some of the principal Books he picks his Cavils out of against G. Whitehead and W. Penn. Now let us see how G. Keith deals with G. Whitehead in the Quotation he brings against him Observe that first he says See what is here said by G. Whitehead That there is not an outward Coming of Christ to Iudge the Quick and Dead therefore look well to his Quotation and mind to find those words in it He begins the Quotation thus Moreover Christ said the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his Angels c. There G. Keith stops with an c. Citing Mat. 1â— 27 28 Luke 9.26 27. But leaves out the remaining words in those Scriptures which in Matthew follow thus And then he shall Reward every Man according to his Works Verily I say unto you There be some standing here which shall not taste of Death till they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom Why G. Keith left out these words I may shew anon Now he goes on with G. Whitehead's words thus Now what is that Glory of the Father in which his Coming is Is it Visible to the Carnal Eye And when was that coming to be Is it now to be looked for outwardly But farther we do acknowledge the several comings of Christ according to the Scriptures both that in the Flesh and that in the Spirit which is Manifest in several degrees as there is a growing from Glory to Glory But three Comings of Christ not only that in the Flesh at Ierusalem and that in the Spirit but also another coming in the Flesh yet to be expected we do not Read of but a Second Coming without Sin unto Salvation which in the Apostles Days was looked for this latter Clause he cited before in his Gross Errror p. 2. Now Reader observe First That those words G. Keith charges to be here said by G. Whitehead viz That there is not an outward Coming of Christ to judge the Quick and the Dead are not here That 's but an Inference of G. Keith's own making though he unfairly pretended G. VVhitehead said it Next he left out those words in the Text Mat. 16.28 Verily I say unto you There are some standing here which shall not taste of Death until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom Upon which words those Questions of G. Whitehead were grounded When was that coming to be Is it now to be looked for outwardly For that coming there spoken of by Christ Mat. 16.27 could not be meant of his coming at the end of the World because it was to begin in that very Age some then living and present with him were to see it before they died There are some standing here which shall not taste of Death until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom By his Kingdom saith Beza is to be understood the Glory of his Ascension and what followeth thereof Ephes. 4.10 or the Preaching of the Gospel In the latter part of the Quotation G. Whitehead had respect to the Baptists Notion of an Outward Personal Coming of Christ in a Fleshly Appearance to reign on Earth a thousand years And it is with relation to such a manner of coming in an outward Body of Flesh to reign Personally on Earth for a certain time as an Outward King that he there said after he had acknowledged the several Comings of Christ according to the Scriptures both that in the Flesh and that in the Spirit But three Comings of Christ not only that in the Flesh at Ierusalem and that in the Spirit but also another coming in the Flesh yet to be expected we do not read of And indeed how should he if G. Keith says true Way cast up p. 131. that That Body which was crucified on the Cross at Ierusalem and is now ascended and glorified in Heaven is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure ethereal or heavenly Body But that G. Whitehead's words there related to such a Coming of Christ in an outward Body of outward Flesh visible to Carnal Eyes therein to reign as an outward King after an outward manner a thousand years on Earth which some Baptists call the Personal Reign of Christ may be gather'd also from another Book of G. Whitehead's called Christ Ascended written near the same time in Answer to Iohn Newman a Baptist where having in p. 22. treated of Christs coming so as that his Appearance shall be universally seen both to the Joy of the Righteous and universal Conviction and Condemnation of the wicked c. he speaks p. 23. of the disappointment of them who are expecting that Christs second Coming or Appearance to Salvation will be a Personal Coming and his Reign a Personal Reign which word Personal they add to the Scripture and do they not herein shew their Carnal Expectations said he G. Keith has another Cavil in this page which also he had in p. 3. of his Gross Error against G. Whitehead about 1 Thes. 4.17 which he says G. Whitehead denies to be meant of his Personal Coming G. Whitehead then it seems did not deny it to be meant of Christs Coming and of his Coming to Iudgment but that which he excepted against was such a Carnal sort of Personal Coming as the Baptists expected him to come in and as is mentioned before To shew the Baptists the folly of which he asks them from those words of the Apostle both in the 15th and 17th Verses We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord if they did live and remain to a Personal Coming of Christ in the Clouds yea or nay Which G. Keith sophistically calls a Sophism to wrest it to his inward Coming Whereas G. Whitehead did not turn it to his inward Coming nor did he use the word inward in that place at all But he shewed by the Description Iohn gave of him when he saw him in the midst of the Seven Golden Candlesticks that such an outward Coming as the Baptists looked for him in in such a Personal Appearance as should be visible to the carnal Eye was not suitable to him But whereas G. Keith says both in his gross Error p. 5. and here also The Apostle's using the word we there we that remain is an Enallage Personae putting we for They like that of Iames Therewith bless we God and therewith curse we Men Iames 3 9. Though he delivers it positively and like a Dictator yet I see not why he must needs be believed Why might not the Apostle speak in the first Person we as supposing that great and extraordinary Appearance and Coming of Christ the certain time of which no Man knew Mat. 24.36 was so near at hand that it might probably fall out in his Life-time For as the Apostles accounted the Times they lived in the Last Days or Last Times and ordinarily called them so Heb. 1.2 and 9.26 1 Pet. 1.20 1 Iohn 2.18 so they thought the End of
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
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
his Divine Seed and Body extended into us And thus he is the incarnate Word or Word made Flesh dwelling in our Flesh c. VVay cast up p. 133. And G. Keith in his answer to the Rector of Arrow said I put thee to prove by any one place in all the Scripture that Christ hath now any other Flesh or Body but that which is Spiritual Rector Corrected p. 24. and again p. 54. As concerning the Body of Christ that was Crucified was it not again raised up to be made a living Body And after he arose and ascended was it not a Spiritual Body Why then says G. Keith to the Rector sayst thou shew a syllable that intimates a spiritual Body Is not Christ's Body a spiritual Body which he hath now in the Heavens Shew a Syllable that Christ hath any other Body but that which is spiriâ—ual And p. 55 he says What is that Body of Christ mentioned by the Apostle Col. 2.17 which puts an end unto the outward Observation of Meats and Drinks new Moons and Sabbath-days Is that only the outward Body that was Crucified If thou sayst yea then thou dividest Christ whereas Christ is not divided And p. 44. he says That there is no such a distance betwixt Christ that is gone into the Holiest and his Saints upon Earth as thou imaginest see but ver 19 20 21 22. of Heb. 10. And in p. 23. speaking of the Power and Vertue of the Body of Christ that rose and ascended a spiritual and glorious Body he says But this vertue is not any visible thing nor is the glorified Body of Christ visible Flesh and therefore says he to the Rector thou dost grosly erre to say as thou dost the Son of Man is visible Flesh For seeing the Body of Christ is glorified and wholly spiritual as the Body of every true Believer shall be at the Resurrection how can it be visible Flesh And adds he Christ the second Adam is called in Scripture the quickning Spirit but not visible Flesh. Therefore says he in this see how he banters him thou ' dost grosly erre and needest Correction None of these Passages hath ever yet been retracted by G. Keith that I have seen or heard of and therefore he is the more to be blamed for blaming G. Whitehead for asserting Christ's Body to be a glorified spiritual Body not a gross carnal visible Body of Flesh which he himself says it is not He hath one Cavil more upon this Head against G. Whitehead and a mâ—â—r Cavil it seems to be He grounds it on a passage he takes out of a Book of G. Whitehead's called The He goats Horn broken written about 36 years ago in answer to two Books written by three Opposers whereof one was named Io. Horn and G. Keith seems to fancy that this Book of G. Whitehead's had that Title as alluding to the Name of Iohn Horn and he took occasion from thence to make himself and his Auditors some Sport about it Nar. p. 19. But unless he had beâ—ter ground to go upon than bare likeness in â—ound of words he may be mistaken for all that For I could shew him a Book written some years before that by R. Hubberthorn called The Horn of the He-goat broken in Answer to a Book published by one Tho. Winterton betwixt which Name and Title there is not the least likeness of sound That which G. Keith objects to G. Whitehead here is That he contradicts a passage in his Opponents Book which G. Keith says if he understands any thing of true Divinity or Theology is a sound Passage viz. That our Nature Kind or Being as in us not in Christ is corrupt and filthy in it self yet Christ took upon him our Nature not as it is filthy in us by sin in it c. How sound this Passage is I will not here dispute because I would not dilate Controversie to feed a carping Mind in a peevish Adversary neither will I presume to question G. Keith's understanding any thing of true Divinity lost I should be thought as ignorant as he is arrogant But yet I think it may be worthy of consideration how far that Passage is sound which says Our Nature Kind or Being is corrupt and filthy in it self not only as in us by sin in it but in it self And how suitable it was for Christ to take upon him a Nature that was corrupt and filthy in it self That Christ took on him the Nature of Man though it be not in Scripture exprest in those terms that I remember may in a right sense for the word Nature is taken in divers Acceptations be admitted The Scripture says he took upon him the form of a Servant and was made in the likeness of Men Phil. 2.7 And that Forasmuch as the Children are Partakers of Flesh and Blood he also himself likewise took part of the same Heb. 2.14 And in verse 16. it is said He took on him the Seed of Abraham But the Margin expresses it more agreeably to the Greek as G. Keith knows thus He taketh not hold of Angels but of the Seed of Abraham he taketh hold Now I do not find by G. Whitehead's Answer that he denies that Christ took Mans Nature but that he taxes his Opponents with Confusion in two respectsâ— one for that they excepted against his former wording of their Assertion thus That their Nature is restored in Christ and yet that their Nature is a filthy Nature and Christ took upon him their Nature The other that to free themselves from the imputation of Confusion in the former they say He might as well have taxed the Apostle with Confusion for saying Men by Nature do the things contained in the Law Rom. 2.14 And yet by Nature Children of wrath Ephes. 2.3 In which two places G. Keith I presume will not deny the word Nature to be used very differently Now to this G. Whitehead's Answer was We may justly tax thâ—se Men with Confusion indeed but not the Apostle for here they cannot discern between the sinful Nature and the pure Nature for the Nature of Christ is pure so that it 's not their Nature for their Nature is filthy and therefore it is not in Christ that is as it is filthy Then he goes on to shew their Confusion in the other part And their bringing that of Rom. 2.14 Ephes. 2.3 together to prove their confusion sheweth that they cannot discern between that Nature by which Men do the things contained in the Law and that Nature by which Men break the Law and are Children of wrath but make as if it were all one Now I do not â—ind G. Keith is able to make any great advantage by his Cavil against G. Whitehead He says indeed Our blessed Lord might well take on him our Nature and the Nature in us be sinful and in him pure and holy But will he say that that Nature which our Lord took on him was sinful or corrupt and filthy in it self Which
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
to Friends Printed in 1694. from p. 51. to p. 56. And again in another Book of mine called A further Discovery Printed the same Year from p. 93. to p. 98. Which latter is one of those Books G. Keith hath not replied to He taxes VV. Penn with uncharitable Dealing in saying above The whole Christian VVorld has lazily depended on it Is there none says he in the Christian VVorld but the Quakers that thiâ—st after the Power of God in their Souls I was never so uncharitable to think so cryes he But had he had either Charity or Iustice he would not have thought VV. Penn by saying the whole Christian World intended every individual Person in the Christian World When the Apostle Iohn said The whole VVorld lieth in wickedness 1 John 5.19 Did he mean there was not one Person in the whole World but what lay in Wickedness When Iohn said All the VVorld wondred after the Beast Rev. 13.3 Did he mean every individual Person in the World No sure the VVoman that fled into the Wilderness Chap. 12.6 did not wonder after the Beast for she fled from the Beast When Mathew says The whole City came out to meet Jesus Mat. 8.34 Did he mean that there was never a man nor woman left in the City G. Keith knows that that way of speaking is Figurative used Synâ—chdochically the greater part being taken for the whole And in his Serious Appeal in Answer to Cot. Mather p. 9. he could urge that by way of Defence saying The Denomination of a thing is taken chiefly from that which is the greatest part and he might have taken it so here had not Enmity had too great a part in him For in p. 7. of the same Book W. Penn mentions Churches which is more extensive than particular Persons in these latter Ages in whom there might once have been begotten some earnest living Thirst after the inward Life of Righteousness This G. Keith might well have observed for he makes another Cavil out of the foregoing part of this very Sentence which was this p. 6 7. The Distinction betwixt Moral and Christian the making Holy Life legal and Faith in the History of Christ's outward Manifestation Christianity so it should be read the Words Christianity and Manifestation being transposed and misplaced in the Printing as is obvious has been a dâ—adly Poyson these latter Ages have been infected with to the Destruction of Godly Living and Apostatizing of those Churches in whom there might once have been begotten some earnest living Thirst after the inward Life of Righteousness This Passage depends upon the different Definitions of Christianity given by I. Faldo and W. Penn. I. Faldo it seems defining Christianity said By Christianity we are not to understand all those Matters of Faith and Practice which Christianity doth oblige us unto This W. Penn excepted against as reckoning that All those Matters of Faith and Practice which Christianity doth oblige us unto might well pass for Christianity Yet Faldo having granted that Christianity takes in whatever is worthy in those Religions it hath superâ—edâ—d yea the very Heathens From those Words VV. Penn inferred This then does not make Christianity a distinct thing in kind from what was worthy as he calls it that is Godly among either Iews or Heathen This is in p. 2 3. of VV. Penn's Book called Quakerism a New Nick-name for Old Christianity and having argued upon it in p. 4 5 and 6. and shewed the hurt and mischief that ensues upon rejecting Moral Vertues from being any part of Christianity he there concludes in the Words G. Keith carps at viz The Distinction betwixt Moral and Christian the making Holy Life legal and Faith in the History of Christ's outward Manifestation Christianity has been a deadly Poyson these latter Ages have been infected with to the Destruction of Godly Living c. As tending to perswade People too apt to be easily perswaded to looseness that a bare historical Belief of Christ's outward Appearance in the Flesh is of more value and advantage to them than a Vertuous Pious Godly Life To this G. Keith tacks another Proof as he calls it against W. Penn and then makes his Reflection on both together That other Proof he takes out of W. Penn's Address to Protestants p. 118 119. thus For it seems a most unreasonable thing that Faith in God and keeping his Commandments should be no part of the Christian Religion But if a part it be as upon serious Reflection who dare deny it then those before and since Christ's Time who never had the external Law nor History yet have done the things contained in the Law their Consciences not accusing nor Hearts condemning but excusing them before God are in some degree concerned in the Character of a true Christian. For Christ himself preached and kept his Father's Commandments he came to fulfil and not to destroy the Law and that not only in his own Person but that the Righteousness of the Law might be also fulfilled in us Rom. 8.4 Now says G. Keith comes the main thing Let us but soberly consider What Christ is and we shall the better know whetheâ— Moral Men are to be reckoned Christians What is Christ but Meekness Iustice Mercy Patience Charity and Virtue in Perfection Can we then deny a meek Man to be a Christian A Iust a Merciful a Patient a Charitable and a Virtuous Man to be like Christ G. Keith says In this way of arguing there is a Fallacy These Moral Vertues he says are a part of a Christian and belong to the Genus of a Christian. But there are two things in the true Definition of a Man the Genus and the Differentia They have the Genus says he but not the Differentia And I pray which is of most moment in this Case the Genus or the Differentia To have the Kind and Nature of a Christian or to have only some outward Character or discriminating Difference to distinguish a Christian from a Child of God as namely an historical Faith of Christ's outward Appearance in the Flesh at Ierusalem But since G. Keith allows these Moral Virtues to be a part of a Christian he needed not on this score have fallen so foul on W. Penn for he might have observed in those Words himself has cited that that which seemed to W. Penn so unreasonable a thing was That Faith in God and keeping his Commandments should be no part that is should by some be accounted no part of the Christian Religion And the Inference he made from what he had offered to shew it was a part of the Christian Religion was that If it be a part he does not say If it be the whole Then those before and since Christ's time who never had the external Law or History yet have done the things contained in the Law c. are in some degree concern'd in the Character of a true Christian. But for that extravagant Inference G. Keith would draw from W.
called the Christian Quaker c. Where in Answer to T. Danson's saying The Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body its dear and beloved Companion the Soul having a strong Desire and Inclination to a Re-union to the Body as the Schools not without ground determine vide Calvin He gives a part of G. Whitehead's Answer as also he did in his Gross Error p. 11. thus Both Calvin T. Danson and the Schools and divers Anabaptists are mistaken in this very Matter and see not with the Eye of true Faith either that the Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body or that the Soul hath a strong Desire to a Re-union to the Body while they intend the Terrestrial Elementary Bodies For this implies the Soul to be in a kind of Purgatory or Disquietness till the supposed Resumption of the Body This place as that of G. Whitehead and of W. Penn cited before speaks not of Resurrection of the Body but of the supposed Imperfection of the Souls Happiness without the Body and the strong Desire they fancy it hath to a Re-union to the Body which the immediately following Part of G. Whitehead's Answer left wholly out by G. Keith here and not fully given in his Gross Error though he confidently says Nar. p. 37. I have quoted full Periods at length plainly shews For says G. Whitehead there And their Assertion and Determination therein is contrary to what the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 5. For we know that if our earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God an House not made with Hands Eternal in the Heavens ver 1. For we that are in this Tabernacle do groan being burdened c. ver 4. We are confident I say and willing rather to be absent from the Body and to be present with the Lord ver 8. And said he the Apostle I am in a strait betwixt two having a desire to depart c. Phil. 1.23 It is manifest I say from hence that G. Whitehead's Words cited by G. Keith related directly to that Notion of T. Danson and others That the Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body and that the Soul hath a strong Desire to a Re-union to the Body to which he opposed those Words of the Apostle before recited Yet from hence G. Keith tells his Hearers You see I hope here is Proof enough that G. Whitehead holds that the deceased Saints look for no Resurrection of the Body But in this he concludes unfairly For the Words he gives for Proof do not prove he held so Here G. Keith was put in Mind it seems that G. Whitehead said Elementary Bodies which he did and Terrestrial also to which G. Keith replies What other Body could it be As much as to say What other Body could the Soul desire to be re-united to but a Terrestrial Elementary Body For of such Bodies G. Whitehead spake as the Soul was said to have a strong desire of re-union to which was the Terrestrial Elementary Body which T. Danson said had been it's dear and beloved Companion So that it seems according to G. Keith it must be a Terrestrial Elementary Body after it is re-united to the Soul in Heaven What other Body could it be says G. Keith But he is fain to step down into his Ditch to fetch up a little of his Ditch-Philosophy to make it out by I hope says he a little Philosophy will not offend you The Objection says he they make is the same against Christ's Body Pray says he Was not Christ's Body Elementary Did he not Eat and Drink And was it not the same as we Eat and Drink And if we Eat and Drink of what are Elementary then his Body did receive the same Elements and they were converted into his Body First let me tell him the Objection made against a Resurrection of Terrestrial Elementary Bodies is not the same against Christ's Body For there was a difference between Christ's Body and the Bodies of other Men. His was a more excellent Body with respect to its Generation G. Keith hath said it Way to the City of God p. 134. And thus he was both the Son of God and the Son of Man according to his very Birth in Mary And therefore even according to that Birth he hath a Divine Perfection and Vertue and that Substantial above all other Men that ever were are or shall be And in p. 135. ' His body hath not only the Perfections of our Body but also much more because of its being generate not only of a Seed of Mary but of a Divine Seed This made him contend against the Word Humane as too mean a Title for the outward and visible Flesh which Christ took of the Virgin Rector Corrected p. 27 c. But now calls Christ's Body not only Elementary but plainly Terrestrial He says G. Whitehead owns in his latter Writings that Christ's Body that rose is the same with his Body that suffered Here he uses the Word Latter deceitfully and maliciously to insinuate as if G. Whitehead had not owned this till now of late whereas he could not but know that in a Postscript to a Book called The Malice of the Independent Agent rebuked written in the third Month 1678. which is eighteen Years ago G. Whitehead for to him G. Keith ascribes that Postscript said Christ did rise in that Body wherein he suffered and in the same ascended into the Heavens I say G. Keith could not but know this because in his Book called The true Copy Printed but last Year p. 21. he quoted a Passage as G. Whitehead's out of that very Postscript But says he in p. 35. his Pride will not suffer him to own his forme Error either in that or in other things I may rather say of G. Keith His Envy will not suffer him to be Iust or Honest. For he can no where find in any of G. Whitehead's Writings that he did ever disown Christ's Body that rose to be the same Body that suffered But there is not an equal Comparison betwixt Christ's Body and Man's His saw no Corruption But Man's Body is subject to Corruption and Putrefaction In p. 35. He says And seeing W. Penn thinks it absurd that a Body can be transformed from an Earthly and Animal Body to an Heavenly Body as says he he argueth Reason against Railing p. 134. He makes it not only as gross as Transubstantiation but worse But this says he is his gross Ignorance in true Philosophy and his false Philosophy destroys his Faith But what I wonder has destroyed G. Keith 's Honesty except it be his gross Enmity For he has most grosly abused W. Penn in this Passage Where doth W. Penn say or hold it is absurd that a Body can be transformed from an Earthly or Animal Body to an Heavenly Body There is no Word in the Place cited nor any where that I know of that either speaks so or has a tendency
are these viz. And although it appears that some few Persons have given Offence either through erronious Doctrines unsound Expressions or Weakness Forwardness want of Wisdom and right Understanding yet c. Upon this I then made this Observation which he now repeats in his Narrative p. 44. Here ye see Friends that that Paper of the Yearly Meeting is so far from owning them of the other side as he calls them that is the Friends in America to be guilty of unsound and erronious Doctrines which G. Keith here expresly saith it doth that it doth not undertake to determine whether the Offence said to be given by some few Persons was through erronious Doctrines and unsound Expressions or through Weakness Forwardness want of Wisdom and right Understanding And yet this Man hath the Confidence and Falseness to say positively that Paper doth own them guilty of holding unsound and erronious Doctrines This is that for which he says I charged him with Forgery And if I did he well deserved it for I proved it so plain upon him that he has not had the Confidence so much as to attempt to acquit himself of it And that with many more such gross things which I fastened on him in that Book were I suppose the reaon why he has not hitherto replied to it though it has been in Print well nigh these two Years Now not being able to shake off the Forgery he turns Cat in Pan and endeavours to make some Advantage against me for having denied that the Yearly Meeting had owned those Friends in America to be guilty of erronious Doctrines alledging that thereby I make both the Meeting and my self to approve and justifie them But that is no fair Consequent I hope there were some at least in his Auditory at Turners Hall that were more just that to condemn us so much as in their own Thoughts whom he had Arraigned and so highly Charged behind our backs though he pretended to Convict us from our own Books but would like wise and upright Men suspend their Judgment till they should have heard or read our Defence And if any that were there fell short of this impartial Iustice we value their Judgement no more than it deserves But if this is but right and reasonable in this Case how unright and unreasonable would it have been in the Yearly Meeting to have given forth judicially and authoritatively as a Yearly Meeting a Judgment against any particular Person or Persons upon the Accusation of a declared Enemy without due Proof and without hearing the Parties Face to Face or at all hearing the Defence of the Accused nay when the Persons accused were not only not present nor in the Nation but some thousands perhaps of Miles distant in another Quarter of the World This was the Case of that Yearly Meeting in 1694. G. Keith made a Clamour then against some in America for holding as he said gross and vile Errors as he has since done against some here And he urged the reading of some Papers he had brought with him relating to that Affair Which though the Meeting was not obliged in strict Justice to admit the Accused not being present yet to stop his present and to have prevented if it might have been his future Clamour the Meeting condescended and he read or caused to be read several Manuscripts But when they were read besides that divers of them appeared to be rather the hasty Products of Heat and Contention which he had raised and kindled there than the well-weighed Sentiments of a sedate and deliberate Judgment of what Authority could they be to the Meeting to ground a Judicial Sentence upon Or who would be willing to have Judgment given against him upon no Evidence but the bare reading of Letters supposed to be his own without having Liberty to make his own Defence and to give his own Sence of any Expression laid to his Charge This is not new to G. Keith for in my Book called A further Discovery in Answer to his called A seasonable Information I debated this Case fairly with him In p. 59. With respect to my self I told him which I had also told him before in another Book called An Epistle to Friends p. 41. I observe he makes a great Noise and Ouâ—ery of gross and vile Errors held by some and them upheld by others which he gives for one Reason or Cause of the Separation But inasmuch as this is only his Charge without due Proof and the Persons by him Charged with those vile Errors are not here present to make Answer to his Charge and defend themselves or to shew the Occasions that led to and Circumstances that attended those Discourses from which he pickt the Words he Charges them with and to explain their meanings therein I have not thought it fit or becoming me on no better Ground to meddle with those Matters being alike unwilling to justifie them if in any thing they have done or said amiss as to condemn them unheard upon the report of another and him their professed Adversary In p. 65. With respect to the Meeting 's Words before cited which he would have strained to be a Judgment against the Friends in America whom he had warred with I told him What offence was given might as well be through Weakness Forwardness want of Wisdom and right Understanding as through erronious Doctrines or unsound Expressions Nay if it were through unsound Expressions though they are not to be excused yet that doth not prove a Man guilty of holding gross and vile Errors c. For a Man that is sound in Iudgment and Doctrine mâ—a chance to drop an unsound Expression through weakness as some perhaps in America through G. Keith's catching Questions may have been drawn to do whose Weakness for him to expose in Print in that aggravating manner as he has done to the Reproach of the whole Profession is very great Wickedness in him and for which his Condemnation from God slumbers not And in p. 66. with respect to his Manuscripts which he would have had pass for sufficient Proofs I told him thus He being a Party is not a competent Iudge what is sufficient Proof in this Case That some Manuscripts were read in the Yearly Meeting by him or on his part I remember how many they they were or whether signed by the Persons own Hands I know not But supposing not granting those Manuscripts to be either Autographs or Authentick Copies I believe he himself would think much to be concluded or condemned from Inferences or Constructions made upon Manuscripts especially if they be private Letters as I think some of those he had read were without his being present and having the Liberty to open and explain his Sense and Meaning in any Passage Word or Sentence in them Thus had I controverted this Point with him formerly in that Book of mine called A further Discovery which he has never replied to which might have been enough to have stopped him
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
therein considered TO his Narrative he tacks an Appendix containing he says some considerable Proofs out of these Menâ— Books relating to the foregoing Heads The first Passage be carps at is in G. Whitehead's Book called The Divinity of Christ p. 70. Where in Answer to I. Owen who had â—aid The Sacrifice deâ—otes his Christ's Humane Nature whence God iâ— said to purchase his Church with his own Blood Acts 20.28 For he offered himself through the eternal Spirit there was the Matter of the Sacrifice which was the Humane Nature of Christ's Soul and Body c. G. Whitehead answered These Passages are but darkly and confusedly expressed As also we do not read in Scripâ—ure that the Blood of God by which he purchased his â—hurch is ever called the Blood of the Humane Nature Nor that the Soul of Christ was the Humane Nature or was put to death with the Body for the wicked could not kill the Soul for his Soul in his own being was immortal and the Nature of God is Divine and therefore that the Blood of God should be of Humane or Earthly Nature appears intonsistent And where doth the Scripture call the Blood of God Humane or Human Nature c. It is plain enough from hence That G. Whitehead's Exception lay against the word Human which he explains by Earthly to shew he took it in that signification wherein it is derived abâ—Humo from the Ground or Earth in which sence it is not a fit or proper Term to express the Blood of God or the Soul of Christ nay nor his outward Man by For his outward Body which was nailed to the Cross was not of a Meer Earthly Extraction there was more of Divinity even in that Body than in the Bodies of other men which rendred it too Heavenly to be called Humane or Earthly But though G. Whitehead rejected the word Humane or Earthly with respect to Christ's Manhood and Holy Nature and to the Blood of God wherewith he purchased his Church and could not admit that his Soul was put to death though it with the Body was made an Offering for Sin and so it is in a figurative manner of speaking said that he poured it out to death yet he never denied the Manhood of Christ nor the sufferings thereof both inwardly and outwardly nor the virtue merit and efficacy of those sufferings Nor is there any thing in those words of his which G. Keith hath quoted that imports he did But in the progress of his Answer to I. Owen in the next page mentioning both the Travel and Sufferings of Christ's Soul under the Burden of Man's Transgression and the suffering of his Body under the violence of the wicked hands to death and the shedding of his Blood c. he adds We desire all may have as good an esteem of Christ in his sufferings as may be Therefore G. Keith doth very unjustly and like himself in insinuating as if G. Whitehead had denied the Manhood of Christ. He takes some pains to excuse himself for having formerly as he pretended to excuse others cited those words of Hilarius Quid per Naturam Humani corporiâ— conceptu ex Spiritu Sancto Caro judicatur i.e. Why is the Flesh conceived by the Holy Ghost judged by the Nature of an Human Body But says he neither Hilarius nor I judged that the Body though conceived of the Holy Ghost was any part of the substance of the Holy Ghost No more say I do we Yet being conceived by the Holy Ghost through the overshadowing of the Power of the Most High that Body was more Pure and Heavenly than the Bodies of other Men and above the Epithet Humane or Earthly The Book he mentions in which he says he cited those words of Hilarius which he calls The True Christ owned I do not remember I have ever seen But in another Book of his called The Rector Corrected Printed the next year after that viz. in 1680. he gives the same sentence out of Hilarius and tells us p. 29. Hilarius saith concerning the Body of Christ that was born of the Virgin Iesus Christ was not formed by the Nature of Humane Conception and that the Original of his Body is not of an Humane Conception And as there he spake for Hilarius so in p. 27. speaking for himself he says even the outward and visible Flesh which he took of the Virgin seeing it was not produced or formed by Humane Generation but by a Divine Conception through the Overshadowing of the Holy Ghost and did far excel the Flesh of all other Men that ever were since inasmuch also that after death it was not subject to Corruption the name Humane Mark is but too mean a Title whereby to express it far less should it be so called now when it is glorified and it is altogether Heavenly and Spiritual Nor doth the Scripture any where give unto his Body such a name as Humane said he then And who would then have thought that he would have come to plead for the word Humane with respect to Christ's both Flesh and Soul and condemn us for Hereticks for not using it But concerning the Excellency of Christ's Body hear what he said in the year 1678. in his Book called The way to the City of God which now poor man he is quite beside p. 131. Even according to that Birth he Christ was the Son of God no lesâ— than the Son of Man as having God for his Father as he had the Virgin Mary for his Mother Now the Child says he we know doth partake an Image or Nature from both Parents And thus did Christ who did partake of the Nature and Image of Man from the Seed of Mary but did partake of a Nature and Image much more excellent than that of Man in its greatest Glory from God and his Seed who did really sow a most divine and heavenly Seed in the Virgins Womb which as it supplied the Males Seed so it had much more in it and brought forth a Birth which as it had the true and whole Nature of Man so I say it had a Perfection above it and that not only in accidental qualities as men will readily confess but even in substance and Essence And yet we must be now anathematized and that by him for denying that Body to be Humane or Earthly He says p. 53 G. Whitehead 's Objection against the word Humane as signifying Earthly hath the same force against calling Christ Adam coming from the Hebrew word Adamah that signifieth Earth From hence first I must desire the Reader to observe that G. Keith saw well enough where the ground of G. Whitehead's Objection lay viz. as I have expressed it before upon the word Humane as signifying Earthly This shews that he is a meer Caviller and seeks occasions to quarrel and defame without cause Next I must tell him That Christ is not called Adam in a strict and proper sense but in a figurative with allusion to the First Man