously That I do confess both to his miraculous Conception by the Power of the holy Spirit over-shadowing the Virgin Mary and to his being born of her according to the Flesh and so that he took upon him a real Body and not a fantastical and that he was real Man come of the Seed of Abraham and that he in the days of his Flesh preached Righteousness â—rought Miracles was Crucifiâ—d and put to Death by wicked hands that he was buried and rose again the third Day according to the Scriptures and after he arose he appeared diversly or in divers forms and manners he really appeared to many Brethren 1 Cor. 15. and afterwards ascended into Glory being translated according to the Wisdom and Power of the Heavenly Father and is glorified with the same glory which he had with the Father before the World began c. Is it not strange Reader that G. Keith should have the face to charge G. Whitehead with denying the Manhood of Christ who hath so often and so plainly confessed to it What else is this but to pin a wrong Belief upon a Man to make him seem erroneous whether he will or no But this is worst of all in G. Keith who hath so often taken upon him to defend our Principles and Us against Opposers in his former Books And even but lately in his Serious Appeal printed in America 1692. in Answer to Cotton Mather of New-England having justified G. Whitehead and W. Penn in their Answer to Hicks and Faldo says p. 6. I do here solemnly charge Cotton Mather to give us but one single Instance of any One Fundamental Article of Christian Faith denied by us as a People or by aâ—y One of our Writers or Preachers generally owned and approved by us And in p. 7. he adds According to the best knowledge I have of the People called Quakers and these most generally owned by them as Preachers and Publishers of their Faith of unquestioned Esteem amongst them and worthy of double Honour as many such there are I know none that are guilty of any one of such Heresies and Blasphemies as he accuseth them And I think says he I should know and do know these called Quakers and their Principles far better than C. M. or any or all his Brethren having been conversant with them in Publick Meetings as well as in private Discourses with the most noted and esteemed among them for about 28 years past and that in many places of the World in Europe and for these divers years in America This more generally But with respect more particularly to our owning the Man Christ hear what he said in the Appendix to his Book of Immediate Revelation 2d Edit p. 133. And here says he I give the Reader an Advertisement that although the Worlds Teachers and Professors of Christ in the Letter accuse us as Deniers of Christ at least as Man and of the Benefits and Blessings we have by him yet that the Doctrine and Principles of the People called Quakers as well as the People do indeed more acknowledge the Man Christ Iesus and do more impute all our Blessings and Mercies that are given us of God as conveyed unto us through him unto the Man Iesus than any of them all And he gives the Reason too Inasmuch says he as we do believe and acknowledge that a measure of the same Life and Spirit of the Man Iesus which dwelt in him in its Fulness and
to Friends Printed in 1694. from p. 51. to p. 56. And again in another Book of mine called A further Discovery Printed the same Year from p. 93. to p. 98. Which latter is one of those Books G. Keith hath not replied to He taxes VV. Penn with uncharitable Dealing in saying above The whole Christian VVorld has lazily depended on it Is there none says he in the Christian VVorld but the Quakers that thiâ—st after the Power of God in their Souls I was never so uncharitable to think so cryes he But had he had either Charity or Iustice he would not have thought VV. Penn by saying the whole Christian World intended every individual Person in the Christian World When the Apostle Iohn said The whole VVorld lieth in wickedness 1 John 5.19 Did he mean there was not one Person in the whole World but what lay in Wickedness When Iohn said All the VVorld wondred after the Beast Rev. 13.3 Did he mean every individual Person in the World No sure the VVoman that fled into the Wilderness Chap. 12.6 did not wonder after the Beast for she fled from the Beast When Mathew says The whole City came out to meet Jesus Mat. 8.34 Did he mean that there was never a man nor woman left in the City G. Keith knows that that way of speaking is Figurative used Synâ—chdochically the greater part being taken for the whole And in his Serious Appeal in Answer to Cot. Mather p. 9. he could urge that by way of Defence saying The Denomination of a thing is taken chiefly from that which is the greatest part and he might have taken it so here had not Enmity had too great a part in him For in p. 7. of the same Book W. Penn mentions Churches which is more extensive than particular Persons in these latter Ages in whom there might once have been begotten some earnest living Thirst after the inward Life of Righteousness This G. Keith might well have observed for he makes another Cavil out of the foregoing part of this very Sentence which was this p. 6 7. The Distinction betwixt Moral and Christian the making Holy Life legal and Faith in the History of Christ's outward Manifestation Christianity so it should be read the Words Christianity and Manifestation being transposed and misplaced in the Printing as is obvious has been a dâ—adly Poyson these latter Ages have been infected with to the Destruction of Godly Living and Apostatizing of those Churches in whom there might once have been begotten some earnest living Thirst after the inward Life of Righteousness This Passage depends upon the different Definitions of Christianity given by I. Faldo and W. Penn. I. Faldo it seems defining Christianity said By Christianity we are not to understand all those Matters of Faith and Practice which Christianity doth oblige us unto This W. Penn excepted against as reckoning that All those Matters of Faith and Practice which Christianity doth oblige us unto might well pass for Christianity Yet Faldo having granted that Christianity takes in whatever is worthy in those Religions it hath superâ—edâ—d yea the very Heathens From those Words VV. Penn inferred This then does not make Christianity a distinct thing in kind from what was worthy as he calls it that is Godly among either Iews or Heathen This is in p. 2 3. of VV. Penn's Book called Quakerism a New Nick-name for Old Christianity and having argued upon it in p. 4 5 and 6. and shewed the hurt and mischief that ensues upon rejecting Moral Vertues from being any part of Christianity he there concludes in the Words G. Keith carps at viz The Distinction betwixt Moral and Christian the making Holy Life legal and Faith in the History of Christ's outward Manifestation Christianity has been a deadly Poyson these latter Ages have been infected with to the Destruction of Godly Living c. As tending to perswade People too apt to be easily perswaded to looseness that a bare historical Belief of Christ's outward Appearance in the Flesh is of more value and advantage to them than a Vertuous Pious Godly Life To this G. Keith tacks another Proof as he calls it against W. Penn and then makes his Reflection on both together That other Proof he takes out of W. Penn's Address to Protestants p. 118 119. thus For it seems a most unreasonable thing that Faith in God and keeping his Commandments 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 and since Christ's Time who never had the external Law nor History yet 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 he came to fulfil and not to destroy the Law and that not only in his own Person but that the Righteousness of the Law might be also fulfilled in us Rom. 8.4 Now says G. Keith comes the main thing Let us but soberly consider What Christ is and we shall the better know whetheâ— Moral Men are to be reckoned Christians What is Christ but Meekness Iustice Mercy Patience Charity and Virtue in Perfection Can we then deny a meek Man to be a Christian A Iust a Merciful a Patient a Charitable and a Virtuous Man to be like Christ G. Keith says In this way of arguing there is a Fallacy These Moral Vertues he says are a part of a Christian 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 says he but not the Differentia And I pray which is of most moment in this Case the Genus or the Differentia To have the Kind and Nature of a Christian or to have only some outward Character or discriminating Difference to distinguish a Christian from a Child of God as namely an historical Faith of Christ's outward Appearance in the Flesh at Ierusalem But since G. Keith allows these Moral Virtues to be a part of a Christian he needed not on this score have fallen so foul on W. Penn for he might have observed in those Words himself has cited that that which seemed to W. Penn so unreasonable a thing was That Faith in God and keeping his Commandments should be no part that is should by some be accounted no part of the Christian Religion And the Inference he made from what he had offered to shew it was a part of the Christian Religion was that If it be a part he does not say If it be the whole Then those before and since Christ's time who never had the external Law or History yet have done the things contained in the Law c. are in some degree concern'd in the Character of a true Christian. But for that extravagant Inference G. Keith would draw from W.
Penn's Words that a Man may be owned to be a Christian and yet disbelieve that Christ is either God or Man it carries in its front too evident Marks of Envy and Injustice to be regarded by any who bear not the same Marks For did W. Penn there treat of Iews Mahometans Pagans Or of such as have a general Faith of Christianity but never adhered to any particular Party as his express Words are in that 118. p. Nay does he not there directly mention such as believe in God and Christ For setting forth the Partiality and Cruelty of those professed Christians who would renounce a meer just Man their Society and send him packing among the Heathen for Damnation he thus expostulates the Case And pray What 's the Matter Then subsuming the Person of an Opponent he answers Why though this Person be a sober Liver yet he is but a general Believer his Faith is at large 'T is true He believes in God but I hear little of his Faith in Christ Then replies Very well Does he not therefore believe in Christ Or must he therefore be without the Pale of Salvation Is it possible that a Man can truly believe in God and be damned But adds he As he that believes in Christ believes in God so he that believes in God believes in Christ For he that believes on him that raised up Iesus from the Dead his Faith shall be imputed to him for Righteousness Rom. 4.22 c. And in p. 119. having enumerated several Moral Vertues and alluding to the saying of Wisdom Prov. 8.15 By me Kings Reign and Princes decree Iustice so may I say here says he By Christ Men are Meek Just Merciful Patient Charitable and Virtuous And adds he Christians ought to be distinguished by their Likness to Christ and not their Notions of Christ by his Holy Qualifications rather than their own lofty Professions and invented Formalities Does not this plainly shew he treated there of those that professed the Christian Religion preferring such of them as in their Lives shewed most of Moral Vertue and true Goodness to the highest Pretenders and most flourishing Talkers without it But that which still falls heavy upon G. Keith is that he should thus cavil at W. Penn who himself in his former Books not yet retracted by him has so far out-gone W. Penn on this subject and has also expresly extended Salvation by Christ to the Gentiles or Heathens that knew nothing of him outwardly For instance In his Book called Vniversal Grace p. 28. he says There was such a Principle in them speaking of the Gentiles whereby they did the things contained in the Law Therefore it was a Principle of the very saving Light and Life of Jesus Christ which is that Divine Nature mentioned 2 Pet. 1.4 And in p. 29. he says These Gentiles did the things contained in the Law so that they were excused yea and Iustified and did receive the Reward of Glory Honour and Peace in so doing Again in the same p. he says In divers of these Gentiles the Seed was raised which is that Divine Nature or Birth by which they did the things contained in the Law and so were Iustified by him who gave them Power to fulfil it And in p. 30. Answering an adverse Argument which was this There can be no Justification without Faith in Christ but these Gentiles had not Faith in Christ therefore c. He says I deny the second Proposition for if they did cleave unto and believe in the Light they believed in Christ for he is the Light nor is the outward Name that which saves but the inward Nature Virtue and Power signified thereby which was made manifest in them and thus is Christ even that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which may or must be known of God c. I could multiply Instances of this kind out of that and other Books of his if it were needful but these at present may suffice In p. 21. of his Narrat he recommends to his Auditory the Book called The Christian Quaker and so do I to every Body but with different Ends He out of ill-will I out of good-will to the Truth therein defended He refers in particular to p. 125 126 127. which Pages he says are bestow'd to define what a Christian Quaker is and he Objects that in all this large Definition there is 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 That which he calls a Definition of a Christian Quaker is indeed an Answer to a Question put by Tho. Hicks which was Who he or they are that obey the Light c. In answering which W. Penn doth not so much meddle with Faith and Doctrine as set forth the Life Practice and Sufferings of such as truly obey the Light especially in those things wherein they are acted diversly from or contrary to other People It is therefore no prejudice at all nor ought to be objected either to VV. Penn or the Christian Quaker that in that Answer to Hicks's Question the Man Christ is not mentioned as the Object of Faith c. since the Object of Faith c. is not there treated of but presupposed and taken for granted Yet G. Keith might have observed that Christ Iesus was there mentioned and that with respect to his Manhood For in p. 125. The true Quaker who obeys the Light is represented to be one That willingly drinks of the Cup of bitter Mockings and yields to be baptized with the Baptism of deep Tryals Christ Iesus his Lord drank of and was baptized with which Cup and Baptism our Lord Christ took and was baptized with as he was Man And there is also in p. 127. a Testimony born to the Blood of Jesus Christ and the Vertue of it in these Words So is the Light the Just Man's Path that in every Age still shined brighter and brighter in which the cleansing Blood of Iesus Christ is felt to cleanse from all Sin And in Quakerism a new Nick-name p. 5 and 6. Sect. 8. out of which G. Keith pickt a Cavil but lately answered he might have read these Words Christianity then is not an Historical Belief of the Exteriour Acts the true Christ did in that bodily Appearance which is but historical Christianity But a firm Belief in him that so appeared lived died rose and ascended both as testified in the Scriptures of Truth and more especially as he breaks in upon the Soul by his Divine Discoveries as the true Light inlightning every Man This said VV. Penn there I call Christianity His next Cavil is concerning the Mystery of Christ with respect to his coming outwardly in that Body in which he suffered for Mankind at Ierusalem and his coming inwardly in the Hearts of Men working the Work of Regeneration in them This he objected formerly in his Book called The true Copy and I answered largely to it
People that commit evil and so appeasing the Wrath of God by being a Propitiation for them according to 1 Iohn 2.1 2. This one would have thought might have gone down with G. Keith it being so agreeable to his own Doctrine For in his VVay cast up a Book not yet retracted p. 157. he said And thus Christ doth declare himself to be the Mediator betwixt God and Man as he is in them Thou in me and I in them here Christ is the Middle-man or Mediator as being in the Saints Which Confutes the gross and most comfortless Doctrine of the Presbyterians and others who affirm that Christ as Mediator is only without us in Heaven and is not Mediator in us whereas he himself in this place hath declared the contrary And lest G Keith should again Cavil at the Words offereth up himself c. I will remind him that he himself in his Additional Postscript to G. VVhitehead's Book called The Nature of Christianity p. 66. answered his Opponent Gordon thus Because Christ is called the one Offering and that he once offered up his Body c. Thou wouldst exclude him as in us from being one Offering but herein thy VVork is vain for Christ Iesus is the one Offering still and though he offered up his Body outwardly but once upon the Cross yet he remains still an Offering for us within us For he is a Priest for ever and every Priest hath somewhat to offer and he is both the Offering and the Priest who liveth for ever to make Intercession for us This is too good Doctrine still in G. Keith to be retracted by him for though he has mentioned this very Postscript of his in his Narrative yet â—e has not retracted any thing in it though he can condemn the same in others unjust Man as he is Before I leave this place let me put G. Keith in Mind seeing he seem to have forgot it of a necessary Caution he gave in his VVay to the City of God p. 127. thus Therefore we are not too nicely to distinguish betwixt the Influences of his inward and outward Coming and the Effects thereof but rather to take them conjunctly as in a perfect Conjunction having a perfect Influence upon all Mankind for their Reconciliation and Renovation unto God as obtaining that Measure of Light and Grace from God unto all and every one whereby it is possible for them in a Day to be saved And again p. 139. thus But as I said above so I do again repeat it that it may have the more weight viz. that we are not too nicely to make a difference betwixt the Influence and Effects of his Outward and Inward Sufferings but to understand them in a perfect Conjunction c. And so the People called Quakers do say I. Having had a fling at VV. Penn he says Let me come to G. Whitehead again And that he might stir up the People to Lightness he tells them You shall have here a rare Dish of Divinity and then to provide himself some Defence or Excuse after he had done it he adds Not that I would provoke any to Lightness What Hypocrisie is this Then to garnish his rare Dish he says I have read many Books in my Time but I never read such a Book except the Ranters in my Life Popery is Orthodoxy to it no Popish Priest will argue as he has done See how he Banters him Nar. p. 22. The Book he quotes is called The Light and Life of Christ within c. p. 8. where he says G. VVhitehead blames VV. Burnet for saying The Blood shed upon the Cross sprinkles the Conscience Sanctifies Iustifies Redeems us And in p. 18. of his Gross Error where he carps at the same Passage and gives the Quotation more at large but not truly he says Note Here it is plain that G. Whitehead doth altogether deny Iustification by that outward Blood or that it was the meritorious Cause of Salvation But this is a manifest Falshood and Abuse put upon G. VV. For he did neither deny the outward Blood to be the meritorious Cause of Salvation Nor did he there undertake to discuss blame or censure any of Burnet's Doctrines or Assertions That was to be done and with respect to some of them was done in the after part of the Book to which that former Part was but as an Introduction wherein Burnet's Contradictions were collected and exposed and therefore immediately after those Words of Burnets p. 7. partly cited by G. Keith viz. The Blood shed upon the Cross the material Blood meritorious to Salvation sprinkles the Consciences Sanctifies Iustifies Redeems us c. G. VVhitehead added thus But in Contradiction p. 40. That Blood shed is not in being says Burnet but he compares it to a price lost Upon which G. VVhitehead made this Observation p. 8. Observe said he here a twofold stress is laid upon that Blood 1. Merit to Salvation 2. VVork to Sanctification and so he hath set it up above God For God could not save he saith and yet it is not in being this G. Keith in reciting G. VVhitehead's Words left out gross Absurdity VVhereas Sanctification being a real VVork inward that is certainly in being which Effects it This plainly shews that that which G. Whitehead blamed his Opponent for was his Self-contradiction in saying that Blood shed Sprinkles Sanctifies Justifies Redeems which are all of the present Time and yet withal saying that Blood shed is not in being This part G. Keith as I noted concealed and then falls upon G. Whitehead as he had done before Gross Error p. 22. for wronging Burnet in charging him with having said God could not save And he makes as if he would help Burnet out but he quickly pulls in his Horns saying Nar. p. 25. But I wholly wave that Dispute I think it is above Mans capacity Whether antecedently to God's purpose he could have saved us without the Death of his own dear Son Truly I doubted nothing had been above G. Keith's Presumption because I have scarce seen him stick at any thing before how much soever above his Capacity But though he is willing to wave that Dispute yet to help off the Baptist and fall in with other Opposers he says But God having so ordained it consequentially to his purpose it viz. That God could not save may be as safely and truly said as when the Scripture saith God cannot lye Is it any Reflection says he to say God cannot lye and that he cannot contradict his Purpose But I would know of him whether to contradict or to alâ—er ones Purpose be the same thing as to Lye But it is probable G. Keith might borrow this Notion from Io. Owen who in his Book against the Quakers called A Declaration c. has a touch of this kind if I mistake not in p. 178. G. Keith gives another Proof against G. Whitehead out of the same Book called Light and Life p. 38. and having set down the Baptists
Words thus Now the Quakers would be so far from directing Men to go to the material Temple at Ierusalem that they make it but a vain thing to look to Ierusalem to the Antitype of that Temple viz. to Jesus Christ as he was there Crucified or to that Blood that was there shed for Justification he says now see the Answer which he gives thus The Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype neither to the outward Temple nor yet to Ierusalem either to Jesus Christ or his Blood knowing that neither the Righteousness of Faith nor the Word of it doth so direct Rom. 10. And is it the Baptists Doctrine to direct Men to the material Temple and Ierusalem the Type for the Antitype What Nonsense and Darkness is this And where do the Scriptures say The Blood was there shed for Justification and that Men must be directed to Ierusalem to it Whereas that Blood shed is not in being said G. Whitehead out of p. 40. of Burnets Book This Charge G. Keith exhibited once before in his Book called The True Copy p. 19. And in his Gross Error p. 1 2. And I have answered it already in mine called Truth Defended p. 108 109 110. Where amongst other things I shewed that there is a Typographical Error in the Passage he carps at and that whereas it is Printed thus The Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype viz. neither to the outward Temple nor yet to Ierusalem either to Jesus Christ or his Blood it should have been either for Jesus Christ or his Blood This G. Keith could not well shun noting though he doth the rest of my Answer Therefore he says Nar. p. 27. T. Ellwood thinks to put a Trick on the Reader and says it is wrong Printed and that it should have been for instead of to And in the Postscript to his Gross Error calls it a dull and silly Juggle But I not only said it should have been for instead of to but proved it and that I think very plainly For I did not only say I find it hath been so amended with a Pen in the Book which I have which as having the least weight in it G. Keith takes notice of and says I do not say G. Whitehead mended it which is a very idle Cavil For though I do not know but G. Whitehead might mend it yet if he did not what then Could it be expected he should with a Pen mend a whole Impression But that which I gave as a more demonstrative Proof of the Place being misprinted G. Keith takes no notice of which was this viz. The former part of the Answer shews it should have been so for there it is the Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype mark for the Antitype not to the Antitype And as it is so there to the Type for the Antitype so it must be here also to the Temple or to Ierusalem for Jesus Christ or his Blood This plain Evidence G. Keith willingly shuns and says nothing to it But shuffles about and says G. Whitehead has it to to to several Times for which he quotes p. 38 39. and 61. That in p. 38. is the place in Controversie In p. 39. he uses the Word to as referring directly to Burnet's Words whose the Word to was saying Where do the Scriptures say the Blood was there shed for Justification and that Men must be directed to Ierusalem to it to that Blood that was shed there were Burnets express Words and therefore it was expedient G. Whitehead repeating his Words should use it So likewise in that other instance p. 61. where G. Whitehead setting forth the Confusion and Self-contradiction of his Adversary keeps in expressing it to his own Terms and therefore says Mark how one while W. Burnet makes that Blood and the shedding of it his Justifier Redeemer c. which he has confessed is not in being Then which G. Keith quotes another while People must seek their Saviour above the Clouds and Firmament contrary to the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 10.6 Another while they must look to Ierusalem for Justification to the Blood that was there shed The Word to was expresly Burnets there therefore G. Whitehead kept to it But in the very next Line when he spake his own Words he changed the Word to into for saying But if Men should look to Ierusalem for that Blood it is not there to be found for it 's not in being says VV. Burnet Now as this and what I have said before manifests that it was a mistake in the Printing So G. Keith's contending to have it wrong rather than right against the Author's Sense and Mind rather than with it shews him to be not only an unfair Adversary but a Man of an evil and malicious Mind For none else would have repeated a Charge of Error against another and persisted to urge it as G. Keith hath done this from a Word denied to be the Authors and so apparently proved to be a Typographical Error only as this was before In his Controversie formerly with R. Gordon he blames him sharply for serving him so and tells him Thou abusest my VVords taking occasion from a small Error in the Printing which is a disingenuous way of dealing and had not thy prejudice blinded thee thou might'st easily have Corrected it by the Sense So might he this had â—ot his prejudice not blinded him For I suppose he saw it at first however I shewed him it a Year ago but prevailed upon him to wrong G. Whitehead knowingly which is worse than if he had been blinded Yet so earnest is G. Keith in pursuit of his false Charge that upon G. VVhitehead saying Burnet's directing Men to Ierusalem for Christ is contrary to Deut. 30.13 14. and Rom. 10. G. Keith cries out Is not this abominable Perversion of Scripture to confirm his Antichristian Doctrine But as forward as he was to Charge another he was as backward to clear or defend himself For in my former Answer to this Charge Truth Defended p. 110. I shewed him that what he now calls in G. VVhitehead an abominable Perversion of Scripture is not more than if so much as he himself had written thirty Years ago in his Book called Help in time of Need not retracted by him p. 63. where he saith expresly thus And now we need not say Who will go down into the Grave and bring up Christ to us or who will ascend to Heaven to bring him down to us or who will go over the Seas and bring us Tidings of him from Jerusalem where he suffered in the Flesh Herein he had direct Relation to the Words of Moses and Paul in Deut. 30. and Rom. 10. Him says he whose Name is the Word of God Rev. 19. we of a Truth witness nigh us even in our Hearts so that we need not either ascend or descend or go forth c. Upon which I
from telling that Story at Turners-Hall if he had not wanted Matter And this I suppose will be sufficient to satisfie any impartial Reader That the Yearly Meeting had no sufficient Ground from what G. Keith offered to them to censure judicially those Persons in America whom he exclaimed here against consequently that he has no just ground to Charge the Meeting or me for defending the Meeting against his unjust Charge with approving and justifying those things which he calls vile Errors in them But he comes off most lamely in pretending that he was charitable to the Yearly Meeting in construing the Disjunctive or in their Words to be equivalent to the Copulative and as says he sometimes it is Did he ever know or taken for and in an Alternative Proposition or Sentence as this was by any that pretended to understand Words Let him blush at his Folly and repent of his Hypocrisie in calling that Charity which was indeed but a deceitful Shift And let him learn to be just before he pretends to be Charitable He thrust upon his Auditors one Quotation more out of a Book of mine which he almost promised them should be the last at least of Printed ones He tells them That I blame him for comparing the Books of Freinds to the Books of the Greek and Latin Fathers which in p. 45. he gives out of p. 99. of my Further Discovery thus In comparing 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 Upon this he said You see how modest they are here And upon that he makes his Auditors give a shout Signifying says he their dislike that the Quakers Books should be preferr'd so far to the Greek and Latin Fathers next to the Days of the Apostles One might wonder here at the Cause of his Auditors shouting For such of them as could understand what was meant by Greek and Latin Fathers one might expect should be men of greater Wisdom and Gravity than to shout in such Assemblies And for the undiscerning Mob it was a Subject so much above their Capacity and Pretences that it cannot be supposed they should shout at that if they had not been excited thereunto by some little antick Gesticulation from him But to the matter They shouted he says 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 Why next to the Days of the Apostles These were not my words I did not refer to the times next to the Days of the Apostles But my words were Who lived and writ in those Dark times Must those Dark times needs be next to the Days of the Apostles See what an Vnfair Stretch this was Were not most and the most noted of them in the fourth and fifth Centuries three or four hundred Years or more after the Apostles Days as Athanasius Basilius the two Gregories Naziansen and Nysen Cyril Ambrose Epiphanius Chrysostom Hieronimus Augustin Hilarius and so on to Gregory the great Pope of Rome Nay are not Oecumenius Theophilact and Bernard none of the worst reckoned amongst the Fathers though the first of them lived above eight hundred Years the second above a thousand and the last above eleven hundred Years after Christ And why then must what I spake of those who lived and writ in those Dark times be applied to them that lived next to the Days of the Apostles Could he find no other times to be accounted Dark but the Days next to the Apostles He has shewed his good Will and that he is no Changling in this respect how great soever in another but is always for perverting and taking words in the worst sense That the times were Dark in the 4 th and 5 th Centuries I suppose he will grant when I shall have put him in mind that much of the Superstition and not a little of Corruption in Doctrine now retained in the Church of Rome crept in in those times of which were this a suitable place I could give plenty of Instances nor was the third Secle so clear but that Tertullian who lived in the very beginning of it and Origen about the middle of it gave sufficient Occasion in their writings for others to see they were too much in the Dark Perkins in his Problem of the Church of Rome p. 12. tells us that Hierom says Tertullian was not a man of the Church because he fell a way to the Opinion of Montanus Yea that he was a chief Heretick He gives a Catalogue of the Books Tertullian wrote against the Orthodox and says Gelasius adjudged all his Books to be Aâ—rcryphal Origen Perkins says was Errorum plenus Full of Errors And that Hierom called his Writings Venemous Of Cyprian he says p. 13. While he too much admires Tertullian he sometimes favours the Montanists Alstedius in Lex Theol p. 11. Blames Hierom Augustine Ambrose Hillary and Origen altogether for their absurd Allegories Nay he taxes Ambrose and Hillary with soul Contradictions And in p. 17. he says St. Hierom is ridiculous in Allegories over and over And Augustin he says does sometimes after the same manner Jurieu a French Protestant in his late Book called The Accomplishment of the Prophecies Second Edit Part 1. and p. 217. says St. Basil St. Ambrose and the two Gregories are the most antient Authors in whom we begin to find the Worship and Invocation of Creatures And in Part 2. p. 43 he says St. Basil in the East and St. Ambrose in the West are the most Antient Fathers in whom we find the Footsteps of the Invocation and Intercession of the Saints In Part 1. p. 270. he says The Antients did Copy one another almost without any Iudgment and always without Consideration And he concludes Part 1 p. 112. If the Authority of the Fathers be not good in many Places 't is good in none 't is doubtful every where I give but these few Touches Concerning those Fathers as they are called who lived not next to yet not many Ages after the Apostles Days They who have a mind to know more on this Subject may find enough if not too much in the learned Dalleus But that it may appear I spake noâ— by rote in calling those times Dark wherein most of those called Fathers before mentioned lived I think fit to let the Reader understand from Perkins's Problem before ciâ—ed That Praying for the Dead which is a peculiar Doctrine of Popery is as Old as Tertullians time about the latter End of the Second and beginning of the Third Century p. 97. And the Conceit of Purgatory must to be sure be some what Older Perkins makes the Montanists Authors of it p. 99. And Tertullian and Origen the Chief p. 175. The Honouring of
ANSWER TO George Keith's NARRATIVE OF HIS Proceedings at Turners-Hall On the 11th of the Month called Iune 1696. WHEREIN His CHARGES against divers of the People called QUAKERS Both in that and in another Book of his CALLED Gross Error Hypocrisie Detected Are fairly Considered Examined and Refuted By THOMAS ELLWOOD London Printed and Sold by T. Sowle near the Meeting-House in White-Hart-Court in Gracious-street 1696. AN ANSVVER TO George Keith's NARRATIVE c. IT is not surely without good Reason that the Church of Christ here on Earth is called the Church Militant For besides the inward and spiritual Enemies which her several Members have to encounter with in their Pilgrimage through this troublesome World such hath been and is her Lot and Portion that she hath rarely been free from outward Enemies of one kind or other her great Adversary Satan continually raising up some evil Instruments or other to fall upon her all aiming at her Ruine though after divers Ways and Manners Sometimes the Civil Powers under which she hath lived have been stirred up to proclaim as it were open War against her and to inflict severe and heavy Penalties upon her for her faithful adherence to her Lord and Master Christ Jesus When through Faith and Patience she hath overcome and the Wrath and Fury of Men hath been asswaged so that she hath had some respit from those outward Sufferings Then hath her old Adversary the common Enemy of Mankind bestirr'd himself in another way to raise up Persecution against her of another kind by instigating some or other either such as were always avowed Enemies to her or such as for some time appeared to be of her but by the sweep of his Tail had been struck off from her to speak or write against her falsly to accuse her and load her with the foulest Reproaches and most infamous Slanders and Scandals that by so misrepresenting her they might hinder others from joyning to or favouring her and stir up the Civil Magistrate again to persecute her afresh This hath been the Lot this the Condition of the little Flock of Christ in former Ages as Ecclesiastical Histories declare As for the present Age and with respect to the People called Quakers whom God by an Invisible Arm of Power hath raised up and held up and made a peculiar People to himself Experience gives sufficient Proof the matter being yet fresh in Memory For not to look back so far as that which was called the Commonwealth's Time wherein many of the leading Men in most Professions put forth their utmost Strength against us both in Preaching and Printing raising those false Reports concerning us and chargeing many false Accusations upon us with respect both to Doctrine and Practice which others of our Adversaries that followed after have taken up upon Trust from them no sooner was that great Persecution a little abated which soon after the Restoration of K. Charles the Second through the fault of some Dissenters fell upon All but most heavily upon Vs and that a little Calm and Quiet ensued but out came several Books against us written by some of those Professors who either in some Measure did suffer or if they had been faithful to their own Principle should have suffered in the same storm with us By that Time the Dust which those Books had raised was laid by our Answers thereunto a fresh Persecution from the Government arose upon the Informing Act the main weight of which it is well known fell upon us they who before and afterwards assaulted us in Print finding Ways then to hide and save themselves from Suffering But when that Storm was a little over out they came again and in divers Books written by Faldo Hicks and others heaped up many wrong Charges Defamations Slanders and false Accusations against us all which were refuted and wiped off in our Books Printed in Answer thereunto Nor have those of other Professions been so forward to attaque us since But now that Liberty of Conscience in the free Exercise of Religious Worship is by Authority granted and thereby outward Sufferings in a great measure abated our old Enemy envying us so great a Benefit though but in common with others hath contrived ways and means to raise a new War against us by stirring up some who have formerly walked with us and for sometime professed to be of us but upon some peevish Discontent or other have turned aside and left us to turn now against us and oppose us and to pour forth Floods of Reproach slander and false Accusations upon us His chief Agent at present in this Work is George Keith a Scotchman whose ambitious Aims not being answered nor his absurd and fantastical Notions received by and amongst the People called Quakers he is now become of a seeming Friend a real Enemy He having published many Books against us and in defence of those Books wrangled with us for a while in Print till he found himself too closely pinched to be able to give an Answer fit to be seen in Print hath at length bethought himself of a Wile to excuse himself from answering which was to set up a kind of Iudicial Court of this own Head and by his own Authority in a Place at his own Command on a Day of his own Appointing there to Charge and Try divers of us who are called Quakers whether present or absent concerning matters of Faith and Doctrine and that the rude Multitude might not be wanting to his Assistance there he gave publick notice of it sometime before by an Advertisement in Print and therein a sort of Summons to some of us by Name to others by Designation to be present This Arbitrary Proceeding and Vsurped Authority as we judged it unreasonable in him to impose so we did not think fit to submit to or own and therefore forbore to appear at the Time and Place by him appointed Yet lest any whom he should draw thither might mistake the Cause of our not appearing the Reasons thereof drawn up in short Heads were sent thither to be read and given among the People which they were However according to his before declared Intention to proceed whether any of us were there or no he being Iudge in his own Court over-ruled our Reasons and went on to Arraign and Convict us Absent The Pageantry of which days Work as acted there by himself he hath since Published with his Name to it under the Title of An exact Narrative of the Proceedings at Turners Hall c. Together with the Disputes and Speeches there between G. Keith and other Quakers differing from him in some Religious Principles How idle is this in him to pretend in his Title to give an Account of Disputes and Speeches between him and other Quakers whenas his Narrative it self gives no account of any Dispute there nor any thing like it and of that little that was said by any of those few Quakers that were present most was to the People tending
you call me without my consent before any Man else that is no otherwise a Justice than of your making till I better understand your Power for making Justices No wonder this little Man speaks so Bigg if he hath entertained a Notion that he hath Power not only to convene Persons at his pleasure before himself but also to confer Iusticiary Authority on such others as shall assemble on his Advertisement He threatens if he be not humoured to repeat his Advertisement If he should do so such as are ambitious of such an Imployment may hasten to Turners-Hall if they would be made Iustices by G. Keith He pursues his Comparison further saying ib. If a man Rob me I may complain of him as a Robber and without his consent call him to an Account He may so but he must complain then coram competenti Iudice Before one that hath a just Authority over him For if he complain coram non Iudice Before one that hath nothing to do with it he may go as he came without Redress In his Pref. p. 8. he saith 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 tried without their Consent and Agreement Observe here he reputes us Guilty first and talks of Trying us afterwards What else is this but to condemn first and try after As if says he Guilty persons are not to be tried without their consent When Persons are pronounced Guilty it is to be supposed they have had Trial For it is from a Trial and Conviction that they are Denominated Guilty The Law calls no Man Guilty until upon due Trial he be proved and found Guiâ—y Till then the Law supposes him Innocent If a man be justly suspected of any Crime he may and ought be fairly tried in a due and right Method that it may appear whether he be Guilty or Innocent But none I hope except G. Keith is so weak to think that any one who hath a mind to it may take upon him to try such a man and pass Sentence on him He adds there Their upbraiding me by Insinuating my assuming a Spiritual Iurisdiction over them and Summoning them to appear before me is Idle and Vain The Injurer is Debtor to the Injured and Accountable to him Tho' his representing us to be the Injurers and himself the Injured is but precarious and a begging of the Question which we deny Yet his urging that the Injurer is Debtor to the Injured and accountable to him in Justification of his appointing a Meeting for us to appear at doth imply he assumed a Iurisdiction over us thought he might Summon us to appear which was Idle and Vain in him to think much more to do What should induce him to think so highly of himself and take so much upon him I know not unless he hath some little Ecclesiastical Preferment in the Wind which if he has perhaps it may never rise higher than an Apparitor or some such small Officer But he says ib. Let them tell me what Spiritual Iurisdiction they had over me to call me several times to them at their Yearly-Meeting 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 First let me tell him His Contempt of and Scoff at Infallibility asserted and maintained by himself in his Book of Immediate Revelation not ceased p. 36 37 38. Second Edition 1676. is an Infallible Proof of his Apostacy Next I 'll tell him seeing he asks it what Power we had then to call him more than he hath now to call us Every Religious Society or Body hath a certain Power within it self over the particular Members that make up or pretend to be of that Society or Body by vertue of which such Society or Body may call to account deal with and if they see cause deny any such Member as shall walk disorderly contrary to the Rules and against the Safety or Honour of the Society Now G. Keith knows full well that at the time he mentions in 1694. he pretended to be a Member of our Society and thrust himself amongst us and upon us which gave us Right to deal with him as we did But since the the time he was disowned by us as one gone out from us we never pretended to fellowship with him or to be Members of or any way related to that Society he is of if indeed he be of any And therefore he has not the like ground to call us to his Meeting which we were never of but against as we then had to call him to our Meeting which he then pretended and professed to be of He asks p. 7. Why should Disputes viva voce be more offensive to civil Peace than Disputes in Print I believe says he they can give no Reason I believe I have given a Reason already and that Demonstrative too He might as well ask Why should the gathering together of many Hundreds or thousands of Men in a time of Faction and great Discontents be more offensive to civil Peace than People's Reading Books privately in their Houses or Closets I believe if he cannot because he will not every body else can see the Reason From our not answering him viva voce he is willing to infer that we should not answer him in Print neither For he says ib. If I be not worthy nor fit to be answered by word nor am I to be answered by writ It is not his worthiness that Inclines us to Answer him at all but the defence and clearing of our Principles and our selves from his Calumnies and false Accusations In doing which we think not our selves obliged to follow his Direction or to alter our Course as oft as he is driven to alter his When he was in Pensilvania where he was answered viva voce and indeed could not well be answered otherwise the only Press in those Parts being then at his command he voided Books against his Opponents there thick and threefold as the saying is He complained not then of lack either of Time to Write or outward Ability to Print but conceived and brought forth Book upon Book as fast in a manner as the Press could deliver him When he came first over hither if any one displeased him his ordinary Threat was I 'll put thee in Print And it was not long before he fell to Printing here and ran on for some time as if he would have driven down all before him But having undertaken an Evil Cause he quickly found himself unable to maintain it or defend himself and that hath made him weary of Printing because indeed he cannot answer what lies upon him already in Print And because he is not willing to own that nor would be thought to be driven out of the Press he now pretends want of Time and
Nature upon him and became in the likeness of sinful Man being born of the Virgin Mary c. G. Whitehead Answer'd p. 12. This Assertion opposeth the Deity and Divinity of Iesus Christ and contradicts the faithful Testimonies of the Holy Men of God in the Scriptures of Truth Again p. 14. Though Jesus signifies a Saviour and Christ Anointed yet to coâ—sine those Names only to the Manhood still agrees with the erroneous Doctrine before that Christ was not the Word from the beginning whereas he took upon him the Manhood in Time in which tho' we own him as the anointed of God yet he was also Gods anointed as he was his only begotten and Delight and so the Son from his Eternal Being or Substance before the Mountains and Hills were settled And in p. 15. he expresly calls that Opinion Heretical that denies the Divinity of Christ. Again p. 16. To say Christ cannot dwell in Man doth not only oppose his Spirituality Deity and Omnipotency bar c. And if He be perfect God he can dwell in his People as he hath promised Again p. 18. It still strictly limits or tyes up the Name Jesus Christ to a Body of Flesh and Blood and so coverâ—ly denies his Being before he took on him that visible Body of Flesh Blood and Bones and so opposeth his Divinity as before Again p. 68. What a gross Error is it to affirm that Christ was not from the beginning or that he was not the Word in the beginning and what a denyal of his Divinity like the old Hereticks Again ib. Much more might be said on the behalf of the Divinity of the Son of God or Christ who was the Word in the beginning and with the Father in his Glory before the World began In another Book also of G. Whitehead's called The Nature of Christianity c. Printed in the Year 1671. to which G. Keith himself writ a Postscript in the Epistle p. 3. G. Whitehead speaking concerning the true Saviour or the Man Christ Jesus says Whom we have frequently Confest both as to his Divinity and as to his taking upon him the Body prepared for him to do the Will of God in according to the Scriptures of Truth yea both his outward and inward Appearance his suffering Nature and glorified State and his Divinity in both we have always truly Believed and Confessed even his Dignity Spiritual outgoing from of old from Everlasting as also his outward Birth c. And in the Book p. 36. G. Whitehead replies upon his Opponent What is this but to deny the Divinity of Christ c. Again p. 40. That the Holy Prophets Apostles and Ministers both pointed and testified unto Jesus Christ both as Man born of the Virgin or to his coming in the Flesh and unto his Divinity and Manifestation in Spirit this is owned Again p. 41. I perceive he is ignorant of Christ both as the Son of God and as the Son of Man For according to the Spirit he was the Son of God c. Again p. 52. says he to his Opponent R. Gordon Thou having confest that his Christ's out-goings were from Everlasting hast thereby granted to what I said that the Son of God and his Light are not under a Limitation as to Time and Place especially if thou wilt own his Divinity or that he ever was the Son of God before he took a Body in the Womb of the Virgin but if thou dost not own that the Son of God was before then than thou dost not own his Divinity nor him no more than a Finite Creature I choose to confront G. Keith out of these Books rather than others because these are some of the Books he hath cited and out of which he hath pretended to make good his Charges against us and therefore he may not be supposed to have been ignorant that these Passages were in them But how horribly unjust and wicked he must be in charging G. Whitehead with denying the Divinity of Christ or that Christ is God who hath so fully and frequently asserted and maintained his Divinity against others and that at the same time wherein he is charged to have denied it I leave to the Reader 's Judgment The next part of his Charge against G. Whitehead is That he has denied Christ to be Man Nar. p. 16. For proof of which he cites that Book of G. Whitehead's which I lately mentioned called The Divinity of Christ c. p. 18. but the Reader must take Notice It is in the Second Part of that Book for the Book is by its Pages divided into two parts The Words G. Keith cites first are these If the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both Created doth not this render him a Fourth Person c. There G. Keith breaks off with an c. But it follows in G. Whitehead's Book thus For Creation was in Time which contradicts their Doctrine of three Distinct Increated Co-Eternal Co-Essential Persons in the Deity seeing that which was Created was not so This shews the occasion of those Words and that they weâ—â—â— ad hominem to shew his Opponent T. Danson the absurdity of his Assertions about the Personalities of the Deity But this Passage though G. Keith mentioned it to make the greater noise and flourish he leans not on For without Commenting on it he says But the stress I lay is in the Words following which he gives thus But herein whether doth not his and their ignorance of the only begotten of the Father plainly appear There he leaves out these Words And their denyal of Christs Divinity which he knew would make against him and then goes on thus Where doth the Scripture say That his Soul was Created For was not he the brightness of the Fathers Glory and the express Image of his Divine Substance But supposing the Soul of Christ was with the Body created in Time c. There G. Keith breaks off again with an c. But in G. Whiteheads Book it follows thus I ask if from Eternity he was a Person distinct from God and his Holy Spirit without either Soul or Body And where doth the Scripture speak of any Person without either Soul or Body Let 's have plain Scripture This further shews that this whole Passage related to Danson's strange Notions of the Personalities of the Deity to shew his Confusion therein and also to bring him back to the Scripture which he with the rest for there were several other Priests concerned also at that time in the Controversie had set up for the only Rule in Religion but would not keep to Therefore did G. Whitehead put it upon them Where doth the Scripture say Let 's have plain Scripture But G. Keith perverts the whole Passage and abuses G. Whitehead for he tells his Auditors Here ye see He will not own that Christ had a Created Soul Th. Danson being a Presbyterian Minister says he did plead That Christ as Man had a Created Soul Nay
become a pure Heavenly Spiritual Glorious Body Is there according to G. Keith's Philosophy no difference in point of visibility and with respect to the Opticks and Organs of sight between a Body of Flesh not glorified and the most glorious of glorified Bodies Is the one with him as perceptible by the Natural Eye as the other If not Why was he so inconsiderately bold to say I am sure there is the same ground in Scripture for his visible appearance and coming again as there is for his visible ascending If he understand the same manner of visibility in his coming again as was in his ascending he then makes no difference in point of visibility between an unglorified and glorified Body If he understand not the same manner of visibility in each appearance he does but trifle quibble play the sophister G. Keith cites two passages more p. 18. out of the same Book of G. Whitehead Christ ascended p. 24. and p. 69. that in p. 24. he gives thus First the Baptists words By denying any Personal being of Christ without all men at the right Hand of God but only a fained Christ within then remission of Sins must die and â—aith also for want of the Object Christ. This G. Keith says he looks on to be good Doctrine tho' he cannot but know that by a feigned Christ within the Baptist meant that Light within which G. Keith confesses â—o be Divine G. Whitehead's answer he gives thus 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 Anthropomorphite and Muggletonians conceits of him This he caviled also at in his Gross Error p. 10. to all which I answer The word Person or Personal with respect to God or the God-head G. Keith knows the Quakers always excepted against as unscriptural and tending to beget or keep up gross and carnal Conceits in People's minds concerning God and Christ as if they were like Men having the shape and appearance of Men and so were Circumscribed and Limited to place as Men are And that it was against such a gross Notion as this that G. Whitehead there contended is manifest from his answer it self For he says 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 The Anthropomorphites were therefore so called because they held God to have the shape of Man Which extravagant notion Muggleton resumed And tho' G. Keith says There is no Church of England Man Presbyterian or Baptist c. That holds that notion That the God-head has the shape of a Man Yet he is too slight to make a Voucher for all of those Communions tho' his Et Cetera had been left out Nay he himself seems doubtful what to determine in that case for himself saying What shape Christs Body has now that I leave Nar. p. 18. However it is plain from G. Whitehead's Book both there and elswhere that it was this notion and the asserting such a Personal existence of God and Christ and in unscriptural Terms has tended to confirm that Notion which G. Whitehead opposed both here in p. 24. and in that other place p. 69. cited also by G. Keith where G. Whitehead having exposed his Opponents Self-contâ—adictions as one while saying Christ was remote from them Christ doth not dwell in any Man Christ in Person remote at the right Hand of God c. And yet otherwhiles speaking of the Indwellings of Christ by his Word and Truth being of the same nature with him and that Christ is setting forth himself to be the Vine and his People the Branches and adviseth them to abide in me and I in you c. He makes this Animadversion thereupon If the Indwelling of God and Christ be such in his People and the Saints in such near Vnion and Conjunction with Christ as the Branches with the Vine and Members with the Body then 't is false and a lying Imagination to Imagine either Christ God and his right Hand so remote as not to dwell in any Man no not in their own People and these words Christ in Person remoâ—e in his Body of Flesh c. And not in any Man are not Scripture but added What strange Conceits and Limitations would J. Newman put upon the unlimitted God like the Old Hereâ—ical Monks of Egypt called Anthropomorphites contrary to his own confession This shews it was not Christ's Spiritual existence or being in a Spiritual glorified Body without us That G. Whitehead opposed but such a carnal Notion of a Personal being or existence of Christ at the right Hand of God as confined both Christ and God to a remoteness from his People and excluded them from being in his People And therefore G. Keith abused G. Whitehead in telling his Auditors that by these words of G. Whitehead 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 For there is a wide difference between holding that Christ has any Bodily existence in Heaven and that he has such a carnal Bodily existence in Heaven as excludes him out of his People and confines and limâ—s both him and God's right Hand at which he is to a remotâ—ness from them Which gross and carnal Notion G Keith not many Years since seemed sensible of the hurt of and writ against in his Book called Asreious Appeal Printed at Philadelphia in 1692. since he began to quarrel with the Quakers In which he says p. 11. We cannot approve of the too carnal Conceptions of many carnal and ignorant Professors that have too carnal Imaginations of Christ and confine him altogether to such a Remoteness that they will not allow any measure of him to dwell in Believers plain contrary to the Scripture And in p. 24. he says to the New-England Professors How can ye Build on him when ye have no belief that Christ is nearer unto you than in some remote place beyond the Skies And yet now in his Enmity against G. Whitehead he charges him with denying Christ for but opposing those too carnal Conceptions which some carnal and ignorant Professors in their too carnal Imaginations had of Christ whereby they would limit him to a remoteness from his People This limiting Christ by such a carnal Notion of a Bodily existence as excludes him out of his People and confines him to a Remoteness from them if it be not now was once an uncomfortable Doctrine to G. Keith when he said Surely it is no less a Comfortable than it is a true Doctrine that we have the Man Jesus Christ so near unto us in vertue of his Divine Life and Soul in
his Divine Seed and Body extended into us And thus he is the incarnate Word or Word made Flesh dwelling in our Flesh c. VVay cast up p. 133. And G. Keith in his answer to the Rector of Arrow said I put thee to prove by any one place in all the Scripture that Christ hath now any other Flesh or Body but that which is Spiritual Rector Corrected p. 24. and again p. 54. As concerning the Body of Christ that was Crucified was it not again raised up to be made a living Body And after he arose and ascended was it not a Spiritual Body Why then says G. Keith to the Rector sayst thou shew a syllable that intimates a spiritual Body Is not Christ's Body a spiritual Body which he hath now in the Heavens Shew a Syllable that Christ hath any other Body but that which is spiriâ—ual And p. 55 he says What is that Body of Christ mentioned by the Apostle Col. 2.17 which puts an end unto the outward Observation of Meats and Drinks new Moons and Sabbath-days Is that only the outward Body that was Crucified If thou sayst yea then thou dividest Christ whereas Christ is not divided And p. 44. he says That there is no such a distance betwixt Christ that is gone into the Holiest and his Saints upon Earth as thou imaginest see but ver 19 20 21 22. of Heb. 10. And in p. 23. speaking of the Power and Vertue of the Body of Christ that rose and ascended a spiritual and glorious Body he says But this vertue is not any visible thing nor is the glorified Body of Christ visible Flesh and therefore says he to the Rector thou dost grosly erre to say as thou dost the Son of Man is visible Flesh For seeing the Body of Christ is glorified and wholly spiritual as the Body of every true Believer shall be at the Resurrection how can it be visible Flesh And adds he Christ the second Adam is called in Scripture the quickning Spirit but not visible Flesh. Therefore says he in this see how he banters him thou ' dost grosly erre and needest Correction None of these Passages hath ever yet been retracted by G. Keith that I have seen or heard of and therefore he is the more to be blamed for blaming G. Whitehead for asserting Christ's Body to be a glorified spiritual Body not a gross carnal visible Body of Flesh which he himself says it is not He hath one Cavil more upon this Head against G. Whitehead and a mâ—â—r Cavil it seems to be He grounds it on a passage he takes out of a Book of G. Whitehead's called The He goats Horn broken written about 36 years ago in answer to two Books written by three Opposers whereof one was named Io. Horn and G. Keith seems to fancy that this Book of G. Whitehead's had that Title as alluding to the Name of Iohn Horn and he took occasion from thence to make himself and his Auditors some Sport about it Nar. p. 19. But unless he had beâ—ter ground to go upon than bare likeness in â—ound of words he may be mistaken for all that For I could shew him a Book written some years before that by R. Hubberthorn called The Horn of the He-goat broken in Answer to a Book published by one Tho. Winterton betwixt which Name and Title there is not the least likeness of sound That which G. Keith objects to G. Whitehead here is That he contradicts a passage in his Opponents Book which G. Keith says if he understands any thing of true Divinity or Theology is a sound Passage 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 c. How sound this Passage is I will not here dispute because I would not dilate Controversie to feed a carping Mind in a peevish Adversary neither will I presume to question G. Keith's understanding any thing of true Divinity lost I should be thought as ignorant as he is arrogant But yet I think it may be worthy of consideration how far that Passage is sound which says Our Nature Kind or Being is corrupt and filthy in it self not only as in us by sin in it but in it self And how suitable it was for Christ to take upon him a Nature that was corrupt and filthy in it self That Christ took on him the Nature of Man though it be not in Scripture exprest in those terms that I remember may in a right sense for the word Nature is taken in divers Acceptations be admitted The Scripture says he took upon him the form of a Servant and was made in the likeness of Men Phil. 2.7 And that Forasmuch as the Children are Partakers of Flesh and Blood he also himself likewise took part of the same Heb. 2.14 And in verse 16. it is said He took on him the Seed of Abraham But the Margin expresses it more agreeably to the Greek as G. Keith knows thus He taketh not hold of Angels but of the Seed of Abraham he taketh hold Now I do not find by G. Whitehead's Answer that he denies that Christ took Mans Nature but that he taxes his Opponents with Confusion in two respectsâ— one for that they excepted against his former wording of their Assertion thus That their Nature is restored in Christ and yet that their Nature is a filthy Nature and Christ took upon him their Nature The other that to free themselves from the imputation of Confusion in the former they say He might as well have taxed the Apostle with Confusion for saying Men by Nature do the things contained in the Law Rom. 2.14 And yet by Nature Children of wrath Ephes. 2.3 In which two places G. Keith I presume will not deny the word Nature to be used very differently Now to this G. Whitehead's Answer was We may justly tax thâ—se Men with 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 that is as it is filthy Then he goes on to shew their Confusion in the other part And their bringing that of Rom. 2.14 Ephes. 2.3 together to prove their confusion sheweth that they cannot discern between that Nature by which Men do the things contained in the Law and that Nature by which Men break the Law and are Children of wrath but make as if it were all one Now I do not â—ind G. Keith is able to make any great advantage by his Cavil against G. Whitehead He says indeed Our blessed Lord might well take on him our Nature and the Nature in us be sinful and in him pure and holy But will he say that that Nature which our Lord took on him was sinful or corrupt and filthy in it self Which
had its Center in him which then came in the Flesh c. is communicated unto us and doth extend it self into our very Hearts and Souls and whole inward Man so that the Man Iesus whom Simeon embraced with his Arms according to the Flesh is according to the Spirit our Light and Life and Glory And in p. 246. thus I hope it may appear how much more we own Christ Iesus not only as God but as Man and that both inwardly and outwardly for through the Measure of the Life of Iesus Christ as Man made manifest in us we have immediate Fellowship and Union with the Man Christ Iesus also without us who is ascended into the Heavens He has done he says as to the Object of Faith at least at present and so have I. Wherein I observe he charges not VV. Penn at all directly nor otherwise than as having owned those Books of G. VVhitehead's out of which G. Keith pretends to prove his Charge But before I follow him to his next Head I would Note to the Reader that all he hath said or can say against G. Whitehead or W. Penn concerning their denying Christ the Object of Faith either as God or Man he himself hath plainly and fully overthrown by a Story he tells in p. 38. of his Narrative where he says that in the Year 1678. three Persons whom he calls Quakers but will not Name did blame him for saying it was lawful to pray to Jesus Christ Crucified and dared him he says to give an instance of one English Quaker that he ever heard pray to Christ. Whereupon says he 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 he adds that G. Whitehead to decide the Matter took the Bible and read 1 Cor. 1.2 To all that call upon the Lord Iesus Christ both their Lord and ours This it seems G. Whitehead did to prove the lawfulness of praying to Christ Jesus even him that was crucified And this whether the Story in all its Circumstances be true or no proves beyond gainsaying against G. Keith that G. VVhitehead and VV. Penn were then sound in the Faith and of a sound Judgment concerning the Object of Faith Christ Jesus both as he was God and as he was Man And that is enough to shew both that the Charge itself of their denying Christ the Object of Faith is false and that the Quotations G. Keith gives for Proofs thereof out of Books of theirs written mostly about that time or not long before are perverted and wrested by him to a Sence quite contrary to their Judgments who writ them And therefore ought not by a considerate and impartial Reader to be regarded or received against them He now comes to that which he calls the Act of Faith or the Vertue of Faith which he would have People believe has been denied or contradicted by VV. Penn and for Proof refers Nar. p. 19. to a Book of VV. Penn's called Quakerism a new Nick-name for old Christianity written in 1672. in Answer to Iohn Faldo whom G. Keith himself within these four Years called A most partial and envious Adversary serious Appeal p. 60. and mentioned with Approbation W Penn's Answers to him and in his Book called The Christian Faith c. p. 6. refers his Reader thereto for satisfaction The Words he now carps at he takes out of p. 12. of VV. Penn's said Book where having set down Faldo's Charge that Christianity was introduced by Preaching the promised Messiah and pointing at his humane Person but Quakerism by Preaching a Light within G. Keith first tells us what he would have said if he had this to Answer viz. Any Quakerism says he 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 Here he makes a Transition from Preaching to Believing and from a General to a Particular I. Faldo shews how in his Sence Christianity and Quakerism so called which though one he sets in Opposition came into the World namely both by Preaching But that by Preaching the Promised Messiah and pointing at his humane Person this by Preaching a Light within If it be true which G. Keith says that what he knew or had learnt of Quakerism was introduced into his Heart by Believing in Christ without and in Christ within at once and by one Faith Yet certainly he hath formerly delivered himself much otherwise And therefore that he would have given that Answer which he now doth had he been then to Answer Faldo is very unlikely seeing in a Book of his called The Vniversâ—l free Grace of the Gospel asserted Printed but the Year before viz. in 1671. he says This is the true and only Method which should be used by Preachers for the bringing People into the Faith and acknowledgment of the Christian Religion First to inform them of this Vniversal Principle what it is and turn them towards it that they may observe its Operation in them as it appeareth against the Lusts of this World and for Righteousness and Temperance And so as wise Builders to lay this true Foundation in its Proper place and as wise Husband-men and Planters to place this Divine Seed where it ought to be in order to its growth that it may spring up in them and the Life Power and Vertue of God in it may be felt And this will naturally bring People to own the Scriptures c. and to own Christ in the Flesh his miraculous Birth his Doctrine Miracles Sufferings Death Resurrection and Ascention c. p. 92. And thus says he again p 93. Men should be First turned towards this inward Principle Light Word and Seed of the Kingdom which being in them and they coming to feel it there they may the more readily be perswaded to own and believe it And as they come so to joyn to it that it springs up in them in the Light and Glory thereof they will see and feel the Scripture and the things therein declared to be of God c. And this is good Method and Order in the preaching of the Gospel So that it is evident saith he that we have the Best and Only True Method in in our Words and Writings First to turn People to the Light that they may believe it and then to direct them to and inform them of the Scriptures and things therein declared which they cannot receive believe or understand but in the Divine Light And in his Book called The Way to the City of God written in the year 1669 though not printed till 1678 p. 3. speaking of Christs coming both Outwardly and Inwardly he saith The knowledge of this Inward coming is that which is the More Needful and in the First place as being that by which the true and comfortable use of his Outward Coming is Alone sufficiently understood And in p. 154. having said
of a pretended Contradiction between W. Penn and I. Whitehead is very Idle in it self and wicked in him and the worse for that he urged it formerly in his Book called The true Copy c. And I answered then in mine called Truth Defended p. 131. which he takes no notice of as I did also answer in that Book much of what he hath now urged concerning Christ and his being the promised Seed from p. 113. to p. 123. Where also I gave several Quotations out of G. Keith's Bôoks shewing most plainly that he hath maintained the very same things he now condemns in others and yet will not condemn in himself as particularly in his Book called The Way cast up where Sect. 8. p. 93. In answer to an Adversary's Charge that we deny Jesus the Son of Mary to be the alone true Christ. He first answers This is a false Accusation We own no other Jesus Christ but him that was born of the Virgin Mary who as concerning the Flesh is the Son of Mary and the Son of David and the Seed of Abraham Then adds p. 93. And yet he was the true Christ of God before he took Flesh and before he was the Son of Mary or David or of Abraham For his being Born of the Virgin Mary made him not to be Christ as if he had not been Christ before But he was Christ before even from the beginning as says heâ— I shall prove out of Scripture c. And having brought divers Scriptures and Arguments from p. 93. to p. 99. to prove that Christ Jesus as Man was from the beginning and had from the beginning an Heavenly Manhood and Spiritual Flesh and Blood He there concludes thus This is the promised Seed which God promised to our Parents after the Fall and actually gave unto them even the Seed of the Woman that should bruise the Head of the Serpent And therefore tho' the outward coming of the Man Christ was deferred according to his outward Birth in the Flesh for many Ages yet from the beginning this Heavenly man the promised Seed did inwardly come into the Hearts of those that believed in him and bruised the Head of the Serpent c. Here G. Keith not only asserts that this Heavenly Man Christ was the promised Seed and did from the beginning inwardly come into the Hearts of Believers and bruised the Head of the Serpent but also calls him the Seed of the Woman and says God not only promised him but actually gave him even the Seed of the Woman that should bruise the Serpents Head unto our Parents after the Fall many Ages before his outward Birth in the Flesh. Surely he that writ this had no cause to quarrel with W. Penn for saying Christ's Body strictly considered as such was not the Seed of Promise G. Keith had more need to have reconciled himself to himself if he could in these two opposite Expressions of his viz. That God gave the promised Seed even the Seed of the Woman actually to our Parents after the Fall many Ages before his outward Birth in the Flesh Way cast up p. 99. And That Christ did not become the Seed of the Woman according to the Sense of Gen. 3. Vntil the fulness of time that he was made of a Woman True Copy of a Paper p. 20. And he should have done well to have informed his Reader how God did actually give unto our Parents after the Fall so many Ages before Christ's outward Birth in the Flesh the Seed he promised them Gen. 3. Even the Seed of the Woman And yet Christ not be the Seed of the Woman according to Gen. 3. until so many Ages after he was actually given as the Seed of the Woman This is part of what I said to him in my former Book called Truth Defended p. 117 118. which rather than Answer he chose to cut himself out new work at Turners-Hall He pretends he did not Answer my Books in Print because he had not time to write nor outward Ability to Print I have shewed the Falshood of that pretence in the fore part of this Book yet let me now ask If that had been true why did he not then at his Meeting at Turners-Hall Answer my Books viva voce which then lay at his door unanswered and both Refute them if he could and acquit himself from those many Clinching Quotations I had therein hâ—mpered him with out of his own Books by explaining defending or Retracting them This I think every considerate Person will judge had been more properly his Province than wholly over-looking this to spend his time in impeaching Others by Renewing his old Baffled Charges before he had cleared himself from being guilty of the same Errors as he calls them which he had charged others with For if they whom he hath charged were as bad as he endeavours to make them yet he of all men is not fit to charge them till he has acquitted himself from the Imputation he lies under of being guilty of the same things This is so plain a Case that it may be hoped upon his next Indiction of such a Mock Meeting at Turners-Hall or elsewhere some of his Auditors when they are together will think fit to put him upon this just and necessary Work and I had like to have said hold him to it but that I consider he will be held to nothing However to furnish any such a little further with matter of that kind to invite him to I will not think much to transcribe another Quotation or two of his which I gave him in my former Book p. 119 120. The first is taken out of his Appendix to his Book of Immediate Revelation p. 256. where speaking of the spiritual Generation and Birth of Christ in us he says Thus we become the Mother of Christ in a spiritual sense or according to the Spirit as the Virgin Mary was his Mother after the Flesh. And this Spiritual Mystery Christ himself did teach in the days of his Flesh when he said Whosoever shall do the Will of my Father which is in Heaven the same is my Brother and Sister and Mother Mat. 12.50 And thus says G. Keith Christ according to his spiritual Birth in the Saints is the Seed of the Woman for that the Saints are the Woman that bring him forth after the Spirit and are his Mother as Mary brought him forth after the Flesh and after the Spirit also so that she was the Mother of Iesus in a double respect for as she brought him forth in her Body so she brought him forth in her Soul otherwise he could not have been her Saviour c. Here G. Keith calls Christ the Seed of the Woman according to his spiritual Birth in the Saints and yet quarrels with W. Penn for saying The Seed Christ must be inward and spiritual Again In the Way cast up p. 102. he says For indeed seeing he Christ is called as really Man before his ouâ—ward Birth in the
Flesh as afterwards we have as good cause to believe him to be true and real Man before his outward Birth in the Flesh as after For it is not the outward Flesh and Blood that is the Man otherwise the Saints that have put off the outward Body should cease to be Men and Christ should have ceased to be Man betwixt his Death and his Resurrection but it is the Soul or inward Man that dwelleth in the Outward Flesh or Body that is the Man most properly such as Christ was even from the beginning And therefore adds he p. 104. Let all the Scriptures be searched and it shall not be found that Christ became Man and took to himself the Soul of Man at his Conception in the Womb of the Virgin Mary but Only that he took Flesh and was the Son of Mary David and Abraham according to the Flesh But according to his Heavenly Nature even as Man he was the Son of God and was the Father and Lord of all the Faithful in all Ages c. Thus far out of my former Book Besides these take the following out of his Way to the City of God p. 125. And thus even from the beginning yea upon Mans Fall God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself and Christ was manifest in the holy Seed inwardly and so stood in the way to ward off the wrath c. For even at Man's Fall the Seed of the Woman was given not only to bruise the Serpents Head but also to be a Lamb or Sacrifice to attone and pacifie the wrath of God towards Men. And this is the Lamb that was slain from the beginning of the World Again p. 154. And in this holy Seed the Sufferings of Christ and how he bore the Iniquities of the Soul and makes Intercession or Attonement unto God may be learned in some measure with many other things concerning Christ in relation to him and his Doings and Sufferings in the outward which was an outward and visible Testimony of his inward Doings and Sufferings in all Ages in Men and Women in the holy Seed And indeed we find that this is only the true and effectual way of knowing the Use and Work of his Coming and Sufferings and Death in the outward by turning and having our Minds turned inwards unto himself near and in our hearts in the holy Seed to know by an inward feeling and good experience his Doings and Sufferings in us by being made conformable thereunto In which Holy Seed as it ariseth in us such a clear Light shineth forth in our Hearts as giveth unto us the true knowledge of the use of his Inward Doings and Sufferings In his Additional Postscript to G. Whitehead's Book called The Nature of Christianity which is one of the Books he cavils at in his Narrative and which very Postscript he mentions there also but does not retract any thing therein he says p. 66. to his Opponent Gordon Because Christ is called the one Offering and that he once offered up his Body c. Thou wouldst exclude him as in us from being one Offering but herein thy work is vain for Christ Jesus is the one Offering still and tho' he offered up his Body outwardly but once upon the Cross yet he remains still an Offering for us within us c. Again p. 67. That thou challenge it that one said Christ was never seen with any Carnal Eye thou hast no more ground than to challenge himself who said He who hath seen me hath seen the Father and yet he said to the Jews who saw the outward Body of Iesus You have neither seen him nor known him Thus G. Keith And yet in his Gross Error p. 14. he blames G. Whitehead for this Expression and bringing Iohn 14. to defend it Again says he We deny not but the Names Messiah Iesus Christ c. were given to him as Man even as in the Flesh but they do More Eminently and More Originally belong to him as he was before he took that Body on him yea more immediately and more originally to the Word the Light the Seed the Life the quickning Spirit that dwelt in that Body which he called This Temple and it was called The Body of Iesus To give more Instances out of his Books would be redious as to comment on these would be needless they speak so plain the same things which he now calls gross and fundamental Errors in others Wherefore leaving that to the Reader as he now says he has done at present with his first Head so have I also In handling which and Answering his many Cavils thereupon I have been the larger because I look upon this to be the greatest and most important part of his Charge For if Christ were denied both as God and Man not only the Object of Faith but the whole Christian Religion would fall But as I have proved his Charge false and wrong in this part so I shall endeavour to shew it is in the other parts also in which I will be more brief if I can The Second Head of G. Keith's Charge viz. That we deny Iustification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed Considered The Second Head says G. Keith is Iustification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed which he says is opposed by W. Penn G. Whitehead aâ—d others Now before I mention his pretended Proofs I think fit to tell the Reader what this very Man has said of W. Penn concerning Iustification within these four years viz. in his Serious Appeal p. 10. he says Nor are W. Penn's words so to be understood concerning Justification as if he excluded Christs Righteousness which he fulfilled in his own Person but only he denieth that any can be justified by that alone without Faith and Repentance c. Did he write thus by rote without reading what W. Penn had written Or had he then read and upon reading did then approve and justifie what W. Penn had writ of Justification and yet now condemn it The Proof he now pretends to bring Nar. p. 24 25. is out of W. Penn's Book called Reason against Railing p. 91. And forgive us our Debts as we forgive our Debtors Says W. Penn Where nothing can be more obvious than that which is forgiven is not paid and if it is our duty to forgive without a Satisfaction received and that God is to forgive us as we forgive them then is a Satisfaction totally excluded This also G. Keith objected in his Gross Error p. 19. Upon this G. Keith says here I confess I was surprized with this word totally excluded Satisfaction adds he is not the strict solution of a Debt in all respects and circumstances VVhen we consider the Dignity of our Lord that was both God and Man his Sufferings suppose they were not the Thousand part of what the Damned suffer yet it was a true satisfaction Therefore I was scandalized with these words says he But he needed not have been
scandalized with those words unless he be altogether run back to the most rigid Presbyterians in the strictest Notion of Satisfaction rejected by the Church of England whose Hands he seems most desirous now to kiss perhaps that he may lick some Advantage therefrom if he would have seen what was so obvious that he must wink to avoid seeing it that those words relate to and are expresly spoken of that rigid or extream Satisfaction which those Presbyterians and some Baptists affirm God required and exacted of his Son For thus VV. Penn introduced those words which G. Keith cavils at in Reason against Railing p. 90. I shall now said he be as good as my word and that is to produce an Argument or two against the common Doctrines of rigid Satisfaction and Justification as they have been opposed by me in this short Discourse and that out of my Book called The Sandy Foundation shaken c. Then out of that Book he produced first an Argument drawn from Mic. 7.18 p. 90. and in p. 91. from Mat. 6.12 another Argument in which are those words G. Keith takes offence at What sort of Satisfaction W. Penn there opposed appears from that Book called The Sandy Foundation shaken out of which he transcribed those words Now in the Title Page of that Book that which is undertaken to be Refuted on that Head of Satisfaction is The impossibility of Gods pardoning Sinners without a Plenary Satisfaction In the Epistle p. 8. it is called God's Incapacity to forgive without the Fullest Satisfaction paid him by another In the Book it self p. 16. the Doctrine oppugned is That Man having transgressed the Righteous Law of God and so exposed to the Penalty of Eternal Wrath it is altogether impossible for God to remit or forgive without a Plenary Satisfaction and that there was no other way by which God could obtain Satisfaction or save Men than by inflicting the Penalty of Infinite Wrath and Uengeance on Jesus Christ the Second Person of the Trinity who for Sins past present and to come hath wholly born and paid it to the offended infinite Justice of his Father This shews plainly enough what a sort of Satisfaction or rather Notion of Satisfaction W. Penn meant which he said is totally excluded namely a plenary or full Satisfaction by inflicting the penalty of Infinite Wrath and Vengeance on Jesus Christ without which it is altogether impossible for God to forgive and there was no other way by which God could obtain Satisfaction Which too rigid Notion of Satisfaction G. Keith himself whilst he stood in The way to the City of God was as much against as W. Penn For in his Book that bears that Title p. 140. he saith That he Christ did bear the wrath of God either in that manner or measure which the Damned in Hell do or we should have done had not the Lord recovered us I altogether deny for he could and did satisfie the Father well and acceptably without bearing it in that way But though the Word Satisfaction with respect to Christ be not a Scripture-term nor was used by W. Penn's Opponents in a Scripture-sense Yet that W. Penn did not deny the Thing Satisfaction rightly understood appears in the same Book wherein he treated of it Sandy Foundation shaken p. 32. where he says I can boldly challenge any Person to give me one Scripture-phrase which does approach the Doctrine of Satisfaction much less the Name considering to what degree it is stretched not that we do deny but really confess that Jesus Christ in Life Doctrine and Death fulfilled his Fathers Will and offered up a most satisfactory Sacrifice But G. Keith himself to his own Condemnation and Shame has justified W. Penn yea and G. Whitehead too in that for which he now condemns them For in his Postscript to the Nature of Christianity p. 63. he tells Gordon who had charged him with something of this tendency Both G. Whitehead and I expresly affirmed that Christ was a Sacrifice most acceptable and satisfactory so said G. Whitehead yea and W. Penn in his Book said as much whom thou falsly hast accused and a Ransom a Propitiation and Offering for the Sins of the whole World but not that Men should be justified while in their Sins but in having forsaken them G. Keith observes that W. Penn in the Book he Quoted gives nine Arguments to prove that the Notion of Christ's Satisfaction for Sin brings with it nine irrational Consequences and Irreligious But he says they are so weak and insignificant that it were but loss of time to mention them here or answer them From whence I observe that those Arguments were not against Christ's Satisfaction but the Notion of it that is the Notion which his Opponents both Presbyterians and some Baptists had of it which I have shew'd was A Plenary or Full Satisfaction by inflicting the Penalty of iâ—finite Wrath and Vengeance on Jesus Christ without which they held it was altogether impossible for God to remit or forgive and the nine Arguments he mentions how weak so ever he may repute them are levelled he knows against that Notion which he himself seems not yet to be fully come up to For he says Satisfaction is not the strict Solution that is Payment of a Debt in all respects and circumstances yet their Notion makes it a strict solution and they say Christ hath wholly Born and Paid it And G. Whitehead in his Book called The Divinity of Christ c. p. 45. of the first Part pressing T. Vincent to prove by Scripture that Christ did suffer under infinite Wrath saith He should have produced his plain Scripture for Scripture we own and Christ's Satisfaction as rightly Stated and what a most acceptable Sacrifice he was to the Father for all Yea his Suffering as Man or in the Flesh without the Gates at Ierusalem was all acceptable to God his Soul also was made an Offering for Sin c. Yet so unjust is G. Keith that though he knows it was that false Notion of Satisfaction which W. Penn opposed yet he here Charges G. VVhitehead and VV. Penn as also he did in his Gross Error p. 20. with having thrust out of Doors by their false Logick Christ's Satisfaction without us and then that they own that Christ in us offereth up himself a Sacrifice to appease the VVrath of God For which he cites VV. Penn's Rejoynder p. 284. and G. VVhitehead's Light and Life p. 44. in both which Places the Words he mentions are a Passage taken out of a Book called a New Catechism written by VV. Smith Deceased objected against by Burnet and Faldo and explained and defended by G. VVhitehead and VV. Penn But neither of them admits that those Words of VV. Smith have any tendency to make void the Sufferings or Sacrifice of Christ without But it appears that the Words were in Answer to a Question about Christs being a Mediator within mediating with God on behalf of any of his
next head but being loth to lose a Proof as he calls it he even thrusts it upon them He intends this Proof against VV. Penn but he names not the Book he takes it out of as he did not before upon G. Whitehead which shews he was in haste indeed But giving the words though not the Book which he did not in the other Case I have from the Circumstances of the matter found his Quotation in that Book of W. Penn's called Quakerism a New Nickname for Old Christianity p. 149. It is upon a Passage which I. Faldo had quarrelled with and perverted in a Book of Is. Penington's which G. K. having occasion to speak of makes as if he were so chary of Isaac Penington that he would be loth so much as to mention him and says I charitably think this Passage dropt from him unawares Then adds I wish I could have that ground of Charity to others of them It seems his Charity is very narrow if it can extend to but one and he not living neither But they are in best case that have no need of his Charity as the Quakers have not for it is as kind as the Crocodile's Tears But to his Proof he begins it thus J. Faldo thinks that he has made Is. Penington his own Can outward Blood wash the Conscience p. 29. A plain Denyal says J. Faldo Here is J. Faldo's Commentary on Is. Penington's words Is this Intelligible 'T is a sign by his Confusion he had enough of his work I must be fain to open the Passage and the occasion of it to make sense of his words Isaac Penington amongst many other Questions to Professors who place all upon the outward put this Question Can outward Blood cleanse the Conscience Can outward VVater wash the Soul cleà n This Io. Faldo whom G. Keith no longer ago than in 1692. branded in Print for a most partial and envious Adversary known well enough to be possessed with Prejudice against us Serious Appeal p. 6. and p. 60. catch hold of and made this false Comment upon it A plain denyal of the Efficacy of the Blood of Christ shed on the Cross to cleanse the Soul from the guilt of Sin by its Satisfaction to the Iustice of God What greater perversion could have been made G. Keith probably saw this and that his Auditors might not hear it nor his Reader see it he huddled through it in that Confused manner that rendred it not Intelligible For he gave no more of Is. Penington's words but Can outward Blood wash for cleanse the Conscience And no more of I. Faldo's but a plain Denyal without so much as saying what it was a denyal of He gives W. Penn's Reply some what fuller but not so fully as I think fit to give it For W. Penn having shewed that Is. Penington did not speak of the outward Blood with respect to the taking away the guilt of Sin past but with respect to Purgation and Sanctification of the Soul from the present Acts and Habits of Sin that lodge therein says Is he I. Faldo so Sottish as to make no distinction betwixt being pardoned Sin past and the ground of it and being Renewed and Regenerated in mind and Spirit and the ground of that Conversion Now follow what G. Keith quotes Or else is he so impiously unjust that because we do deny that outward Blood can be brought into the Conscience to perform that inward work which they themselves dare not nay do not hold therefore Is. Penington denies any Efficacy to be in that outward Offering and Blood towards Justification as it respects meer Remission of former Sins and Iniquities There G. Keith stops But W. Penn added We also say That Christ's Blood had an Influence into Justification as he phraseth it Thus far W. Penn. And note that this was spoken plainly and directly of the outward Blood or Blood of the outward Body Now G. Keith having given the Quotation short says So in short I take it thus W. Penn answers That Is. Penington's words are to be understood with reference to Sanctification but not Iustification Yes Justification in one sense but not in every sense Says he Outward Blood cannot be brought into the Conscience to perform that work But even the outward Blood had an Influence to Justification said W. Penn But says G. Keith The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience is by the application of a living Faith in Christ whose Blood it was the Spirit of God working that Faith in me But hath that Application he speaks of of Faith really brought that Blood into his Conscience to perform the work of Sanctification there If not which to be sure it could not Why does he say The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience as if it had been really and materially brought in there He says That Blood is not a Physical but a Moral cause of our Cleansing But did he never know or pretend to know and hold forth to others Christ's Blood as a Physical cause of our Cleansing He says Christ Iesus 1. by his Obedience and Suffering procured the Pardon of my Sins as well as he Sealed it by his Blood And 2. He procured the Spirit to Sanctifie me So then it is the Spirit within not the Blood without to which he himself ascribes the work of Sanctification Christ Jesus by his Obedience and Suffering procured the pardon of my Sins says he as well as he Sealed it by his Blood And 2. He procured the Spirit to Sanctifie me Is it not plain from hence that he makes the Obedience and Sufferings of Christ the cause of the Pardon of Sin and the Blood to be but as the Seal to that Pardon But he attributes the work of Sanctification to neither the one nor the other but expresly to the Spirit which Christ procur'd to Sanctify him And I wish he had given way to it that he might have been Sanctified by it and then we should not have had such unsanctified work the Abuse Wrong and Injustice from him that we have He says I find none say there must be a material Application of that Blood but a Spiritual and Moral and says he we can give Instances that Moral Causes are many times more Effectual Causes than Physical are As says he the Money wherewith we buy the Medicine that cures the Body is not the Physical Cause of Health but a Moral and the Money that we buy Bread with is not the Physical Cause of our Nourishment and Refreshment but a Moral But does he think the Money wherewith the Medicine and Bread is bought is a more Effectual Cause of Health and Nourishment than the Medicine and Bread that is bought therewith I am sure the Medicine and Bread are more proximate and immediate Causes of Health and Nourishment than the Money and if he having Money could have neither Medicine nor Bread for his Money he might perhaps be in as bad a Case as they that
some of the principal Books he picks his Cavils out of against G. Whitehead and W. Penn. Now let us see how G. Keith deals with G. Whitehead in the Quotation he brings against him Observe that first he says See what is here said by G. Whitehead That there is not an outward Coming of Christ to Iudge the Quick and Dead therefore look well to his Quotation and mind to find those words in it He begins the Quotation thus Moreover Christ said the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his Angels c. There G. Keith stops with an c. Citing Mat. 1â— 27 28 Luke 9.26 27. But leaves out the remaining words in those Scriptures which in Matthew follow thus And then he shall Reward every Man according to his Works Verily I say unto you There be some standing here which shall not taste of Death till they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom Why G. Keith left out these words I may shew anon Now he goes on with G. Whitehead's words thus 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 acknowledge 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 Ierusalem 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 this latter Clause he cited before in his Gross Errror p. 2. Now Reader observe First That those words G. Keith charges to be here said by G. Whitehead viz That there is not an outward Coming of Christ to judge the Quick and the Dead are not here That 's but an Inference of G. Keith's own making though he unfairly pretended G. VVhitehead said it Next he left out those words in the Text Mat. 16.28 Verily I say unto you There are some standing here which shall not taste of Death until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom Upon which words those Questions of G. Whitehead were grounded When was that coming to be Is it now to be looked for outwardly For that coming there spoken of by Christ Mat. 16.27 could not be meant of his coming at the end of the World because it was to begin in that very Age some then living and present with him were to see it before they died There are some standing here which shall not taste of Death until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom By his Kingdom saith Beza is to be understood the Glory of his Ascension and what followeth thereof Ephes. 4.10 or the Preaching of the Gospel In the latter part of the Quotation G. Whitehead had respect to the Baptists Notion of an Outward Personal Coming of Christ in a Fleshly Appearance to reign on Earth a thousand years And it is with relation to such a manner of coming in an outward Body of Flesh to reign Personally on Earth for a certain time as an Outward King that he there said after he had acknowledged the several Comings of Christ according to the Scriptures both that in the Flesh and that in the Spirit But three Comings of Christ not only that in the Flesh at Ierusalem and that in the Spirit but also another coming in the Flesh yet to be expected we do not read of And indeed how should he if G. Keith says true Way cast up p. 131. that That Body which was crucified on the Cross at Ierusalem and is now ascended and glorified in Heaven is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure ethereal or heavenly Body But that G. Whitehead's words there related to such a Coming of Christ in an outward Body of outward Flesh visible to Carnal Eyes therein to reign as an outward King after an outward manner a thousand years on Earth which some Baptists call the Personal Reign of Christ may be gather'd also from another Book of G. Whitehead's called Christ Ascended written near the same time in Answer to Iohn Newman a Baptist where having in p. 22. treated of Christs coming so as that his Appearance shall be universally seen both to the Joy of the Righteous and universal Conviction and Condemnation of the wicked c. he speaks p. 23. of the disappointment of them who are expecting that Christs second Coming or Appearance to Salvation will be a Personal Coming and his Reign a Personal Reign which word Personal they add to the Scripture and do they not herein shew their Carnal Expectations said he G. Keith has another Cavil in this page which also he had in p. 3. of his Gross Error against G. Whitehead about 1 Thes. 4.17 which he says G. Whitehead denies to be meant of his Personal Coming G. Whitehead then it seems did not deny it to be meant of Christs Coming and of his Coming to Iudgment but that which he excepted against was such a Carnal sort of Personal Coming as the Baptists expected him to come in and as is mentioned before To shew the Baptists the folly of which he asks them from those words of the Apostle both in the 15th and 17th Verses We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord if they did live and remain to a Personal Coming of Christ in the Clouds yea or nay Which G. Keith sophistically calls a Sophism to wrest it to his inward Coming Whereas G. Whitehead did not turn it to his inward Coming nor did he use the word inward in that place at all But he shewed by the Description Iohn gave of him when he saw him in the midst of the Seven Golden Candlesticks that such an outward Coming as the Baptists looked for him in in such a Personal Appearance as should be visible to the carnal Eye was not suitable to him But whereas G. Keith says both in his gross Error p. 5. and here also The Apostle's using the word we there we that remain is an Enallage Personae putting we for They like that of Iames Therewith bless we God and therewith curse we Men Iames 3 9. Though he delivers it positively and like a Dictator yet I see not why he must needs be believed Why might not the Apostle speak in the first Person we as supposing that great and extraordinary Appearance and Coming of Christ the certain time of which no Man knew Mat. 24.36 was so near at hand that it might probably fall out in his Life-time For as the Apostles accounted the Times they lived in the Last Days or Last Times and ordinarily called them so Heb. 1.2 and 9.26 1 Pet. 1.20 1 Iohn 2.18 so they thought the End of
the World was not far off What else made Paul when he had told the Corinthians That the things he had related were written for our Admonition add Vpon whom the Ends of the Word are come 1 Cor. 10.11 Why else did Peter say The End of all things is at hand 1 Pet. 4.7 G. Keith concludes this Page with a most horrible Falshood and Slander upon G. Whitehead saying He has Allegorized away Christs Birth his Death Resurrection and Ascension and Coming to Iudgment This I say is a most horrible Falsehood and Slander For though there is none of these that may not be allegorized and perhaps none among the Quakers has allegorized them so frequently and so far as G. Keith himself yet has not G. Whitehead so allegorized any of them as to take away the Literal sence and meaning of them but has owned and asserted the Truth and Benefit of them according to the Letter of the Scriptures In p. 40. He makes a Digression to entertain his Company thus I hope I have proved that I am not petulant and that I have just cause to accuse them of these Errors Then adds I was presented by a Grand Iury at Philadelphia 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 c. Now though in this he does but deliver his own Conjectures what would have been which how unlikely they are may be gathered from what was seeing when he was fined for some Evil Demeanor the Fine was not exacted though there was time enough to have done it before the Government was Changed yet his telling his Hearers that he had just cause to accuse the Quakers of Error and then immediately acquainting them with his having been Presented at Philadelphia is a sufficient Indication that the ground of his accusing the Quakers is not Zeal for Religion but Malice and Revenge In the same page he pretends to give another Proof against G. Whitehead but he does indeed but repeat one of the Proofs he gave before upon his first Head in p. 16. where I answer'd it at large He takes it out of p. 29. of that Book called The Nature of Christianity to which himself writ the Additional Postscript And he gives it thus Says G. Whitehead to R. Gordon Dost thou look for Christ's coming again to appear outwardly in a Bodily Existence If thou doest thou mayst look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him See now the Fraud and Falseness of this Man who that he might make this Passage look towards the End for which he brought it hath corrupted the place by leaving out those words that he knew would defeat his purpose For whereas he gives the words thus Dost thou look for Christ's coming again to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence If thou dost c. The words in G. Whitehead's Book are thus Doest 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 dost c. It happened that one of the Auditors being a Quaker said Let the passage be read out G. Keith to have put it by said If we had not had these Oppositions we might have saved an hour Had he but now had an Auditor ready as he had in p. 39. to have said He has done enough it had passed and he had gone off so But no body offering to help him out he was fain to read the passage right and so it is set down at the top of his p. 41. He had put in the words coming again and left out the words as the Son of Mary and the words to save thee upon which the stress of the passage lay that so he might make himself a proof And yet in p. 41. upon his offering to read another Passage out of a Manuscript Paper he said I am glad that my Neighbour has such Charity for me that he thinks I will not read wrong for it seems the Person he called his Neighbour not suspecting him guilty of so great Baseness had said in another case p. 24. I think he does not read false And to beget the like Charity now he added I shall forfeit the Name of an Honest Man if I read one word different from the Original How differently from the Original he read this passage in p. 40. will appear by comparing it with the same Passage as he was fain at last to read it in p. 41. How far he has forfeited the Name of an Honest Man if he then had it to forfeit I leave the Reader to judge Upon this Quotation he says p. 41. Ye see these are plain and express words against Christ's outward Coming But in making this Inference he is doubly to Blame For first Here are no plain or express words against Christs outward Coming neither doth the passage relate to his outward Coming it self but to the End of that coming and to the manner state and quality in which he shall then come For the End of his coming then is not to Save as if Salvation were not to be obtained or known till then neither will he come in that low state of Humiliation and form of a Servant wherein he appeared as the Son of Mary tho' he was always more than barely the Son of Mary for he shall come in the glory of his Father Mat. 16.27 Or as Luke expresses it In his own Glory and in his Fathers and of the Holy Angels Luke 9.26 But secondly G. Keith is the more to be blamed for saying of those Words of G. Whitehead Here are plain and express Words against Christ's outward Coming seeing he confesses in p. 40. That in another Book called The Real Quaker a Real Protestant G. Whitehead hath declared He did not mean it of Christs coming to Iudgment but he meant it thus Because R. Gordon would needs have it that Salvation was delayed till Christs outward Coming Who but a Man of a mâ—st malicious Mind would urge another Mans words against him contrary to his own declared Sence and Meaning G. Keith says He is apt to think G. Whitehead abuses R. Gordon But every indifferent Reader will be apt to conclude beyond thinking that G. Keith has abused G. Whitehead and that very grosly In p. 41. he has a little Flurt at me which shews he wanted either Matter or Wit that he would entertain so great an Assembly with such a Trifle He tells it that I had said I had upward of six Manuscripts What says T. Ellwood in his way of Quibbling six and an half His words were I produced above six Manuscripts I knowing he loved a loose way of expressing himself and shunn'd plainness of Speech in my Answer to the Matter for which he
it profited nothing So Wilson in his Christian Dictionary Sixth Edition Printed at London 1655. expounds those Words The Flesh profiteth nothing that is to say the Humane Nature of Christ is not profitable to us of it self but as the Godhead dwelleth in it giving Life to it and quickning us by it And thus he says Tindal and the Bible Note expound this Place In like manner I understand Iohn Humphreys both when he said in his first Letter I am grieved to hear some say they did expect to be justified by that Blood that was shed at Ierusalem and in his second Letter from those Words of Christ it is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing So he himself ascribed the Work of Man's Salvation and Sanctification not to the Flesh that suffered but to the Spirit that quickned not to the Blood that was shed at Ierusalem but unto the Flesh and Blood that is spiritual c. to intend and mean not the outward Flesh and Blood of it self only without or apart from the Divine Life Spirit and Power that appeared in it and gave Virtue to it but both together Nor Primarily or Principally the outward Flesh and Blood but the Divine Life Spirit and Power that dwelt in that outward Body and made it what it was if he meant otherwise we cannot stand by him therein But whereas G. Keith says of Iohn Humphreys in Nar. p. 43. That some of his own Fraternity perswaded him to put in the Word Only and that would excuse the Matter he puts in the Word Only and says G. Keith he thinks it was against his Conscience and so bids put it out again That some of his own Fraternity as G. Keith scoffingly speaks perswaded him to put in the Word Only doth not appear to be true but that when he had put it in he thought it was against his Conscience appears to be false And from thence it appears that G. Keith did not think it was against his Conscience to belie him Where did I. Humphreys declare that the putting in the Word Only was against his Conscience and that therefore he bid put it out again The Words of his Letter as G. Keith has given them shew the contrary His 43. p. is spent in a confused rambling Discourse in which he flits to and fro from one thing to another in a loose way without sticking to any thing But in the Close of it he mentions a Testimony from W. Penn to prove that Bodily Death did not come in by Man's Sin Which in p. 44. he gives out of W. Penn's Book in Answer to Reeve and Muggleton called The New Witnesses proved Old Hereticks p. 55. thus If the Flesh of Beasts is capable of dying rotting and going to dust who never sinned why should not Man have died and gone to Dust though he had never sinned He should have noted that W. Penn spake this upon an extravagant Notion of theirs That The Reason why Men's Bodies in Death or after Death do rot or stink in the Grave and come to Dust is because there was Sin in their Bodies whilst they lived but on the contrary if Men had no Sin in their Natures or Bodies they might live and die and naturally rise again by their own Power in their own Time Upon this he thus observed Why should Sin only cause the Body to rot stink and go to Dust Does not the Scripure and Reeve himself in his Book p. 44. give another Reason namely That what came from Dust is that which must go to Dust Then adds to shew their weakness in assigning Sin only for the cause of the Bodies rotting and going to Dust Besides 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 And in p. 5 6. he attacks Reeve again upon his own Assertion saying And it is further evident That Sin is not the cause of Mens Bodies crumbling into Dust from Reeves his own Words c. So that what W. Penn said on that Subject might be but Argumentum ad Hominem which ought not to be turned upon himself But if W. Penn had directly affirmed that Man's Natural Body as it was formed of the Dust of the Ground Gen. 2.7 Should have returned to Dust again although he had not sinned would that have been a gross and vile Error contrary to the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith Indeed according to G. Keith's wild Notions of Adam's and Eve's Bodies both before the Fall while they grew together back to back before they were split asunder as he Fables and after the Fall too the Bodies which they had after the Fall did derive from Sin not only their Mortality but their beginning and the Cause of their Being made For he Dreams that the Bodies in which they lived after the Fall were not the same that they had before the Fall but were those Coats of Skins which God is said Gen. 3.21 to have made for them which he fancies to be their outward Bodies of Flesh Blood and Bones and that those were made to cover the nakedness of their former Bodies Of which and many more such Dotages the Reader if he have any thing of a sober Brain may soon read himself Sick in his Book called Truth Advanced more especially from p. 16. to p. 32. In this 44. p. again He acknowledges G. Whitehead and W. Penn to be Orthodox though he has charged them with being Heterodox and for ought I see makes them Heterodox and Orthodox in the same things which is pretty Before he got hither he had pretty well tired his Auditors He was fain in p. 41. to say I beg of you I shall be but short And so drill'd them on the Contents of three Pages further Now says he I beg your Patience for one or two Quotations more before I have done This was heavy dull Work It is says he out of Tho. Ellwood to shew you that T. Ellwood Charges me with Forgery because I said the Yearly Meeting did censure some of these Vnsound Papers This he has been harping at divers times before both in p. 41 42 and 43. But I deferr'd my Answer to it till I came hither The ground of his Cavil here at me is this He to support his tottering Credit among those few that seemed at first willing to listen a little to him had in his Book called A seasonable Information c. p. 26. affirmed That the Paper called A true Account of the Proceedings of the Yearly Meeting in 1694. which his Agent R. Hannay publish't doth own them of the other side by whom he meant the Friends in America whom he had separated from to be guilty of unsound and erroneous Doctrines I in my Book called A further Discovery written in Answer to that of his said p. 84. How false and unfair he is in this the Words of that Paper shall shew which
are these viz. 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 yet c. Upon this I then made this Observation which he now repeats in his Narrative p. 44. Here ye see Friends 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. Keith here expresly saith it doth that it doth not undertake to determine whether the Offence said to be given by some few Persons was through erronious Doctrines and unsound Expressions or through Weakness Forwardness want of Wisdom and right Understanding And yet this Man hath the Confidence and Falseness to say positively that Paper doth own them guilty of holding unsound and erronious Doctrines This is that for which he says I charged him with Forgery And if I did he well deserved it for I proved it so plain upon him that he has not had the Confidence so much as to attempt to acquit himself of it And that with many more such gross things which I fastened on him in that Book were I suppose the reaon why he has not hitherto replied to it though it has been in Print well nigh these two Years Now not being able to shake off the Forgery he turns Cat in Pan and endeavours to make some Advantage against me for having denied that the Yearly Meeting had owned those Friends in America to be guilty of erronious Doctrines alledging that thereby I make both the Meeting and my self to approve and justifie them But that is no fair Consequent I hope there were some at least in his Auditory at Turners Hall that were more just that to condemn us so much as in their own Thoughts whom he had Arraigned and so highly Charged behind our backs though he pretended to Convict us from our own Books but would like wise and upright Men suspend their Judgment till they should have heard or read our Defence And if any that were there fell short of this impartial Iustice we value their Judgement no more than it deserves But if this is but right and reasonable in this Case how unright and unreasonable would it have been in the Yearly Meeting to have given forth judicially and authoritatively as a Yearly Meeting a Judgment against any particular Person or Persons upon the Accusation of a declared Enemy without due Proof and without hearing the Parties Face to Face or at all hearing the Defence of the Accused nay when the Persons accused were not only not present nor in the Nation but some thousands perhaps of Miles distant in another Quarter of the World This was the Case of that Yearly Meeting in 1694. G. Keith made a Clamour then against some in America for holding as he said gross and vile Errors as he has since done against some here And he urged the reading of some Papers he had brought with him relating to that Affair Which though the Meeting was not obliged in strict Justice to admit the Accused not being present yet to stop his present and to have prevented if it might have been his future Clamour the Meeting condescended and he read or caused to be read several Manuscripts But when they were read besides that divers of them appeared to be rather the hasty Products of Heat and Contention which he had raised and kindled there than the well-weighed Sentiments of a sedate and deliberate Judgment of what Authority could they be to the Meeting to ground a Judicial Sentence upon Or who would be willing to have Judgment given against him upon no Evidence but the bare reading of Letters supposed to be his own without having Liberty to make his own Defence and to give his own Sence of any Expression laid to his Charge This is not new to G. Keith for in my Book called A further Discovery in Answer to his called A seasonable Information I debated this Case fairly with him In p. 59. With respect to my self I told him which I had also told him before in another Book called An Epistle to Friends p. 41. I observe he makes a great Noise and Ouâ—ery of gross and vile Errors held by some and them upheld by others which he gives for one Reason or Cause of the Separation But inasmuch as this is only his Charge without due Proof and the Persons by him Charged with those vile Errors are not here present to make Answer to his Charge and defend themselves or to shew the Occasions that led to and Circumstances that attended those Discourses from which he pickt the Words he Charges them with and to explain their meanings therein I have not thought it fit or becoming me on no better Ground to meddle with those Matters being alike unwilling to justifie them if in any thing they have done or said amiss as to condemn them unheard upon the report of another and him their professed Adversary In p. 65. With respect to the Meeting 's Words before cited which he would have strained to be a Judgment against the Friends in America whom he had warred with I told him What offence was given might as well be through Weakness Forwardness want of Wisdom and right Understanding as through erronious Doctrines or unsound Expressions Nay if it were through unsound Expressions though they are not to be excused yet that doth not prove a Man guilty of holding gross and vile Errors c. For a Man that is sound in Iudgment and Doctrine mâ—a chance to drop an unsound Expression through weakness as some perhaps in America through G. Keith's catching Questions may have been drawn to do whose Weakness for him to expose in Print in that aggravating manner as he has done to the Reproach of the whole Profession is very great Wickedness in him and for which his Condemnation from God slumbers not And in p. 66. with respect to his Manuscripts which he would have had pass for sufficient Proofs I told him thus He being a Party is not a competent Iudge what is sufficient Proof in this Case That some Manuscripts were read in the Yearly Meeting by him or on his part I remember how many they they were or whether signed by the Persons own Hands I know not But supposing not granting those Manuscripts to be either Autographs or Authentick Copies I believe he himself would think much to be concluded or condemned from Inferences or Constructions made upon Manuscripts especially if they be private Letters as I think some of those he had read were without his being present and having the Liberty to open and explain his Sense and Meaning in any Passage Word or Sentence in them Thus had I controverted this Point with him formerly in that Book of mine called A further Discovery which he has never replied to which might have been enough to have stopped him
the Relick of the Dead came in a little after the Year 300. p 81. Praying to Saints about the Year 380. p. 90. The Caelibacy or Single Life of Priests between the Years 300. and 400. p 190 191 192. Monkery about tâ—e Year 260. p. 226. And for Superstitious Ceremoâ—iâ—s used in the Church of Rome if Genebrard Fasâ—iculus Temporum Polidore de invent Rerum and other Writers may be believed the greatest part of them were introduced before the Sixth Century and not a few in the Third In p. 46. he obâ—rudes upon his Auditory the Copy of a Paper which he pretends to have Received from some of the Church-Party as he calls them by which I confess at the first sight I thought he had meant some Episcopal Men â—till Reading on I found he described them to be some that go among the Quakers Why he Denominates them some of the Church-Party or of a Party for the Church I know not unless to distinguish them from himself and such as he was in hopes to get to him to make a Party against the Church However he says They were such as favoured him and if he say true it appears they favoured him more than Truth otherwise they would not have gone out of the way of Truth and common Iustice to gratify him For he says They gave him a Meeting There were he thinkâ— Nine or Ten of them They took notice he says of some of Ellwood's Forgeries and Abuses And it seems they drâ—w up a Paper against me as a Censure and Judgment upon my Book for he says They said in their Paper T. Ellwood had done him wrong And yet all this if ever it was done was done in the Dark and in Hugger Mugger as the saying is without ever convening me or acquainting me with it before or after nor did I ever hear of it till now He says Some of them are Eminent and that they are Generally in good Repute among us If they were so it would have added some Repute to his Cause to have named them but that I observe he would not be drawn to by all the Importunity that was used His Narrative gives Account that H. G. said Let us know their names who they are which he refusing to tell the other said I dare thee to name their names or else thou art a Lyar an Impostor a Cheat adding I dare say it is a Cheat. All this would not prevail with G. Keith to name a Man of them And yet he says Some of them have I hope that Courage that I believe they would not be offended nor afraid if I named them This makes me the more suspect his Story to be false And though I will not say positively It is a Cheat yet I dare say It looks as like a Cheat as any thing can well look And I think an Impartial and Iudicious Auditory would have required their names and been better satisfied of the Authority of that Paper before they would have lent him their Ears to the Hearing of it But as if he had been feeding Iackdaws all went down for ought I find that he offered without the least chewing or Examination Now if there be any thing of reality in the Story he has told of some Persons whom he will not name that gave him that Paper of which he read the Copy in his Meeting at Turner's-Hall and that it be not a meer Fiction of his own to bring forth that as the work of others which for the weakness of it he might well have been ashamed to have brought forth as his own what ever might be their intent in doing it as perhaps to still and quiet him by making some little shew of blaming me which supposing the Story true in Fact is the most Charitable Construction I can put upon it Yet I plainly see his design in publishing it is to slip his Neck cut of the Collar as they say and thereby excuse himself if he might from Answering that Book of mine called A further Discovery out of which the Cavils contained in the Paper he read were pickt up For he says in a Marginal Note to p. 50. both of that Book and the t'other called Truth Defended I think I have effectually answered them here as to the main Now I think it fit to give the Reader an Account That that Book of mine called A further Discovery c. and was an Answer to a Book of G. Keith's called A Seasonable Information and Caveat c. the Epistle to which was Published first by it self about a Month before the Book in which he charged me with Fifty False Accusations Perversions and Forgeries which he pretended to have gathered up out of a Former Treatise of mine called An Epistle to Friends and undertook in so Many distinct Sections to prove against me All which in my Further Discovery I Answered and fully too and returned the Charge of False Accusations Perversions and Forgeries upon him This has lain upon him now near two Years without so much as attempting to Answer it Now he would sham me off with an Idle Story if not a meer Fable of what some few Persons that must not be named that they may not be blamed and shamed have in a Blind and Indirect manner signified to him as their Judgment Concerning some few and little material Passages in that Book of mine And this he would have pass for an Answer to that Book Which that it may not but that that Book as well as the other called Truth Defended may still remain upon him as unanswered I will go through the several particulars of it which he for want of weight in himself calls weighty and shew both the emptiness and weakness of them and the Folly and Falshood of his Comments upon them The First Head is that I blame G. Keith for mistating the Controversie about the sufficiency of the Light and cunningly sliding in the Word Within when he knew it was not in the Words charged nor in the Words proved To this it is opposed in that Paper thus A true Copy of the three Iudgments p. 6. are those Words All which are something else than the People called Quakers understand by the Light â—o wit the Light in every Man's Conscience which G. Keith alledgeth is Proof that G. Keith intended the Light within To this I say 1. What is meant by A true Copy of the three Iudgments I know not If it be a Book as by quoting p. 6. it seems to be I do not remember I have ever seen it nor is it much material to this business whether I ever do or not 2. Here 's a Relative without an Antecedent all which are something else c. All which all what All nothing at all For there is nothing mentioned or recited out of that True Copy to which the Relative Which may be referr'd So that this is a Nonsensiâ—al Passage And to compleat the Folly of this weighty Particular as he calls it
think unfairly by Logical Nicety Thought the Proverb says is free and I cannot help it if they would think so But I think and I have found others think that I have in that Book sufficiently fix'd the Guilt of the Separation upon G. Keith and that by fair Reasoning drawn from Matter of Fact throughout twenty pages and more from p. 36. to p. 59. And I am content to stand to the Readers Judgment in it But if the Persons whom G. Keith pretends to have had this Paper from did draw it up themselves I wonder not at their thinking as they say they do For in the Close of the former Head the Judgment of the Yearly Meeting is called the Supposed Judgment of the Yearly Meeting which word doth so exactly resemble G. Keith's Style that if any others brought it sorth â—or him I cannot think but he begot it in them Upon this Head G. Keith makes a large Comment But it is little else than a Repetition of the 10 th Section in p. 13 14. of his Seasonable Information already answered in my Further Discovery p. 42 43 44. Only I observe he here makes it a perversion of Philosophy to put the Cause before the Effect Which perhaps may be as true as it would be a Perversion in Husbandry to set the Oxen before the Plow which is their proper place The Eighth Head being only about setting the Printâ—r's Name to Books I think too trivial to take notice of here further than to observe That it shews G. Keith and they that he says favoured him were hard put to it to pick up Matter out of my Book to Cavil at when they were fain to stoop for such silly stuff as this The Ninth and Last Head is That T. Ellwood alledges p. 91. He did not understand that the Doctrine of the Faith of Christ as he died being necessary to our Christianity and Salvation c. Was by him reputed a Doctrine in Controversie between G. Keith and others in America when in several Places of his Books it plainly appears it was the principal Doctrine in Controversie See Reasons and Causes p. 8 and 21 22. with many others They must excuse me in that What appears very plain to some does not always appear so to others And I do assure them that which they say appeared so plain to them neither then did nor yet does appear plain to me For I do not believe whatever he may pretend that there was any real Controversie between Friends there and him whether the Faith of Christ as he died is necessary to our Christianity and Salvation But that the Quâ—stion controverted was Whether that Faith is absolutely and indispensibly necessary to all Mankind throughout the Vniverse so that none could be saved without it though they had not the means Opportunity or Capacity to know or receive it And that this was indeed the state of the Controversy there I have since Read in the state of the Case p. 11. written by Samuel Iennings while here in England It was not that I thought there was any thing of worth or moment in this Paper that made me bestow this little pains in answering it nor that the particular Passages therein though G. Keith to set them off calls them Weigâ—ty ParticulaÌ„rs haâ—e any other weight in them than what is likely to fall upon his Head who brought them forth whatever it may upon any others that assisted him therein But the chief reason which induced me at this time to take any notice of them at all was that I might wholly take from him all pretence of having answered that Book of mine out of which these Cavils were taken so that that Book called A Further Discovery as well as my last called Truth Defended may still lie with their full weight on him unanswered in any part In p. 51. The Meeting being over and Narrative ended he adds this Note If any of my Adversaries object That divers of these Proofs here brought were brought formerly in my Book against W. Penn and G. Whitehead called A Short List of the Vile and Gross Errors which T. Ellwood hath replied to in his Book called Truth Deâ—ended I Answer says he I know not any one of them that he has sufficiently answered unto to give the least satisfaction to any sound Christian his Answers being meerly Evasions and Perversions as I should have shewn if he had appeared Alas poor man he might with the more ease have shewed it I not appearing to his Imperious Summons if he could have shewed it at all Why should he excuse himself by my not appearing Neither G. Whitehead nor W. Penn appeared any more than I they not owning his Vsurped Iurisdiction any more than I and yet that hindred him not from repeating those broken Charges against them which I had answered before in Print If he would needs be doing he should have proceeded methodically and fairly and have first given his Auditors an account that he had formerly exhibited those Charges in Print and that I in Print had answered them Then he should have read my Answers and reâ—uâ—ed them if he could and when he had done that it had been time enough then for him to have renewed and reinforced his Charge But he had rather answer my Book by repeating the Charge which my Book was an Answer to that he thought would be the easiest way As for my former Answer whether it is sufficient and satisfactory or no he must give me leave or I will take it to tell him notwithstanding he has set himself on the Bench and called me and others to the Bar to hear our selves charged and proved guilty that he and I are both too near a kin to the Cause to be proper and competent Judges of the sufficiency of my Answer His Book and mine are both abroad the World has them and the World will judge of them as they see cause whether we will or no and so let them with my good will But withall let me tell him that until he has answered them they stand and will stand as sufficient against him And as such I still leave them upon his Head and expect his Answer to both them and this And whereas he saith there are many new Proofs here brought besides the former it is not unlikely but some there may be though I think not many for that 's the way of Shuffling Writers to add some New Scraps to an Old Book and then set it out with a New Title for a New Book Yet very little I think there is if any thing in his Narrative which was not published before either in his former List of Vile and Gross Errors which I answered before or in his Book of Gross Error and Hypocrisie detected now answered in this And therefore I think I may justly call this Answer to his Narrative an Answer to them all and as such I intend it G. Keith's Appendix to his Narrative and the several Charges contained
therein considered TO his Narrative he tacks an Appendix containing he says some considerable Proofs out of these Menâ— Books relating to the foregoing Heads The first Passage be carps at is in G. Whitehead's Book called The Divinity of Christ p. 70. Where in Answer to I. Owen who had â—aid The Sacrifice deâ—otes his Christ's Humane Nature whence God iâ— said to purchase his Church with his own Blood Acts 20.28 For he offered himself through the eternal Spirit there was the Matter of the Sacrifice which was the Humane Nature of Christ's Soul and Body c. G. Whitehead answered These Passages are but darkly and confusedly expressed As also we do not read in Scripâ—ure that the Blood of God by which he purchased his â—hurch is ever called the Blood of the Humane Nature Nor that the Soul of Christ was the Humane Nature or was put to death with the Body for the wicked could not kill the Soul for his Soul in his own being was immortal and the Nature of God is Divine and therefore that the Blood of God should be of Humane or Earthly Nature appears intonsistent And where doth the Scripture call the Blood of God Humane or Human Nature c. It is plain enough from hence That G. Whitehead's Exception lay against the word Human which he explains by Earthly to shew he took it in that signification wherein it is derived abâ—Humo from the Ground or Earth in which sence it is not a fit or proper Term to express the Blood of God or the Soul of Christ nay nor his outward Man by For his outward Body which was nailed to the Cross was not of a Meer Earthly Extraction there was more of Divinity even in that Body than in the Bodies of other men which rendred it too Heavenly to be called Humane or Earthly But though G. Whitehead rejected the word Humane or Earthly with respect to Christ's Manhood and Holy Nature and to the Blood of God wherewith he purchased his Church and could not admit that his Soul was put to death though it with the Body was made an Offering for Sin and so it is in a figurative manner of speaking said that he poured it out to death yet he never denied the Manhood of Christ nor the sufferings thereof both inwardly and outwardly nor the virtue merit and efficacy of those sufferings Nor is there any thing in those words of his which G. Keith hath quoted that imports he did But in the progress of his Answer to I. Owen in the next page mentioning both the Travel and Sufferings of Christ's Soul under the Burden of Man's Transgression and the suffering of his Body under the violence of the wicked hands to death and the shedding of his Blood c. he adds We desire all may have as good an esteem of Christ in his sufferings as may be Therefore G. Keith doth very unjustly and like himself in insinuating as if G. Whitehead had denied the Manhood of Christ. He takes some pains to excuse himself for having formerly as he pretended to excuse others cited those words of Hilarius Quid per Naturam Humani corporiâ— conceptu ex Spiritu Sancto Caro judicatur i.e. Why is the Flesh conceived by the Holy Ghost judged by the Nature of an Human Body But says he neither Hilarius nor I judged that the Body though conceived of the Holy Ghost was any part of the substance of the Holy Ghost No more say I do we Yet being conceived by the Holy Ghost through the overshadowing of the Power of the Most High that Body was more Pure and Heavenly than the Bodies of other Men and above the Epithet Humane or Earthly The Book he mentions in which he says he cited those words of Hilarius which he calls The True Christ owned I do not remember I have ever seen But in another Book of his called The Rector Corrected Printed the next year after that viz. in 1680. he gives the same sentence out of Hilarius and tells us p. 29. Hilarius saith concerning the Body of Christ that was born of the Virgin Iesus Christ was not formed by the Nature of Humane Conception and that the Original of his Body is not of an Humane Conception And as there he spake for Hilarius so in p. 27. speaking for himself he says even the outward and visible Flesh which he took of the Virgin seeing it was not produced or formed by Humane Generation but by a Divine Conception through the Overshadowing of the Holy Ghost and did far excel the Flesh of all other Men that ever were since inasmuch also that after death it was not subject to Corruption the name Humane Mark is but too mean a Title whereby to express it far less should it be so called now when it is glorified and it is altogether Heavenly and Spiritual Nor doth the Scripture any where give unto his Body such a name as Humane said he then And who would then have thought that he would have come to plead for the word Humane with respect to Christ's both Flesh and Soul and condemn us for Hereticks for not using it But concerning the Excellency of Christ's Body hear what he said in the year 1678. in his Book called The way to the City of God which now poor man he is quite beside p. 131. Even according to that Birth he Christ was the Son of God no lesâ— than the Son of Man as having God for his Father as he had the Virgin Mary for his Mother Now the Child says he we know doth partake an Image or Nature from both Parents And thus did Christ who did partake of the Nature and Image of Man from the Seed of Mary but did partake of a Nature and Image much more excellent than that of Man in its greatest Glory from God and his Seed who did really sow a most divine and heavenly Seed in the Virgins Womb which as it supplied the Males Seed so it had much more in it and brought forth a Birth which as it had the true and whole Nature of Man so I say it had a Perfection above it and that not only in accidental qualities as men will readily confess but even in substance and Essence And yet we must be now anathematized and that by him for denying that Body to be Humane or Earthly He says p. 53 G. Whitehead 's Objection against the word Humane as signifying Earthly hath the same force against calling Christ Adam coming from the Hebrew word Adamah that signifieth Earth From hence first I must desire the Reader to observe that G. Keith saw well enough where the ground of G. Whitehead's Objection lay viz. as I have expressed it before upon the word Humane as signifying Earthly This shews that he is a meer Caviller and seeks occasions to quarrel and defame without cause Next I must tell him That Christ is not called Adam in a strict and proper sense but in a figurative with allusion to the First Man
Resurrection or the Resurrection of the Body but only answers some Cavilling Queries put by I. Horn about the two Seeds and therefore is perversly applyed by G. Keith to the Resurrection of the Body Lastly He says G. Whitehead allegorizeth away the Resurrection of the Saints Bodies by his perversion of Phil. 3.21 to a Change of the Body that the Apostles and Saints witnessed before death But he quotes no place neither Page nor Book for this But he tells us that G. Whitehead in his Real Quaker a Real Protestant p. 105. 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 And by this I understand that G. Keith hath sufficiently disproved the proofless Proof he brought before against G. Whitehead by bringing this for him so that I need say no more to it That which I would observe to the Reader is that G. Keith of all men is most unjust in charging G. Whitehead with allegorizing who has indulged himself so far in that way of Writing that scarce Origen himself has abounded more in Allegories From Allegories he proceeds to give some of G. Whitehead's Contradictions as he would have them to be taken of which he gives two or three Instances how idle and improper will easily be seen The First he assigns is That G. Whitehead in his Light and Life p. 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. Whitehead in Malice of the Independent Agent p. 17. owns that Christ's Body now in Heaven is the same in substance he had on Earth So by his own words says G. Keith he hath declared himself to be a Blind and Ignorant Man and yet Infallible otherwise by his own word No True Minister But hold a little Did G. Whitehead ever call or own Christ's Body now in Heaven or while it was on Earth to be Terrestrial or of the Earth If he did not G. Keith is clearly out with his idle pretence of Contradiction Hath he forgotten what he told Cotton Mather in his Serious Appeal p. 23. That Contradictions lie not betwixt two Particulars nor two Vniversals but one Particular and another Vniversal And that a Contradiction is not betwixt two Positives but the One Positive the Other Negative And that is not enough neither for in his Truth 's Defence p. 191. he puts his Opponent I. A. in mind of a Rule in his School Logick That Propositions are not contradictory although the one be Affirmative and the other Negative unless they be in ordine ad idem in order to the same and in regard of the same Circumstances of Time Place Condition c. Now let him make out his Contradictions if he can according to these Maxims who hath already blamed G. Whitehead and that but just now for denying Christ's Body to be Terrestrial or Earthly and therefore refusing to call it Humane Another Contradiction he pretends to find in G. Whitehead is that in a late Printed half Sheet called The Christian Faith he owns Christ to be both God and Man c. and yet says he it is proved in the above Narrative that he neither owneth him to be God or Man Here G. Keith brings his own Narrative to prove that wha that Narrative says is true Is not that pâ—etty Whereas what he has charged G. Whitehead with in that Narrative is denyed and rejected as false and the Proofs he has pretended to bring out of G. Whitehead's Books upon a due Examination prove to be but G. Keith's Perversions and Misconstructions of G. VVhitehead's Words as from the former Part of this Discourse will I believe appear The like Method he takes in the following Instance of Contradiction referring to his Narrative for Proof And in his Fourth and Last Instance p. 55. which is of G. VVhitehead's signing among others a Treatise against Oaths wherein it is said We look upon it to be no less than a presumptuous tempting of God to summon him as a Witness not only to our Terrene but Trivial business c. and his now admitting it lawful to declare the Truth in the presence of God c. He seems to put no difference between summoning God as a VVitness and speaking the Truth in the Presence of God who is VVitness of the Truth spoken and yet he might have seen in the place he cites what was meant by summoning God as a VVitness viz. That it is vain and insolent to think that a Man when he pleaseth can make the great God of Heaven a Witness or a Judge in any Matter to appear by some signal Approbation or Judgment to help or forsake him as the Truth or Falseness of his Oath requires when he saith So help me God If G. Keith will not see a difference betwixt speaking with Impreâ—ation and without others do and that that difference destroys his pretended Contradiction In p. 55. He has an envious Fling at G. Fox from whom he suggests G. Whitehead and many others did receive unchristian Doctrine and he mentions a Paper of G. Fox's directed to all People in Christendom c. Which he says hath very unsound and unchristian Doctrine concerning Christ's Flesh. This Paper I have not seen nor heard of before that I remember How faithfully he recites out of it I know not But this I observe from what he cites that whereas he says by Christs Flesh G. Fox meaneth not his outward Flesh the very first Words he cites are Christ according to the Flesh crucified Was not that his outward Flesh that was Crucified 'T is true G. Fox says there as G. Keith cites him It was never corrupted But that doth not prove he did not mean the outward Flesh For I hope G. Keith will not say That that ever corrupted But surely G. Keith might have forborn falling thus foully on G. Fox for unsound and unchristian Doctrine now that he is gone to Rest considering how highly he writ of him while he was living For in his Rector corrected p. 211. he said not only that the Lord had made G. Fox a worthy Instrument unto us and among us and he hoped yet should unto many more but that he was safe in the hand of him that holdeth the seven Stars and the seven golden Candlesticks in his right Hand And said he to the Rector All thy malicious Reviling and slanderous Defamation of him cannot diminish any thing from that true Honour wherewith the Lord hath honoured him and other faithful Labourers with him whom the Lord hath raised up in this Day of the Appearance of his great and mighty Power Can G. Keith read this without Blushing to see how he is repeating the Rector's malicious Reviling and slanderous Defamation of G. Fox and other faithful Labourers with him that he might try if he could diminish that true Honour wherewith the Lord hath
Faith c. What Contradiction is in this He knows Propositions are not Contradictory unless they be ad idem But is it the same thing to try and reject Spirits and to define and impose Articles of Faith under Temporal and Eternal Punishment His note upon this shews his Falshood his Malice and his Weakness He says Here you see he W. Penn makes the Church Power very low as by Church he means the Church of England or any other Church beside the Church of the Quakers But says he When he means the Church of the Quakers from the same Text he Magnifies her Power as great as ever Bellarmine or any other Iesuit Magnified the Church of Rome His Malice in the Comparison is obvious of it self and his Weakness in the Cavil His Falsness appears by this That W. Penn in neither of those places named either the Church of England the Quakers Church as he calls it or the Church of any other sort of People But the Church of Christ indefinitely leaving the Application to the Reader And the moderation that Book pleads for is a sufficient Confutation of this Cavil He adds a 3 d Instance of Contradiction as lame as the former He takes the first part of it out of the Address to Protestants p 246. of the second Edition p. 242. of the first Edition where W. Penn said them that are angry for God passionate for Christ that call names for Religion and fling Sâ—ones and persecute for Faith may tell us they are Christians if they will but no Body would know them to be such by their Fruits to be sure they are no Christians of Christs making To this G. Keith opposes some expressions he has pickt up out of two of W. Penn's Books which he thinks proceeded from Anger and Passion But what if they did not but from a Iust and Godly Zeal against Deceivers and Deceit as it appears they did Does he think to prove Contradictions upon precarious Propositions Such weak Attempts need no Refutation I am come at length to his Charge against me in particular which in p. 60. he brings in under this Title Some of Tho. Ellwood's vile and gross Errors truly collected out of his Book fasly called Truth Defended How truly collected we shall see anon He premises that he shall pass by at present my many Forgâ—ries and Perversions and Abuses against him in that last Book of mine and my two Former to the first of which he says he has answered in Print From hence I hope he will give me leave to Infer that he does not pretend to have answered my two last yet so that I may live in hopes of hearing from him once again at least if not oftner And the rather for that he has Collected he says out of my two last Abusive Books as he calls them above a hundred manifest Perversions Forgeries and Falsities that I have heaped up against him which says he I have in readiness to shew and which I keep by me for a reserve untill I find an Occasion to Publish them either by Print or otherwise He 's a wary Warriour one may see by this He won't hazard all at â—â—e Battel but keeps a reserve to Recruit his Forces if he should happen to come by the worst as it is more than ten to one he will He mustered up fifty out of my First Book called An Epistle and sent them forth against me in his Seasonable Information Them I beat back upon himself in my second Book called A further Discovery which is the first of those two he has not replied to so that he had need re-inforce them if he can and make good his Old Charge before he exhibites a New one And when that is done with then let us have the t'other hundred and by that time perhaps he 'll have pickt some more out of this The Errors he now charges me with are in number Ten and all pretended to be taken out of my last Book called Truth Defended The first he gives thus 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 says G. Keith This is as much against his Death for before his Death he said It is Finished Now Reader take my words For these he has given are not mine but his own by which I suppose he would insinuate that I hold the Offering or Sacrifice to have been compleated before Christ's Death My words were these This offering up himself and giving himself a Ransom for all included all his sufferings both inward and outward and made it a compleat and perfect Sacrifice in which his Blood was Comprehended and concerned as well as his Flesh before his side was Pierced by the Spear For he had pronounced that great word Consummatum est It is Finished had bowed his Head and given up the Ghost before his side was Pierced by the Spear Observe here now I not only said he had pronounced that great word It is Finished but also expresly that he had bowed his Head and given up the Ghost before his Side was Pierced G. Keith pretending to repeat my words leaves out that Clause he had bowed his Head and given up the Ghost and then infers that my making the offering to be compleated upon his saying It is Finished before his Side was pierced which was no done and which I say was not done till after he was Dead is a making the offering to be compleated before he was Dead What shall I call this Dealing of his a Forgery Falsity or Perversion A manifest Perversion to be sure it is and that a gross and vile one This is the way he takes to prove me guilty of vile and gross Errors And at this rate what Man living can escape the lash of his false Tongue Is this man fit to charge me with Perversions Forgeries and Falsities not by the Dozen nor yet by the Score but by the Half Hundred and Hundred The second gross Error he charges on me P. 61. is That I Iustify G. Whitehead's Doctrine and words denying that the Material Blood of the Beasts were Types of Christ's Material Blood and yet Fallaciously seem to own it p. 106. How does this Charge hang together that I deny it and yet seem to own it If I own it how am I guilty of a vile and gross Error If I seem to own it so that he could not tell whether I own it or deny it why would he be so forward to Charge me with vile and gross Error in denying it before he was come to a certainty that I did deny it Does not this shew his Injustice as well as his Folly But besides both this and the Third viz. That I justify 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 are already discussed in this Answer to
his Narrative where he hath repeated these Charges against W. Penn and G. Whitehead and I as before have endeavoured to free them from his Perversions and Abuses The Fourth Error he bestows on me is That I deny 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. Here are two notable Pieces of Art he has shewed in the framing of this Error First He has changed my VVords from The Gift of the promised Seed to The Gift of the Divine Grace or Power within Which quite alters the Sence of the Place For whereas I inferred from his Words that the Gift of the promised Seed was not a free Gift or did not proceed from the free Love of God to Man contrary to Iohn 3.16 but was the real purchase of Christ's most holy and perfect Obedience unto Death when he came which was the Error and Absurdity I drew upon him from his own Words He to slip from under that changes the Words as I shewed before from the Gift of the promised Seed to the Gift of the Divine Grace and Power within referring to Rom. 5.15 Eph. 4.7 8. and Psalm 68.18 which latter Places mention Christ's giving Gifts unto Men when he ascended up on High after his Death and Resurrection So turning the Free Gift of God in promising the Seed and giving his only begotten Sun to the Gift of Divine Grace and Power within which Christ the promised Seed gave when he ascended up on high and then charges me with Error in denying this Gift given by Christ to be the real purchase of his Obedience unto Death whereas it was the Gift of Christ himself as the promised Seed that I spake of which was the Effect of God's free Love not the purchase of Christ's Death The other piece of his Art is in turning this upon me saving He denies Whereas I neither denyed nor affirmed but shewed him the Absurdity and Error of his own Words The Fifth Error he assigns me is That I blame him for saying Christ's Body is the same in substance it was on Earth p. 129. I desire the Reader to examine that Place in my Book and he will see that I do not blame G. Keith for saying Christ's Body is the same in substance it was on Earth But I expose his Confusion and Folly in saying it is the same in substance that it was on Earth and yet saying It is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure ethereal or Heavenly Body as if Christ's Body when on Earth had not been a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but an Ethereal or Airy Body Or as if Flesh Blood and Bones were not of the substance of an outward visible tangible Body such as was that which was nailed to the Cross at Ierusalem The Sixth Error he allots me is That I deny that Christ came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary p. 136. In this as in the rest he is extreamly unjust In this place also we treated of Christ as he was the promised Seed And he undertaking to prove in p. 22. of his Book called The True Copy c. from Mat. 1.1 That the Seed of Promise came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary I pinched him up close with his own words in that same Book of his p. 20. where he had said It is neither the Body of Christ strictly considered nor the Soul of Christ strictly considered without the Godhead nor the Godhead strictly considered without the Soul and Body of the Manhood of Christ that is the Seed of the Woman or Seed of Abraham but the Godhead and Manhood jointly considered and most gloriously united Hereupon I shewed him that in urging Mat. 1.1 to prove the Seed of Promise as he had defined it came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary he shewed himself to be of a corrupt Judgment and contradicted his former Saying I was so favourable before as only to say Should I not serve him right if from hence I should conclude against him that he holds the Seed of Promise as consisting of Godhead and Manhood united to have come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary since he blamed S. C. for denying it But I think I have just cause now to set it harder on him and charge it home upon him as a vile and gross Error That he holds that Christ who he says in the same place was the Son of God by an eternal Generation before the World began the promised Seed which he says is neither the Body of Christ strictly considered nor the Soul of Christ strictly considered without the Godhead nor the Godhead strictly considered without the Soul and Body of the Manhood of Christ but the Godhead and Manhood joinâ—ly considered and most gloriously united that Christ the promised Seed or Seed of the Woman thus defined did come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary And I hope he will think himself or that others however will think him obliged to clear himself of this Error which is vile and gross enough before he take upon him to arraign others The Seventh Error he abuses me with is That I pervert the Apostle's Creed in that Clause Conceived of the Holy Ghost p. 138. by which I infer that Christ came not by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary and in so doing he says I make the Holy Ghost to be the maâ—erial 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 Perversion is so natural to him that he can do nothing at this sort of work without it That he might fasten an Error upon me he perverts yea alâ—ers the words of that Creed For the words of that Creed in that Clause are Conceived by the Holy Ghost and so I gave them in my Book he has changed the word by to of and renders it Conceived of the Holy Ghost Whereas the word by imports the Holy Ghost to have been the Efficient Cause that by vertue of which Mary conceived But the word of imports him to have been the Material Cause as if the thing conceived had been taken of the Matter or substance of the Holy Ghost To avoid which I following the express words of that Creed said the common Creed called The Apostles says Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost though born of the Virgin Mary Now how shameless is this Man to charge me with vile and gross Error in perverting the Apostle's Creed in that Clause Conceived of the Holy Ghost When it plainly appears from his own Book that it is he himself that has altered and thereby perverted the words of that Creed and not I Besides
while he was on Earth and pathetically set forth his Sufferings Death Resurrection and Ascension with the blessed Effects and great and manifold Benefits that arise and accrue therefrom unto all them that rightly receive him believe in him and obey him So that had W. Penn's Words been ambiguâ—us and liable without wresting to such a construction Yet since his Known Practice explained his meaning to be altogether contrary to what G. Keith would fasten on him it was most injuriously and unworthily done of G. Keith to suggest so false and so base a thing But neither will W. Penn's Words rightly taken bear or admit it For it must be considered that as I. Faldo's Objection against Quakerism aâ— he called it lay in the different way or manner of introducing Christianity of old and Quakerism of later years So likewise must W. Penn's Answer thereunto be understood to relate to the way or manner of introducing each Now touching the Introduction of Christianity Faldo said it was by Preaching the promised Messias and pointing at his humane Person This related to the very time wherein he came or when he was but newly come and it was the main Controversie of that time and that whereon the Mindâ— of Men did hang in suspence Whether he who was then come was indeed the Messias that was promised and therefore it was more especially needful at the first Introduction of Christianity to assert and demonstrate that he who was then come and did suffer on the Cross was indeed the promisâ—d Messias But it is no prejâ—dice at all to Quakerism so called or to the Quakers that when the Belief of this had generally obtained and was held throughout that part of the World which is called Christian they were raised up and brought forth with a Testimony not so immediately and principally to the Outward Appearance of Christ the promised Mâ—ssias in that Body of Flesh at Ierusalem the Belief whereof was still generally retained as to his inward and spiritual Appearance and that too as the promised Messiah by the inshining of his Divine Light in the Hearts of Men and Women the belief and knowledge of which was well nigh lost in the World For it was as suitable and fit that Quakerism should be introduced or rather that Christianity Nick named Quakerism should be re-introduced into the World by Preaching up that inward Appearance of Christ which was to give it a Re-introduction as Christianiâ—y was at the first introduced by Preaching up that outward Appearance of Christ which was then to give it its first Introduction Upon this Consideration was W. Penn's Answer grounded For Faldo endeavouring to unchristian Quakerism because it was not introduced by Preaching the same Appearance of Christ by which he said Christianity was introduced at first To this I Answer said W. Penn that this is nothing injurious to the Quakers at all but highly on their side For had they preached a Christ now coming in the Flesh or then newly come which was done at the first Introduction of Christianity they had denied his true and only great visible Appearance at Ierusalem which all true Quakers own They haâ— not Christ to Preach as now coming or newly come in the Flesh as the first Promulgators of the Gospel Dispensation had But they had Christ to preach as now come and coming in Spirit by his Divine Light in the Hearts of People which there was no need of his coming again in the Flesh to re-introduce Therefore said W. Penn since they the Quakers believe that Appearance of Christ in the Flesh at Ierusalem and the whole Christian World not only believe it but depend though not rightly on it and therefore they need not preach what is not to be again that is they need not Preach that with respect to the Asserting Evincing Proving Demonstraâ—ing or Confirming the Doctrine or Message which they bring of the inward or spiritual Appearance of Christ. Not that it is not needful that the Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation Birth Life Sufferings Death Resurrection Ascension c. should be still preached which is the unjust and malicious Inference G. Keith would draw from W. Penn's Words But that as it was not the End of the Quakers being raised up as a People that they should only inform the Christian World that Christ the promised Messiah was come and had suffered in that Body at Ierusalem of which the Christian World so called hath through all Ages since had at least an historical Knowledge and Belief So since that was so generally believed and was not to be transacted over again in order to introduce his spiritual Appearance there was no need on that Account that is for the asserting or proving his spiritual Appearance to preach again his outward Appearance which was believed already until his inward Appearance was preacht received believed in and subjected to and then which according to G. Keith himself is the best and only true Method to direct them to and inform them of the Scriptures and the things therein declared which he said well they cannot receive believe or understand aright but in the Divine Light And this he says will naturally bring People to own the Scriptures and things therein contained to own Moses and the Prophets and to own Christ in the Flesh his Miraculous Birth his Doctrine Miracles Sufferings Death Resurrection and Ascension together with the wonderful End and Design of God therein c. Vniversal Grace p. 92 93. Besides G. Keith might have read p. 5. of W. Penn's Quakerism a new Nick-name c. that W. Penn says The outward History of Christ's exceeding Love to Mankind deserves all humble and reverent Credit as a Godly Tradition and it should for ever bind Men to receive and fear and worship him This sufficiently shews VV. Penn was not for having the History of Christ's outward Appearance in the Flesh and what he did and suffered therein for Mankind thrown away and buried in Oblivion from Posterity but that it should be preached and kept in remembrance through all Ages that it might bind Men for ever to receive and fear and worship him So that G. Keith is doubly unjust not only in perverting VV. Penn's Words but inferring that VV. Penn would have Christ's outward Coming Death c. thrown over the Shoulder given up and buried in Oblivion when as not only VV. Penn's Words last cited imply the contrary but even upon G. Keith's own Principle just before recited the Preaching the inward Appearance of Christ which he also says according to the only true Method should be first preached will naturally bring People to own Christ in the Flesh and the things declared of him in the Scriptures But G. Keith is the more to be blamed for urging this against VV. Penn now in as much as it is with respect to the Substance of it an Objection he hath formerly made and to which I answered at large in a Treatise of mine called An Epistle
have no Money I expect he will as he uses to do pay me off with Ignorance and Folly for questioning any thing of his Philosophy But 't is no matter if he do I learnt when I was a Boy Sâ—ultitiam Simulare loco Prudentia Summa est That little Skill I have I know when where and how to use and how to hide It were well if he knew how to make better use than he doth of his greater Stock But Breaking off this short Digression which I hope will be excused for though I cannot dress out Dishes nor serve them up so elegantly as he yet I expect he should allow me Interferre meis interdum gaudia curis He sees I rather chuse to change the Verb than break the Poet's Head and thereby hazard the breaking of my own if I had chnaged the Mood of Interpono I return to the matter again where I observe that he makes the outward Blood not at all the Efficient Cause I mean the worker of Sanctification in the Heart but the Spirit and the Blood no more the Cause of Sanctification than Money is the Cause of Health and Nourishment to the Body to wit by procuring the Spirit to Sanctify as Money procures Medicine and Bread to Cure and Nourish the Body And in that sense perhaps as he says he agrees with all true Christians we may agree with him provided he will under the Name of Blood take in the whole Offering of Christ his Obedience and Sufferings both inwardly and outwardly and not divide the Sacrifice At the close of this page he tells his Auditors he has now done with the two first Heads and asks them Shall I go on to prove the other two or shall we adjourn to another Day And truly his Auditors seem'd to have had so fully enough of that Days work that they would rather endure the Fatigue of one half Hour more than be troubled with him another Day And bid him if half an Hour would do go on So on he goes The Third Head of G. Keith's Charge viz. That We deny the Resurrection of the Body that dieth Considered The Third Head says he p. 34. to be proved is That the Body that dieth riseth not again First says he from W. Penn 's holding the Resurrection immediately after Death in his Rejoynder p. 138. I think adds he this will be enough for W. Penn if I give no more It may be so indeed but I don't think it will be enough for G. Keith if he intends to make a Proof against W. Penn about the Resurrection For that place in that Book treats of the Scriptures but not a Word of the Resurrection The poor Man in his over-eager haste mistook his Books and quoted Rejoynder instead of Reason against Railing in which latter I have found the place he quotes I defend Truth and therefore need not take advantage of Errors of the Press if this had been the Printers Error as it is not but his own fumbling mistake though he hath most unworthily done so against G. Whitehead and that after it hath been proved unto him Before I recite the Quotation which I find he cited also before in his Gross Error p. 12. and perverted there as here I cannot but take notice of the Medium he uses to prove his Charge by viz. That W. Penn holds the Resurrection immediately after Death So that G. Keith to prove one Charge makes another which needs Proof as much as the former Now let us see how he attempts it T. Hicks says he argues thus for the Resurrection of the Body That if there be no Resurrection of the Body the Ioys of Heaven should else be imperfect Now here says G. Keith is W. Penn's Answer to it I answer Is the Joy of the Antients now in Glory imperfect Or are they in Heaven but by halves If it be so unequitable that the Body which hath suffered should not partake of the Joys Coelestial is it not in measure unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul held-by many Baptists on I am mistaken But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Widow and so in a state of Mourning and disconsolateness to be without its beloved Body Which state is but a better sort of Purgatory Thus far he gives out of W. Penn then adds G. Whitehead argues the same way but does not tell where naming neither Page nor Book But he gives his words thus If the deceased Saints in Heaven or their Souls have not all that they expect to all Eternity all the Resurrection they look for then they must be in Purgatory for the time But if the latter be not then not the former Upon this G. K says But this Contradicts many Scriptures that especially in Act. 26. That Christ should suffer and should be the first that should rise from the Dead Now says he according to this Doctrine of W. Penn and G. Whitehead Christs Resurrection was later than that of many Millions Tho' he has much curtail'd W. Penn's Answer and given no direction whereby to find G. Whitehead's neither have I upon diligent search found it and G. Whitehead deniâ—â— the words above given as his to be his yet from the words of each which he has given I find that neither of those Quotations will answer the End for which he brings them They both relate to one and the same Objection That if there be not a Resurrection of the same Body the Joys of Heaven should be imperfect To shew the absurdity of that Objection they both argued That if the Joys of Heaven to the Souls already in Heaven depend upon the Resurrection of the same Bodies in which those Souls lived on Earth then the Joys of Heaven to the Saints already there should have been imperfect hitherto and must continue to be imperfect until the same Bodies shall be raised But this does not at all conclude that they held the Resurrection immediately after Death but rather the contrary For they did not argue That the Souls of the deceased Saints have perfect Joy in heaven because their Bodies in which they lived on Earth have had a Resurrection already but because the Joys of Heaven do not depend upon the Resurrection of those Bodies This then is no proof that they held the Resurrection immediately after Death nor consequently that they contradicted that Scripture Acts 26. That Christ should be the first that should rise from the dead which whether in a strict Sense he was has been questioned by some who have urged the Instance of Lazarus and some others before him But it seems as if he did not intend those Words of G. Whitehead for a Proof because after he had passed his Sentence upon that he says Now if you will hear a Proof from G. Whitehead you may and cites p. 353. of the Book
called the Christian Quaker c. Where in Answer to T. Danson's saying The Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body its dear and beloved Companion the Soul having a strong Desire and Inclination to a Re-union to the Body as the Schools not without ground determine vide Calvin He gives a part of G. Whitehead's Answer as also he did in his Gross Error p. 11. thus Both Calvin T. Danson and the Schools and divers Anabaptists are mistaken in this very Matter and see not with the Eye of true Faith either that the Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body or that the Soul hath a strong Desire to a Re-union to the Body while they intend the Terrestrial Elementary Bodies For this implies the Soul to be in a kind of Purgatory or Disquietness till the supposed Resumption of the Body This place as that of G. Whitehead and of W. Penn cited before speaks not of Resurrection of the Body but of the supposed Imperfection of the Souls Happiness without the Body and the strong Desire they fancy it hath to a Re-union to the Body which the immediately following Part of G. Whitehead's Answer left wholly out by G. Keith here and not fully given in his Gross Error though he confidently says Nar. p. 37. I have quoted full Periods at length plainly shews For says G. Whitehead there And their Assertion and Determination therein is contrary to what the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 5. For we know that if our earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God an House not made with Hands Eternal in the Heavens ver 1. For we that are in this Tabernacle do groan being burdened c. ver 4. We are confident I say and willing rather to be absent from the Body and to be present with the Lord ver 8. And said he the Apostle I am in a strait betwixt two having a desire to depart c. Phil. 1.23 It is manifest I say from hence that G. Whitehead's Words cited by G. Keith related directly to that Notion of T. Danson and others That the Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body and that the Soul hath a strong Desire to a Re-union to the Body to which he opposed those Words of the Apostle before recited Yet from hence G. Keith tells his Hearers You see I hope here is Proof enough that G. Whitehead holds that the deceased Saints look for no Resurrection of the Body But in this he concludes unfairly For the Words he gives for Proof do not prove he held so Here G. Keith was put in Mind it seems that G. Whitehead said Elementary Bodies which he did and Terrestrial also to which G. Keith replies What other Body could it be As much as to say What other Body could the Soul desire to be re-united to but a Terrestrial Elementary Body For of such Bodies G. Whitehead spake as the Soul was said to have a strong desire of re-union to which was the Terrestrial Elementary Body which T. Danson said had been it's dear and beloved Companion So that it seems according to G. Keith it must be a Terrestrial Elementary Body after it is re-united to the Soul in Heaven What other Body could it be says G. Keith But he is fain to step down into his Ditch to fetch up a little of his Ditch-Philosophy to make it out by I hope says he a little Philosophy will not offend you The Objection says he they make is the same against Christ's Body Pray says he Was not Christ's Body Elementary Did he not Eat and Drink And was it not the same as we Eat and Drink And if we Eat and Drink of what are Elementary then his Body did receive the same Elements and they were converted into his Body First let me tell him the Objection made against a Resurrection of Terrestrial Elementary Bodies is not the same against Christ's Body For there was a difference between Christ's Body and the Bodies of other Men. His was a more excellent Body with respect to its Generation G. Keith hath said it Way to the City of God p. 134. And thus he was both the Son of God and the Son of Man according to his very Birth in Mary And therefore even according to that Birth he hath a Divine Perfection and Vertue and that Substantial above all other Men that ever were are or shall be And in p. 135. ' His body hath not only the Perfections of our Body but also much more because of its being generate not only of a Seed of Mary but of a Divine Seed This made him contend against the Word Humane as too mean a Title for the outward and visible Flesh which Christ took of the Virgin Rector Corrected p. 27 c. But now calls Christ's Body not only Elementary but plainly Terrestrial He says G. Whitehead owns in his latter Writings that Christ's Body that rose is the same with his Body that suffered Here he uses the Word Latter deceitfully and maliciously to insinuate as if G. Whitehead had not owned this till now of late whereas he could not but know that in a Postscript to a Book called The Malice of the Independent Agent rebuked written in the third Month 1678. which is eighteen Years ago G. Whitehead for to him G. Keith ascribes that Postscript said Christ did rise in that Body wherein he suffered and in the same ascended into the Heavens I say G. Keith could not but know this because in his Book called The true Copy Printed but last Year p. 21. he quoted a Passage as G. Whitehead's out of that very Postscript But says he in p. 35. his Pride will not suffer him to own his forme Error either in that or in other things I may rather say of G. Keith His Envy will not suffer him to be Iust or Honest. For he can no where find in any of G. Whitehead's Writings that he did ever disown Christ's Body that rose to be the same Body that suffered But there is not an equal Comparison betwixt Christ's Body and Man's His saw no Corruption But Man's Body is subject to Corruption and Putrefaction In p. 35. He says And seeing W. Penn thinks it absurd that a Body can be transformed from an Earthly and Animal Body to an Heavenly Body as says he he argueth Reason against Railing p. 134. He makes it not only as gross as Transubstantiation but worse But this says he is his gross Ignorance in true Philosophy and his false Philosophy destroys his Faith But what I wonder has destroyed G. Keith 's Honesty except it be his gross Enmity For he has most grosly abused W. Penn in this Passage Where doth W. Penn say or hold it is absurd that a Body can be transformed from an Earthly or Animal Body to an Heavenly Body There is no Word in the Place cited nor any where that I know of that either speaks so or has a tendency