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
the World was not far off What else made Paul when he had told the Corinthians That the things he had related were written for our Admonition add Vpon whom the Ends of the Word are come 1 Cor. 10.11 Why else did Peter say The End of all things is at hand 1 Pet. 4.7 G. Keith concludes this Page with a most horrible Falshood and Slander upon G. Whitehead saying He has Allegorized away Christs Birth his Death Resurrection and Ascension and Coming to Iudgment This I say is a most horrible Falsehood and Slander For though there is none of these that may not be allegorized and perhaps none among the Quakers has allegorized them so frequently and so far as G. Keith himself yet has not G. Whitehead so allegorized any of them as to take away the Literal sence and meaning of them but has owned and asserted the Truth and Benefit of them according to the Letter of the Scriptures In p. 40. He makes a Digression to entertain his Company thus I hope I have proved that I am not petulant and that I have just cause to accuse them of these Errors Then adds I was presented by a Grand Iury at Philadelphia and the Presentment would have been prosecuted if the Government had not been changed and I had been accused for endeavouring to alter the Government which is Capital by their Law and they would have found me guilty of Death had they not been turned out of the Government c. Now though in this he does but deliver his own Conjectures what would have been which how unlikely they are may be gathered from what was seeing when he was fined for some Evil Demeanor the Fine was not exacted though there was time enough to have done it before the Government was Changed yet his telling his Hearers that he had just cause to accuse the Quakers of Error and then immediately acquainting them with his having been Presented at Philadelphia is a sufficient Indication that the ground of his accusing the Quakers is not Zeal for Religion but Malice and Revenge In the same page he pretends to give another Proof against G. Whitehead but he does indeed but repeat one of the Proofs he gave before upon his first Head in p. 16. where I answer'd it at large He takes it out of p. 29. of that Book called The Nature of Christianity to which himself writ the Additional Postscript And he gives it thus Says G. Whitehead to R. Gordon Dost thou look for Christ's coming again to appear outwardly in a Bodily Existence If thou doest thou mayst look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him See now the Fraud and Falseness of this Man who that he might make this Passage look towards the End for which he brought it hath corrupted the place by leaving out those words that he knew would defeat his purpose For whereas he gives the words thus Dost thou look for Christ's coming again to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence If thou dost c. The words in G. Whitehead's Book are thus Doest thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee according to thy words p. 30 If thou dost c. It happened that one of the Auditors being a Quaker said Let the passage be read out G. Keith to have put it by said If we had not had these Oppositions we might have saved an hour Had he but now had an Auditor ready as he had in p. 39. to have said He has done enough it had passed and he had gone off so But no body offering to help him out he was fain to read the passage right and so it is set down at the top of his p. 41. He had put in the words coming again and left out the words as the Son of Mary and the words to save thee upon which the stress of the passage lay that so he might make himself a proof And yet in p. 41. upon his offering to read another Passage out of a Manuscript Paper he said I am glad that my Neighbour has such Charity for me that he thinks I will not read wrong for it seems the Person he called his Neighbour not suspecting him guilty of so great Baseness had said in another case p. 24. I think he does not read false And to beget the like Charity now he added I shall forfeit the Name of an Honest Man if I read one word different from the Original How differently from the Original he read this passage in p. 40. will appear by comparing it with the same Passage as he was fain at last to read it in p. 41. How far he has forfeited the Name of an Honest Man if he then had it to forfeit I leave the Reader to judge Upon this Quotation he says p. 41. Ye see these are plain and express words against Christ's outward Coming But in making this Inference he is doubly to Blame For first Here are no plain or express words against Christs outward Coming neither doth the passage relate to his outward Coming it self but to the End of that coming and to the manner state and quality in which he shall then come For the End of his coming then is not to Save as if Salvation were not to be obtained or known till then neither will he come in that low state of Humiliation and form of a Servant wherein he appeared as the Son of Mary tho' he was always more than barely the Son of Mary for he shall come in the glory of his Father Mat. 16.27 Or as Luke expresses it In his own Glory and in his Fathers and of the Holy Angels Luke 9.26 But secondly G. Keith is the more to be blamed for saying of those Words of G. Whitehead Here are plain and express Words against Christ's outward Coming seeing he confesses in p. 40. That in another Book called The Real Quaker a Real Protestant G. Whitehead hath declared He did not mean it of Christs coming to Iudgment but he meant it thus Because R. Gordon would needs have it that Salvation was delayed till Christs outward Coming Who but a Man of a mâ—st malicious Mind would urge another Mans words against him contrary to his own declared Sence and Meaning G. Keith says He is apt to think G. Whitehead abuses R. Gordon But every indifferent Reader will be apt to conclude beyond thinking that G. Keith has abused G. Whitehead and that very grosly In p. 41. he has a little Flurt at me which shews he wanted either Matter or Wit that he would entertain so great an Assembly with such a Trifle He tells it that I had said I had upward of six Manuscripts What says T. Ellwood in his way of Quibbling six and an half His words were I produced above six Manuscripts I knowing he loved a loose way of expressing himself and shunn'd plainness of Speech in my Answer to the Matter for which he
from telling that Story at Turners-Hall if he had not wanted Matter And this I suppose will be sufficient to satisfie any impartial Reader That the Yearly Meeting had no sufficient Ground from what G. Keith offered to them to censure judicially those Persons in America whom he exclaimed here against consequently that he has no just ground to Charge the Meeting or me for defending the Meeting against his unjust Charge with approving and justifying those things which he calls vile Errors in them But he comes off most lamely in pretending that he was charitable to the Yearly Meeting in construing the Disjunctive or in their Words to be equivalent to the Copulative and as says he sometimes it is Did he ever know or taken for and in an Alternative Proposition or Sentence as this was by any that pretended to understand Words Let him blush at his Folly and repent of his Hypocrisie in calling that Charity which was indeed but a deceitful Shift And let him learn to be just before he pretends to be Charitable He thrust upon his Auditors one Quotation more out of a Book of mine which he almost promised them should be the last at least of Printed ones He tells them That I blame him for comparing the Books of Freinds to the Books of the Greek and Latin Fathers which in p. 45. he gives out of p. 99. of my Further Discovery thus In comparing the Books of Friends to the Books of them called the Greek and Latin Fathers he has not done as a Friend and Brother but as an Enemy in supposing Friends Books to have been written by no better Guidance nor clearer sight than theirs who lived and writ in those Dark times Upon this he said You see how modest they are here And upon that he makes his Auditors give a shout Signifying says he their dislike that the Quakers Books should be preferr'd so far to the Greek and Latin Fathers next to the Days of the Apostles One might wonder here at the Cause of his Auditors shouting For such of them as could understand what was meant by Greek and Latin Fathers one might expect should be men of greater Wisdom and Gravity than to shout in such Assemblies And for the undiscerning Mob it was a Subject so much above their Capacity and Pretences that it cannot be supposed they should shout at that if they had not been excited thereunto by some little antick Gesticulation from him But to the matter They shouted he says Signifying their dislike that the Quakers Books should be preferred so far to the Greek and Latin Fathers next to the Days of the Apostles Why next to the Days of the Apostles These were not my words I did not refer to the times next to the Days of the Apostles But my words were Who lived and writ in those Dark times Must those Dark times needs be next to the Days of the Apostles See what an Vnfair Stretch this was Were not most and the most noted of them in the fourth and fifth Centuries three or four hundred Years or more after the Apostles Days as Athanasius Basilius the two Gregories Naziansen and Nysen Cyril Ambrose Epiphanius Chrysostom Hieronimus Augustin Hilarius and so on to Gregory the great Pope of Rome Nay are not Oecumenius Theophilact and Bernard none of the worst reckoned amongst the Fathers though the first of them lived above eight hundred Years the second above a thousand and the last above eleven hundred Years after Christ And why then must what I spake of those who lived and writ in those Dark times be applied to them that lived next to the Days of the Apostles Could he find no other times to be accounted Dark but the Days next to the Apostles He has shewed his good Will and that he is no Changling in this respect how great soever in another but is always for perverting and taking words in the worst sense That the times were Dark in the 4 th and 5 th Centuries I suppose he will grant when I shall have put him in mind that much of the Superstition and not a little of Corruption in Doctrine now retained in the Church of Rome crept in in those times of which were this a suitable place I could give plenty of Instances nor was the third Secle so clear but that Tertullian who lived in the very beginning of it and Origen about the middle of it gave sufficient Occasion in their writings for others to see they were too much in the Dark Perkins in his Problem of the Church of Rome p. 12. tells us that Hierom says Tertullian was not a man of the Church because he fell a way to the Opinion of Montanus Yea that he was a chief Heretick He gives a Catalogue of the Books Tertullian wrote against the Orthodox and says Gelasius adjudged all his Books to be Aâ—rcryphal Origen Perkins says was Errorum plenus Full of Errors And that Hierom called his Writings Venemous Of Cyprian he says p. 13. While he too much admires Tertullian he sometimes favours the Montanists Alstedius in Lex Theol p. 11. Blames Hierom Augustine Ambrose Hillary and Origen altogether for their absurd Allegories Nay he taxes Ambrose and Hillary with soul Contradictions And in p. 17. he says St. Hierom is ridiculous in Allegories over and over And Augustin he says does sometimes after the same manner Jurieu a French Protestant in his late Book called The Accomplishment of the Prophecies Second Edit Part 1. and p. 217. says St. Basil St. Ambrose and the two Gregories are the most antient Authors in whom we begin to find the Worship and Invocation of Creatures And in Part 2. p. 43 he says St. Basil in the East and St. Ambrose in the West are the most Antient Fathers in whom we find the Footsteps of the Invocation and Intercession of the Saints In Part 1. p. 270. he says The Antients did Copy one another almost without any Iudgment and always without Consideration And he concludes Part 1 p. 112. If the Authority of the Fathers be not good in many Places 't is good in none 't is doubtful every where I give but these few Touches Concerning those Fathers as they are called who lived not next to yet not many Ages after the Apostles Days They who have a mind to know more on this Subject may find enough if not too much in the learned Dalleus But that it may appear I spake noâ— by rote in calling those times Dark wherein most of those called Fathers before mentioned lived I think fit to let the Reader understand from Perkins's Problem before ciâ—ed That Praying for the Dead which is a peculiar Doctrine of Popery is as Old as Tertullians time about the latter End of the Second and beginning of the Third Century p. 97. And the Conceit of Purgatory must to be sure be some what Older Perkins makes the Montanists Authors of it p. 99. And Tertullian and Origen the Chief p. 175. The Honouring of
Money to Print with and in his Advertisement gave that as his Reason why he declined Printing and appointed a Meeting to talk out his matter by word of Mouth But that that was but a false pretence is evident for it appears by his Narrative that he intended after he had got such a Meeting to fall to Printing again For he says p. 24. If I wrong the Quotation it will appear in Print for we intend that the Quotations shall be Printed This shews his design was not so much to shun Printing as to shun Answering our former Books by shifting the Controversie into another Course For as soon as that Meeting of his was over he or some body for him could find Time and Money too to publish a Narrative of what he pretends to have delivered then with large Additions to it a Book of 12 d. price and the biggest I think that he hath Printed since he came last to England and yet hath left our Books unanswered Whereas had he been able to have answered at all to the purpose and to have cleared himself of what is therein charged upon him a lâ—ss Book and of less Price than the Narrative he has now published might have done his business But it is evident he did not want Time so much as he wanted Truth on his side And that he did not so much want outward Ability to Print as inward Ability to Defend himself and the Cause he had undertaken And indeed as to his pretence of want of outward Ability to Print seeing he sold his own Books one might reasonably think he should rather be inabled than disabled by that But if it be true that he says in his Narrative p. 50. That he hath weakened his Estate by Printing it is the Effect of his own Folly and Wickedness in Printing false and frivolous matters For he might probably have rather encreas'd his Estate by Printing selling his Books as he has done had he written matter worth the Reading But if want of Time and Money for Writing and Printing had been the real Cause of his not Answering our Books how comes he to be so flush of Both now that since the publishing his Narrative he could find both Time to write and Money to Print another pretty large Book against us leaving my two former Books yet unanswered Has he sprung a Mine at Turners-Hall Or have some of his Auditors made a Gathering for him to put him in stock to go on with his Work of fighting against God and his People To our Objection That he did not exhibit to us a Copy of his Charge or Indictment against us he says Nar. p 14. And for the Particulars I inâ—end to prove against them they were expresly mentioned in my Advertisement containing four Foundamental Doctrines of Christianity by them opposed This is not true as will appear by consulting the Advertisement In the first head of it relating to W. Penn Nar. p 9. he saith I charge him to be guilty of false Accusation and Deâ—amation and offer to prove him to be so As also I offer to prove him guilty out of his printed Books but names no Book of most Erroneous and Hurtful Principles contrary to the Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith and Religion c. but names no particular Principle and also that he is guilty of gross contradiction to himself But says not wherein In his second Head relating to me He charges me to be guilty of false Accusations Perversions and Forgeries contained in sundry defamatory Books printed against him But shews not wherein As also of most Erroneous and Hurtful Principles But names no particular Principle In his third Head relating to G. Whitehead he offers to prove G. Whitehead out of some of his printed Books but names no Book guilty of most Erroneous and Hurtful Principles c. but names no particular Principle This is all in general both as to Books and Principles no one Principle nor any one Book particularly mentioned Yet in his Narrative he says The Particulars I intend to prove against them were expresly mention'd in my printed Paper called An Advertisement containing four Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity by them opposed After he had dated signed and thereby closed his Advertisement he added an account of the Cause of his intimating such a Meeting In that he says I appeal to all moderate Persons whether this my Intimation of such a Meeting in the Defence of the Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity as the necessity of Faith in Christ as he outwardly suffered c. Iustification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed The Resurrection of the Body that dieth and Christs coming without us c. All which I offer to prove have been Opposed and Contradicted by Some of them be not justifiable c. If this be the passage he refers to wherein he says the Particulars he inteded to prove against them were expresly mentioned yet here is nothing but Vncertainty still For here he only offers to prove that those Fundamental Doctrines have been Opposed and Contradicted by Some of them not by them All. He had summoned and charged Four Persons by Name and a whole Meeting besides He offers to prove that certain Fundamental Doctrines had been opposed by Some of them but names not by which of them How should they or any of them know by this which of them he intended to fix it on How should they severally be prepared to make Defence when they did not know which of them in particular should be charged what in particular should be charged on each and out of what particular Books the Charge would be drawn No considerate Person I suppose could think that Men in their right Wits would appear on such a Summons or discourse on such uneven Terms If the Trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to the Battel If a Dispute had been intended no Man that understands the Rules of Disputation would have engaged on such unequal unfair uncertain blind terms Even in Duelling he that gives the Challenge doth withal give notice what Weapon he intends to use and of what length The Reason of which is obvious He says Pref. p. 8. They think such a Meeting at Turners-Hall is but in a Corner and not in the face of the Nation and so I suppose will every one think in comparison with the Press But adds he they are like to find it hath been so much in the face of the Nation that many in the Nation will notice it Like enough but not without Printing For the Advertisement that gave the first publick Notice of it and was to beget the Expectation of it and to draw People to it was Printed as when a New Play is to be acted printed Papers to give Notice of it are spread abroad some time before And now since it is over the Narrative of it is Printed without which little Notice would have been taken of it So that
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
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
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
the Conclusion of it is thus Which G. Keith alledgeth is Proof that G. Keith intended the Ligh within Here G. Keith's pretended Advocates instead of shewing that the Word Within was in the Words charged or in the Words proved which they should have done if they would have convicted me of mischarging him in saying he had cunningly slid in the Word Within come no nearer the Matter than to say that something or other not naming what G. Keith alledgeth is Proof that G. Keith intended the Light within They don't adventure so far as to say that that something or All which whatever it was is a Proof but that G. Keith alledgeth it is a Proof And a Proof of what I Pray Why a Proof that G. Keith intended the Light within But is not that a fair Proof at least by Implication that G. Keith did not express the Word Within whatever he intended and consequently that I said true in saying He knew it was not in the Words charged nor in the Words proved for how should it when it was not in the Words spoken as is here implicitely acknowledged but only in his Intention Was G. Keith so dull he could not see that this was so far from being a Defence for him that it wholly makes against him and for me To peice out this there is added in his Paper a Passage in one Ben. Chamber 's Letter Another Passage in Iohn Delaval's Letter And then is added Iohn Humphrey's two Letters read and both to the same Purpose It may be so And yet all to little or no purpose For what were all these Letters I pray Were they made publick in Print Or only private Letters lying in G. Keith's Pocket How then could it be expected I should know or take notice what was in them But I can assure G. Keith and his Advocates too if he hath any that I went upon surer Ground than the Letters in his Pocket could be to me For when I said He knows the Word Within was not in the Words charged nor in the Words proved I had G. Keith himself for my Author and I thought I could not have a better against himself than himself He in his Seasonable Information to which I then answered speaking of T. Fitz-water's Charge against him p. 12. said His Charge was That I denied the sufficiency of the Light Here 's not the Word VVithin and therefore he knew if he knew what he writ that the Word VVithin was not in the Words Charged Then three Lines lower in the same Page speaking of what the Witnesses proved he says They proved against me That I did not believe the Light was sufficient without something else Here 's not the Word VVithin and therefore he knew if he knew what he writ that the Word VVithin was not in the Words proved This I think were enough on this Head to clear me But to manifest more fully that I had good ground to say as I did viz. that he knew the Word VVithin was not in the Words charged I add that in the same Book p. 17. he says I stand recorded on the Monthly Meeting Book at Philadelphia by the Monthly Meetings Judgment given out against me and clearing T. Fitz-water for his accusing me that I denyed the sufficiency of the Light and the Evidence says he against me was That I said I did not believe the Light was sufficient without something else Here he has set down the VVords charged and the VVords proved as they stand recorded if he may be believed on the Monthly Meeting Book at Philadelphia and yet here is not the Word VVithin either in the VVords charged or in the VVords proved And this both he and his pretended Advocates might have seen in my Further Discovery p. 62. Yet further in his Book called Reasons and Causes p. 8. where he gives this Matter as the first Cause of the Separation he sets down T. Fitzwater's Charge against him thus T having openly in the Face of the Meeting accused G. Keith for denying the sufficiency of the Light Here is not the VVord VVithin And lower in the same Page telling what others witnessed for him he says they said They heard him both then and at all occasions that he delivered his Mind on that subject always bear Testimony to the sufficiency of the Light to Salvation Here 's not the VVord VVithin And this I noted formerly in my Further Discovery p. 63. whom would G. Keith have me to believe if not himself Yet G. Keith has the Face in his Comment upon this Head Nar. p. 48. to say The Question was not concerning the Light indefinitely but the Light within And that I accuse him unjustly The Second Head of that Paper is That in my Further Discovery p. 101. are these Words And this makes a Verbal Confession yea a bare verbal Confession sufficient to Yoak them as he phrases it together in Church-Fellowship To this they oppose Reasons and Causes of the Separation p. 22. ad finem Tho. Ellwood leaves this out viz. Touching these necessary and Fundamental Principles of Christian Doctrine as well as that their Conversation is such as becomes the Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ. They add also another Sentence out of Reasons and Causes p. 36. But as this last Sentence relates not to those Words of mine which were expresly restrained to the Quotation there given out of Reasons and Causes p. 22. So they or he for them for that it is his Work whoever he got to Patronize it I don't doubt leave out the former part of my Words which explain the latter The Dispute between him and me there was not about Conversation or how far he either admitted or required that as a Term of Communion with him but it was about a verbal Confession of Faith or Principles as a Door of Admittance into Society or Fellowship or Terms of Communion therein See my Epistle p. 59 60 and 61. In his Answer to which called A Seasonable Information p. 34. Sect. 37 38. He mentioned not a Word of Conversation but excepted against the Words Door of Admittance and said he made not a verbal Confession the Terms at all of Church-Communion when the Profession is but barely verbal but when the Confession or Profession floweth from the living Faith of Christ c. To this I replying in my Further Discovery p. 101. shewed that he had not guarded his Expression about a verbal Confession so before in the Place I had quoted of his which was that in Reasons and Causes p. 22. Then reciting the Words again viz. We are convinced and perswaded in our Consciences that God calleth us to separate from such Vnbelievers and not to be yoaked together in Church-Fellowship and Discipline with any that we have not proof of by Confession of the Mouth that they are sound in Faith I thereupon made this twofold Inference So that he makes a verbal Confession a Proof of their being sound in the Faith and this
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
ANSWER TO George Keith's NARRATIVE OF HIS Proceedings at Turners-Hall On the 11th of the Month called Iune 1696. WHEREIN His CHARGES against divers of the People called QUAKERS Both in that and in another Book of his CALLED Gross Error Hypocrisie Detected Are fairly Considered Examined and Refuted By THOMAS ELLWOOD London Printed and Sold by T. Sowle near the Meeting-House in White-Hart-Court in Gracious-street 1696. AN ANSVVER TO George Keith's NARRATIVE c. IT is not surely without good Reason that the Church of Christ here on Earth is called the Church Militant For besides the inward and spiritual Enemies which her several Members have to encounter with in their Pilgrimage through this troublesome World such hath been and is her Lot and Portion that she hath rarely been free from outward Enemies of one kind or other her great Adversary Satan continually raising up some evil Instruments or other to fall upon her all aiming at her Ruine though after divers Ways and Manners Sometimes the Civil Powers under which she hath lived have been stirred up to proclaim as it were open War against her and to inflict severe and heavy Penalties upon her for her faithful adherence to her Lord and Master Christ Jesus When through Faith and Patience she hath overcome and the Wrath and Fury of Men hath been asswaged so that she hath had some respit from those outward Sufferings Then hath her old Adversary the common Enemy of Mankind bestirr'd himself in another way to raise up Persecution against her of another kind by instigating some or other either such as were always avowed Enemies to her or such as for some time appeared to be of her but by the sweep of his Tail had been struck off from her to speak or write against her falsly to accuse her and load her with the foulest Reproaches and most infamous Slanders and Scandals that by so misrepresenting her they might hinder others from joyning to or favouring her and stir up the Civil Magistrate again to persecute her afresh This hath been the Lot this the Condition of the little Flock of Christ in former Ages as Ecclesiastical Histories declare As for the present Age and with respect to the People called Quakers whom God by an Invisible Arm of Power hath raised up and held up and made a peculiar People to himself Experience gives sufficient Proof the matter being yet fresh in Memory For not to look back so far as that which was called the Commonwealth's Time wherein many of the leading Men in most Professions put forth their utmost Strength against us both in Preaching and Printing raising those false Reports concerning us and chargeing many false Accusations upon us with respect both to Doctrine and Practice which others of our Adversaries that followed after have taken up upon Trust from them no sooner was that great Persecution a little abated which soon after the Restoration of K. Charles the Second through the fault of some Dissenters fell upon All but most heavily upon Vs and that a little Calm and Quiet ensued but out came several Books against us written by some of those Professors who either in some Measure did suffer or if they had been faithful to their own Principle should have suffered in the same storm with us By that Time the Dust which those Books had raised was laid by our Answers thereunto a fresh Persecution from the Government arose upon the Informing Act the main weight of which it is well known fell upon us they who before and afterwards assaulted us in Print finding Ways then to hide and save themselves from Suffering But when that Storm was a little over out they came again and in divers Books written by Faldo Hicks and others heaped up many wrong Charges Defamations Slanders and false Accusations against us all which were refuted and wiped off in our Books Printed in Answer thereunto Nor have those of other Professions been so forward to attaque us since But now that Liberty of Conscience in the free Exercise of Religious Worship is by Authority granted and thereby outward Sufferings in a great measure abated our old Enemy envying us so great a Benefit though but in common with others hath contrived ways and means to raise a new War against us by stirring up some who have formerly walked with us and for sometime professed to be of us but upon some peevish Discontent or other have turned aside and left us to turn now against us and oppose us and to pour forth Floods of Reproach slander and false Accusations upon us His chief Agent at present in this Work is George Keith a Scotchman whose ambitious Aims not being answered nor his absurd and fantastical Notions received by and amongst the People called Quakers he is now become of a seeming Friend a real Enemy He having published many Books against us and in defence of those Books wrangled with us for a while in Print till he found himself too closely pinched to be able to give an Answer fit to be seen in Print hath at length bethought himself of a Wile to excuse himself from answering which was to set up a kind of Iudicial Court of this own Head and by his own Authority in a Place at his own Command on a Day of his own Appointing there to Charge and Try divers of us who are called Quakers whether present or absent concerning matters of Faith and Doctrine and that the rude Multitude might not be wanting to his Assistance there he gave publick notice of it sometime before by an Advertisement in Print and therein a sort of Summons to some of us by Name to others by Designation to be present This Arbitrary Proceeding and Vsurped Authority as we judged it unreasonable in him to impose so we did not think fit to submit to or own and therefore forbore to appear at the Time and Place by him appointed Yet lest any whom he should draw thither might mistake the Cause of our not appearing the Reasons thereof drawn up in short Heads were sent thither to be read and given among the People which they were However according to his before declared Intention to proceed whether any of us were there or no he being Iudge in his own Court over-ruled our Reasons and went on to Arraign and Convict us Absent The Pageantry of which days Work as acted there by himself he hath since Published with his Name to it under the Title of An exact Narrative of the Proceedings at Turners Hall c. Together with the Disputes and Speeches there between G. Keith and other Quakers differing from him in some Religious Principles How idle is this in him to pretend in his Title to give an Account of Disputes and Speeches between him and other Quakers whenas his Narrative it self gives no account of any Dispute there nor any thing like it and of that little that was said by any of those few Quakers that were present most was to the People tending
you call me without my consent before any Man else that is no otherwise a Justice than of your making till I better understand your Power for making Justices No wonder this little Man speaks so Bigg if he hath entertained a Notion that he hath Power not only to convene Persons at his pleasure before himself but also to confer Iusticiary Authority on such others as shall assemble on his Advertisement He threatens if he be not humoured to repeat his Advertisement If he should do so such as are ambitious of such an Imployment may hasten to Turners-Hall if they would be made Iustices by G. Keith He pursues his Comparison further saying ib. If a man Rob me I may complain of him as a Robber and without his consent call him to an Account He may so but he must complain then coram competenti Iudice Before one that hath a just Authority over him For if he complain coram non Iudice Before one that hath nothing to do with it he may go as he came without Redress In his Pref. p. 8. he saith And as Insignificant is their Excuse of declining to meet because it was not an agreed Meeting on both sides As if Guilty Persons are not to be tried without their Consent and Agreement Observe here he reputes us Guilty first and talks of Trying us afterwards What else is this but to condemn first and try after As if says he Guilty persons are not to be tried without their consent When Persons are pronounced Guilty it is to be supposed they have had Trial For it is from a Trial and Conviction that they are Denominated Guilty The Law calls no Man Guilty until upon due Trial he be proved and found Guiâ—y Till then the Law supposes him Innocent If a man be justly suspected of any Crime he may and ought be fairly tried in a due and right Method that it may appear whether he be Guilty or Innocent But none I hope except G. Keith is so weak to think that any one who hath a mind to it may take upon him to try such a man and pass Sentence on him He adds there Their upbraiding me by Insinuating my assuming a Spiritual Iurisdiction over them and Summoning them to appear before me is Idle and Vain The Injurer is Debtor to the Injured and Accountable to him Tho' his representing us to be the Injurers and himself the Injured is but precarious and a begging of the Question which we deny Yet his urging that the Injurer is Debtor to the Injured and accountable to him in Justification of his appointing a Meeting for us to appear at doth imply he assumed a Iurisdiction over us thought he might Summon us to appear which was Idle and Vain in him to think much more to do What should induce him to think so highly of himself and take so much upon him I know not unless he hath some little Ecclesiastical Preferment in the Wind which if he has perhaps it may never rise higher than an Apparitor or some such small Officer But he says ib. Let them tell me what Spiritual Iurisdiction they had over me to call me several times to them at their Yearly-Meeting 1694. more than I had over them to call them to our Meeting at Turners-Hall 1696 unless they will fly to their common Pretence common to them with the Church of Rome their Infallibility First let me tell him His Contempt of and Scoff at Infallibility asserted and maintained by himself in his Book of Immediate Revelation not ceased p. 36 37 38. Second Edition 1676. is an Infallible Proof of his Apostacy Next I 'll tell him seeing he asks it what Power we had then to call him more than he hath now to call us Every Religious Society or Body hath a certain Power within it self over the particular Members that make up or pretend to be of that Society or Body by vertue of which such Society or Body may call to account deal with and if they see cause deny any such Member as shall walk disorderly contrary to the Rules and against the Safety or Honour of the Society Now G. Keith knows full well that at the time he mentions in 1694. he pretended to be a Member of our Society and thrust himself amongst us and upon us which gave us Right to deal with him as we did But since the the time he was disowned by us as one gone out from us we never pretended to fellowship with him or to be Members of or any way related to that Society he is of if indeed he be of any And therefore he has not the like ground to call us to his Meeting which we were never of but against as we then had to call him to our Meeting which he then pretended and professed to be of He asks p. 7. Why should Disputes viva voce be more offensive to civil Peace than Disputes in Print I believe says he they can give no Reason I believe I have given a Reason already and that Demonstrative too He might as well ask Why should the gathering together of many Hundreds or thousands of Men in a time of Faction and great Discontents be more offensive to civil Peace than People's Reading Books privately in their Houses or Closets I believe if he cannot because he will not every body else can see the Reason From our not answering him viva voce he is willing to infer that we should not answer him in Print neither For he says ib. If I be not worthy nor fit to be answered by word nor am I to be answered by writ It is not his worthiness that Inclines us to Answer him at all but the defence and clearing of our Principles and our selves from his Calumnies and false Accusations In doing which we think not our selves obliged to follow his Direction or to alter our Course as oft as he is driven to alter his When he was in Pensilvania where he was answered viva voce and indeed could not well be answered otherwise the only Press in those Parts being then at his command he voided Books against his Opponents there thick and threefold as the saying is He complained not then of lack either of Time to Write or outward Ability to Print but conceived and brought forth Book upon Book as fast in a manner as the Press could deliver him When he came first over hither if any one displeased him his ordinary Threat was I 'll put thee in Print And it was not long before he fell to Printing here and ran on for some time as if he would have driven down all before him But having undertaken an Evil Cause he quickly found himself unable to maintain it or defend himself and that hath made him weary of Printing because indeed he cannot answer what lies upon him already in Print And because he is not willing to own that nor would be thought to be driven out of the Press he now pretends want of Time and
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
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
hold there Tho. Danson spake of the Son of God And to those Terms G. VVhitehead answered To this I say if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both Created doth not this render him a fourth Person 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 Plain it is from hence that in this whole Answer G. VVhitehead did not so much express his own Sense as expose Danson's and the other Priests their Confusion and Contradiction to themselves and one another Therefore he asks Danson If from Eternity He the Son of God was a Person distinct from God and his Holy Spirit without either Soul or Body And where says he doth the Scripture speak of any Person without either Soul or Body And because you Priests contend so hotly that the Scripture is the only Rule of Faith and Life for that was part of that Controversie p. 45 c. Let 's have plain Scripture Where doth the Scripture say that the Son of God the only begotten of the Father one of the Three Distinct Increated Co-Eternal Co-Essential Persons in the Deity as ye call him that his Soul was Created Thus G. VVhitehead hampered his Adversaries by putting the Questions which shew'd the aâ—surdity and inconsistency of their Notions and Assertions a way of dealing with G. Keith hath sometimes used towards an unfair Adversary himself And though he says such a way of questioning plainly impâ—rts a Denial now that he writes against Truth and the Friends of it yet when â—ormerly he wrot in Truth 's Defence a Book under that Title Printed in 1682. in Answer to his Countreyman Iohn Alexander of Leith he told him p. 59. I. Alexander ought to know that to query a thing will not conclude that the Questionist doth positively affirm or deny what is Queried But it is common to him to forget himself as oft as he has a Mind not to remember However I think those Words where doth the Scripture say that his Soul was Created which G. Keith would have taken notice of and which he says he laies the stress in will not bear the stress he lays if right notice with respect to the occasion drift and manner of Speech be taken of them But that G. VVhitehead hath fully and frequently owned the Holy Manhood of Christ with respect both to Soul and Body shall be shewed by more Instances than one At present let me shew G. Keith what he hath written concerning the Soul of Christ in his VVay cast up p. 104. And therefore says he let all the Scriptures be searched and it shall not be found that Christ became Man and took to himself the Soul of Man at his Conception in the Womb of the Virgin Mary but only that he took Flesh and was the Son of Mary of David and of Abraham And in p. 103. Yet before this even from the beginning he was the Heavenly Man and had his Soul and heavenly Flesh and Blood c. Here G. Keith is positive that Christ the heavenly Man had his Soul from the beginning before he did partake of our Flesh and Blood by his outward Birth And he is as positive that Christ did nâ—t take to himself the Soul of Man nay that he did not become Man at his Conception in the Womb of the Virgin Mary How will he scape now from falling into Appollinarius his Error or contradicting himself to escape it G. Keith brings another Passage out of another Book of G. VVhitehead's in order to prove that G. VVhitehead has denied Christ to be Man He brings it in thus Next I prove says he p. 16. that G. Whitehead says He speaking of Christ has not the Body of a Man See his Nature of Christianity p. 29 41. This were an home Proof if he could make it good But being conscious to himself of the falseness of this Charge and how easily it may be disproved out of G. VVhitehead's Book he staggers in his undertaking and before he recites G. VVhitehead's Words makes his own excuse thus If he has said otherwise in any of his late Printed Books I am glad of it But let him retract these for these have done much mischief Now says he when I said he was Orthodox I mean noâ— as he was Heterodox For there is a G. Whitehead Orthodox and a G. Whitehead not Orthodox I did not know G. Whitehead not Orthodox till lately I do not say there are two Persons in G. Whitehead he is but one and the same Person in this and some other things Orthodox and not Orthodox I own it that I have cited divers Passages out of his later Books that are Orthodox to prove him sound c. This plainly shews that G. Keith knew G. VVhiteheads Judgement to be otherwise than he has represented him But is it not a most horrible Wickedness for one Man designedly and wilfully to represent another Man's Judgment quite contrary to what he knows it to be Now let us return to G. Keith's Charge and Proof His Charge is that G. VVhitehead says He Christ has not the Body of a Man His Proof is from the Book last mentioned p. 29 41. thus Or dost thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee according to thy VVords p. 30. If thou dost thou mayst look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him Is this a Proof that G. VVhitehead says Christ has not the Body of a Man I expected when G. Keith said I prove that G. VVhitehead says He Christ has not the Body of a Man he would have pretended at least to have produced some place wherein G. VVhitehead had exprest those very VVords But instead of that he brings a place that hath neither those VVords nor any thing like them There is not in these Words of G. VVhitehead's a Denial either that Christ hath a bodily Existence or that he will appear in that Bodily Existence But from them may be gathered that thâ—t Appearance of Christ shall not be to save but to judge the World at the last Day and that that Day was not so near at hand as R. Gordon seem'd to expect or think For the Words are or dost thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee according to thy Words p. 30. If thou dost thou mayst look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him to wit only as the Son of Mary and to save thee The Word Such may respect the End of his Appearance as well as the Manner of it The End viz. to save thee as if Man should not be saved until the Day of general Judgment The manner viz. As the Son of Mary as if Christ should come in no higher powerful and more glorious Appearance than as
he was the Son of Mary And as to the Time of it if R. Gordon be dead his Eyes may be already dropt out without seeing it and yet the Appearance of Christ in a bodily Existence to judge the World at the last Day be yet to come and owned to be so These things I mention to shew the feeble grounds G. Keith hath for his Cavils But from the Book it self out of which G. Keith took these Words it is manifest that G. Whitehead used these Words only to manifest his Opponent Gordon's Confusion and Contradiction for they were not treating then concerning the Existence or Body of Christ but concerning Justification Redemption Salvation by Christ which R. Gordon it seems had asserted was wrought and compleated by the Sacrifice of Christ's Crucified Body upon the Cross and yet would put off Believers from being made Partakers of that Salvation till after their bodily Death that they should be raised from the Grave yet granted that it must be done by Christ's Appearance in Believers through Faith by his Spirit Whereupon says G. Whitehead to him Nature of Christian p. 29. See thy manifest Contradiction viz. A perfect Justification and Redemption of Sinners without them when no good is wrought in them But in Contradiction now it must be done by Christs Appearance in Believers through Faith by his Spirit As also thou grantest that his appearing the second time is without Sin to Salvation But when thinkest thou that must be Is it in this Life or hereafter Thou sayst that after the bodily Death you shall be raised out of the Grave and made partakers of that Salvation p. 13. T is strange the Salvation of Sinners yea of the whole World as thy Word is should be compleated at once above 1600. Years since and yet to be so long after Death lookt for how long is not known to thee or dost thou pretend to know or think thou know'st and thereupon dost thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee according to thy Words p. 30. If thou dost thou mayst look till thy Eyes drop out before Thou wilt see such an Appearance of him This says G. Keith is but one place that is that Christ will not so appear But why adds he will he not so appear but because he has no bodily Existence without us G. Whitehead said not so That 's only G. Keith's wrong Inference And That says he p. 16. I come now to prove So then what he has hitherto said is no proof of it for it seems he is but now coming to prove it For which purpose Nar. p. 17. he cites another Passage of G. Whitehead's in p. 4â— thus And that he existeth outwardly bodily without us at God's right Hand What Scripture-Proof hath he for these Words And then what and where is God's right Hand Is it Visible or Invisible Within us or without us only And is Christ the Saviour as an outward bodily Existence or Person without us distinct from God and on that consideration to be worshipped as God Yea or Nay And where doth the Scripture say he is outwardly and bodily glorified at God's right Hand Do these Terms express the Glory that he had with the Father before the World began in which he is now glorified These last Words from Where doth the Scripture say Is he says the thing that Rivets But if by Rivetting he means Fastening a Proof upon G. VVhitehead that he denies Christ to have a bodily Existence without us G. Keith himself has cut off the Head of his Rivet and made it uncapable to hold by saying which I shewed before from his Answer to his Countryman Iohn Alexander He ought to know that to Query a thing will not conclude that the Questionist doth positively affirm or deny what is Queried Truths Defence p. 59. Especially when it is only used in a Socratical way of Disputing or Arguing against an Adversary as it is used here and which he observes to be G. VVhitehead's way of Writing And indeed from the whole Answer which fills near two Pages out of which G. Keith hath cropt his Quotation it appears that G. VVhitehead's drift was to shew the Absurdity and Inconsistency of his Opponent's Assertion which was as in p. 40. that Christs Apostles and all his Ministers in all Ages pointed to Jesus the Son of Mary this Son of Man with an Hosannah to this Son of David and to none before him or to any ever since These Words The Son of Mary this Son of Man this Son of David and to none before him had a tendency to deny the Divinity or Godhead of Christ and to set up the Body that was born of the Virgin for the only whole intire Christ and Saviour And therefore to this G. VVhitehead answered That the Holy Prophets Apostles and Ministers hath pointed and testified unto Iesus 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 â—ut that they all cried Hosanna to the Son of David is a mistake For it was the Multitudes that went before and that followed when Christ rid to Jerusalem that cryed Hosannah to the Son of David Mat. 21.9 Adding Many 〈…〉 cry Hosannah who never knew his Salvation within nor believed in his Power but rather spiritually crucifie him And the Scribes and Pharisees could talk of Christs being the Son of David when they neither truly believed nor owned him that was the true Christ either as the Root or Offspring of David But Christ asked these Pharisees and Scribes who said Christ is the Son of David this Question VVhat think ye of Christ VVhose Son is he They said unto him The Son of David He said unto them How then doth David in Spirit call him Lord If David then call him Lord how is he his Son c Now says G. VVhitehead there VVas not this the true Christ whom David in Spirit called Lord before he took upon him Flesh or came of his Seed There 's another Question put to his Opponent who had asserted That all the Apostles and Ministers of Christ in all Ages pointed to Jesus the Son of Mary this Son of Man with an Hosannah to this Son of David and to none before him Was not this the true Christ whom David in Spirit called Lord says G. VVhitehead What then Did this Question imply that G. VVhitehead denied Christ according to the Flesh or as he was born of Mary to be the Son or Offspring of David Nothing less For he says he took upon him Flesh and came of David's Seed and is owned as pointed at and testified unto by the Holy Prophets Apostles c. as Man born of the Virgin No more doth his asking his Opponent for it is not a general Question but particular to his Opponent grounded upon the particular Terms his Opponent had exprest himself in thus Whereupon
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
of a pretended Contradiction between W. Penn and I. Whitehead is very Idle in it self and wicked in him and the worse for that he urged it formerly in his Book called The true Copy c. And I answered then in mine called Truth Defended p. 131. which he takes no notice of as I did also answer in that Book much of what he hath now urged concerning Christ and his being the promised Seed from p. 113. to p. 123. Where also I gave several Quotations out of G. Keith's Bôoks shewing most plainly that he hath maintained the very same things he now condemns in others and yet will not condemn in himself as particularly in his Book called The Way cast up where Sect. 8. p. 93. In answer to an Adversary's Charge that we deny Jesus the Son of Mary to be the alone true Christ. He first answers This is a false Accusation We own no other Jesus Christ but him that was born of the Virgin Mary who as concerning the Flesh is the Son of Mary and the Son of David and the Seed of Abraham Then adds p. 93. And yet he was the true Christ of God before he took Flesh and before he was the Son of Mary or David or of Abraham For his being Born of the Virgin Mary made him not to be Christ as if he had not been Christ before But he was Christ before even from the beginning as says heâ— I shall prove out of Scripture c. And having brought divers Scriptures and Arguments from p. 93. to p. 99. to prove that Christ Jesus as Man was from the beginning and had from the beginning an Heavenly Manhood and Spiritual Flesh and Blood He there concludes thus This is the promised Seed which God promised to our Parents after the Fall and actually gave unto them even the Seed of the Woman that should bruise the Head of the Serpent And therefore tho' the outward coming of the Man Christ was deferred according to his outward Birth in the Flesh for many Ages yet from the beginning this Heavenly man the promised Seed did inwardly come into the Hearts of those that believed in him and bruised the Head of the Serpent c. Here G. Keith not only asserts that this Heavenly Man Christ was the promised Seed and did from the beginning inwardly come into the Hearts of Believers and bruised the Head of the Serpent but also calls him the Seed of the Woman and says God not only promised him but actually gave him even the Seed of the Woman that should bruise the Serpents Head unto our Parents after the Fall many Ages before his outward Birth in the Flesh. Surely he that writ this had no cause to quarrel with W. Penn for saying Christ's Body strictly considered as such was not the Seed of Promise G. Keith had more need to have reconciled himself to himself if he could in these two opposite Expressions of his viz. That God gave the promised Seed even the Seed of the Woman actually to our Parents after the Fall many Ages before his outward Birth in the Flesh Way cast up p. 99. And That Christ did not become the Seed of the Woman according to the Sense of Gen. 3. Vntil the fulness of time that he was made of a Woman True Copy of a Paper p. 20. And he should have done well to have informed his Reader how God did actually give unto our Parents after the Fall so many Ages before Christ's outward Birth in the Flesh the Seed he promised them Gen. 3. Even the Seed of the Woman And yet Christ not be the Seed of the Woman according to Gen. 3. until so many Ages after he was actually given as the Seed of the Woman This is part of what I said to him in my former Book called Truth Defended p. 117 118. which rather than Answer he chose to cut himself out new work at Turners-Hall He pretends he did not Answer my Books in Print because he had not time to write nor outward Ability to Print I have shewed the Falshood of that pretence in the fore part of this Book yet let me now ask If that had been true why did he not then at his Meeting at Turners-Hall Answer my Books viva voce which then lay at his door unanswered and both Refute them if he could and acquit himself from those many Clinching Quotations I had therein hâ—mpered him with out of his own Books by explaining defending or Retracting them This I think every considerate Person will judge had been more properly his Province than wholly over-looking this to spend his time in impeaching Others by Renewing his old Baffled Charges before he had cleared himself from being guilty of the same Errors as he calls them which he had charged others with For if they whom he hath charged were as bad as he endeavours to make them yet he of all men is not fit to charge them till he has acquitted himself from the Imputation he lies under of being guilty of the same things This is so plain a Case that it may be hoped upon his next Indiction of such a Mock Meeting at Turners-Hall or elsewhere some of his Auditors when they are together will think fit to put him upon this just and necessary Work and I had like to have said hold him to it but that I consider he will be held to nothing However to furnish any such a little further with matter of that kind to invite him to I will not think much to transcribe another Quotation or two of his which I gave him in my former Book p. 119 120. The first is taken out of his Appendix to his Book of Immediate Revelation p. 256. where speaking of the spiritual Generation and Birth of Christ in us he says Thus we become the Mother of Christ in a spiritual sense or according to the Spirit as the Virgin Mary was his Mother after the Flesh. And this Spiritual Mystery Christ himself did teach in the days of his Flesh when he said Whosoever shall do the Will of my Father which is in Heaven the same is my Brother and Sister and Mother Mat. 12.50 And thus says G. Keith Christ according to his spiritual Birth in the Saints is the Seed of the Woman for that the Saints are the Woman that bring him forth after the Spirit and are his Mother as Mary brought him forth after the Flesh and after the Spirit also so that she was the Mother of Iesus in a double respect for as she brought him forth in her Body so she brought him forth in her Soul otherwise he could not have been her Saviour c. Here G. Keith calls Christ the Seed of the Woman according to his spiritual Birth in the Saints and yet quarrels with W. Penn for saying The Seed Christ must be inward and spiritual Again In the Way cast up p. 102. he says For indeed seeing he Christ is called as really Man before his ouâ—ward Birth in the
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
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
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
said he produced those Manuscripts as a Nip for his conceited Folly asked in a Parenthesis What means he by above six Does he mean six and a half For if they had been seven or eight he might as well have said so as above six This he calls my way of Quibbling which I think was suitable enough to his way of Scribbling Why should such a conceited Philosopher play the Fool and not be told of it He says I tell him he is guilty of Forgery in saying the Yearly Meeting censured any Expressions in his Manuscripts But because he repeats this over and over in the following part of his Narrative I say nothing to it here intending to speak to it once for all when he is got past his Manuscripts which he now says are seven or eight it seems he does not yet know whether however it is more than six and an half and not quite so uncertain as above six Yet I find not that he produced any more than two and those but private Letters from one Man and out of them he read but a piece of each and how truly and fairly he read those Pieces I know not having no Copy to prove them thereby for when they were read at the Yearly Meeting he mentions we could not obtain a Copy of them from him and we have seen but lately how unfair and unjust he was in giving a Passage out of G. Whitehead's Book The Letters he mentions go under the Name of one Iohn Humphreys and the substance of that part he read out of the first Letter is 1. A blaming them that divide Christ and put asunder what God hath joyned together by making such a distinction between Christ within and Christ without as divides Christs Body from his Spirit 2. A censuring G. Keith 's Ten Articles of Faith as relishing too much of Carnality And then says I am grieved to hear some say They did expect to be justified by that Blood that was shed at Ierusalem When G. Keith had read what he thought would serve his purpose he gave over and said I have not read the whole Letter but an intire Paragraph of it And thereupon says So farewel Christ without You divide Christ if you mention Christ without I think he wrongs the Man in the Inference for I take his meaning to be not that the bare mentioning Christ without is a Dividing of Christ but that so to distinguish between Christ within and Christ without as to make two distinct Christs of them whereas Christ within and Christ without is but one Christ this is to divide Christ and this I take to be that which Io. Humphreys did there blame But I would fain know why G. Keith did not read the whole Letter For though I would not be over-confident upon my own Memory of a thing I never heard read but once and that more than two years ago yet I am strongly perswaded there were other Passages in that Letter which was read in the Yearly Meeting that did explain I. Humphreys his meaning in these And I cannot think why G. Keith who is prolix enough at other times should pick out a piece of a Letter only and conceal the rest if he had not found something in the rest that he thought would take off the edge of his Objection against that he took As for those pieces of I. Humphreys Letters which G. Keith hath exposed in his Narrative though I do not hold my self nor the People called Quakers accountable for them or for every thing that particular Persons may write in private Letters yet I charitably hope though I know not the Man that wherein he hath erred it hath rather been in the Expression of his Mind than in his real Intent and Meaning For in that passage of his first Letter wherein he says I am grieved to hear some say they did expect to be justified by that Blood that was shed at Ierusalem I take these words to depend upon that complaint which he had made before of Dividing Christ by that kind of Distinction which some had made between Christ within and Christ without whereby they attributed at least he thought they did that to one part only as distinct and divided from the other which ought in a right sence to be ascribed to both joyntly I am the rather induced to believe this was his meaning from that Passage which G. Keith hath given out of his second Letter which seems to have been written on this occasion wherein he says the word Only should have been put in and that the leaving it out was the Omission of his Pen. Now had that word been in as it seems he intended it should have been the Sentence would have been thus I am grieved to hear some say They did expect to be justified by that Blood Only thaâ— was shed at Ierusalem And then I suppose G. Keith would not have quarrelled with it And though I. Humphreys when he saw how his Meaning was wrested in his first Letter did in his second Letter after he had declared the word Only should have been in and that that was his meaning in contempt of the deceitful and malicious workings of the Adversaries seemed indifferent whether they put in the word only or no saying as G. Keith cites him But however Let Deceit and Malice have its full force and scope upon it and that word only taken off the Conclusion of my Paper c. Yet it seems he did this not as intending thereby to exclude the Blood shed at Ierusalem from having any share or part in our Justification but as believing from his before declared Sense that Christ and consequently his Sacrifice ought not to be divided but taken joyntly that it would appear his Words had the force and import of the Word only and that that was his Meaning though the Word only was through inadvertency left out And therefore he refers to the Words of Christ Iohn 6.63 Which saying says he of our Saviour himself will clear me of your Aspersion So that even from what G. Keith hath thought fit to give of his second Letter it appears that their wresting the Words in his former Letter and inferring therefrom that he wholly excluded the Blood shed at Jerusalem from being concerned in our Iustification he took to be an Aspersion upon him and so called it Now the Words of our Saviour which he referr'd to in Iohn 6.63 are these It is the Spirit that quickeneth the Flesh profiteth nothing In which Words it may not be supposed our Saviour meant that his Flesh or Body as it was in Conjunction with his Spirit and Soul and contained that Divine Life which dwelt in it and was offered up together a compleat Sacrifice to the Father did profit nothing did avail nothing did contribute nothing to the Benefit and Advantage of Man But that the Flesh or Body considered simply of it self and by it self without that Divine Life Soul and Spirit that was in
the Relick of the Dead came in a little after the Year 300. p 81. Praying to Saints about the Year 380. p. 90. The Caelibacy or Single Life of Priests between the Years 300. and 400. p 190 191 192. Monkery about tâ—e Year 260. p. 226. And for Superstitious Ceremoâ—iâ—s used in the Church of Rome if Genebrard Fasâ—iculus Temporum Polidore de invent Rerum and other Writers may be believed the greatest part of them were introduced before the Sixth Century and not a few in the Third In p. 46. he obâ—rudes upon his Auditory the Copy of a Paper which he pretends to have Received from some of the Church-Party as he calls them by which I confess at the first sight I thought he had meant some Episcopal Men â—till Reading on I found he described them to be some that go among the Quakers Why he Denominates them some of the Church-Party or of a Party for the Church I know not unless to distinguish them from himself and such as he was in hopes to get to him to make a Party against the Church However he says They were such as favoured him and if he say true it appears they favoured him more than Truth otherwise they would not have gone out of the way of Truth and common Iustice to gratify him For he says They gave him a Meeting There were he thinkâ— Nine or Ten of them They took notice he says of some of Ellwood's Forgeries and Abuses And it seems they drâ—w up a Paper against me as a Censure and Judgment upon my Book for he says They said in their Paper T. Ellwood had done him wrong And yet all this if ever it was done was done in the Dark and in Hugger Mugger as the saying is without ever convening me or acquainting me with it before or after nor did I ever hear of it till now He says Some of them are Eminent and that they are Generally in good Repute among us If they were so it would have added some Repute to his Cause to have named them but that I observe he would not be drawn to by all the Importunity that was used His Narrative gives Account that H. G. said Let us know their names who they are which he refusing to tell the other said I dare thee to name their names or else thou art a Lyar an Impostor a Cheat adding I dare say it is a Cheat. All this would not prevail with G. Keith to name a Man of them And yet he says Some of them have I hope that Courage that I believe they would not be offended nor afraid if I named them This makes me the more suspect his Story to be false And though I will not say positively It is a Cheat yet I dare say It looks as like a Cheat as any thing can well look And I think an Impartial and Iudicious Auditory would have required their names and been better satisfied of the Authority of that Paper before they would have lent him their Ears to the Hearing of it But as if he had been feeding Iackdaws all went down for ought I find that he offered without the least chewing or Examination Now if there be any thing of reality in the Story he has told of some Persons whom he will not name that gave him that Paper of which he read the Copy in his Meeting at Turner's-Hall and that it be not a meer Fiction of his own to bring forth that as the work of others which for the weakness of it he might well have been ashamed to have brought forth as his own what ever might be their intent in doing it as perhaps to still and quiet him by making some little shew of blaming me which supposing the Story true in Fact is the most Charitable Construction I can put upon it Yet I plainly see his design in publishing it is to slip his Neck cut of the Collar as they say and thereby excuse himself if he might from Answering that Book of mine called A further Discovery out of which the Cavils contained in the Paper he read were pickt up For he says in a Marginal Note to p. 50. both of that Book and the t'other called Truth Defended I think I have effectually answered them here as to the main Now I think it fit to give the Reader an Account That that Book of mine called A further Discovery c. and was an Answer to a Book of G. Keith's called A Seasonable Information and Caveat c. the Epistle to which was Published first by it self about a Month before the Book in which he charged me with Fifty False Accusations Perversions and Forgeries which he pretended to have gathered up out of a Former Treatise of mine called An Epistle to Friends and undertook in so Many distinct Sections to prove against me All which in my Further Discovery I Answered and fully too and returned the Charge of False Accusations Perversions and Forgeries upon him This has lain upon him now near two Years without so much as attempting to Answer it Now he would sham me off with an Idle Story if not a meer Fable of what some few Persons that must not be named that they may not be blamed and shamed have in a Blind and Indirect manner signified to him as their Judgment Concerning some few and little material Passages in that Book of mine And this he would have pass for an Answer to that Book Which that it may not but that that Book as well as the other called Truth Defended may still remain upon him as unanswered I will go through the several particulars of it which he for want of weight in himself calls weighty and shew both the emptiness and weakness of them and the Folly and Falshood of his Comments upon them The First Head is that I blame G. Keith for mistating the Controversie about the sufficiency of the Light and cunningly sliding in the Word Within when he knew it was not in the Words charged nor in the Words proved To this it is opposed in that Paper thus A true Copy of the three Iudgments p. 6. are those Words All which are something else than the People called Quakers understand by the Light â—o wit the Light in every Man's Conscience which G. Keith alledgeth is Proof that G. Keith intended the Light within To this I say 1. What is meant by A true Copy of the three Iudgments I know not If it be a Book as by quoting p. 6. it seems to be I do not remember I have ever seen it nor is it much material to this business whether I ever do or not 2. Here 's a Relative without an Antecedent all which are something else c. All which all what All nothing at all For there is nothing mentioned or recited out of that True Copy to which the Relative Which may be referr'd So that this is a Nonsensiâ—al Passage And to compleat the Folly of this weighty Particular as he calls it
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
was accepted with him Acts 10.35 So now in every Profession of the Christian Religion he or she that fears God and worketh Righteousness that hungers and thirsts after the Lord with desire to know more of his Will that they may do it and who walk faithfully with him according to what they already know of him such are accepted with him according to the Sincerity he finds in them though clouded in their Understandings through Education or Tradition Such as these we do not deny to belong to Christ and to be dear unto him and taken care of by him Yet that makes not any of those intire Bodies of People amongst any of whom these are to be the true Church of Christ G. Keith mentions also these Words as out of a Paper of Solomon Eccles The Quakers are in Truth and none but they I have not seen that Paper that I remember nor know how fairly he hath cited the Words but before G. Keith out of a pettish Spleen forsook the Quakers he I suppose would have said the same The Quakers so called are in the Truth no Body of People that we know of are so inwardly gathered to the Truth as the People called Quakers are He also flings at us a saying of E. Burrough's to the People called Quakers thus The Tabernacle of God is with you and his dwelling Place is among you and only among you is God known p. 64. of his Works E. Burrough's Words are You who are called Quakers who are so not only in Word nor in shew but in Life and in Power whom God hath called and chosen to Place his Name in and to take up his Habitation among above all the Families of the Earth the Tabernacle of God is with you c. This also is very true if it be truly understood For though the Lord is good and gracious to all and doth answer the Breathings and good Desires of the honest hearted and doth visit them in loving Kindness and extend of his Mercies and Goodness unto them in every Profession and amongst every gathered People yet his Tabernacle and Dwelling Place is with and among his peculiar People and he is not so known among any other People as an imbodied People in that full inward spiritual living sensible experimental Manner and Degree as he is known among us his Poor despised People called Quakers whom G. Keith has taken all this Pains to wreak his Revenge and Malice upon and to stir up and engage all other People against if he could But the Lord who sees the Wickedness of his Heart knows how â—oth to reward him and to preserve us in whom alone we trust Out of the same Book of W. Penn G. Keith picks another Passage which he says is either perfect Nonsense or Antichristian Doctrine and because he cannot tell which he concludes or rather indeed both It is a question whether perfect Nonsense may be properly called Doctrine either Christian or Antichristian But upon due Consideration I think he will find neither Nonsense nor Antichristian Doctrine in it It is in p. 310. of W. Penn's Rejoynder to I. Faldo and it is given as a Reason among many others why the Body of Christ which was nailed to the Cross simply considered by it self and abstractly from that Divine Life and Power which dwelt in it should not be called the Christ viz. Because that Flesh of Christ is called a Vail but he himself is within the Vail which is the Holy of Holies whereinto Christ Jesus our High Priest hath entred Heb. 10.20 21. And as he descended into and passed through a Suffering State in his Fleshly Appearance and returned into that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory from whence he humbled himself which was and is the Holy of Holies then obscured or hid by his Flesh or Body the Vail while in the World So must all know a Death to their Fleshly Ways and Religions yea their Knowledge of Christ himself after the Flesh or they stick in the Vail and never enter into the Holy of Holies nor come to know him in any spiritual Relation as their High and Holy Priest that abides therein First Where 's the Nonsense here the perfect Nonsense this great Iudge of Sense complains of Why if he cannot find it he 'l make it rather than not Cavil For says he His saying Christ hath entred into the Holy of Holies within the Vail and that Vail is his Flesh and that Holy of Holies is himself What Nonsense is this says he VVas not Christ always in himself But where did W. Penn say That Holy of Holies is Christ himself Find me those Words in the whole Paragraph Nay does he not plainly say otherwise Does he not expresly call that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory from whence Christ humbled himself and into which he returned the Holy of Holies Read the Words again And as he descended into and past through a Suffering State in his fleshly Appearance and returned into that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory from whence he humbled himself which was and is the Holy of Holies So c. Pray what is the Antecedent here to the Relative VVhich but the Word State going before G. Keith is too well versed in Grammar not to know and see this I would he were but half so well versed in Honesty For this is a plain dishonest Perversion for which he deserves at least the Contempt and Censure of every honest Reader who by this Instance may see the ways G. Keith takes to make his Opponent speak Nonsense or Antichristian Doctrine He goes on with the like Honesty in his second Note upon these Words of VV. Penn thus His entring in within the Vail of his Flesh is either perfect Nonsense or it hath this Sense That he hath put off his Body be had on Earth and is sâ—parated from it This is a plain Perversion also For his entring in within the Vaâ—l is clearly explained by those Words of his returning into that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory called the Holy of Holies which he was in before he humbled himself to take on him that Flesh which was called a Vail because it vailed or hid from Men the Glory of his Godhead that dwelt in it Both Vail and Holy of Holies are Metaphorical Expressions borrowed from the Legal Tabernacle And as there in the Type they were used to set forth a difference of Places wih respect to Degrees of Holiness So here in the Antitype they are used to set forth a difference of States with respect to Degrees of Glory The State of Christ's Humiliation when he appeared in the form of a Servant in that Body of Flesh which was called The Vail was very glorious But the State of his Exaltation into that Immortality Eternal Life and Glory which he had with his Father before the World began which is called The Holy of Holies is a far more
glorious State Yet doth not his entring into this State imply that he has put off his Body he had on Earth and is separated from it For that Body being glorified is in Heavenly Glory with him But it is probable he raised this Cavil as to defame VV. Penn so also to introduce a Story which hereupon he tells of one R. Young in Pensilvania who he says affirmed this But that he did so G. Keith gives no Proof but his own Word which is justly in things of this kind of no Credit with me who have so often found and proved him false He makes a Third note upon those words of W. Penn before cited and that with as little Honesty as before For from W. Penn's saying All must know a Death to their Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh G. Keith says It is plain from his words that he hath this unsound sense of it that they must know a Death to the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh as the Flesh signifieth the Flesh of Christ as he came in the Flesh. But as this Comment is not very perfect sense and yet I will not call it perfect Nonsense so it is plain that he perverts W. Penn's words to a wrong sense and therein Abuses him For W. Penn's words are All must know a Death to their Fleshly ways and Religions which word Fleshly ways and Religions G. Keith left out see his Abominable Falshood and Treachery Yea their knowledge of Christ himself after the Flesh c. Which words Fleshly ways and Religions shew what sort of Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh he meant all must know a Death to viz. Their Fleshly Knowledge as Fleshly is opposed to Spiritual or that Knowledge which they in their Carnal Minds have comprehended or gathered in and in which too many rest without pressing after the Divine and Spiritual Knowledg of the End of Christ's coming in the Flesh and the Blessed effects thereof and manifold Benefits that accrue thereby to them that receive him in his Spiritual Appearance But how malicious a mind must he have who from those words would infer that W. Penn would have all to Die to the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh so as not to know that he ever came in the Flesh. In p. 58. G. Keith cites a Passage out of a Book of W. Penn's called Truth Exalted and with all rents a Quotation he gave before in his Narrative p. 21. out of a Book called The Christian Quaker which the Reader may find answered before From both which he infers that he and G. Whitehead and many other Teachers among the Quakers have no other Notion of Christ but an Inward Principle This is such a known Falshood and Apparent Slander Contradicted by almost all our Books and so fully disproved in many places of this Book that it neither deserves nor nâ—eds any other Answer here than a bare Denyal To his unjust Charge of unsound Passages he adds two or three seeming Contradictions which he would fasten upon W. Penn. The First is That in A Treatise of Oaths mentioned before he is earnest against all Oaths under the Gospel and yet in his Reason against Railing p. 180. he useth saith G. Keith the greatest Oath that ever was used among the Jews The Instance he gives is in these words directed to T. Hicks O that these heavy things might not be laid to thy Charge for so sure as God liveth there 's his Catch great will be the wrath that shall follow Yea God will visit for these unrighteous Dealings And I testify to thee from God's living Spirit if thou desist not and come not to deep Repentance the Lord will make thee an example of his Fury and thy Head shall not go down to the Grave in Peace c. This I take to be a meer Cavil and a very weak one too For first That form of Speech as the Lord liveth though it was sometimâ—â— used among the Jews of Old as an Oath yet it was not always so nor do I think G. Keith will take it to be intended for an Oath in all those places where he Reads it in the Bible as particularly in 1 Sam. 25 26. Where Abigail used it to David Concerning his Enemies See also Chap. 26.10 and Chap. 29.6 1 Ki. 17.12 and 18.10 2 Ki. 22.4.6 and Chap. 4.30 Iob. 27.2 with many other places in the Books of Samuel and the Kings where it is used sometimes singly as the Lord liveth sometimes with this Addition and as thy Soul liveth Yea and sometimes this latter Expression as thy Soul liveth is used without the former as in 1 Sam. 1.26 and 17.55 2 Sam. 11.11 14 19. Yet neither with it nor without it was intended for an Oath Secondly There is a difference between those two forms of Speech As the Lord liveth and so sure as God liveth for though the former was formerly used as an Oath yet the latter never was so used or taken but is only a Persuasive Form of Speech used to set forth the unquestionable Certainty of the thing delivered from the acknowledged Certainty that God lives In which sense and no other it is evident W. Penn there used it to express the Assurance he had of the Truth and Certainty of the Testimony he then gave against and to Tho. Hicks But none I think besides G. Keith would be so extravagant as to think that in these words W. Penn intended to take his Oath that the wrath of God which should follow those unrighteous dealings of T. Hicks would be great So to think were great Folly How mean a Cavil then is this And how meer a Caviller hath G. Keith shewn himself therein The latter part of W. Penn's words before cited G. Keith says imply some Prophecy against T. Hicks which he suggests was not fulfilled But he should have observed that what was there spoken of T. Hicks was Conditional if he desisted not and came noâ— to Repentance That he desisted is certain that he did not â—ome to Repentance I suppose G. Keith will not adventure to say that he did come to Repentance I have heard which that G. Keith also may do I wish His second Instance of Contradiction he gives in p. 59. out of two Books of W. Penn's One called Iudas and the Iews p. 13. the other An Address to Protestants p. 152. in the second Edition p. 151. in the first Edition the Passage is concerning the Power of the Church from those words of Christ Mat. 18.17 Go tell the Church This place in both those Books W. Penn expounded of Private Offences or Personal Injuries between Brethren which has no shew of Contradiction in it 'T is true that in the former he inferr'd from those words of Christ That Christ gave his Church Power both to try and reject Spirits In the other he denies that those words of Christ do Impower the Church to define and Impose upon all People under Temporal and Eternal Punishment Articles of
Faith c. What Contradiction is in this He knows Propositions are not Contradictory unless they be ad idem But is it the same thing to try and reject Spirits and to define and impose Articles of Faith under Temporal and Eternal Punishment His note upon this shews his Falshood his Malice and his Weakness He says Here you see he W. Penn makes the Church Power very low as by Church he means the Church of England or any other Church beside the Church of the Quakers But says he When he means the Church of the Quakers from the same Text he Magnifies her Power as great as ever Bellarmine or any other Iesuit Magnified the Church of Rome His Malice in the Comparison is obvious of it self and his Weakness in the Cavil His Falsness appears by this That W. Penn in neither of those places named either the Church of England the Quakers Church as he calls it or the Church of any other sort of People But the Church of Christ indefinitely leaving the Application to the Reader And the moderation that Book pleads for is a sufficient Confutation of this Cavil He adds a 3 d Instance of Contradiction as lame as the former He takes the first part of it out of the Address to Protestants p 246. of the second Edition p. 242. of the first Edition where W. Penn said them that are angry for God passionate for Christ that call names for Religion and fling Sâ—ones and persecute for Faith may tell us they are Christians if they will but no Body would know them to be such by their Fruits to be sure they are no Christians of Christs making To this G. Keith opposes some expressions he has pickt up out of two of W. Penn's Books which he thinks proceeded from Anger and Passion But what if they did not but from a Iust and Godly Zeal against Deceivers and Deceit as it appears they did Does he think to prove Contradictions upon precarious Propositions Such weak Attempts need no Refutation I am come at length to his Charge against me in particular which in p. 60. he brings in under this Title Some of Tho. Ellwood's vile and gross Errors truly collected out of his Book fasly called Truth Defended How truly collected we shall see anon He premises that he shall pass by at present my many Forgâ—ries and Perversions and Abuses against him in that last Book of mine and my two Former to the first of which he says he has answered in Print From hence I hope he will give me leave to Infer that he does not pretend to have answered my two last yet so that I may live in hopes of hearing from him once again at least if not oftner And the rather for that he has Collected he says out of my two last Abusive Books as he calls them above a hundred manifest Perversions Forgeries and Falsities that I have heaped up against him which says he I have in readiness to shew and which I keep by me for a reserve untill I find an Occasion to Publish them either by Print or otherwise He 's a wary Warriour one may see by this He won't hazard all at â—â—e Battel but keeps a reserve to Recruit his Forces if he should happen to come by the worst as it is more than ten to one he will He mustered up fifty out of my First Book called An Epistle and sent them forth against me in his Seasonable Information Them I beat back upon himself in my second Book called A further Discovery which is the first of those two he has not replied to so that he had need re-inforce them if he can and make good his Old Charge before he exhibites a New one And when that is done with then let us have the t'other hundred and by that time perhaps he 'll have pickt some more out of this The Errors he now charges me with are in number Ten and all pretended to be taken out of my last Book called Truth Defended The first he gives thus The Blood that came out of Christ's side its shedding was not done to compleat the Offering because before that Christ said Consummatum est it is finished p. 99. Note says G. Keith This is as much against his Death for before his Death he said It is Finished Now Reader take my words For these he has given are not mine but his own by which I suppose he would insinuate that I hold the Offering or Sacrifice to have been compleated before Christ's Death My words were these This offering up himself and giving himself a Ransom for all included all his sufferings both inward and outward and made it a compleat and perfect Sacrifice in which his Blood was Comprehended and concerned as well as his Flesh before his side was Pierced by the Spear For he had pronounced that great word Consummatum est It is Finished had bowed his Head and given up the Ghost before his side was Pierced by the Spear Observe here now I not only said he had pronounced that great word It is Finished but also expresly that he had bowed his Head and given up the Ghost before his Side was Pierced G. Keith pretending to repeat my words leaves out that Clause he had bowed his Head and given up the Ghost and then infers that my making the offering to be compleated upon his saying It is Finished before his Side was pierced which was no done and which I say was not done till after he was Dead is a making the offering to be compleated before he was Dead What shall I call this Dealing of his a Forgery Falsity or Perversion A manifest Perversion to be sure it is and that a gross and vile one This is the way he takes to prove me guilty of vile and gross Errors And at this rate what Man living can escape the lash of his false Tongue Is this man fit to charge me with Perversions Forgeries and Falsities not by the Dozen nor yet by the Score but by the Half Hundred and Hundred The second gross Error he charges on me P. 61. is That I Iustify G. Whitehead's Doctrine and words denying that the Material Blood of the Beasts were Types of Christ's Material Blood and yet Fallaciously seem to own it p. 106. How does this Charge hang together that I deny it and yet seem to own it If I own it how am I guilty of a vile and gross Error If I seem to own it so that he could not tell whether I own it or deny it why would he be so forward to Charge me with vile and gross Error in denying it before he was come to a certainty that I did deny it Does not this shew his Injustice as well as his Folly But besides both this and the Third viz. That I justify W. Penn's Doctrine saying the one Seed cannot be an outward thing for one outward thing cannot be the proper sign of another outward thing are already discussed in this Answer to
he is altogether unjust in raising this Cavil for he knows that in this Place as well as in the other upon which he grounded his last pretended Error where I defended S. Crisp against R. Cobbet and him I expresly spake of Christ not only with respect to his Body which was born of the Virgin but as he was the Son of God by an Eternal Generation as he was conceived by the Overshadowing of the Power of the Highest as he was the Promised Seed which G. Keith had confessed was not the Manhood only but the Godhead and Manhood united And in these respects it was that I argued he was not produced by Coagulation which was one of Cobbet's Terms nor came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary which was another of Cobbet's Terms But before I part with G. Keith on this Head let us see whether He who is so forward to brand me with this Error has not himself trod too near that which he charges me with For in his Book called The way to the City of God p. 131. He says Even according to that Birth He Christ was the Son of God no less than the Son of Man having God for his Father as he had the Virgin Mary foâ— his Mother But as he was the Son of God having God for his Father was he produceâ— by Coagulation or did he come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary Now the Child says he we know doth partake an Image or Nature from both Parents and thus did Christ who did partake of the Nature and Image of Man from the Seed of Mary but did partake of a Nature and Image much more excellent than that of Man in its greatest glory from God and his Seed who did really sow a most divine and heavenly Seed is not that a Substance in the Virgins Womb which as it supplied the Males Seed so it had much more in it and brought forth a Birth which as it had the true and whole Nature of Man so I say it had a Perfection above it and that not only in accidental Qualities as men will readily confess but even in Substance and Essence The Eighth Error he slanders me with he calls my false way of reasoning against the Man Christ's being created from his reasoning if not created therefore not Man by retorting if created therefore not God p. 139. This is as meer a Cavil as the former and both the one and the other arose from hence that he would make the Manhood only to be Christ without the Godhead or else subject the Godhead to the same Condition of Generation or Creation with the Manhood either of which is an Error This made me give him that retorting Answer which has so much displeased him Thus it was in my former Book His Third Observation is That S. Crisp's denying that Jesus the Saviour was created or calling for Scripture to prove it doth sufficiently prove that he understands Christ only to be God and wholly excludes the Manhood of Christ from being Christ or any part of him Doth it so said I Then let G. Keith look to himself For by retortion I return upon him That his holding that Iesus the Saviour was created which he doth by condemning S. C. for denying it doth sufficiently prove that he understands Christ to be only Man and wholly excludes the Godhead of Christ from being Christ or any part of him which to hold is a gross and vile Error Let him acquit himself as he can He cannot acquit himself therefore he is angry and wrangles with me for retorting this on him He says I charge him to be deeply drenched into Socinianism My words are I confess I did not think him so deeply drencht into Socinianism He says This is my Ignorance The Socinian Error is not That Christ is a Creature but that he is a meer Creature viz. only Man and not both God and Man I was not ignorant of this nor am of the folly of his Arguing neither can he be ignorant that my Answer by retortion implied him to hold that Christ is not only a Creature but a meer Creature only Man wholly excluding the Godhead which is full Socinianism And until he will leave Cavilling and come down in his Stomach and distinguish as he ought to do betwixt Christ as he was the Son of God by Eternal Generation the divine Word which was in the beginning with God and which was God and that which he took of the Virgin he shall never be able to free himself from the Imputation of this Error For so far as he makes Christ to be created so far he makes him a meer Creature The Ninth Error he ascribes to me he calls my blaming him to make light so he expresses it of the work of Generation I take him to mean Regeneration in comparison of Christ's Incarnation therefore according to him says he Regeneration is greater than Christ's Incarnation Upon which he crys out O great Blasphemy p. 155. In this he mistook me whether ignorantly or designedly I know not for I did not intend nor now do to draw a Comparison between those two Appearances or Manifestations of Christ Outwardly in the Flesh at Ierusalem and Inwardly in the Hearts of his People so as to prefer the One to the Other for I have all along told him I do not like to divide Christ. But the drift and scope of my words which here he carps at was to shew him that he had done so As for the Charge it self of making Regeneration greater than Christ's Incarnation he had charged it before but falsly on W. Penn in his Narrative p. 22. And I have Answered it already in p. 82. of his Book to which I refer the Reader for satisfaction concerning it His Tenth and Last Error he flings at me is my saying that the Author of Regeneration is Christ chiefly as he is manifested inwardly in the heart p. 152. My words which best shew my meaning were these And very idle is he in saying Seeing the Work of Regeneration and Sanctification in the Saints is a great Mystery must we not own him who is the Author and great Cause of it to be greater For who ever questioned that We all own the Workman to be greater than the Work the Author and great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification to be greater than the Regeneration and Sanctification wrought And this Author and great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification we say is Christ and that chiefly as he is manifested inwardly in the Heart For he worketh it not in any but those in whom he is so inwardly manifested These words shew that when I said Christ is the great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification chiefly as he is manifested inwardly in the Heart it was with respect to him as he is the nearest and most immediate Cause thereof and as he actually works the work of Regeneration and Sanctification in the Heart and