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
next head but being loth to lose a Proof as he calls it he even thrusts it upon them He intends this Proof against VV. Penn but he names not the Book he takes it out of as he did not before upon G. Whitehead which shews he was in haste indeed But giving the words though not the Book which he did not in the other Case I have from the Circumstances of the matter found his Quotation in that Book of W. Penn's called Quakerism a New Nickname for Old Christianity p. 149. It is upon a Passage which I. Faldo had quarrelled with and perverted in a Book of Is. Penington's which G. K. having occasion to speak of makes as if he were so chary of Isaac Penington that he would be loth so much as to mention him and says I charitably think this Passage dropt from him unawares Then adds I wish I could have that ground of Charity to others of them It seems his Charity is very narrow if it can extend to but one and he not living neither But they are in best case that have no need of his Charity as the Quakers have not for it is as kind as the Crocodile's Tears But to his Proof he begins it thus J. Faldo thinks that he has made Is. Penington his own Can outward Blood wash the Conscience p. 29. A plain Denyal says J. Faldo Here is J. Faldo's Commentary on Is. Penington's words Is this Intelligible 'T is a sign by his Confusion he had enough of his work I must be fain to open the Passage and the occasion of it to make sense of his words Isaac Penington amongst many other Questions to Professors who place all upon the outward put this Question Can outward Blood cleanse the Conscience Can outward VVater wash the Soul cleà n This Io. Faldo whom G. Keith no longer ago than in 1692. branded in Print for a most partial and envious Adversary known well enough to be possessed with Prejudice against us Serious Appeal p. 6. and p. 60. catch hold of and made this false Comment upon it A plain denyal of the Efficacy of the Blood of Christ shed on the Cross to cleanse the Soul from the guilt of Sin by its Satisfaction to the Iustice of God What greater perversion could have been made G. Keith probably saw this and that his Auditors might not hear it nor his Reader see it he huddled through it in that Confused manner that rendred it not Intelligible For he gave no more of Is. Penington's words but Can outward Blood wash for cleanse the Conscience And no more of I. Faldo's but a plain Denyal without so much as saying what it was a denyal of He gives W. Penn's Reply some what fuller but not so fully as I think fit to give it For W. Penn having shewed that Is. Penington did not speak of the outward Blood with respect to the taking away the guilt of Sin past but with respect to Purgation and Sanctification of the Soul from the present Acts and Habits of Sin that lodge therein says Is he I. Faldo so Sottish as to make no distinction betwixt being pardoned Sin past and the ground of it and being Renewed and Regenerated in mind and Spirit and the ground of that Conversion Now follow what G. Keith quotes Or else is he so impiously unjust that because we do deny that outward Blood can be brought into the Conscience to perform that inward work which they themselves dare not nay do not hold therefore Is. Penington denies any Efficacy to be in that outward Offering and Blood towards Justification as it respects meer Remission of former Sins and Iniquities There G. Keith stops But W. Penn added We also say That Christ's Blood had an Influence into Justification as he phraseth it Thus far W. Penn. And note that this was spoken plainly and directly of the outward Blood or Blood of the outward Body Now G. Keith having given the Quotation short says So in short I take it thus W. Penn answers That Is. Penington's words are to be understood with reference to Sanctification but not Iustification Yes Justification in one sense but not in every sense Says he Outward Blood cannot be brought into the Conscience to perform that work But even the outward Blood had an Influence to Justification said W. Penn But says G. Keith The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience is by the application of a living Faith in Christ whose Blood it was the Spirit of God working that Faith in me But hath that Application he speaks of of Faith really brought that Blood into his Conscience to perform the work of Sanctification there If not which to be sure it could not Why does he say The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience as if it had been really and materially brought in there He says That Blood is not a Physical but a Moral cause of our Cleansing But did he never know or pretend to know and hold forth to others Christ's Blood as a Physical cause of our Cleansing He says Christ Iesus 1. by his Obedience and Suffering procured the Pardon of my Sins as well as he Sealed it by his Blood And 2. He procured the Spirit to Sanctifie me So then it is the Spirit within not the Blood without to which he himself ascribes the work of Sanctification Christ Jesus by his Obedience and Suffering procured the pardon of my Sins says he as well as he Sealed it by his Blood And 2. He procured the Spirit to Sanctifie me Is it not plain from hence that he makes the Obedience and Sufferings of Christ the cause of the Pardon of Sin and the Blood to be but as the Seal to that Pardon But he attributes the work of Sanctification to neither the one nor the other but expresly to the Spirit which Christ procur'd to Sanctify him And I wish he had given way to it that he might have been Sanctified by it and then we should not have had such unsanctified work the Abuse Wrong and Injustice from him that we have He says I find none say there must be a material Application of that Blood but a Spiritual and Moral and says he we can give Instances that Moral Causes are many times more Effectual Causes than Physical are As says he the Money wherewith we buy the Medicine that cures the Body is not the Physical Cause of Health but a Moral and the Money that we buy Bread with is not the Physical Cause of our Nourishment and Refreshment but a Moral But does he think the Money wherewith the Medicine and Bread is bought is a more Effectual Cause of Health and Nourishment than the Medicine and Bread that is bought therewith I am sure the Medicine and Bread are more proximate and immediate Causes of Health and Nourishment than the Money and if he having Money could have neither Medicine nor Bread for his Money he might perhaps be in as bad a Case as they that
have no Money I expect he will as he uses to do pay me off with Ignorance and Folly for questioning any thing of his Philosophy But 't is no matter if he do I learnt when I was a Boy Sâ—ultitiam Simulare loco Prudentia Summa est That little Skill I have I know when where and how to use and how to hide It were well if he knew how to make better use than he doth of his greater Stock But Breaking off this short Digression which I hope will be excused for though I cannot dress out Dishes nor serve them up so elegantly as he yet I expect he should allow me Interferre meis interdum gaudia curis He sees I rather chuse to change the Verb than break the Poet's Head and thereby hazard the breaking of my own if I had chnaged the Mood of Interpono I return to the matter again where I observe that he makes the outward Blood not at all the Efficient Cause I mean the worker of Sanctification in the Heart but the Spirit and the Blood no more the Cause of Sanctification than Money is the Cause of Health and Nourishment to the Body to wit by procuring the Spirit to Sanctify as Money procures Medicine and Bread to Cure and Nourish the Body And in that sense perhaps as he says he agrees with all true Christians we may agree with him provided he will under the Name of Blood take in the whole Offering of Christ his Obedience and Sufferings both inwardly and outwardly and not divide the Sacrifice At the close of this page he tells his Auditors he has now done with the two first Heads and asks them Shall I go on to prove the other two or shall we adjourn to another Day And truly his Auditors seem'd to have had so fully enough of that Days work that they would rather endure the Fatigue of one half Hour more than be troubled with him another Day And bid him if half an Hour would do go on So on he goes The Third Head of G. Keith's Charge viz. That We deny the Resurrection of the Body that dieth Considered The Third Head says he p. 34. to be proved is That the Body that dieth riseth not again First says he from W. Penn 's holding the Resurrection immediately after Death in his Rejoynder p. 138. I think adds he this will be enough for W. Penn if I give no more It may be so indeed but I don't think it will be enough for G. Keith if he intends to make a Proof against W. Penn about the Resurrection For that place in that Book treats of the Scriptures but not a Word of the Resurrection The poor Man in his over-eager haste mistook his Books and quoted Rejoynder instead of Reason against Railing in which latter I have found the place he quotes I defend Truth and therefore need not take advantage of Errors of the Press if this had been the Printers Error as it is not but his own fumbling mistake though he hath most unworthily done so against G. Whitehead and that after it hath been proved unto him Before I recite the Quotation which I find he cited also before in his Gross Error p. 12. and perverted there as here I cannot but take notice of the Medium he uses to prove his Charge by viz. That W. Penn holds the Resurrection immediately after Death So that G. Keith to prove one Charge makes another which needs Proof as much as the former Now let us see how he attempts it T. Hicks says he argues thus for the Resurrection of the Body That if there be no Resurrection of the Body the Ioys of Heaven should else be imperfect Now here says G. Keith is W. Penn's Answer to it I answer Is the Joy of the Antients now in Glory imperfect Or are they in Heaven but by halves If it be so unequitable that the Body which hath suffered should not partake of the Joys Coelestial is it not in measure unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul held-by many Baptists on I am mistaken But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Widow and so in a state of Mourning and disconsolateness to be without its beloved Body Which state is but a better sort of Purgatory Thus far he gives out of W. Penn then adds G. Whitehead argues the same way but does not tell where naming neither Page nor Book But he gives his words thus If the deceased Saints in Heaven or their Souls have not all that they expect to all Eternity all the Resurrection they look for then they must be in Purgatory for the time But if the latter be not then not the former Upon this G. K says But this Contradicts many Scriptures that especially in Act. 26. That Christ should suffer and should be the first that should rise from the Dead Now says he according to this Doctrine of W. Penn and G. Whitehead Christs Resurrection was later than that of many Millions Tho' he has much curtail'd W. Penn's Answer and given no direction whereby to find G. Whitehead's neither have I upon diligent search found it and G. Whitehead deniâ—â— the words above given as his to be his yet from the words of each which he has given I find that neither of those Quotations will answer the End for which he brings them They both relate to one and the same Objection That if there be not a Resurrection of the same Body the Joys of Heaven should be imperfect To shew the absurdity of that Objection they both argued That if the Joys of Heaven to the Souls already in Heaven depend upon the Resurrection of the same Bodies in which those Souls lived on Earth then the Joys of Heaven to the Saints already there should have been imperfect hitherto and must continue to be imperfect until the same Bodies shall be raised But this does not at all conclude that they held the Resurrection immediately after Death but rather the contrary For they did not argue That the Souls of the deceased Saints have perfect Joy in heaven because their Bodies in which they lived on Earth have had a Resurrection already but because the Joys of Heaven do not depend upon the Resurrection of those Bodies This then is no proof that they held the Resurrection immediately after Death nor consequently that they contradicted that Scripture Acts 26. That Christ should be the first that should rise from the dead which whether in a strict Sense he was has been questioned by some who have urged the Instance of Lazarus and some others before him But it seems as if he did not intend those Words of G. Whitehead for a Proof because after he had passed his Sentence upon that he says Now if you will hear a Proof from G. Whitehead you may and cites p. 353. of the Book
the Conclusion of it is thus Which G. Keith alledgeth is Proof that G. Keith intended the Ligh within Here G. Keith's pretended Advocates instead of shewing that the Word Within was in the Words charged or in the Words proved which they should have done if they would have convicted me of mischarging him in saying he had cunningly slid in the Word Within come no nearer the Matter than to say that something or other not naming what G. Keith alledgeth is Proof that G. Keith intended the Light within They don't adventure so far as to say that that something or All which whatever it was is a Proof but that G. Keith alledgeth it is a Proof And a Proof of what I Pray Why a Proof that G. Keith intended the Light within But is not that a fair Proof at least by Implication that G. Keith did not express the Word Within whatever he intended and consequently that I said true in saying He knew it was not in the Words charged nor in the Words proved for how should it when it was not in the Words spoken as is here implicitely acknowledged but only in his Intention Was G. Keith so dull he could not see that this was so far from being a Defence for him that it wholly makes against him and for me To peice out this there is added in his Paper a Passage in one Ben. Chamber 's Letter Another Passage in Iohn Delaval's Letter And then is added Iohn Humphrey's two Letters read and both to the same Purpose It may be so And yet all to little or no purpose For what were all these Letters I pray Were they made publick in Print Or only private Letters lying in G. Keith's Pocket How then could it be expected I should know or take notice what was in them But I can assure G. Keith and his Advocates too if he hath any that I went upon surer Ground than the Letters in his Pocket could be to me For when I said He knows the Word Within was not in the Words charged nor in the Words proved I had G. Keith himself for my Author and I thought I could not have a better against himself than himself He in his Seasonable Information to which I then answered speaking of T. Fitz-water's Charge against him p. 12. said His Charge was That I denied the sufficiency of the Light Here 's not the Word VVithin and therefore he knew if he knew what he writ that the Word VVithin was not in the Words Charged Then three Lines lower in the same Page speaking of what the Witnesses proved he says They proved against me That I did not believe the Light was sufficient without something else Here 's not the Word VVithin and therefore he knew if he knew what he writ that the Word VVithin was not in the Words proved This I think were enough on this Head to clear me But to manifest more fully that I had good ground to say as I did viz. that he knew the Word VVithin was not in the Words charged I add that in the same Book p. 17. he says I stand recorded on the Monthly Meeting Book at Philadelphia by the Monthly Meetings Judgment given out against me and clearing T. Fitz-water for his accusing me that I denyed the sufficiency of the Light and the Evidence says he against me was That I said I did not believe the Light was sufficient without something else Here he has set down the VVords charged and the VVords proved as they stand recorded if he may be believed on the Monthly Meeting Book at Philadelphia and yet here is not the Word VVithin either in the VVords charged or in the VVords proved And this both he and his pretended Advocates might have seen in my Further Discovery p. 62. Yet further in his Book called Reasons and Causes p. 8. where he gives this Matter as the first Cause of the Separation he sets down T. Fitzwater's Charge against him thus T having openly in the Face of the Meeting accused G. Keith for denying the sufficiency of the Light Here is not the VVord VVithin And lower in the same Page telling what others witnessed for him he says they said They heard him both then and at all occasions that he delivered his Mind on that subject always bear Testimony to the sufficiency of the Light to Salvation Here 's not the VVord VVithin And this I noted formerly in my Further Discovery p. 63. whom would G. Keith have me to believe if not himself Yet G. Keith has the Face in his Comment upon this Head Nar. p. 48. to say The Question was not concerning the Light indefinitely but the Light within And that I accuse him unjustly The Second Head of that Paper is That in my Further Discovery p. 101. are these Words And this makes a Verbal Confession yea a bare verbal Confession sufficient to Yoak them as he phrases it together in Church-Fellowship To this they oppose Reasons and Causes of the Separation p. 22. ad finem Tho. Ellwood leaves this out viz. Touching these necessary and Fundamental Principles of Christian Doctrine as well as that their Conversation is such as becomes the Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ. They add also another Sentence out of Reasons and Causes p. 36. But as this last Sentence relates not to those Words of mine which were expresly restrained to the Quotation there given out of Reasons and Causes p. 22. So they or he for them for that it is his Work whoever he got to Patronize it I don't doubt leave out the former part of my Words which explain the latter The Dispute between him and me there was not about Conversation or how far he either admitted or required that as a Term of Communion with him but it was about a verbal Confession of Faith or Principles as a Door of Admittance into Society or Fellowship or Terms of Communion therein See my Epistle p. 59 60 and 61. In his Answer to which called A Seasonable Information p. 34. Sect. 37 38. He mentioned not a Word of Conversation but excepted against the Words Door of Admittance and said he made not a verbal Confession the Terms at all of Church-Communion when the Profession is but barely verbal but when the Confession or Profession floweth from the living Faith of Christ c. To this I replying in my Further Discovery p. 101. shewed that he had not guarded his Expression about a verbal Confession so before in the Place I had quoted of his which was that in Reasons and Causes p. 22. Then reciting the Words again viz. We are convinced and perswaded in our Consciences that God calleth us to separate from such Vnbelievers and not to be yoaked together in Church-Fellowship and Discipline with any that we have not proof of by Confession of the Mouth that they are sound in Faith I thereupon made this twofold Inference So that he makes a verbal Confession a Proof of their being sound in the Faith and this
he is altogether unjust in raising this Cavil for he knows that in this Place as well as in the other upon which he grounded his last pretended Error where I defended S. Crisp against R. Cobbet and him I expresly spake of Christ not only with respect to his Body which was born of the Virgin but as he was the Son of God by an Eternal Generation as he was conceived by the Overshadowing of the Power of the Highest as he was the Promised Seed which G. Keith had confessed was not the Manhood only but the Godhead and Manhood united And in these respects it was that I argued he was not produced by Coagulation which was one of Cobbet's Terms nor came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary which was another of Cobbet's Terms But before I part with G. Keith on this Head let us see whether He who is so forward to brand me with this Error has not himself trod too near that which he charges me with For in his Book called The way to the City of God p. 131. He says Even according to that Birth He Christ was the Son of God no less than the Son of Man having God for his Father as he had the Virgin Mary foâ— his Mother But as he was the Son of God having God for his Father was he produceâ— by Coagulation or did he come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary Now the Child says he we know doth partake an Image or Nature from both Parents and thus did Christ who did partake of the Nature and Image of Man from the Seed of Mary but did partake of a Nature and Image much more excellent than that of Man in its greatest glory from God and his Seed who did really sow a most divine and heavenly Seed is not that a Substance in the Virgins Womb which as it supplied the Males Seed so it had much more in it and brought forth a Birth which as it had the true and whole Nature of Man so I say it had a Perfection above it and that not only in accidental Qualities as men will readily confess but even in Substance and Essence The Eighth Error he slanders me with he calls my false way of reasoning against the Man Christ's being created from his reasoning if not created therefore not Man by retorting if created therefore not God p. 139. This is as meer a Cavil as the former and both the one and the other arose from hence that he would make the Manhood only to be Christ without the Godhead or else subject the Godhead to the same Condition of Generation or Creation with the Manhood either of which is an Error This made me give him that retorting Answer which has so much displeased him Thus it was in my former Book His Third Observation is That S. Crisp's denying that Jesus the Saviour was created or calling for Scripture to prove it doth sufficiently prove that he understands Christ only to be God and wholly excludes the Manhood of Christ from being Christ or any part of him Doth it so said I Then let G. Keith look to himself For by retortion I return upon him That his holding that Iesus the Saviour was created which he doth by condemning S. C. for denying it doth sufficiently prove that he understands Christ to be only Man and wholly excludes the Godhead of Christ from being Christ or any part of him which to hold is a gross and vile Error Let him acquit himself as he can He cannot acquit himself therefore he is angry and wrangles with me for retorting this on him He says I charge him to be deeply drenched into Socinianism My words are I confess I did not think him so deeply drencht into Socinianism He says This is my Ignorance The Socinian Error is not That Christ is a Creature but that he is a meer Creature viz. only Man and not both God and Man I was not ignorant of this nor am of the folly of his Arguing neither can he be ignorant that my Answer by retortion implied him to hold that Christ is not only a Creature but a meer Creature only Man wholly excluding the Godhead which is full Socinianism And until he will leave Cavilling and come down in his Stomach and distinguish as he ought to do betwixt Christ as he was the Son of God by Eternal Generation the divine Word which was in the beginning with God and which was God and that which he took of the Virgin he shall never be able to free himself from the Imputation of this Error For so far as he makes Christ to be created so far he makes him a meer Creature The Ninth Error he ascribes to me he calls my blaming him to make light so he expresses it of the work of Generation I take him to mean Regeneration in comparison of Christ's Incarnation therefore according to him says he Regeneration is greater than Christ's Incarnation Upon which he crys out O great Blasphemy p. 155. In this he mistook me whether ignorantly or designedly I know not for I did not intend nor now do to draw a Comparison between those two Appearances or Manifestations of Christ Outwardly in the Flesh at Ierusalem and Inwardly in the Hearts of his People so as to prefer the One to the Other for I have all along told him I do not like to divide Christ. But the drift and scope of my words which here he carps at was to shew him that he had done so As for the Charge it self of making Regeneration greater than Christ's Incarnation he had charged it before but falsly on W. Penn in his Narrative p. 22. And I have Answered it already in p. 82. of his Book to which I refer the Reader for satisfaction concerning it His Tenth and Last Error he flings at me is my saying that the Author of Regeneration is Christ chiefly as he is manifested inwardly in the heart p. 152. My words which best shew my meaning were these And very idle is he in saying Seeing the Work of Regeneration and Sanctification in the Saints is a great Mystery must we not own him who is the Author and great Cause of it to be greater For who ever questioned that We all own the Workman to be greater than the Work the Author and great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification to be greater than the Regeneration and Sanctification wrought And this Author and great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification we say is Christ and that chiefly as he is manifested inwardly in the Heart For he worketh it not in any but those in whom he is so inwardly manifested These words shew that when I said Christ is the great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification chiefly as he is manifested inwardly in the Heart it was with respect to him as he is the nearest and most immediate Cause thereof and as he actually works the work of Regeneration and Sanctification in the Heart and
brings it forth And though G. Keith says This is as absurd as to say The Beams of the Sun that descend on the Earth are the chief Cause of the Earths Fruitfulness and not the Sun it self that is in the Firmament yet both the Absurdity and Error will prove his own in his comparing the Inward Appearance of Christ in the Heart whereby the work of Regeneration and Sanctification is wrought to the Beams of the Sun that is in the Firmament by which the Earth is fructified as if Christ were no otherwise in the Saints than the Sun is on the Earth viz. by its Beams Whereas the Travail of the Apostle was That Christ might be formed in them he writ to Gal. 4.19 That he might dwell in their hearts by faith Ephes. 3.17 And G. Keith saith expresly Way cast up p. 134. The word Incarnate or made Flesh and called by Iames the Ingrafted Word we do really see for it dwelleth in us And p. 124 125. It is impossible says G. Keith that he could hear us and be sensible of our Prayers and especially of our Thoughts if he were not immediately present in us and with us And in p. 123. He says The Man Christ Jesus is really present in and among us I do not mean says he by his external or outward Person for that is ascended into Heaven but in vertue of his divine Life and Spirit or Soul extended into us in his divine Seed and Body which is his heavenly Flesh and Blood wherewith he feedeth the Souls of them that believe in him In p. 107. He brings many Scriptures as Ioh. 6.56 and 17.23 Rom. 8.10 Eph. 3.17 Col. 1.27 1 Cor. 13.3 and 5. to prove Christs Being and Dwelling in the Saints and that as the Word made Flesh according to Iohn 1.14 And in p. 111. Speaking of Christ's dwelling in the hearts of the Saints by Faith he says He is formed in them Gal. 4.19 so that they are his Mother who bring him forth by a spiritual and divine Birth Mat. 12.49 Is this to be compared to the Beams of the Sun that descend on the Earth Or did it hold forth a more immediate and substantial Indwelling of Christ in his People How unsuitable then is G. Keith's Comparison besides the Error it discovers in his Judgment of the Beams of the Sun descending on the Earth and there causing Fruitfulness in it to Christ's working Regeneration and Sanctification in his People As if Christ in his Spiritual Appearance and Working were no nearer to his People than the Sun in the Firmament is to the Earth What remains of his Appendix to his Narrative at the bottom of p. 61 and 62. being little and to as little purpose I designedly wave as supposing he may probably receive an Account of it from another hand But I shall here fetch in a Passage in p. 60. which I purposely stept over there with intention to bring it in here It is this In p. 60. He says Now before I have quite done with W. Penn let me put him in mind of his Promise That he would answer me in the face of the Nation For I think I have made good my Word that I have put him to prove his Charge against me that I am an Apostate in the face of the Nation What need W. Penn do that and he too Did W. Penn so oblige himself to do it that he must needs do it over again after G. Keith hath been so kind to him to save him that labour by having done it himâ—elf again and again and that indeed in the face of the Nation in every Book he has published since It is probable W. Penn might have done it before now if G. Keith had not taken the work out of his hand and shewed himself so officious and forward to do it that he has thereby rather confirmed the apprehension I formerly had of his Meaning when in p. 32. of his Book called The True Copy he said I propose this just demand to W. Penn that he give me an Opportunity to make good his Charge against me c. namely That he wanted but opportunity to do it himself and thereby free W. Penn from that small undertaking I know not how I may speed for reminding him of this For I remember he was very angry with me before for but gently touching it and I think pretty modestly with a He seems to have bespoke a publick Meeting that â—e might have done it himself there Yet this soft touch put him into such a Heat that I doubt whether he be Cool yet For no longer ago than the Third Month last when he publishâ— his intention of Holding his Court at Turner's Hall he was in such a Fret about it that in the Postscript to his Advertisement in p. 11. of his Narrative he calls it a most impulent and notorious Perversion a Cheat and Forgery Me a gross and impudent Forgerer Wresâ—er and Perverter offers to prove me to be not only guilty â—â— Gross Forgeries and Perversions and Antichristian Principles oâ— which the Reader hath just now heard a long List in Ten Heads and not only so but says he grosly ignorant in that which he pretends to have knowledge of Humane Learning and of that I can assure him I never pretended to much and though I love Learning well yet I had rather be as Ignorant as he takes me to be than as Arrogant as I take him to be Neither is this all but I am also he says guilty of Pedantick Trifling and Quibling from meer Errors of the Press not so duly corrected yet obvious to any intelligent Reader I confess I think both his Book and Himself under correction be it spoken have need enough to be duly corrected and that I suppose is obvious to any intelligent Reader Now if I did happen to mistake his Meaning in that hobling Expression of his lame Demand of an Opportunity for him as his words seemed to import to make good the Charge against himself I think he has sufficiently paid me off with his Billingsgate Rhetorick and Scottish Complements Yet were it not that I am loath to offend him again so soon I could tell him that the Explanation he gives doth not sufficiently clear the sense of that Cloudy Sentence neither hath he shewed that it was the Error of the Press but added another viz. when I will for where I will But I have done with that leâ—t he tax me with Quibling I return to p. 60. of the Narrative where G. Keith having put W. Penn in mind of his Promise to prove him an Apostate c. which G. Keith himself hath sufficiently done says And let him not put off this Work that belongs to himself to any Deputy or Busie Intruder as T. Ellwood or I. Penington who have already sufficiently shewed their Folly in Print But how if T. E. and I. P. should not think they have sufficiently shewed their Folly in Print Will he not give them