who was of the Earth Earthy as being made of the dust of the ground and therefore was in a proper sense called Adam But whereas he says the Scripture calleth the Man Christ the Second Adam and that the Man Christ had not only that which was heavenly but had even our earthly part but without sin I must put him in mind that in his Appendix to his Immediate Revelation for I shall be ever now and then trumping up some or other of his Old Doctrines in his way till he will be so honest and plain as openly to retract them he said p. 226. This same Jesus or Heavenly Man or Second Adam was before that Body of Flesh which he took upon him yea from the very beginning Look there now He was it seems the Second Adam before he took on him that Body of Flesh yea even from the beginning But had he our Earthly part or any thing that might be called Earthly or Humane from the beginning Another of his Cavils against G. Whitehead is about Repentance that T. Danson having affiâ—med that there is a continual need of Faith and Repentance in this Life G. Whitehead answereth That there is a continual need of Repentance this I deny for true Repentance where it is wrought and the fruits of it brought forth this is unto Salvation never to be repented of and is attended with a real forsaking of sin and transgression These words of G. Whitehead's he says are in the same Answer to T. Danson's Synopsis But â—e names no page and there are about 100 pages in that part of the Book It was unfairly done of him if it was by design and not through oversight that the Page was omitted to give me the trouble and waste of time to turn over the Book to seek the place which at length I have found in page 33 34. and find the words cited are an Answer to an Argument T. Danson brought to prove the necessity of a Continuance in Sin or the impâ—ssibility of being freed from Sin in this Life And that G. Keith wrangles upon the Grammatical sense of the word Repentance which he gives diversly Whereas the place he quotes shews G. Whitehead's meaning was only That there is no continual need of Repentance from a necessity of continual sinning For he says where true Repentance is wrought and the fruits of it brought forth it is attended with a real forsaking of Sin and Transgression and this is unto Salvation never to be repented of In p. 54. Referring to his having said in the Narrative That G. Whitehead hath allegorized away the Birth Death Resurrection and Coming again of Christ without us to Judgment he offers some instances out of G. Whitehead's Books which he calls Plain Proofs and so they are indeed but not at all of those things for which he brings them but of his own both Envy and Folly First He says G. Whitehead allegorizes away his Birth spoken of by Isaiah 9.6 Vnto us a Child is born a Son is given This he says he expoundeth of Christ born within He-Goats Horn p. 51. To this I need but give him his own Answer which he formerly gave to the Rector of Arrow in his Book called The Rector Corrected p. 30. viz. But why may it not speak of both to wit his being born outwardly and his being born within the one without prejudice of the other Dost thou not know that Maxim Subordinata non Pugnant Subordinates are not contrary And although G. Whitehead in the place cited from Rom. 8.29 said Christ was the First-born in many Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thereupon asked Was not Isaiah one of these Brethren who had been as with Child Isa. 26.17 which place G. Keith may see how he rendred in his Immediate Revelation Appendix p. 249. Yet G. Whitehead did not deny Christ's outward Birth but mentions his coming in the Flesh and tells his Opponent he had belyed R. H. and him in charging them with counting Christ's Coming in the Flesh to be but a Figure for says he It was never so affirmed by us His Second Instance is That G. Whitehead allegorizes away Christ's Resurrection expresly denying that Christ was bodily seen of Paul and perverting that place in 1 Cor. 15.8 to Christ within For proof of this he cites only page 51. but names no Book which made me suppose and I think reasonably he referred to the Book he had quoted last before which was the He-Goats Horn. But in that Book and Page there is nothing of the matter not so much as the name Paul nor any Text out of his Epistle to the Corinthians Neither know I where to seek the place All therefore that I think fit to say to this Cavil at this time is That if G. Whitehead had denied that Christ was bodily seen of Paul that had not allegorized away Christ's Resurrection I wish G. Keith don't allegorize away his own wits Thirdly He says G. Whitehead allegorizeth away his Coming without us to Judgment in these Scriptures Mat. 16.27 28. 1 Thes. 4.15 16 17 18. for which he cites Light and Life p. 40 41. But besides that these very places are already instanced and discussed in the Narrative G. Keith in urging that Text Mat. 16.28 for Christ's Coming without us to Judgment doth as flatly contradict himself as ever man did For in his Way Cast up which he is now Casting down p. 143 144. he said Christ himself hath taught us that his Spiritual Coming in his Saints is as the Son of Man and quotes this very Text for it Mat. 16.28 Verily I say unto you there are some standing here that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom Now mark This says he cannot be meant of his last Coming at the Day of Iudgment else it would infer that some that heard him speak these words have not as yet tasted of death nor shall unto the last day which is absurd Therefore this Coming of the Son of Man must be his Inward and Spiritual Coming into his Saints Can one think it any thing but judicial Blindness from God upon this Man that makes him thus break his own Head Fourthly He says Both he and R. H. allegorize away his Burial for which he cites Light and Life p. 52. and He-Goat's Horn p. 62. perverting that Scripture Isa. 53. He made his Grave with the wicked He adulterates says G. Keith the True Translation and turns it in the wicked c. In p 52. of Light and Life there is no mention of Christ's Burial but only he is said to be a Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World and made his Grave with the Wicked and with the Rich in his Death So here the Text is rendred with the Wicked not in the wicked The other place in He-Goats Horn p. 62. is R. Hubberthorn's distinct from G. Whitehead and it neither mentions Isa. 53. nor treats of the General
after all he is fain to come to Printing again where we told him before-hand he must come and where we knew we should have a time to meet with him and talk with him with less danger of Disturbance in a more sedate and quiet manner and before more compâ—tent Judges than the shouting Mobb at Turners-Hall For twice in one page viz. p. 45. he says the Aâ—ditory shouted and no wonder considering what an Auditory it was and how he acted the Terraesilius or Prevaricator not to say Merry-Andrew to stir them â—p thereto What a sort of Auditory he had got how sit for his purpose and how disposed to his service some of them were may be gathered from the Account himself has given of them and their Behaviour in his Narrative For at the very opening of the Meeting when the Paper giving some Reasons for our not being there was read and G. Keith had said I offer to answer to every one of the Reasons if you desire it his easie Auditory immediately replied No it is neâ—dless Nar. p. 13. When a Friend of ours proposed a most just and reasonable thing viz. That the Scriptures urged against us by G. Keith should be read and introduced his Proposal in such soft and modest terms as I beg a Favour G. Keith had an Auditory or rather perhaps some ready prepared and disposed in his Auditory which he makes to answer There is no need go on Nar. p. 27. When G. Keith had told a strange and improbable story against three Persons whom he called Quakers concerning words which he said they spake in the year 1678 about 18 years ago on purpose to defame both them and us and did not name them and thereupon a Friend of ours prest earnestly on him to name them he had an Auditor ready to help him off by saying He has done enough Nar. p. 39. Nay when G. Keith had read a passage out of a Book of G. Whâ—tehead's and a Friend of ours desiring to know when that Book was writ did thus modestly say If I might I desire to have liberty to speak When was the date of the Book He was immediately thus taken up by the Auditors If you will undertake their Cause you may speak otherwise not Nar. p. 15. Yet in p. 45. he had an Auditor at hand who seeing him at a loss says G. Keith I see you are almost spent I will answer for you From these few instances the indifferent Reader may see how far from being indifferent that Auditory was And from the whole I doubt not but it will appear That G. Keith had no Reason to appoint that Meeting and summon us to appear at it That we had good Reason not to come there and that he was very unfair and unjust to traduce and defame us there behind our Backs when he knew we did not shun him in the most open way of Trial but provoked him to it It is very idle therefore in him to insinuate as in his Pref. p. 7. that W. Penn has shown great Cowardice and his Party charged by not appearing at all Since as it is no sign of want of Courage in a Man that uses the outward Sword to refuse Scuffling with his Antagonist in a Chamber while he boldly offers to meet him in the open Field So it can never be judged by considerate Men a token of Cowardice or Diffidence in us to refuse to meet a Brawling Adversary in a By-Place especially upon unfair terms while we most readily offer to meet and engage him in the most open free and clear way of deciding Religious Controversies the Press where he first began as himself says Nar. p. 38. What says he is the last Remedy against Oppression Why Printing Therefore I began And seeing G. Keith himself first opened the Press to this Controversie by â—alling upon us in Print we needed not have given any other Answer to him than he formerly gave to his and our Opponent Rob. Gordon in the like case viz. Seeing thou camest forth in Print against us though under a Cover what ground hadst thou to expect another way of Answering than by Print See his Postscript to a Book called The Nature of Christianity in the true Light Asserted p. 60. This was his Answer to Gordon and this might have been sufficient from us to him But because we were willing to inform and satisfie others we published the fore-going Reasons which I doubt not have given and will give satisfaction to all dis-interessed and impartial Persons Now as to the Errors or false Doctrines which he hath charged upon any of us and which he pretended to prove against us at his irregular Meeting at Turners-Hall they being mostly such as not only he himself hath formerly held maintained and defended while he was amongst us but hath since his departing from us charged before in Print upon some of us and his Charge hath been already Answered and Refuted in Print particularly in a Book of mine published the last year called Truth Defended which he hath never yet Replied to though he once made as if he would Although we might with reason excuse our selves from giving any new Answer until our former Answers already given had been enervated at least replied to by him and only refer thereunto yet for the sake of others whom he endeavours be false Accusations to prejudice and harden against the holy Truth and Principles which we hold and profess Partly also because he hath added in his Narrative some few passages to his former Charge to make iâ— seem not wholly the same I am content to follow him through his Narrative also which comprehends another Book of his called Gross Errors and Hypocrisie Detected and hope to manifest both that we are sound in the Faith in those very Particulars wherein he charges us to be unsound and that he is unjust envious and wicked in his falsely accusing us Yet do I not intend hereby to acquit or discharge him from answering in Print what Books already written lie at his door unanswered but rather to engage him the more to answer both the former and this also The Doctrines he sets down Nar. p. 14. as denied by us or some of us are these four 1. Faith in Christ as be outwardly suffered at Ierusalem to our Salvation 2. Iustification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed 3. The Resurrection of the Body that dieth 4. Christs coming without us in his glorified Body to judge the Quick and the Dead The first Head of G. Keith's Charge viz. That we deny Faith in Christ as he outwardly suffered at Ierusalem to our Salvation Considered The denial of this he charges directly on G. Whitehead on W. Penn but by consequence for approving G. Whitehead's Books After he had made his Enumeration of Doctrines he says Now if you please I shall proceed to my Proofs Most of my Business is to Read my Proofs out of their Books Who from these words
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
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
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
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
in mine called Truth Defended from p. 148. to p. 155. which he has not replied to 'T is true he doth not begin his Cavil now with the same Quotation he did then but for a blind brings it in now with a Quotation of the same Matter in Substance taken out of another Peice viz. A Preface to the Collection of R. Barclay 's Book which he supposes and I deny not was writ by VV. Penn and then claps his former Quotation out of VV. Penn's Rejoyndâ—r to Faldo behind it to support it taking no notice that I had answered it before This in him was neither Ingenuous nor Fair. He should have answered my Book before he had renewed the Charge therein answered But instead of that he conceals that it was already answered and proposes it as a new thing as if it had not been answered before Now seeing he hath dealt so unfairly I shall take the less notice of what he now says in the Case but that I may not actum agere shall refer the Reader to my former Answer in the Book and Pages abovementioned yet not wholly pass by what he says here First I observe he quarrels with VV. Penn for saying upon 1 Tim. 3.16 Great is the Mystery of Godliness God manifest in the Flesh c. And if the Apostle said it of the Manifestation of the Son of God in the Flesh if that be a Mystery and if a Mystery it is not to be spelt out but by the Revelation of the Spirit how much more c. From hence G. Keith infers VV. Penn doth not say it is a Mystery but he puts three Ifs to it This Objection is childish in all but the Malice of it For G. Keith knows VV. Penn hath always acknowledged that Manifestation of Christ in the outward Body of Flesh in which he suffered at Ierusalem to be a very great and wonderful Mystery And he and every one else that understands Words aright knows that the Particle If both divers Significations sometimes it is Conditional sometimes Dubitative sometimes Concessive or Granting Of which there are plenty of Instances in Scripture Rom. 11.6 If by Grace then no more of VVorks The Apostle there cannot be supposed to doubt or question much less to deny that the Election is of Grace for he positively affirm'd it in the verse before So ver 12. If the fall of them the Iews be the Riches of the World c. how much more their Fulness ver 16. If the first Fruit and if the Root be Holy so the Lump so the Branches ver 21. If God spared not the natural Branches c. 1 Pet. 4.17 18. If it Judgment first begin at us And if the Righteous scarcely be saved c. 2 Pet. 2.4 5. If God spared not the Angels that sinned but cast them down to Hell c. And spared not the old World but saved Noah c. Might not G. Keith as well have charged the Apostle with denying or doubting that God spared not the Angels that sinned and the old World Yet upon this he asks Pray was our blessed Lord a meer Shell Was he like the Shell of an Egg without the Meat of an Egg I answer no He was not a meer Shell neither was he like the Shell of an Egg either without the Meat or with it For he was full of Grace and Truth John 1.14 And in him dwelleth all the Fulness of the Godhead bodily Col. 2.9 For it pleased the Father that in him should all Fulness dwell chap. 1.19 Again He asks Was there any Holiness ever in any Prophet or Apostle but it is like a Drop to the Ocean to what was in our blessed Lord If it were or could be less than a Drop to the Ocean that affects not us in this Case For we draw no Comparison between the Holiness that was in him and that which is or ever hath been in any of the Saints with respect to the Degrees thereof Grant it to be the same in Nature and Quality and it suffices which a Drop is with the Ocean But G. Keith's Comparison in his Marginal Notes in this p. 21. run higher in Degree than a Drop to the Ocean For he says The same Seed and Life is in us which was in the Man Christ and is in him in the Fulness as Water in the Spring and in us aâ— the Stream which is more than a Drop and bears more proportion in quantity to the spring it flows from than a Drop does to the Ocean Again he says As the natural Life is in all the Members but more principally in the Head and Heart without any Division so this spiritual Life and Nature is both in Christ our Head and in us by which he dwelleth in us as the Spirit of Man doth in the Body But is the disproportion as great in the natural Body between the Life in the Member and in the Head Heart as between a Drop and the Ocean He suggests that W. Penn compares the Work of Regeneration to the Incarnation of our Lord so as to equal yea prefer it with respect to Holiness and thereupon says Nar. p. 22. I Appeal to you the Auditors whether is it not a most abominable Error and whether it doth not make every regenerate Man not only equal to the Man Christ but greater for says he VVe truly value any Man as more Holy according as the Manifestation of God is more in one Man than in another Now this is a great abuse in him For the Comparison if he will have it to be one was not originally W. Penn's but his Adversaries and it lay not between the Incarnation of Christ and the Work of Regeneration But between the difficulty of Believing the one and Experiencing the other So W. Penn understood I. Faldo at first and thereupon said Regeneration is a slight thing meaning with I. Faldo in Comparison of the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh. Mark that He did not say in Comparison of Christ after the Flesh But in Comparison of the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh. And thereupon he added The History is made viz. by I. Faldo the greatest Mystery And to believe the one matter of greater difficulty than to Experience the other Rejoynder p. 336. The Comparison here lay not between the Digniâ—y or Excellency of Christ's Incarnation in that Body which he took of the Virgin and his spiritual Formation and Birth in his Saints which is intended in the Word Regeneration But between the difficulty of Believing the one and of Experiencing the other Neither would the Comparison between the Incarnation of our Lord Christ and the Work of Regeneration had such a Comparison been made have been with respect to the Degrees of Holiness in each But with respect to the greatness of the Mystery in the one and in the other which depended not simply upon the Holiness in either For though this Mystery of the Incarnation of Christ be by way of Emphasis or
scandalized with those words unless he be altogether run back to the most rigid Presbyterians in the strictest Notion of Satisfaction rejected by the Church of England whose Hands he seems most desirous now to kiss perhaps that he may lick some Advantage therefrom if he would have seen what was so obvious that he must wink to avoid seeing it that those words relate to and are expresly spoken of that rigid or extream Satisfaction which those Presbyterians and some Baptists affirm God required and exacted of his Son For thus VV. Penn introduced those words which G. Keith cavils at in Reason against Railing p. 90. I shall now said he be as good as my word and that is to produce an Argument or two against the common Doctrines of rigid Satisfaction and Justification as they have been opposed by me in this short Discourse and that out of my Book called The Sandy Foundation shaken c. Then out of that Book he produced first an Argument drawn from Mic. 7.18 p. 90. and in p. 91. from Mat. 6.12 another Argument in which are those words G. Keith takes offence at What sort of Satisfaction W. Penn there opposed appears from that Book called The Sandy Foundation shaken out of which he transcribed those words Now in the Title Page of that Book that which is undertaken to be Refuted on that Head of Satisfaction is The impossibility of Gods pardoning Sinners without a Plenary Satisfaction In the Epistle p. 8. it is called God's Incapacity to forgive without the Fullest Satisfaction paid him by another In the Book it self p. 16. the Doctrine oppugned is That Man having transgressed the Righteous Law of God and so exposed to the Penalty of Eternal Wrath it is altogether impossible for God to remit or forgive without a Plenary Satisfaction and that there was no other way by which God could obtain Satisfaction or save Men than by inflicting the Penalty of Infinite Wrath and Uengeance on Jesus Christ the Second Person of the Trinity who for Sins past present and to come hath wholly born and paid it to the offended infinite Justice of his Father This shews plainly enough what a sort of Satisfaction or rather Notion of Satisfaction W. Penn meant which he said is totally excluded namely a plenary or full Satisfaction by inflicting the penalty of Infinite Wrath and Vengeance on Jesus Christ without which it is altogether impossible for God to forgive and there was no other way by which God could obtain Satisfaction Which too rigid Notion of Satisfaction G. Keith himself whilst he stood in The way to the City of God was as much against as W. Penn For in his Book that bears that Title p. 140. he saith That he Christ did bear the wrath of God either in that manner or measure which the Damned in Hell do or we should have done had not the Lord recovered us I altogether deny for he could and did satisfie the Father well and acceptably without bearing it in that way But though the Word Satisfaction with respect to Christ be not a Scripture-term nor was used by W. Penn's Opponents in a Scripture-sense Yet that W. Penn did not deny the Thing Satisfaction rightly understood appears in the same Book wherein he treated of it Sandy Foundation shaken p. 32. where he says I can boldly challenge any Person to give me one Scripture-phrase which does approach the Doctrine of Satisfaction much less the Name considering to what degree it is stretched not that we do deny but really confess that Jesus Christ in Life Doctrine and Death fulfilled his Fathers Will and offered up a most satisfactory Sacrifice But G. Keith himself to his own Condemnation and Shame has justified W. Penn yea and G. Whitehead too in that for which he now condemns them For in his Postscript to the Nature of Christianity p. 63. he tells Gordon who had charged him with something of this tendency Both G. Whitehead and I expresly affirmed that Christ was a Sacrifice most acceptable and satisfactory so said G. Whitehead yea and W. Penn in his Book said as much whom thou falsly hast accused and a Ransom a Propitiation and Offering for the Sins of the whole World but not that Men should be justified while in their Sins but in having forsaken them G. Keith observes that W. Penn in the Book he Quoted gives nine Arguments to prove that the Notion of Christ's Satisfaction for Sin brings with it nine irrational Consequences and Irreligious But he says they are so weak and insignificant that it were but loss of time to mention them here or answer them From whence I observe that those Arguments were not against Christ's Satisfaction but the Notion of it that is the Notion which his Opponents both Presbyterians and some Baptists had of it which I have shew'd was A Plenary or Full Satisfaction by inflicting the Penalty of iâ—finite Wrath and Vengeance on Jesus Christ without which they held it was altogether impossible for God to remit or forgive and the nine Arguments he mentions how weak so ever he may repute them are levelled he knows against that Notion which he himself seems not yet to be fully come up to For he says Satisfaction is not the strict Solution that is Payment of a Debt in all respects and circumstances yet their Notion makes it a strict solution and they say Christ hath wholly Born and Paid it And G. Whitehead in his Book called The Divinity of Christ c. p. 45. of the first Part pressing T. Vincent to prove by Scripture that Christ did suffer under infinite Wrath saith He should have produced his plain Scripture for Scripture we own and Christ's Satisfaction as rightly Stated and what a most acceptable Sacrifice he was to the Father for all Yea his Suffering as Man or in the Flesh without the Gates at Ierusalem was all acceptable to God his Soul also was made an Offering for Sin c. Yet so unjust is G. Keith that though he knows it was that false Notion of Satisfaction which W. Penn opposed yet he here Charges G. VVhitehead and VV. Penn as also he did in his Gross Error p. 20. with having thrust out of Doors by their false Logick Christ's Satisfaction without us and then that they own that Christ in us offereth up himself a Sacrifice to appease the VVrath of God For which he cites VV. Penn's Rejoynder p. 284. and G. VVhitehead's Light and Life p. 44. in both which Places the Words he mentions are a Passage taken out of a Book called a New Catechism written by VV. Smith Deceased objected against by Burnet and Faldo and explained and defended by G. VVhitehead and VV. Penn But neither of them admits that those Words of VV. Smith have any tendency to make void the Sufferings or Sacrifice of Christ without But it appears that the Words were in Answer to a Question about Christs being a Mediator within mediating with God on behalf of any of his
People that commit evil and so appeasing the Wrath of God by being a Propitiation for them according to 1 Iohn 2.1 2. This one would have thought might have gone down with G. Keith it being so agreeable to his own Doctrine For in his VVay cast up a Book not yet retracted p. 157. he said And thus Christ doth declare himself to be the Mediator betwixt God and Man as he is in them Thou in me and I in them here Christ is the Middle-man or Mediator as being in the Saints Which Confutes the gross and most comfortless Doctrine of the Presbyterians and others who affirm that Christ as Mediator is only without us in Heaven and is not Mediator in us whereas he himself in this place hath declared the contrary And lest G Keith should again Cavil at the Words offereth up himself c. I will remind him that he himself in his Additional Postscript to G. VVhitehead's Book called The Nature of Christianity p. 66. answered his Opponent Gordon thus Because Christ is called the one Offering and that he once offered up his Body c. Thou wouldst exclude him as in us from being one Offering but herein thy VVork is vain for Christ Iesus is the one Offering still and though he offered up his Body outwardly but once upon the Cross yet he remains still an Offering for us within us For he is a Priest for ever and every Priest hath somewhat to offer and he is both the Offering and the Priest who liveth for ever to make Intercession for us This is too good Doctrine still in G. Keith to be retracted by him for though he has mentioned this very Postscript of his in his Narrative yet â—e has not retracted any thing in it though he can condemn the same in others unjust Man as he is Before I leave this place let me put G. Keith in Mind seeing he seem to have forgot it of a necessary Caution he gave in his VVay to the City of God p. 127. thus Therefore we are not too nicely to distinguish betwixt the Influences of his inward and outward Coming and the Effects thereof but rather to take them conjunctly as in a perfect Conjunction having a perfect Influence upon all Mankind for their Reconciliation and Renovation unto God as obtaining that Measure of Light and Grace from God unto all and every one whereby it is possible for them in a Day to be saved And again p. 139. thus But as I said above so I do again repeat it that it may have the more weight viz. that we are not too nicely to make a difference betwixt the Influence and Effects of his Outward and Inward Sufferings but to understand them in a perfect Conjunction c. And so the People called Quakers do say I. Having had a fling at VV. Penn he says Let me come to G. Whitehead again And that he might stir up the People to Lightness he tells them You shall have here a rare Dish of Divinity and then to provide himself some Defence or Excuse after he had done it he adds Not that I would provoke any to Lightness What Hypocrisie is this Then to garnish his rare Dish he says I have read many Books in my Time but I never read such a Book except the Ranters in my Life Popery is Orthodoxy to it no Popish Priest will argue as he has done See how he Banters him Nar. p. 22. The Book he quotes is called The Light and Life of Christ within c. p. 8. where he says G. VVhitehead blames VV. Burnet for saying The Blood shed upon the Cross sprinkles the Conscience Sanctifies Iustifies Redeems us And in p. 18. of his Gross Error where he carps at the same Passage and gives the Quotation more at large but not truly he says Note Here it is plain that G. Whitehead doth altogether deny Iustification by that outward Blood or that it was the meritorious Cause of Salvation But this is a manifest Falshood and Abuse put upon G. VV. For he did neither deny the outward Blood to be the meritorious Cause of Salvation Nor did he there undertake to discuss blame or censure any of Burnet's Doctrines or Assertions That was to be done and with respect to some of them was done in the after part of the Book to which that former Part was but as an Introduction wherein Burnet's Contradictions were collected and exposed and therefore immediately after those Words of Burnets p. 7. partly cited by G. Keith viz. The Blood shed upon the Cross the material Blood meritorious to Salvation sprinkles the Consciences Sanctifies Iustifies Redeems us c. G. VVhitehead added thus But in Contradiction p. 40. That Blood shed is not in being says Burnet but he compares it to a price lost Upon which G. VVhitehead made this Observation p. 8. Observe said he here a twofold stress is laid upon that Blood 1. Merit to Salvation 2. VVork to Sanctification and so he hath set it up above God For God could not save he saith and yet it is not in being this G. Keith in reciting G. VVhitehead's Words left out gross Absurdity VVhereas Sanctification being a real VVork inward that is certainly in being which Effects it This plainly shews that that which G. Whitehead blamed his Opponent for was his Self-contradiction in saying that Blood shed Sprinkles Sanctifies Justifies Redeems which are all of the present Time and yet withal saying that Blood shed is not in being This part G. Keith as I noted concealed and then falls upon G. Whitehead as he had done before Gross Error p. 22. for wronging Burnet in charging him with having said God could not save And he makes as if he would help Burnet out but he quickly pulls in his Horns saying Nar. p. 25. But I wholly wave that Dispute I think it is above Mans capacity Whether antecedently to God's purpose he could have saved us without the Death of his own dear Son Truly I doubted nothing had been above G. Keith's Presumption because I have scarce seen him stick at any thing before how much soever above his Capacity But though he is willing to wave that Dispute yet to help off the Baptist and fall in with other Opposers he says But God having so ordained it consequentially to his purpose it viz. That God could not save may be as safely and truly said as when the Scripture saith God cannot lye Is it any Reflection says he to say God cannot lye and that he cannot contradict his Purpose But I would know of him whether to contradict or to alâ—er ones Purpose be the same thing as to Lye But it is probable G. Keith might borrow this Notion from Io. Owen who in his Book against the Quakers called A Declaration c. has a touch of this kind if I mistake not in p. 178. G. Keith gives another Proof against G. Whitehead out of the same Book called Light and Life p. 38. and having set down the Baptists
learnt this Trickling Art from that Apostate as he represents him C. L He compares us to the Arrians and Macedonians some of the worst of Hereticks and in that for which they were more to be condemned than for their Heresies since these might possibly proceed from Ignorance and Mistake that must flow from Hypocrisy and Design I reject his comparison and in plain and sober words deny his Charge as a most abominable Falsehood and Slander In p. 31. he quarrels with G. Whitehead for saying S. Eccles's intent in those words No more than the Blood of another Saint was as to Papists and you whose minds are Carnal who oppose the Light within and also simply as to the Essence of the Blood which you dare not say is still in being To the first part of this Sentence he says This never was my Quakerism For my belief all along was that Papists and Baptists and all have a benefit by Christ's Death And so was G. Whitehead's too Because his Death being a general Attonement for all that shall believe in and receive him all are thereby put into a Capacity by receiving and believing in him to attain unto Salvation But if any whether Papists Baptists or other being carnally minded which is or brings Death Rom. 8.6 do in their carnal mind Oppose the Light within and continue so to do of what particular benefit to the Salvation of the Soul will the Blood of Christ be to them Therefore G. Keith in this as in almost all places deals unfairly with G. Whitehead neither taking his right sense nor giving his full words For what G. Whitehead delivered as S. E's intent with respect to such Papists and Baptists whose minds are carnal and who Oppose the Light within that G. Keith extends to Papists and Baptists Vniversally and draws his Conclusion accordingly thus Now it is come to this says he That the Blood of Christ is no more to Papists and Baptists than the Blood of another Saint As if all Papists and Baptists quâ tales must of necessity be carnally minded and oppose the Light within In like manner he deals with him in the latter part of that Sentence viz. And also simply as to the essence of the Blood which you dare not say is still in being c. Which plainly appears to have been Spoken ad hominem only upon the Baptists Notion that that Blood which was shed was not in being Yet upon this G. Keith descants alledging what no Quaker that I know of ever denied viz. That it was never defiled with Sin and had a Miraculous Conception but wholly conceals those other words of G. Whitehead's which in his Book immediately follow But not as to the Spiritual Virtue and Testimony which is still in being Which said G. Whitehead S. E. owned to be his Intention And that plainly proves that S. E. owned the Blood shed was more than the Blood of another Saint as to the Spiritual Virtue and Testimony of it But says G. Keith Let us consider these words of S. E. which G. Whitehead saith might satisfy any Spiritual or unbyassed man viz. I do very highly esteem of the Blood of Christ to be more excellent c. There G. Keith stops with an c. which he should not have done For if he had a mind to save the Transcribing those other good Epithets Living Holy Precious which S. E. added to the Blood yet he should not have overppassed those explanatory Words of S. E's which follow viz. I mean the Blood which was offered up in the Eternal Spirit Heb. 9.14 The words of that Scripture are How much more shall the Blood of Christ who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without Spot or fault to God purge your Consciences c. Hence it is evident that by the Blood of Christ which S. E. said he so highly esteemed he meant the Blood that was of and in that Body which was offered up upon the Cross For he refers expresly to this Scripture which Speaks directly of that Offering This G. Keith unfairly but like himself concealed and then cries out Here 's S. E's Fallacy and G. Whitehead's Fallacy also But I think he will not be able to make it out without the help of one of his former Tricks nor even with it Thus he goes on Now you know what Blood they mean and see what Blood G. Whitehead means The Blood is Spiritual and Inward the other is a Type If they know what we mean it is a sign we mean as we speak and write for they could not know our meaning but by our speaking or writing But such as mean to know our meaning aright will do well to take it from our selves not from an unjust and implacable Enemy That the Blood is Spiritual and that it is inward as well as outward and outward as well as inward I grant But that the outward is a Type is not the saying nor meaning of the Quakers but a meaning invented by G. Keith to put a Trick upon us He quotes G. Whitehead's Book Light and Life p. 56. both in his Gross Error p. 17. and here thus It is confessed that God by his own Blood Purchased to himself a Church Acts 20.28 Now the Blood of God or that Blood that relates to God must needs be Spiritual he being a Spirit and the Covenant of God is inward and Spiritual and so is the Blood of it Upon this says G. Keith Nar. p. 31. So you see he doth not allow the Blood outwardly shed to relate to God or to be the Blood of the New Covenant or that God Purchased his Church with that Blood outwardly shed on the Cross. Why so I pray G. Whitehead said nothing against the Blood outwardly shed on the Cross but having to do with a Baptist who would have the Blood to be only outward and not Spiritual and who as G. Whitehead cites him in that 56 p. confessed he was as Ignorant of any such Blood as may be G. Whitehead asserted the Blood of God by which he purchased to himself a Church and the Blood of the New Covenant to be Spiritual not only outward as the Type of it was And will G. Keith say that the Blood of Christ which was outwardly shed had no Spirituality in it nor might in any sense be called Spiritual considering the Miraculous conception of the Body whereof the Blood was a Principal part through the overshadowing of the Power of the Highest G. Keith might have remembred that when he was in The way to the City of God which now he hath turned his Back upon he writ thus p. 131. Even according to that Birth to wit his outward Birth he was the Son of God no less than the Son of Man as having God for his Father as he had the Virgin Mary for his Mother Now the Child we know doth partake an Image or Nature from both Parents and thus did Christ who did partake of the Nature and Image of
he said I will not do it it is not convenient there is one of them a Citizen of very good repute and therefore it will be better to conceal his name Can there be any thing but Hypocrisy in this pretence For is not G. Whitehead a Citizen of very good repute also And yet so far has G. Keith been from concealing his name that he has endeavoured to blemish his name as much as in him lies and to load him with Infamy and Slander Besides being urged again to tell his name He answers I think it not convenient we must use a little Policy as well as you This more fully shews his Deceit who before pretended Charity in concealing the Persons names but now discovers the Ground thereof was Policy But to be sure he shewed no Policy in that I might justly enough reject this story wholly and tell him as he did his Countryman Iohn Alexander who charged a Misinterpretation of Scripture upon some of the Quakers without naming whom Seeing he has produced no names of any among us understanding that c. We are not concern'd to answer him Truth 's Defence p. 67. And again in p. 77. to a like Charge made by I. Alexander against some Quakers without naming them He says He ought to have produced their names or we are not bound to believe him that any have said so May I not with as good reason say so to G. Keith in this Case especially seeing he refused to name them tho' so earnestly pressed to it As he says they were three Ministers so he charges them with three great Errors 1. That they said Christ's Body did never rise out of the Grave 2. That they denied it was lawful to pray to Jesus Christ Crucified 3. That they could come to God without the Mediator the Man Christ Jesus These are so Contrary to our known Principles that I cannot believe his Charge to be true as he has given it He says he can appeal to W. Penn and G. Whitehead But is it not strange he should pick out them two from amongst forty or fifty that he says were present to appeal to when he has made them the common Butts to shoot the Arrows of his Envy at through the greatest part of his Narrative Could he find none to appeal to out of forty or fifty but them Well I have enquired of them both Concerning it W. Penn faith he doth not Remember it G. Whitehead doth Remember that some but not near so many as G. Keith mentions had some Discourse with him about that time upon something that he had written but that any of them said Christ's Body did never rise out of the Grave Or that they could come to God without the Mediator the Man Christ Jesus Or that Paul was Dark and Ignorant which in Nar. p. 38 39. G. Keith Charges on them he says He neither heard nor doth believe But that some Discourse did pass betwixt him and them Concerning praying to Christ he doth Remember but believes it was not altogether as G. Keith hath related it However it was I observe that in one part of that Story even as G. Keith hath given it he clears W. Penn and G. Whitehead and represents them as taking part with him against those others who he says opposed him For he here says that upon their denying that it was lawful to Pray to Jesus Christ Crucified and daring him to give an Instance of one English Quaker that he ever heard Pray to Christ W. Penn said I am an English Man and a Quaker and I own I have oft Prayed to Jesus Christ even him that was Crucified And that G. Whitehead to prove the lawfulness thereof took the Bible and Read 1 Cor. 1.2 To all that call upon the Lord Jesus Christ both their Lord and ours It is evident from hence that both W. Penn and G. Whitehead did in G. Keith's sence and defence own Chrst even him that was Crucified to be the Object of Faith and that not only now of late as G. Keith would have it but so long ago as 1678. which is Eighteen Years past This quite overthrows all he has said before of their denying the Object of Faith and may well pass with all Ingenuous Readers for a full Confutation of all his Clamours upon that Head against them But though he has hereby acquitted them yet I see not how he will acquit himself For this he says was in 1678. which was Eighteen Years ago and yet in 1692. which was but four Years ago he told Cotton Mather in Print That according to the best knowledge he had of the People called Quakers and these most generally owned by them as Preachers and Publishers of their Faith of unquestioned esteem among them and worthy of double Honour as many such there are he knew none that were guilty of any one of such Heresies and Blasphemies as he accuseth them Serious Appeal p 7. And to shew that he had ground for what he said he added a little lower in the same page And I think I should know and do know these called Quakers better than C. Mather 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 twenty-eight Years past and that in many places in the World in Europe and and for these divers Years in America What must we think of this That he writ a Falsehood then or spake a Falsehood now But be that as it will The Fourth and last Head of G. Keith's Charge viz. That we deny Christ's Coming without us in his Glorified Body to Iudge the Quick and the Dead Considered In p. 39. he says I will cite a passage or two out of a Manuscript from Pensilvania but instead of that says See the Book called Light and Life p. 41. See what is here said by G. Whitehead That there is not an outward coming of Christ to Iudge the Quick and the Dead What I prove from G. Whitehead says he is proved from W. Penn for W. Penn has Authorized his Book This he has hinted in several places of his Narrative referring sometimes to p. 185 186. of Reason against Railing where W. Penn mentioned divers Books which he referr'd the Adversaries to in defence of our Principles I presume he will find no cause to be sorry for having mentioned any of those Books unless it be such as G. Keith was either solely or partly the Author of But if W. Penn's so mentioning those Books doth so Intitle him to them as to render him accountable for whatsover is in them I would know of G. Keith why he should not for the same reason he accountable for whatsoever is in those Books which G. Whitehead and W. Penn have written in Answer to T. Hicks and I. Eâ—ldo since he with as much Approbation has mentioned those Answers in his Serious Appeal p. 6. and 60. and yet those are
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
makes a Verbal Confession yea a bare verbal Confession sufficient to yoak them as he phrases it together in Church-Fellowship Now the leaving out the first Part of my Words is injurious to the Sense of the Latter For it makes as if the latter Part viz. That he makes abare verbal Confession sufficient to Yoak them together in Church-Fellowship had been an Assertion of mine whereas it is but an Inference from the former and that former an Inference from his Words there quoted For I did not affirm he makes a bare verbal Confession sufficient to Yoak them c. But from his saying we are convinced c. that God calleth us to separate c. and not to be yoaked in Church-Fellowship c. with any that we have not proof of by Confession of the Mouth that they are sound in Faith I inferr'd 1. That he made a verbal Confession a proof of their being sound in the Faith And 2. That his doing so his making a Verbal Confession a Proof of their being sound in the Faith makes a verbal Confession yea a bare verbal Confession sufficient to yoak in Church-Fellowship Now in this I do not apprehend I did him any wrong at all either in the Inferences or in ending the Quotation where I did and not giving the Words now added in the Paper Touching these necessary and fundamental Principles it should have been Parts of Christian Doctrine as well as that their Conversation is such as becomes the Gospel c. For the necessary Parts of Christian Doctrine are comprehended in the Words sound in Faith and Conversation was not in the Terms of the Debate and therefore not proper to have been there put in G. Keith's Clamour therefore in Nar. p. 48. is groundless where he says Take notice how they the supposed Authors of his Paper notifie his Forgery that he leaves out my Words This may be rather câ—lled his Forgery For the Paper he read says nothing of Forgery but only mentions what Words I left out without passing any Censure or making any Observation upon it The Third Head of that Paper is That in Page 103. T. Ellwood accuseth G. Keith for giving of false Quotation or forging Quotation this is the Scotch Dialect by which I guess who framed it out of R. Barclay's Book Then it saâ—s G. Keith's Quotation compared with R. Barclay 's agrees as quoted Reasons and Causes c. p. 16. For Substance of Doctrine p. 24 25 26. in express VVords and adds p. 106. T. Ellwood admits of Substance In the Margin is set Let the Quotations be read out of R. Barclay's Anar Now whereas G. Keith's pretended Advocates or Compurgators say here that G. Keith's Quotation compared with R. Barclay's agâ—ees as quoted Reasons and Causes p. 16. for Substance of Doctrine I deny it and that upon good ground having now again examined the one with the other And I put both G. Keith and all his Advocates upon it to make it appear if they can The mentioning the Quotations G. Keith gave in p. 24 25 26. of Reasons and Causes out of R. Barclay is nothing to the purpose if they do agree because it was not in those Pages that I charged him with false quoting But in my Epistle First I taxed him with wronging R. Barclay in the Words he gave in his Causeless Ground p. 8. as the express Doctrine and Testimony of R. Barclay in his Anarchy p 48. and I shewed it and plainly proved it by comparing the places together And in p. 61 62. of that Epistle I shewed a like abuse he had put upon R. Barclay and his Reader in his Reasons and Causes p. 16. in giving that Passage as R. Barclay's Doctrine in Anarchy p. 32 33 48 49. which was neither his Words nor his Doctrine And though he would have shuffled this off in his Seasonable Information p. 34 35. Yet I would not suffer him so to do but in my Further Discovery p. 101 102 103 104 105 106. drove him out of all his Holes and Subterfuges about it and fixed it as a false Quotation on him which neither he has cleared himself nor his Advocates have acquiâ—ted him of nor can Whereas they say T. Ellwood admits of Substance they speak not plainly If they mean that in p. 106. which they mention I admit G. Keith to have given the Substance of R. Barclay's Doctrine in that Quotation Reasons and Causes p. 16. which I taxed him for I deny it I only say there He hath not attempted to prove that this is the Doctrine or Substance of the Doctrine of R. Barclay in that Book by producing now R. Barclay's own Words to manifest it This is not admitting G. Keith's Quotation to be the Substance of R. Barclay's Doctrine there But to remove this conceit wholly I said in the Page but just before viz. p. 105. Ye see now G. Keith not only confesses they are not his VVords but dares not adventure to say they are plainly and directly his Doctrine but the Substance of his Doctrine And yet said I even that I deny I say they are neither R. Barclay's VVords nor Doctrine nor the Substance of his Doctrine What now may we suppose to be meant by those Words in the Paper T. Ellwood admits of Substance Why if we may Credit G. Keith in his Commentary upon it Nar. p. 48. He says These Men take notice that T. Ellwood is unfair in taking that Liberty to himself he will not allow to me They adds he observe he admits of Substance of Doctrine in his own Citations but will not allow it to me Whence will he pretend to have this The Paper he read and has Printed says nothing of it nothing towards it nothing like it This therefore I charge upon him as a plain downright Falshood and Forgery The fourth Head of that Paper is That in Further Discovery p. 19. T. Ellwood accuses G. Keith that he blames Friends that they were gone too much from the Outward to the Inward But G. Keith p. 20. it should be p. 10. which T. Ellwood brings for Proof says That he blames some Persons for not rightly and fully preaching Christ without So that T. Ellwood's Consequences seems not fair but strain'd This is weakness at least I shewed in that page that the word too much there related to their going from the Outward which I proved he blamed Friends for by his own saying Seas Inform. p. 10. I have blamed some Persons for not rightly and fully Preaching Christ without Now if according to him they did not Preach Christ without righâ—ly nor fully then according to him they were gone too much from the Outward And so my Consequence was not Strain'd but fair The fifth Head says p. 22. T. Ellwood accuseth G. Keith of a Fallacy in declaring he refused not to go forth at the Yearly Meeting which Fallacy alledged was that G. Keith should refuse to go out some one Day of the Yearly Meeting But that not appearing
to us by any Quotation the supposed Fallacy appears not Well What then Whether it appear'd to them or not the Fallacy is nevertheless certain And though I could not give a Quotation to prove it having only his Books to quote out of Yet I writ it not upon surmise but upon Sufficient â—â—ound and G. Keith so well knows it to be true that he has not had the boldness to deny it There is another part of this Head which says And further Whereas T. Ellwood alledges that he was led into this mistake by G. Keith's obscure way of writing for altho' in p. 14. nor 18. of the Book Reasons and Causes as T. Ellwood unduly Argueth yet in p. 3. Plea of the Innocent quoted by himself p. 19. of his first Book called An Epistle c. We find G. Keith gives account the Yearly Meeting at Philadelphia was in the first week of the 7 th Month 1691. This looks like G. Keith's work both by the Imperfectness of the Sense and the disposing of the words so that the Fallacy I had charged him with might pass for a Mistake of mine Whereas the Fallacy I charged him with was His saying he did go out at the Yearly Meeting to contradict my saying he refused to go out at the Yearly Meeting whereas there being several Meetings in that time of the Yearly Meeting he did go out at some or one of them but refused to go out at the rest But the Mistake that I was led into by his obscure way of writing was that the place of his Book which I then quoted to prove he refused to go out of the Yearly Meeting which was p. 14. Of Reasons and Causes spake not of the Yearly Meeting but another as I remember the Quarterly Meeting For that he did refuse to go out at two several Meetings that Book of his confesses p. 14. and p. 18 I complained that I was led into that Mistake by his obscure way of writing in not setting down the times wherein those Meetings were held and shewed that in those pages of that Book of his wherein those Meetings were spoken of there is neither Day Month nor Year set wherein either the Quartely or Yearly Meeting was held They blame me for blaming him for his obscurity and say though it was not in p 14. nor 18. nor indeed any where of that Book yet it was in p. 3. of another Book and so it may be in p. 13. of another Book beside that for ought I know But it was not at all in that Book which I mentioned where the Matter was treated of and where it ought to have been G. Keith upon this Rants at an high rate Nar. p. 49. and says You see he argues like a rare Logician He says I don't name the Year nor Day nor is it in p. 14. nor p. 18. But what then I do it in another page says he Ay so he did indeed But that other page was in another Book This is rare Logick says he And this is rarer Iuggling say I to set down his Matter in one Book and the time of it in another Book that he might hide himself puzzle his Reader and trepan his Opponent How could he or his Advocates either expect that I should have recourse to his Plea of the Innocent to find the date of a Meeting treated of in his Reasons and Causes Oh says G. Keith he has quoted that for another purpose True but as it was for another purpose so it was in another Book written at another time not in that wherein I complained of his Omissions but in the Epistle written three Months before The sixth Head is almost such another Cavil depending upon the uncertain Dates of some of their Meetings in Pensilvania wherein their Controversies had been handled G. Keith had complained that the Yearly Meeting there had not given a right Judgment against W. Stockdale I shewed that they had He thereupon asks Why did they contradict the Sound Iudgment of a Monthly Meeting at Philadelphia passing due Censure upon W. S. six Months thereafter I took and yet take the Monthly Meeting he speaks of to have been held six Months after that Yearly Meeting and thereupon askt him how the Judgment of the First could be said to contradict that of the Latter seeing the Latter was not in being when the First was given To this he says Nar. p. 49. Pray May not a Meeting held six Months after Contradict a Meeting going before I am charged say he that I cannot Speak Sense And why Because he T. Ellwood feigns that I said a Meeting six Months before Contradicted a Meeting held six Months after it when there is no such thing says he But that a Meeting six Months after Contradicts a Meeting six Months before Thus G. Keith But how falsly shall quickly be made appear and that both by G. Keith himself and his Advocates I ask therefore Which of the two Meetings the Yearly or the Monthly did Contradict the other Which of them was it that was Contradicted by the other G. Keith resolves this plainly in his Seasonable Information p. 11. by saying Why did they viz. the Yearly Meeting Contradict the sound Judgment of a Monthly Meeting at Philadelphia passing due Censure upon W. Stockdale six Months thereafter This is enough to shew that according to G. Keith it was the Yearly Meeting that did Contradict the Monthly that was Contradicted and yet both he here acknowledges that that Monthly Meeting was six Months after that Yearly Meeting and his Advocates undertake to Demonstrate it by giving the dates of Each viz. That of the Yearly Meeting the 1 st of the seventh Month 1691. That of the adjourned Meeting wâ—ich is the same that he calls the Monthly Meeting the 27 th of the 12 th Mo. 1691. And expresly say it was six Months after the Yearly Meeting Now if it was the Yearly Meeting that did Contradict and the Monthly Meeting that was Contradicted and that Yearly Meeting was six Months before that Monthly Meeting as from G. Keith's and his Advocates own words before cited I have proved that it was then that which was six Months before did according to G. Keith contradict that which came six Months after Which how great Nonsense it is G. Keith has already resolved But he cannot acquit himself of it nor of a down right Falshood with too great Boldness delivered to have excused himself from being too apt as Learned as he is to write Nonsense Of this I expect he should clear himself or Confess himself Guilty of both Nonsense and which is worse Falshood In the seventh Head p. 48. Having quoted several pages and recited some words out of my Further Discovery as p. 35 36 37 and 42 and 43. Where I treated about the Separation made by G. Keith in America they say Whereas T. Ellwood should have brought Matter of Fact to prove G. Keith guilty of the Separation instead thereof he argues as we
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
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