though that Book not treating so directly of that Subject hath not so many Instances in it as are in other Books of his In that very Page 47. out of which he takes his first Quotation against G. Whitehead upon Iohn 17.5 And now O Father glorifie me with thine own self with the Glory which I had with thee before the World was G. Whitehead says Was not he the true Christ the Son of God that so prayed unto the Father And in the same Page just after the Words G. Keith carps at upon the Baptist's saying Which Word was God yet he was not a Saviour as he was the Word or Creator of the World c. G. Whitehead replies How then doth He say I am God a Saviour c. And in Page 48. upon the Baptist's saying He was not a Saviour as the Root and Creator of Man but as he was to be the Offspring of Man c. G. Whitehead Answer'd Do but mark the Confusion and Darkness of this Man who hath denyed that God the Word or Creator of Man is a Saviour and Christ as he was the Root and Creator of Man and as He was the Eternal Son of God from the Days of Eternity he hath denied to be a Saviour but as he was the Off-spring of Man Do but Eye the tendency of this Doctrine thus to deny the Son of God to be a Saviour whereas it is through the Son of God that Eternal Life is received Iohn 3.16 And God's Love was manifest in sending his only begotten Son into the World So here the Efficacy of the Son of God and the Eternal Word is proved against the Baptist's false and unscripture like Distinction It was in the Year 1668. that this Book was Printed In the Year 1669. G. Whitehead writ another Book which I mentioned before called The Divinity of Christ and Vnity of the Three that bear Record in Heaven with the blessed End and Effects of Christ's Appearance coming in the Flesh Suffering and Sacrifice for Sinners Confessâ—d and Vindicated by his Followers called Quâ—kers In that Book between the Epistle and the first Chapter giving a brief Account of what we own touchâ—ng the Divinity and Godhead of Christ he says That there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and that these Three are one both in Divinity Divine Substance and Essence not three Gods nor separate Beings That they are called by several Names in Scripture yet they are Eternally One in Nature and Being One Infinite Wisdom one Power one Love one Light and Life c. Then adds We never denied the Divinity of Christ as most injuriously we have been accused by some prejudiced Spirits who prejudicially in their perverse Contests have sought occasion against us as chiefly because when some of us were in Dispute with some Presbyterians we could not own their unscriptural Distinction and Terms The Father's begetting the Son and the Spirit 's being sent we witness to and own Yea the Son of God is the brightness of his Glory and the express Image of his Substance So the Manifestation of the Father of the Son and Holy Spirit we confess to c. And that Iesus Christ being in the Form of God thought it no robbery to be equal with God and yet as a Son was sent of the Father c. So that the Deity or Divinity of Christ in his Eternal Infinite Glorious State we really confess and own In the Book it self p. 18. He says He Christ was equal with God in Glory before the World was Again p. 19. It was never any Design or Plot of ours to endeavour to prejudice the Minds of any against the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost as falsly and blasphemously we are accused by this our prejudiced Opposer Again p. 22. We never disowned the Deity of Christ or Holy Ghost as falsly and injuriously is insinuated against us Again p. 26. Charging us with designing to blast and overthrow the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost upon which Blasphemers and Blasphemy and damnable Speeches are hideously cast upon us but most unjustly and falsly For no such design ever had we as either to blast or overthrow the Deity of Christ or Holy Spirit we having openly professed and declared the contrary both in Words and Writings Again p. 32. That the Divine Essence or Godhead can be but one and this in each of the Three we never denied Again p. 38. I have heard of some beyond the Sea who were accused with denying the Divinity of Christ but I know of none here that either deny the Divinity of Christ or him to be of one Substance with the Father Again p. 41. Christ being the Brightness of the Glory of God and the express Image of his Divine Substance as also truly called the Son of his Love c. Second Part of the same Book p. 3. We never denied the Deity or Divinity of either Father Word or Holy Ghost Again p. 39. His Opponent T. Danson having charged the Quakers with denying Christ to be God G. Whitehead Answers This is an apparent slander cast upon us as our Books and Writings do shew that we never denied Christ to be God or his Divinity c. Again p. 54. As to Socinianism as he calls it we are neither discipled in it nor baptized into Socinus his Name neither do we own him for our Author or Pattern in those things which we believe and testifie nor yet do we own several Principles which I. O. relates as from Socinus and principally that of Christ's being God but not the most High God It was never our Principle for tho' we do confess to his Condescension Humility and Suffering in the Days of his Flesh wherein he appeared in the form of a Servant being made in Fashion as a Man Yet his being in the Form of God and being glorified with the same Glory he had with the Father before the World began and his being God over all blessed for ever These things we professed and believed in the beginning and do the same still it never being in our Hearts in the least to oppose or desert them Again p. 58. As to a great part of his I. O's Book wherein he goes about to prove the Divinity or Deity of Christ c. We are unconcerned therein having never denied Christ's Divinity Here one would think were Instances enough of G. Whitehead's and ours owning and confessing Christ to be God to make G. Keith blush for charging him with denying it But because I know G. Keith hath too far and too long abandoned Modesty and Vertue to be easily drawn to blush I will add some more out of another Book written by G. Whitehead and Printed the same Year 1669. called Christ ascended above the Clouds c. in Answer to one Iohn Newman a Baptist who having it seems asserted that The Word was in the beginning but Christ was in time not till he had taken
Nature upon him and became in the likeness of sinful Man being born of the Virgin Mary c. G. Whitehead Answer'd p. 12. This Assertion opposeth the Deity and Divinity of Iesus Christ and contradicts the faithful Testimonies of the Holy Men of God in the Scriptures of Truth Again p. 14. Though Jesus signifies a Saviour and Christ Anointed yet to coâ—sine those Names only to the Manhood still agrees with the erroneous Doctrine before that Christ was not the Word from the beginning whereas he took upon him the Manhood in Time in which tho' we own him as the anointed of God yet he was also Gods anointed as he was his only begotten and Delight and so the Son from his Eternal Being or Substance before the Mountains and Hills were settled And in p. 15. he expresly calls that Opinion Heretical that denies the Divinity of Christ. Again p. 16. To say Christ cannot dwell in Man doth not only oppose his Spirituality Deity and Omnipotency bar c. And if He be perfect God he can dwell in his People as he hath promised Again p. 18. It still strictly limits or tyes up the Name Jesus Christ to a Body of Flesh and Blood and so coverâ—ly denies his Being before he took on him that visible Body of Flesh Blood and Bones and so opposeth his Divinity as before Again p. 68. What a gross Error is it to affirm that Christ was not from the beginning or that he was not the Word in the beginning and what a denyal of his Divinity like the old Hereticks Again ib. Much more might be said on the behalf of the Divinity of the Son of God or Christ who was the Word in the beginning and with the Father in his Glory before the World began In another Book also of G. Whitehead's called The Nature of Christianity c. Printed in the Year 1671. to which G. Keith himself writ a Postscript in the Epistle p. 3. G. Whitehead speaking concerning the true Saviour or the Man Christ Jesus says Whom we have frequently Confest both as to his Divinity and as to his taking upon him the Body prepared for him to do the Will of God in according to the Scriptures of Truth yea both his outward and inward Appearance his suffering Nature and glorified State and his Divinity in both we have always truly Believed and Confessed even his Dignity Spiritual outgoing from of old from Everlasting as also his outward Birth c. And in the Book p. 36. G. Whitehead replies upon his Opponent What is this but to deny the Divinity of Christ c. Again p. 40. That the Holy Prophets Apostles and Ministers both pointed and testified unto Jesus Christ both as Man born of the Virgin or to his coming in the Flesh and unto his Divinity and Manifestation in Spirit this is owned Again p. 41. I perceive he is ignorant of Christ both as the Son of God and as the Son of Man For according to the Spirit he was the Son of God c. Again p. 52. says he to his Opponent R. Gordon Thou having confest that his Christ's out-goings were from Everlasting hast thereby granted to what I said that the Son of God and his Light are not under a Limitation as to Time and Place especially if thou wilt own his Divinity or that he ever was the Son of God before he took a Body in the Womb of the Virgin but if thou dost not own that the Son of God was before then than thou dost not own his Divinity nor him no more than a Finite Creature I choose to confront G. Keith out of these Books rather than others because these are some of the Books he hath cited and out of which he hath pretended to make good his Charges against us and therefore he may not be supposed to have been ignorant that these Passages were in them But how horribly unjust and wicked he must be in charging G. Whitehead with denying the Divinity of Christ or that Christ is God who hath so fully and frequently asserted and maintained his Divinity against others and that at the same time wherein he is charged to have denied it I leave to the Reader 's Judgment The next part of his Charge against G. Whitehead is That he has denied Christ to be Man Nar. p. 16. For proof of which he cites that Book of G. Whitehead's which I lately mentioned called The Divinity of Christ c. p. 18. but the Reader must take Notice It is in the Second Part of that Book for the Book is by its Pages divided into two parts The Words G. Keith cites first are these If the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both Created doth not this render him a Fourth Person c. There G. Keith breaks off with an c. But it follows in G. Whitehead's Book thus For Creation was in Time which contradicts their Doctrine of three Distinct Increated Co-Eternal Co-Essential Persons in the Deity seeing that which was Created was not so This shews the occasion of those Words and that they weâ—â—â— ad hominem to shew his Opponent T. Danson the absurdity of his Assertions about the Personalities of the Deity But this Passage though G. Keith mentioned it to make the greater noise and flourish he leans not on For without Commenting on it he says But the stress I lay is in the Words following which he gives thus But herein whether doth not his and their ignorance of the only begotten of the Father plainly appear There he leaves out these Words And their denyal of Christs Divinity which he knew would make against him and then goes on thus Where doth the Scripture say That his Soul was Created For was not he the brightness of the Fathers Glory and the express Image of his Divine Substance But supposing the Soul of Christ was with the Body created in Time c. There G. Keith breaks off again with an c. But in G. Whiteheads Book it follows thus I ask if from Eternity he was a Person distinct from God and his Holy Spirit without either Soul or Body And where doth the Scripture speak of any Person without either Soul or Body Let 's have plain Scripture This further shews that this whole Passage related to Danson's strange Notions of the Personalities of the Deity to shew his Confusion therein and also to bring him back to the Scripture which he with the rest for there were several other Priests concerned also at that time in the Controversie had set up for the only Rule in Religion but would not keep to Therefore did G. Whitehead put it upon them Where doth the Scripture say Let 's have plain Scripture But G. Keith perverts the whole Passage and abuses G. Whitehead for he tells his Auditors Here ye see He will not own that Christ had a Created Soul Th. Danson being a Presbyterian Minister says he did plead That Christ as Man had a Created Soul Nay
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
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
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
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
I ask him â— seeing he would restrain all to the fleshly Appearance and make all the Apostles c. to have pointed to Jesus the Son of Mary this Son of Man with an Hosannah to this Son of David and to none before him If he hath so considered him to be God the Saviour or the Son from the Substance of the Father as some of his Brethren have confessed the Son is And what Scripture-Proof hath he who pretends so highly to Scripture and blames us though falsly for not holding to it for these VVords He existeth outwardly bodily without us at God's right Hand And where doth the Scripture say He is outwardly and bodily glorified at God's right Hand Do these Terms express the Glory that he had with the Father before the VVorld began in which he is now glorified The Exception here is not against the thing but the Terms by which it is exprest The Thing that Christ hath a bodily Existence without us and is therein glorified and that at God's right hand is so far from being denied that it was never doubted But that this should he exprest in such Terms as the Holy Scripture doth not afford and which would limit Christ to any certain place or exclude him by the Word outward from being in his Saints is justly excepted against as contrary both to the Nature of Christ and Scope of the Scriptures And therefore G. VVhitehead asks his Opponent what Scripture-Proof hath he VVhere doth the Scripture say so And the more to lay open his Opponents absurdity in this Case goes on questioning him in the same place p. 41. thus And then VVhat and where is Gods right Hand Is it visible or invisible within us or without us only Now G. Keith might as well from hence infer and charge G. VVhitehead with denying that God has a right Hand as he doth from the other Questions That Christ hath no bodily Existence without us and both a like absurdly and falsly For he himself says in another place also of his Book called Truth 's Defence p. 165. When his Opponent would have drawn a Conclusion and inferred a Charge from a Query What is proposed in the Query is not positively concluded one way or another as the Nature of a Query doth plainly demonstrate And blaming his then Opponent for urging Matters of Doctrine in unscriptural Terms he says in Truth 's Defence p. 169. Why is it that the Scriptures are so full and large in their Testimony to the Doctrines and Principles of Religion but to let us understand that all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith which God requireth in common of all Christians are expresly there Delivered and Recorded And therefore says he for my part what I cannot find expresly delivered in Scripture I see no Reason why I should receive or believe it as any common Article or Principle of the Christian Faith or Life And p. 170. he adds Now if this were but received among those called Christians that nothing should be required by one sort from another as an Article of Faith or Doctrine or Principle of the Christian Religion in common to be believed but what is expresly delivered in the Scripture in plain express Scripture Terms of how great an Advantage might it be to bring a true Reconcilement among them and beget true Christian Unity Peace Love and Concord Yet G. Keith himself who but in the Year 1682. wrote thus doth now which shews his inconsistency with himself and Injustice to G. Whitehead charge G. Whitehead with denying the thing it self because he did but ask his Opponent for a Scripture-Proof of a thing laid down not in Scripture Terms So industrious is he now to seek an Advantage instead of furthering a Reconcilement among them called Christians to hinder any such Reconcilement and cause a greater distance between them and instead of begetting true Christian Unity Peace Love and Concord to break and destroy as much as in him lies that Love and Peace that hath been and but for him and such other Incendiaries might be and increase among them But though G. Whitehead did reject the Baptists unscriptural Terms yet that he owned the Manhood of Christ as well as his Divinity may be seen in another Book also of his called The Quakers Plainness detecting Fallacy a Book not written t'other Day but in 1674. two and twenty Years ago where p. 18. answering an Objection that we own nothing but the Divine Nature to be Christ he answers Where proves he these words to be ours Have we not plainly and often confest also that the Divine Nature or Word Cloathed with the most holy Manhood and as having taken Flesh of the Seed of Abraham was and is the Christ. Before I pass to G. Keith's next Proof I must here take notice of a Marginal note which G. Keith makes in his seventeenth p. relating to the Book he last cited of G. Whitehead's called The Nature of Christianity The Reader may take notice that in p. 15. when it was Objected to him that the Book which he then mentioned was written Anâ—â—eâ—tly and that he had written in Vindication of our Principles since He there to turn off the Objection says I do say If it were my last Wordâ— I know noâ— that I over Read a line of this Book till I came last to England But here quoting another Book of G. Whitehead's which he could not pretend Ignorance of in as much as he himself was not only concerned with G. Whitehead in the controversy on which that Book was written but had also a part in the same Book against his Country-man Rob. Gordon whom he Principally had undertaken to Answer in another Book called The Light of Truth Triumphing Published but the Year before Now to secure himself if he could from the like Objection he adds here his Marginal note thus Note There is an Additional Postscript by me G. Keith put to this Book of G. Whitehead Nature of Christianity the which Postscript I left in a Manuscript at London and with the Quakers Printed with this of G. Whitehead I acknowledge says he my want of due Consideration that I did not better consider G. Whitehead's words in that Book having many Years ago Read it but too overly and not having seen it since for many Years till of late Does this sound likely Does it savour of Sincerity and plainness Or does it not rather look like a silly shifting Excuse for his Condemning that now which he owned then and yet pretending to be the same in Judgment that he was then He goes on in his note thus But I am sure I did really then believe as I now do that Christ as man did outwardly and bodily exist without us for proof of which see my words in that Additional Postscript p. 73. where at N. 11. I blame R. Gordon for saying That the now present Glorified Existence of that Body or man Christ that suffered at Jerusalem is denied
his Divine Seed and Body extended into us And thus he is the incarnate Word or Word made Flesh dwelling in our Flesh c. VVay cast up p. 133. And G. Keith in his answer to the Rector of Arrow said I put thee to prove by any one place in all the Scripture that Christ hath now any other Flesh or Body but that which is Spiritual Rector Corrected p. 24. and again p. 54. As concerning the Body of Christ that was Crucified was it not again raised up to be made a living Body And after he arose and ascended was it not a Spiritual Body Why then says G. Keith to the Rector sayst thou shew a syllable that intimates a spiritual Body Is not Christ's Body a spiritual Body which he hath now in the Heavens Shew a Syllable that Christ hath any other Body but that which is spiriâ—ual And p. 55 he says What is that Body of Christ mentioned by the Apostle Col. 2.17 which puts an end unto the outward Observation of Meats and Drinks new Moons and Sabbath-days Is that only the outward Body that was Crucified If thou sayst yea then thou dividest Christ whereas Christ is not divided And p. 44. he says That there is no such a distance betwixt Christ that is gone into the Holiest and his Saints upon Earth as thou imaginest see but ver 19 20 21 22. of Heb. 10. And in p. 23. speaking of the Power and Vertue of the Body of Christ that rose and ascended a spiritual and glorious Body he says But this vertue is not any visible thing nor is the glorified Body of Christ visible Flesh and therefore says he to the Rector thou dost grosly erre to say as thou dost the Son of Man is visible Flesh For seeing the Body of Christ is glorified and wholly spiritual as the Body of every true Believer shall be at the Resurrection how can it be visible Flesh And adds he Christ the second Adam is called in Scripture the quickning Spirit but not visible Flesh. Therefore says he in this see how he banters him thou ' dost grosly erre and needest Correction None of these Passages hath ever yet been retracted by G. Keith that I have seen or heard of and therefore he is the more to be blamed for blaming G. Whitehead for asserting Christ's Body to be a glorified spiritual Body not a gross carnal visible Body of Flesh which he himself says it is not He hath one Cavil more upon this Head against G. Whitehead and a mâ—â—r Cavil it seems to be He grounds it on a passage he takes out of a Book of G. Whitehead's called The He goats Horn broken written about 36 years ago in answer to two Books written by three Opposers whereof one was named Io. Horn and G. Keith seems to fancy that this Book of G. Whitehead's had that Title as alluding to the Name of Iohn Horn and he took occasion from thence to make himself and his Auditors some Sport about it Nar. p. 19. But unless he had beâ—ter ground to go upon than bare likeness in â—ound of words he may be mistaken for all that For I could shew him a Book written some years before that by R. Hubberthorn called The Horn of the He-goat broken in Answer to a Book published by one Tho. Winterton betwixt which Name and Title there is not the least likeness of sound That which G. Keith objects to G. Whitehead here is That he contradicts a passage in his Opponents Book which G. Keith says if he understands any thing of true Divinity or Theology is a sound Passage viz. That our Nature Kind or Being as in us not in Christ is corrupt and filthy in it self yet Christ took upon him our Nature not as it is filthy in us by sin in it c. How sound this Passage is I will not here dispute because I would not dilate Controversie to feed a carping Mind in a peevish Adversary neither will I presume to question G. Keith's understanding any thing of true Divinity lost I should be thought as ignorant as he is arrogant But yet I think it may be worthy of consideration how far that Passage is sound which says Our Nature Kind or Being is corrupt and filthy in it self not only as in us by sin in it but in it self And how suitable it was for Christ to take upon him a Nature that was corrupt and filthy in it self That Christ took on him the Nature of Man though it be not in Scripture exprest in those terms that I remember may in a right sense for the word Nature is taken in divers Acceptations be admitted The Scripture says he took upon him the form of a Servant and was made in the likeness of Men Phil. 2.7 And that Forasmuch as the Children are Partakers of Flesh and Blood he also himself likewise took part of the same Heb. 2.14 And in verse 16. it is said He took on him the Seed of Abraham But the Margin expresses it more agreeably to the Greek as G. Keith knows thus He taketh not hold of Angels but of the Seed of Abraham he taketh hold Now I do not find by G. Whitehead's Answer that he denies that Christ took Mans Nature but that he taxes his Opponents with Confusion in two respectsâ— one for that they excepted against his former wording of their Assertion thus That their Nature is restored in Christ and yet that their Nature is a filthy Nature and Christ took upon him their Nature The other that to free themselves from the imputation of Confusion in the former they say He might as well have taxed the Apostle with Confusion for saying Men by Nature do the things contained in the Law Rom. 2.14 And yet by Nature Children of wrath Ephes. 2.3 In which two places G. Keith I presume will not deny the word Nature to be used very differently Now to this G. Whitehead's Answer was We may justly tax thâ—se Men with Confusion indeed but not the Apostle for here they cannot discern between the sinful Nature and the pure Nature for the Nature of Christ is pure so that it 's not their Nature for their Nature is filthy and therefore it is not in Christ that is as it is filthy Then he goes on to shew their Confusion in the other part And their bringing that of Rom. 2.14 Ephes. 2.3 together to prove their confusion sheweth that they cannot discern between that Nature by which Men do the things contained in the Law and that Nature by which Men break the Law and are Children of wrath but make as if it were all one Now I do not â—ind G. Keith is able to make any great advantage by his Cavil against G. Whitehead He says indeed Our blessed Lord might well take on him our Nature and the Nature in us be sinful and in him pure and holy But will he say that that Nature which our Lord took on him was sinful or corrupt and filthy in it self Which
he knows wâ—re Io. Horn's terms But I observe he takes occasion from hence to make Sport with G. Whitehead and W. Penn their Philosophy even so far as to ridicule Divine Inspiration For he says he has oft told G. Whitehead that he and W. Penn will needs embrace false Notions in Philosophy they will needs seem to be Philosophers by Divine Inspiration as well as Ministers and Preachers by 〈◊〉 Had not the Philosophy himself so much dotes on and glories in been as his own phrase was a Ditch and a foul Ditch too he would have been more cleanly in his Expression and not have made Divine Inspiration the Subject of his Frothy Flout But it is high time for him to tack about and deny Divine Inspiration if he aspire to Preferment in that Church against which he has formerly said so much for it Thus having answered all his Quotations against G. Whitehead concerning the holy Manhood or Divine Existence and spiritual Being of Christ in Heaven as he is the Heavenly Man shewed that G. Whitehead hath not denied it I shall give a few Instances out of G. Whitehead's Books those especially which G. Keith has pickt his Cavils out of to manifest his owning the Holy Manhood or Bodily Existence of Christ in Heaven In his Book called The Light and Life of Christ within p. 9. refuting the slander of his Opponent he says False it is That the Quakers Christ is not Gods Christ or that they deny the Man Christ or the Christ that is in the Heavens In his Book called Christ ascended above the Clouds p 16. when his Opponent had asserted that Christ cannot dwell in Man and given this as his Reason For Christ is perfect Man as well as perfect God He does not deny that Christ is perfect Man as well as perfect God but denies the Consequence that therefore Christ cannot dwell in Man Mind his Answer which is this To say Christ cannot dwell in Man doth not only oppose his Spirituality Deity and Omnipotency but also is contrary to the Apostles plain Testimonies of Christs being in the Saints And if he be perfect God he can dwell in his People as he hath promised and surely his being perfect Man doth not put a Limitation upon him as a Let or Hinderance to disable him from being in his People whilst he who was Christ as come in the Flesh was also truly Jesus Christ within in his spiritual Appearance and we do not confine him under this or that particular Name Again p. 17. I grant that Christ arose with the same Body that was crucifiâ—d and put to Death and that he ascended into glory even the same glory which he had with the Father before the World begun Many more Instances might be added But the Reader may take notice that in my last Book called Truth Defended written about a year ago in Answer to two Books of G. Keith's and which he hath not yet replied to I gave a dozen Instances out of those Books which G. Keith has carped at to shew that G. Whitehead did own the Manhood of Christ one of which seeing he hath not taken notice of them I may repeat here referring the Reader to p. 161. of that Book of mine for the rest That which I now repeat is out of a Book called The Christian Quaker and his Divine Testimony Vindicated Part 2. p. 97. where G. Whitehead saith To prevent these Mens scruples concerning our owning the Man Christ or the Son of Man in glory I tell them seriously That I do confess both to his miraculous Conception by the Power of the holy Spirit over-shadowing the Virgin Mary and to his being born of her according to the Flesh and so that he took upon him a real Body and not a fantastical and that he was real Man come of the Seed of Abraham and that he in the days of his Flesh preached Righteousness â—rought Miracles was Crucifiâ—d and put to Death by wicked hands that he was buried and rose again the third Day according to the Scriptures and after he arose he appeared diversly or in divers forms and manners he really appeared to many Brethren 1 Cor. 15. and afterwards ascended into Glory being translated according to the Wisdom and Power of the Heavenly Father and is glorified with the same glory which he had with the Father before the World began c. Is it not strange Reader that G. Keith should have the face to charge G. Whitehead with denying the Manhood of Christ who hath so often and so plainly confessed to it What else is this but to pin a wrong Belief upon a Man to make him seem erroneous whether he will or no But this is worst of all in G. Keith who hath so often taken upon him to defend our Principles and Us against Opposers in his former Books And even but lately in his Serious Appeal printed in America 1692. in Answer to Cotton Mather of New-England having justified G. Whitehead and W. Penn in their Answer to Hicks and Faldo says p. 6. I do here solemnly charge Cotton Mather to give us but one single Instance of any One Fundamental Article of Christian Faith denied by us as a People or by aâ—y One of our Writers or Preachers generally owned and approved by us And in p. 7. he adds According to the best knowledge I have of the People called Quakers and these most generally owned by them as Preachers and Publishers of their Faith of unquestioned Esteem amongst them and worthy of double Honour as many such there are I know none that are guilty of any one of such Heresies and Blasphemies as he accuseth them And I think says he I should know and do know these called Quakers and their Principles far better than C. M. or any or all his Brethren having been conversant with them in Publick Meetings as well as in private Discourses with the most noted and esteemed among them for about 28 years past and that in many places of the World in Europe and for these divers years in America This more generally But with respect more particularly to our owning the Man Christ hear what he said in the Appendix to his Book of Immediate Revelation 2d Edit p. 133. And here says he I give the Reader an Advertisement that although the Worlds Teachers and Professors of Christ in the Letter accuse us as Deniers of Christ at least as Man and of the Benefits and Blessings we have by him yet that the Doctrine and Principles of the People called Quakers as well as the People do indeed more acknowledge the Man Christ Iesus and do more impute all our Blessings and Mercies that are given us of God as conveyed unto us through him unto the Man Iesus than any of them all And he gives the Reason too Inasmuch says he as we do believe and acknowledge that a measure of the same Life and Spirit of the Man Iesus which dwelt in him in its Fulness and
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
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
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
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
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
to Friends Printed in 1694. from p. 51. to p. 56. And again in another Book of mine called A further Discovery Printed the same Year from p. 93. to p. 98. Which latter is one of those Books G. Keith hath not replied to He taxes VV. Penn with uncharitable Dealing in saying above The whole Christian VVorld has lazily depended on it Is there none says he in the Christian VVorld but the Quakers that thiâ—st after the Power of God in their Souls I was never so uncharitable to think so cryes he But had he had either Charity or Iustice he would not have thought VV. Penn by saying the whole Christian World intended every individual Person in the Christian World When the Apostle Iohn said The whole VVorld lieth in wickedness 1 John 5.19 Did he mean there was not one Person in the whole World but what lay in Wickedness When Iohn said All the VVorld wondred after the Beast Rev. 13.3 Did he mean every individual Person in the World No sure the VVoman that fled into the Wilderness Chap. 12.6 did not wonder after the Beast for she fled from the Beast When Mathew says The whole City came out to meet Jesus Mat. 8.34 Did he mean that there was never a man nor woman left in the City G. Keith knows that that way of speaking is Figurative used Synâ—chdochically the greater part being taken for the whole And in his Serious Appeal in Answer to Cot. Mather p. 9. he could urge that by way of Defence saying The Denomination of a thing is taken chiefly from that which is the greatest part and he might have taken it so here had not Enmity had too great a part in him For in p. 7. of the same Book W. Penn mentions Churches which is more extensive than particular Persons in these latter Ages in whom there might once have been begotten some earnest living Thirst after the inward Life of Righteousness This G. Keith might well have observed for he makes another Cavil out of the foregoing part of this very Sentence which was this p. 6 7. The Distinction betwixt Moral and Christian the making Holy Life legal and Faith in the History of Christ's outward Manifestation Christianity so it should be read the Words Christianity and Manifestation being transposed and misplaced in the Printing as is obvious has been a dâ—adly Poyson these latter Ages have been infected with to the Destruction of Godly Living and Apostatizing of those Churches in whom there might once have been begotten some earnest living Thirst after the inward Life of Righteousness This Passage depends upon the different Definitions of Christianity given by I. Faldo and W. Penn. I. Faldo it seems defining Christianity said By Christianity we are not to understand all those Matters of Faith and Practice which Christianity doth oblige us unto This W. Penn excepted against as reckoning that All those Matters of Faith and Practice which Christianity doth oblige us unto might well pass for Christianity Yet Faldo having granted that Christianity takes in whatever is worthy in those Religions it hath superâ—edâ—d yea the very Heathens From those Words VV. Penn inferred This then does not make Christianity a distinct thing in kind from what was worthy as he calls it that is Godly among either Iews or Heathen This is in p. 2 3. of VV. Penn's Book called Quakerism a New Nick-name for Old Christianity and having argued upon it in p. 4 5 and 6. and shewed the hurt and mischief that ensues upon rejecting Moral Vertues from being any part of Christianity he there concludes in the Words G. Keith carps at viz The Distinction betwixt Moral and Christian the making Holy Life legal and Faith in the History of Christ's outward Manifestation Christianity has been a deadly Poyson these latter Ages have been infected with to the Destruction of Godly Living c. As tending to perswade People too apt to be easily perswaded to looseness that a bare historical Belief of Christ's outward Appearance in the Flesh is of more value and advantage to them than a Vertuous Pious Godly Life To this G. Keith tacks another Proof as he calls it against W. Penn and then makes his Reflection on both together That other Proof he takes out of W. Penn's Address to Protestants p. 118 119. thus For it seems a most unreasonable thing that Faith in God and keeping his Commandments should be no part of the Christian Religion But if a part it be as upon serious Reflection who dare deny it then those before and since Christ's Time who never had the external Law nor History yet have done the things contained in the Law their Consciences not accusing nor Hearts condemning but excusing them before God are in some degree concerned in the Character of a true Christian. For Christ himself preached and kept his Father's Commandments he came to fulfil and not to destroy the Law and that not only in his own Person but that the Righteousness of the Law might be also fulfilled in us Rom. 8.4 Now says G. Keith comes the main thing Let us but soberly consider What Christ is and we shall the better know whetheâ— Moral Men are to be reckoned Christians What is Christ but Meekness Iustice Mercy Patience Charity and Virtue in Perfection Can we then deny a meek Man to be a Christian A Iust a Merciful a Patient a Charitable and a Virtuous Man to be like Christ G. Keith says In this way of arguing there is a Fallacy These Moral Vertues he says are a part of a Christian and belong to the Genus of a Christian. But there are two things in the true Definition of a Man the Genus and the Differentia They have the Genus says he but not the Differentia And I pray which is of most moment in this Case the Genus or the Differentia To have the Kind and Nature of a Christian or to have only some outward Character or discriminating Difference to distinguish a Christian from a Child of God as namely an historical Faith of Christ's outward Appearance in the Flesh at Ierusalem But since G. Keith allows these Moral Virtues to be a part of a Christian he needed not on this score have fallen so foul on W. Penn for he might have observed in those Words himself has cited that that which seemed to W. Penn so unreasonable a thing was That Faith in God and keeping his Commandments should be no part that is should by some be accounted no part of the Christian Religion And the Inference he made from what he had offered to shew it was a part of the Christian Religion was that If it be a part he does not say If it be the whole Then those before and since Christ's time who never had the external Law or History yet have done the things contained in the Law c. are in some degree concern'd in the Character of a true Christian. But for that extravagant Inference G. Keith would draw from W.
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
A Quaker did observe to him That G. Whitehead did find fault with the Letter G. VVhitehead's saying He did not make S. Eccles's Expression an Article of our Faith which is as much as to say I don't believe what he says in that matter or am one with him in it is not a disowning with G. Keith But if he reasons well when he says p. 31. He that doth not testifie against a thing when he has just occasion for it justifies it May I not with as good reason say He that doth not justifie a thing when he is put upon it disowns it There is an implicit as well as an explicit owning or disowning of a thing But G. Keith is in and out In one place he says He can find nothing of blame or censure at all A few lines lower he says But I find not that he censured it all It did not all deserve censure Next says G. Keith G.W. tells you in what sence he owns it understands by it not the Letter but the Blood shed viz. That Blood had a peculiar signification I told him says G. Keith so had the Blood of Beasts a peculiar signification for their Blood signified Remission of Sin but was no satisfactory Offering for sin But the signification which that Blood had did peculiarly excel that of the Blood of Beasts For the Blood shed was a satisfactory offering for sin and did obtain Remission of Sin for all those that truly believe in and faithfully follow the Lord Jesus Christ. But G. Keith did not fairly by G. Whitehead in saying He tells you in what sense he owns it viz. That Blood had a peculiar signification and stops there as if that were all G. Whitehead had said For G. Whitehead went on and shewed wherein he owned that Blood shed to be more than that of another Saint in many particulars of great weight He confesses that I say G VVhitehead does own That the Blood of Christ is more than the Blood of another Saint But what Blood says G. Keith The Blood of Christ within says he and then says There 's the Trick He is full of his Tricks and it were well that he had not more Tricks than are good But such Tricks as these he never learnt among the Quakers Neither will his putting these Tricks upon us hurt us so much as himself For the Just God who knows our Innocency and his Envy will clear us and give him unless he unfeignedly Repent the Reward due to him for his wicked and unjust Accusations In the mean time he himself shall Convict himself of Falshood in this foul Charge Here he makes me to mean by the Blood of Christ which G. VVhitehead said he owns is more than the Blood of another Saint the Blood of Christ within Yet in the same page p. 30. had said before He T. Ellwood is so unfair he will have it that G. VVhitehead ownâ— that the material Blood of Christ is that by which we are justified How hangs this together That I would have the Blood which G. Whitehead then treated of and owned to be the Material Blood of Christ And yet at the same time I would have the same Blood to be not the Material Blood but the Blood of Christ within Besides G. Whitehead spake of that Blood mentioned in the Letter which S. Eccles said was forced out by the Soldier and expresly said he owned the Blood shed was more than the Blood of another Saint And will G. Keith call that the Blood of Christ within Do these things square Does not this manifest the Trick to be G. Keith's Yet upon this Trick of his he cries out Is not this enough to Cheat all the World Have not I more cause to say Are not such false Trick as these enough to belie abuse defame slander all the World What Man can be secure from such a Tricker as G. Keith is He goes on with his Trick further They have says he a double meaning as Arius had They say they own the Blood of Christ and every other thing said of him according to the Scripture so adds he said the Arians and Macedonians when at other times they discovered their meaning to be quite contrary to Scripture Is not this Man past shame He says we have a double meaning as Arius had He must say this either from Supposition or Knowledge If from Supposition what can be more horribly wicked than to brand a People or Persons with so great a Blemish upon Supposition only If he will pretend to know that we have a double meaning he must pretend to have that Knowledge either from our Books or our Mouths From our Books he can know it no more than another Man they being publick and common to all neither has he proved nor can he prove it from our Books If he will pretend to have had it from any of our Mouths let him name the Person I provoke him to it He says in his Solemn Appeal p. 7. He thinks he should know and doth know these called Quakers and their Principles far better than Cotton Mather his then Opponent or any or all his Brethren having been conversant with them in publick Meetings as well as in private Discourses with the most noted and esteemed among them for about 28 Years past and that in many places of the World both in Europe and America Now if we had a double meaning as he says we have so as to say one thing and mean another he who has had as he pretends so close and intimate a Conversation with us for so many Years must needs in that time have observed it discovered it known it been privy to it and consequently be able to make a plain demonstrative evidential Discovery and Proof thereof which I again provoke him to Had he that Trick when he was among us He complains in his Book called The Christian Faith c. printed but in 1692. p. 3. of Christian Lodowick such another Apostate as himself that Whereas divers of us says he declared sincerely before many People their sincere Faith as concerning the Lord Iesus Christ of Nazareth and what the holy Scriptures testifie of him yet he did continue to accuse them still as denying the true Christ alledging They had another sense than the Scripture-words did bear Appealing to their Consciences whether it was not so Thus making himself Judge says G. Keith over our secret thoughts as having a secret Sense in our thoughts of Scripture words contrary to the true Sense of them though we have not given him or any other occasion to judge so rashly and uncharitably of us and our Consciences bear us witness in the sight of God that we do sincerely believe and think as we speak Thus G. Keith but four years ago even after he had begun his quarrelling in Pensilvania yet the very same thing he then blamed C. Lodowick for doing towards him he now does himself towards us Would one not think he had
it profited nothing So Wilson in his Christian Dictionary Sixth Edition Printed at London 1655. expounds those Words The Flesh profiteth nothing that is to say the Humane Nature of Christ is not profitable to us of it self but as the Godhead dwelleth in it giving Life to it and quickning us by it And thus he says Tindal and the Bible Note expound this Place In like manner I understand Iohn Humphreys both when he said in his first Letter I am grieved to hear some say they did expect to be justified by that Blood that was shed at Ierusalem and in his second Letter from those Words of Christ it is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing So he himself ascribed the Work of Man's Salvation and Sanctification not to the Flesh that suffered but to the Spirit that quickned not to the Blood that was shed at Ierusalem but unto the Flesh and Blood that is spiritual c. to intend and mean not the outward Flesh and Blood of it self only without or apart from the Divine Life Spirit and Power that appeared in it and gave Virtue to it but both together Nor Primarily or Principally the outward Flesh and Blood but the Divine Life Spirit and Power that dwelt in that outward Body and made it what it was if he meant otherwise we cannot stand by him therein But whereas G. Keith says of Iohn Humphreys in Nar. p. 43. That some of his own Fraternity perswaded him to put in the Word Only and that would excuse the Matter he puts in the Word Only and says G. Keith he thinks it was against his Conscience and so bids put it out again That some of his own Fraternity as G. Keith scoffingly speaks perswaded him to put in the Word Only doth not appear to be true but that when he had put it in he thought it was against his Conscience appears to be false And from thence it appears that G. Keith did not think it was against his Conscience to belie him Where did I. Humphreys declare that the putting in the Word Only was against his Conscience and that therefore he bid put it out again The Words of his Letter as G. Keith has given them shew the contrary His 43. p. is spent in a confused rambling Discourse in which he flits to and fro from one thing to another in a loose way without sticking to any thing But in the Close of it he mentions a Testimony from W. Penn to prove that Bodily Death did not come in by Man's Sin Which in p. 44. he gives out of W. Penn's Book in Answer to Reeve and Muggleton called The New Witnesses proved Old Hereticks p. 55. thus If the Flesh of Beasts is capable of dying rotting and going to dust who never sinned why should not Man have died and gone to Dust though he had never sinned He should have noted that W. Penn spake this upon an extravagant Notion of theirs That The Reason why Men's Bodies in Death or after Death do rot or stink in the Grave and come to Dust is because there was Sin in their Bodies whilst they lived but on the contrary if Men had no Sin in their Natures or Bodies they might live and die and naturally rise again by their own Power in their own Time Upon this he thus observed Why should Sin only cause the Body to rot stink and go to Dust Does not the Scripure and Reeve himself in his Book p. 44. give another Reason namely That what came from Dust is that which must go to Dust Then adds to shew their weakness in assigning Sin only for the cause of the Bodies rotting and going to Dust Besides if the Flesh of Beasts is capable of Dying Rotting and going to Dust who never sinned why should not Man have dyed and gone to Dust though he had never sinned And in p. 5 6. he attacks Reeve again upon his own Assertion saying And it is further evident That Sin is not the cause of Mens Bodies crumbling into Dust from Reeves his own Words c. So that what W. Penn said on that Subject might be but Argumentum ad Hominem which ought not to be turned upon himself But if W. Penn had directly affirmed that Man's Natural Body as it was formed of the Dust of the Ground Gen. 2.7 Should have returned to Dust again although he had not sinned would that have been a gross and vile Error contrary to the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith Indeed according to G. Keith's wild Notions of Adam's and Eve's Bodies both before the Fall while they grew together back to back before they were split asunder as he Fables and after the Fall too the Bodies which they had after the Fall did derive from Sin not only their Mortality but their beginning and the Cause of their Being made For he Dreams that the Bodies in which they lived after the Fall were not the same that they had before the Fall but were those Coats of Skins which God is said Gen. 3.21 to have made for them which he fancies to be their outward Bodies of Flesh Blood and Bones and that those were made to cover the nakedness of their former Bodies Of which and many more such Dotages the Reader if he have any thing of a sober Brain may soon read himself Sick in his Book called Truth Advanced more especially from p. 16. to p. 32. In this 44. p. again He acknowledges G. Whitehead and W. Penn to be Orthodox though he has charged them with being Heterodox and for ought I see makes them Heterodox and Orthodox in the same things which is pretty Before he got hither he had pretty well tired his Auditors He was fain in p. 41. to say I beg of you I shall be but short And so drill'd them on the Contents of three Pages further Now says he I beg your Patience for one or two Quotations more before I have done This was heavy dull Work It is says he out of Tho. Ellwood to shew you that T. Ellwood Charges me with Forgery because I said the Yearly Meeting did censure some of these Vnsound Papers This he has been harping at divers times before both in p. 41 42 and 43. But I deferr'd my Answer to it till I came hither The ground of his Cavil here at me is this He to support his tottering Credit among those few that seemed at first willing to listen a little to him had in his Book called A seasonable Information c. p. 26. affirmed That the Paper called A true Account of the Proceedings of the Yearly Meeting in 1694. which his Agent R. Hannay publish't doth own them of the other side by whom he meant the Friends in America whom he had separated from to be guilty of unsound and erroneous Doctrines I in my Book called A further Discovery written in Answer to that of his said p. 84. How false and unfair he is in this the Words of that Paper shall shew which
are these viz. And although it appears that some few Persons have given Offence either through erronious Doctrines unsound Expressions or Weakness Forwardness want of Wisdom and right Understanding yet c. Upon this I then made this Observation which he now repeats in his Narrative p. 44. Here ye see Friends that that Paper of the Yearly Meeting is so far from owning them of the other side as he calls them that is the Friends in America to be guilty of unsound and erronious Doctrines which G. Keith here expresly saith it doth that it doth not undertake to determine whether the Offence said to be given by some few Persons was through erronious Doctrines and unsound Expressions or through Weakness Forwardness want of Wisdom and right Understanding And yet this Man hath the Confidence and Falseness to say positively that Paper doth own them guilty of holding unsound and erronious Doctrines This is that for which he says I charged him with Forgery And if I did he well deserved it for I proved it so plain upon him that he has not had the Confidence so much as to attempt to acquit himself of it And that with many more such gross things which I fastened on him in that Book were I suppose the reaon why he has not hitherto replied to it though it has been in Print well nigh these two Years Now not being able to shake off the Forgery he turns Cat in Pan and endeavours to make some Advantage against me for having denied that the Yearly Meeting had owned those Friends in America to be guilty of erronious Doctrines alledging that thereby I make both the Meeting and my self to approve and justifie them But that is no fair Consequent I hope there were some at least in his Auditory at Turners Hall that were more just that to condemn us so much as in their own Thoughts whom he had Arraigned and so highly Charged behind our backs though he pretended to Convict us from our own Books but would like wise and upright Men suspend their Judgment till they should have heard or read our Defence And if any that were there fell short of this impartial Iustice we value their Judgement no more than it deserves But if this is but right and reasonable in this Case how unright and unreasonable would it have been in the Yearly Meeting to have given forth judicially and authoritatively as a Yearly Meeting a Judgment against any particular Person or Persons upon the Accusation of a declared Enemy without due Proof and without hearing the Parties Face to Face or at all hearing the Defence of the Accused nay when the Persons accused were not only not present nor in the Nation but some thousands perhaps of Miles distant in another Quarter of the World This was the Case of that Yearly Meeting in 1694. G. Keith made a Clamour then against some in America for holding as he said gross and vile Errors as he has since done against some here And he urged the reading of some Papers he had brought with him relating to that Affair Which though the Meeting was not obliged in strict Justice to admit the Accused not being present yet to stop his present and to have prevented if it might have been his future Clamour the Meeting condescended and he read or caused to be read several Manuscripts But when they were read besides that divers of them appeared to be rather the hasty Products of Heat and Contention which he had raised and kindled there than the well-weighed Sentiments of a sedate and deliberate Judgment of what Authority could they be to the Meeting to ground a Judicial Sentence upon Or who would be willing to have Judgment given against him upon no Evidence but the bare reading of Letters supposed to be his own without having Liberty to make his own Defence and to give his own Sence of any Expression laid to his Charge This is not new to G. Keith for in my Book called A further Discovery in Answer to his called A seasonable Information I debated this Case fairly with him In p. 59. With respect to my self I told him which I had also told him before in another Book called An Epistle to Friends p. 41. I observe he makes a great Noise and Ouâ—ery of gross and vile Errors held by some and them upheld by others which he gives for one Reason or Cause of the Separation But inasmuch as this is only his Charge without due Proof and the Persons by him Charged with those vile Errors are not here present to make Answer to his Charge and defend themselves or to shew the Occasions that led to and Circumstances that attended those Discourses from which he pickt the Words he Charges them with and to explain their meanings therein I have not thought it fit or becoming me on no better Ground to meddle with those Matters being alike unwilling to justifie them if in any thing they have done or said amiss as to condemn them unheard upon the report of another and him their professed Adversary In p. 65. With respect to the Meeting 's Words before cited which he would have strained to be a Judgment against the Friends in America whom he had warred with I told him What offence was given might as well be through Weakness Forwardness want of Wisdom and right Understanding as through erronious Doctrines or unsound Expressions Nay if it were through unsound Expressions though they are not to be excused yet that doth not prove a Man guilty of holding gross and vile Errors c. For a Man that is sound in Iudgment and Doctrine mâ—a chance to drop an unsound Expression through weakness as some perhaps in America through G. Keith's catching Questions may have been drawn to do whose Weakness for him to expose in Print in that aggravating manner as he has done to the Reproach of the whole Profession is very great Wickedness in him and for which his Condemnation from God slumbers not And in p. 66. with respect to his Manuscripts which he would have had pass for sufficient Proofs I told him thus He being a Party is not a competent Iudge what is sufficient Proof in this Case That some Manuscripts were read in the Yearly Meeting by him or on his part I remember how many they they were or whether signed by the Persons own Hands I know not But supposing not granting those Manuscripts to be either Autographs or Authentick Copies I believe he himself would think much to be concluded or condemned from Inferences or Constructions made upon Manuscripts especially if they be private Letters as I think some of those he had read were without his being present and having the Liberty to open and explain his Sense and Meaning in any Passage Word or Sentence in them Thus had I controverted this Point with him formerly in that Book of mine called A further Discovery which he has never replied to which might have been enough to have stopped him
think unfairly by Logical Nicety Thought the Proverb says is free and I cannot help it if they would think so But I think and I have found others think that I have in that Book sufficiently fix'd the Guilt of the Separation upon G. Keith and that by fair Reasoning drawn from Matter of Fact throughout twenty pages and more from p. 36. to p. 59. And I am content to stand to the Readers Judgment in it But if the Persons whom G. Keith pretends to have had this Paper from did draw it up themselves I wonder not at their thinking as they say they do For in the Close of the former Head the Judgment of the Yearly Meeting is called the Supposed Judgment of the Yearly Meeting which word doth so exactly resemble G. Keith's Style that if any others brought it sorth â—or him I cannot think but he begot it in them Upon this Head G. Keith makes a large Comment But it is little else than a Repetition of the 10 th Section in p. 13 14. of his Seasonable Information already answered in my Further Discovery p. 42 43 44. Only I observe he here makes it a perversion of Philosophy to put the Cause before the Effect Which perhaps may be as true as it would be a Perversion in Husbandry to set the Oxen before the Plow which is their proper place The Eighth Head being only about setting the Printâ—r's Name to Books I think too trivial to take notice of here further than to observe That it shews G. Keith and they that he says favoured him were hard put to it to pick up Matter out of my Book to Cavil at when they were fain to stoop for such silly stuff as this The Ninth and Last Head is That T. Ellwood alledges p. 91. He did not understand that the Doctrine of the Faith of Christ as he died being necessary to our Christianity and Salvation c. Was by him reputed a Doctrine in Controversie between G. Keith and others in America when in several Places of his Books it plainly appears it was the principal Doctrine in Controversie See Reasons and Causes p. 8 and 21 22. with many others They must excuse me in that What appears very plain to some does not always appear so to others And I do assure them that which they say appeared so plain to them neither then did nor yet does appear plain to me For I do not believe whatever he may pretend that there was any real Controversie between Friends there and him whether the Faith of Christ as he died is necessary to our Christianity and Salvation But that the Quâ—stion controverted was Whether that Faith is absolutely and indispensibly necessary to all Mankind throughout the Vniverse so that none could be saved without it though they had not the means Opportunity or Capacity to know or receive it And that this was indeed the state of the Controversy there I have since Read in the state of the Case p. 11. written by Samuel Iennings while here in England It was not that I thought there was any thing of worth or moment in this Paper that made me bestow this little pains in answering it nor that the particular Passages therein though G. Keith to set them off calls them Weigâ—ty ParticulaÌ„rs haâ—e any other weight in them than what is likely to fall upon his Head who brought them forth whatever it may upon any others that assisted him therein But the chief reason which induced me at this time to take any notice of them at all was that I might wholly take from him all pretence of having answered that Book of mine out of which these Cavils were taken so that that Book called A Further Discovery as well as my last called Truth Defended may still lie with their full weight on him unanswered in any part In p. 51. The Meeting being over and Narrative ended he adds this Note If any of my Adversaries object That divers of these Proofs here brought were brought formerly in my Book against W. Penn and G. Whitehead called A Short List of the Vile and Gross Errors which T. Ellwood hath replied to in his Book called Truth Deâ—ended I Answer says he I know not any one of them that he has sufficiently answered unto to give the least satisfaction to any sound Christian his Answers being meerly Evasions and Perversions as I should have shewn if he had appeared Alas poor man he might with the more ease have shewed it I not appearing to his Imperious Summons if he could have shewed it at all Why should he excuse himself by my not appearing Neither G. Whitehead nor W. Penn appeared any more than I they not owning his Vsurped Iurisdiction any more than I and yet that hindred him not from repeating those broken Charges against them which I had answered before in Print If he would needs be doing he should have proceeded methodically and fairly and have first given his Auditors an account that he had formerly exhibited those Charges in Print and that I in Print had answered them Then he should have read my Answers and reâ—uâ—ed them if he could and when he had done that it had been time enough then for him to have renewed and reinforced his Charge But he had rather answer my Book by repeating the Charge which my Book was an Answer to that he thought would be the easiest way As for my former Answer whether it is sufficient and satisfactory or no he must give me leave or I will take it to tell him notwithstanding he has set himself on the Bench and called me and others to the Bar to hear our selves charged and proved guilty that he and I are both too near a kin to the Cause to be proper and competent Judges of the sufficiency of my Answer His Book and mine are both abroad the World has them and the World will judge of them as they see cause whether we will or no and so let them with my good will But withall let me tell him that until he has answered them they stand and will stand as sufficient against him And as such I still leave them upon his Head and expect his Answer to both them and this And whereas he saith there are many new Proofs here brought besides the former it is not unlikely but some there may be though I think not many for that 's the way of Shuffling Writers to add some New Scraps to an Old Book and then set it out with a New Title for a New Book Yet very little I think there is if any thing in his Narrative which was not published before either in his former List of Vile and Gross Errors which I answered before or in his Book of Gross Error and Hypocrisie detected now answered in this And therefore I think I may justly call this Answer to his Narrative an Answer to them all and as such I intend it G. Keith's Appendix to his Narrative and the several Charges contained
therein considered TO his Narrative he tacks an Appendix containing he says some considerable Proofs out of these Menâ— Books relating to the foregoing Heads The first Passage be carps at is in G. Whitehead's Book called The Divinity of Christ p. 70. Where in Answer to I. Owen who had â—aid The Sacrifice deâ—otes his Christ's Humane Nature whence God iâ— said to purchase his Church with his own Blood Acts 20.28 For he offered himself through the eternal Spirit there was the Matter of the Sacrifice which was the Humane Nature of Christ's Soul and Body c. G. Whitehead answered These Passages are but darkly and confusedly expressed As also we do not read in Scripâ—ure that the Blood of God by which he purchased his â—hurch is ever called the Blood of the Humane Nature Nor that the Soul of Christ was the Humane Nature or was put to death with the Body for the wicked could not kill the Soul for his Soul in his own being was immortal and the Nature of God is Divine and therefore that the Blood of God should be of Humane or Earthly Nature appears intonsistent And where doth the Scripture call the Blood of God Humane or Human Nature c. It is plain enough from hence That G. Whitehead's Exception lay against the word Human which he explains by Earthly to shew he took it in that signification wherein it is derived abâ—Humo from the Ground or Earth in which sence it is not a fit or proper Term to express the Blood of God or the Soul of Christ nay nor his outward Man by For his outward Body which was nailed to the Cross was not of a Meer Earthly Extraction there was more of Divinity even in that Body than in the Bodies of other men which rendred it too Heavenly to be called Humane or Earthly But though G. Whitehead rejected the word Humane or Earthly with respect to Christ's Manhood and Holy Nature and to the Blood of God wherewith he purchased his Church and could not admit that his Soul was put to death though it with the Body was made an Offering for Sin and so it is in a figurative manner of speaking said that he poured it out to death yet he never denied the Manhood of Christ nor the sufferings thereof both inwardly and outwardly nor the virtue merit and efficacy of those sufferings Nor is there any thing in those words of his which G. Keith hath quoted that imports he did But in the progress of his Answer to I. Owen in the next page mentioning both the Travel and Sufferings of Christ's Soul under the Burden of Man's Transgression and the suffering of his Body under the violence of the wicked hands to death and the shedding of his Blood c. he adds We desire all may have as good an esteem of Christ in his sufferings as may be Therefore G. Keith doth very unjustly and like himself in insinuating as if G. Whitehead had denied the Manhood of Christ. He takes some pains to excuse himself for having formerly as he pretended to excuse others cited those words of Hilarius Quid per Naturam Humani corporiâ— conceptu ex Spiritu Sancto Caro judicatur i.e. Why is the Flesh conceived by the Holy Ghost judged by the Nature of an Human Body But says he neither Hilarius nor I judged that the Body though conceived of the Holy Ghost was any part of the substance of the Holy Ghost No more say I do we Yet being conceived by the Holy Ghost through the overshadowing of the Power of the Most High that Body was more Pure and Heavenly than the Bodies of other Men and above the Epithet Humane or Earthly The Book he mentions in which he says he cited those words of Hilarius which he calls The True Christ owned I do not remember I have ever seen But in another Book of his called The Rector Corrected Printed the next year after that viz. in 1680. he gives the same sentence out of Hilarius and tells us p. 29. Hilarius saith concerning the Body of Christ that was born of the Virgin Iesus Christ was not formed by the Nature of Humane Conception and that the Original of his Body is not of an Humane Conception And as there he spake for Hilarius so in p. 27. speaking for himself he says even the outward and visible Flesh which he took of the Virgin seeing it was not produced or formed by Humane Generation but by a Divine Conception through the Overshadowing of the Holy Ghost and did far excel the Flesh of all other Men that ever were since inasmuch also that after death it was not subject to Corruption the name Humane Mark is but too mean a Title whereby to express it far less should it be so called now when it is glorified and it is altogether Heavenly and Spiritual Nor doth the Scripture any where give unto his Body such a name as Humane said he then And who would then have thought that he would have come to plead for the word Humane with respect to Christ's both Flesh and Soul and condemn us for Hereticks for not using it But concerning the Excellency of Christ's Body hear what he said in the year 1678. in his Book called The way to the City of God which now poor man he is quite beside p. 131. Even according to that Birth he Christ was the Son of God no lesâ— than the Son of Man as having God for his Father as he had the Virgin Mary for his Mother Now the Child says he we know doth partake an Image or Nature from both Parents And thus did Christ who did partake of the Nature and Image of Man from the Seed of Mary but did partake of a Nature and Image much more excellent than that of Man in its greatest Glory from God and his Seed who did really sow a most divine and heavenly Seed in the Virgins Womb which as it supplied the Males Seed so it had much more in it and brought forth a Birth which as it had the true and whole Nature of Man so I say it had a Perfection above it and that not only in accidental qualities as men will readily confess but even in substance and Essence And yet we must be now anathematized and that by him for denying that Body to be Humane or Earthly He says p. 53 G. Whitehead 's Objection against the word Humane as signifying Earthly hath the same force against calling Christ Adam coming from the Hebrew word Adamah that signifieth Earth From hence first I must desire the Reader to observe that G. Keith saw well enough where the ground of G. Whitehead's Objection lay viz. as I have expressed it before upon the word Humane as signifying Earthly This shews that he is a meer Caviller and seeks occasions to quarrel and defame without cause Next I must tell him That Christ is not called Adam in a strict and proper sense but in a figurative with allusion to the First Man
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
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