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
the Copy of the Letter in p. 28. yet for what Reason I know not whether to perplex the Cause or that he himself was in Confusion and Disorder when he delivered it he interweaves another Matter which takes up wholly his 29th Page and then in p. 30. returns to the Letter saying Now as to the Letter we go on c. But for what end soever he made that Irregular Transition from one thing to another though I might justly step over what he has interposed and follow the Thread of his Discourse upon the Letter yet that it may appear how willing I am to answer all his Cavils I will suspend what is further to be said to his Exceptions about the Letter and go back with him to p. 29. There he sets down Burnet's Words and as a Sign he did not well know what he did he sets them down twice over They were these All things under the Law in the Type was purged with Blood and this Blood was material Blood and not Mystical and that Blood that Christ shed in order to the effecting the Salvation of Man must need be Visible and Material Blood To this G. Whitehead's Answer was ' Do but mark here what a sad Consâ—quence he has drawn as if one should Reason that because the Type was Material Visible and not Mystical therefore the Antitype or Substance must needs be Material and not Mystical By this all Mysteries or Divine Things are excluded from being either Spiritual Antitype or Substance whereas it was the heavenly things themselves that are in Christ in which consists the Substance and End of Types and Shadows But to say that material Blood was a Type of that which was material this is to give the Substance no preheminence above the Type especially if neither of them be Mystical nor in being which was the Baptist's Opinion or like as if one should say one Type was 'a Type of another there G. Keith makes a full stop leaving out about half a score Lines of G. Whitehead's Answer without discovering that he did do so I will put them in between two Crochets that the Reader may observe which they were thus As to say because Circumcision which was a Type was material or outward therefore the Circumcision of the Spirit which is the Antitype of it must needs be outward too and not Mystical which would be sad Doctrine And thus he might as well Reason touching all other Types and Shadows under the Law and the heavenly or good things to come prefigured or shadowed by them That because the Priests under the Law at the outward Tabernacle and Temple were Ministers of outward or temporal Things carnal Ordinances Shadows c. Therefore those good things to come those heavenly things which Christ was said to be the High-Priest of must needs be Temporal and not Mystical which were absur'd to assert Whereas both the heavenly and more perfect Tabernacle and Altar with the heavenly Things are all a Mystery and Spiritual the Offering and Living Sacrifices are Spiritual the Passover Spiritual the Seed Spiritual the Bread the Fruit of the Vine the Oyl the Flesh and the Blood which give Life to the Soul yea the Water and Blood which washeth and sprinkleth the Conscience are all Spiritual and Mysterious as the New Covenant it self is which they belong to and these things known in and this is the new and living Way which Christ set open through the Vail of his Flesh Heb. 10. Let them receive this who can p. 59 60. I would not have transcribed this whole Answer especially having given it at full length before in my former Book but that I observed G. Keith had slily dropt a considerable part of it and I thought he might probably take advantage against me if I should have omitted any of the rest From the whole it appears that G. Whitehead did not so much apply himself in his Answer to overthrow his Opponent's Argument in that one Particular as to shew the general absurdity and mischief of the Consequence of that Argument which reached alike from the other Types in the Old Covenant to the other Antitypes in the New Covenant This G. Keith observed and to help the Baptist off he says VV. Burnet does not express it universally but in this particular Case And G. Whitehead extends it to an universal He says right in the first part VV. Burnet does not express it universally but the Consequence of his Argument has such an universal extent Which G. VVhitehead observing attackt him there not as G. Keith represents it who has the Art of Sophisticating as if all the Types of the Old Testament signified nothing internally and spiritually upon which he says But W. Burnet said no such thing But as if all the Antitypes in the New Testament must be altogether as external and void of Spiritual Mystery as their respective Types in the Old Testament were which the Consequence of VV. Burnet's Argument says G. Keith Notes that by G. VVhitehead's Argument as the New Covenant is spiritual and inward and not outward so the Blood of the New Covenant is Inward and not outward so the Passover is inward which is Christ the Mediator and not outward Now take notice that the Words and not outward in all these three places are not G. Whitehead's nor to be found in his Answer but are added by G. Keith of his own Head And from this Addition of his he makes this Inference This is a plain denyal of the Man Christ without us to be our Mediator our Passover Offering or his Flesh and Blood without us to be concerned in our Salvation otherwise than as the Type Now I do not think this proceeds either from his Ignorance or Oversight but from his Injustice and Malice For he knows that when we speak of Christ we do not put asunder what God hath joyned together but we take his Divinity and Manhood conjointly and united always acknowledging him to be without us as well as within us And as little Iustice as G. Keith shews to us I have so much Charity for G. Keith as to think that when in his VVay cast up p. 157. he said Thus Christ doth declare himself to be the Mediator betwixt God and Man as he is in them he did not intend a plain denyal of the Man Christ without to be our Mediator But he knows if he would or by this Time could be Iust that the great Reason of our so much asserting Christ's Inward Appearance and spiritual Manifestation as a Mediator Sanctifier Justifier and Saviour within has been as to assert the Truth so to counterpoise if I may so speak the contrary Doctrine and Assertion of those who deny him to be with respect to these Offices at all within and shut him wholly out making the Work of Mediation Sanctification Justification and Salvation to be only and altogether outward whereas we acknowledge to the utmost whatever Christ hath done or doth without us
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 Virgin 's 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 But if he had forgotten this yet he might have remembred and ought to have considered that Christ having offered up himself through the Eternal Spirit to God the Blood that was outwardly shed was included in that offering as part thereof and will he not admit that Blood after it was offered up to God through the Eternal Spirit to be called Spiritual In p. 32. he tells his Auditors You have had an account of them as to Iustification and a false account too say I Now says he it is worth your while to see how these pretended infallible Men contradict one another What more frothy Flout could the most prophane Scoffer at Infallibility have used Is not this strange Language from one that in the same Breath as it were see p. 31. said I am a Quaker still Truly if he were I should think the worse of Quakerism as he calls it for his sake The Contradiction he pretends to find or rather make is between W. Penn and G. Whitehead both in answer to Danson He gives W. Penn's words out of Reason against Railing p. 82. thus Rewardableness is a work without which God will not bestow his Favour and yet not the Meritorious Cause for that there is no Proportion betwixt the work that is Finiâ—e and Temporary and the Reward which is Infinite and Eternal c. G. Whitehead's words he gives out of a little Book called The Voice of VVisdome p. 36. thus The Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finite but Infinite for Christ is God's Righteousness and Christ is formed in us Gal. 4.19 and so that Righteousness which God works in us by his Spirit is of the same kind and nature with that which worketh it for the Saints are made Partakers of the Divine Nature 2 Pet. 1.4 G. Keith should have observed first that these words of G. Whitehead 's for he approves and highly commends VV Penn in this place But his Hosannah has commonly a Crucify at the Tail of it were a Deduction or Inference from T. Danson's Affirmation who had laid down that the Righteousness whereof Christ is the Subject and that whereof he is the Efficient are of one Species or kind From which G. Whitehead makes his Inference thus Then say I the Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finite but Infinite For Christ is God's Righteousness and Christ is formed in us 2. Which takes away the Contradiction wholly W. Penn and G. Whitehead do not speak of one and the same thing W. Penn speaks of the works which we perform G. VVhitehead speaks of Christ God's Righteousness formed in us So the pretended Contradiction being removed G. Keith's envious notes thereupon fall with it which only shew his captious nature and cavilling Spirit He should have called to mind that in his Serious Appeal p. 24. he told Cot. Mather That the nature of a Contradiction is difficult many times to understand even in natural things so that it is reckoned the Subtillest part of Logick or Metaphysicks to understand throughly what are always Contradictions and what not And therefore much more hard it is to undertand in Spiritual things that contain many seeming Contradictions But this now I think on 't was to help himself off when C. Mather charged him with Contradicting himself In p. 33. he says Now I would hasten to a Conclusion And though he takes time to tell an untruth in the very entrance saying I have proved to you that they have excluded the Blood of Christ c. Yet he makes so much haste that going on to prove that we say we are not sanctified by that Blood he gives us three pages but names no Book out of which he takes them I shall read to you says he G. Whitehead p. 49 50 51. Here 's one Proof says he if ye think this is not enough I will bring more What ground they had to think that Proof enough who heard it I cannot tell But I think no man by reading the Narrative can tell what to think of it For he gives neither the Book nor the words but only the Authors name and three pages He brings one more and that is out of G. VVhitehead's Book called Light and Life p. 59. The Baptists words he gives thus Neither did I ever read that it was the Blood or Life of Christ in his People that we are Iustified by See now the Treachery of this false Man in setting down the Baptists words The Baptist's words were Neither did I ever read that it was the Blood or Life in Christ or the Life of Christ in his People that we are Justified by He leaves out the words in Christ and makes it only the Blood or Life of Christ in his People Whereas the Baptist's words import a denyal of Justification not only by the Life of Christ in his People but by the Blood or Life in Christ himself For said the Baptist Neither did I ever read that it was the Blood or Life in Christ or the Life of Christ in his People that we are Justified by G. W's answer he gives thus The Spirit of Christ which is Life doth both Quicken Sanctify and Justify the true Believers Iohn 6.63 1 Cor. 6. And that Blood and Water that is said to cleanse is not of another kind but agrees in one with the Spirit all which is known within and the effects thereof Upon this G. Keith concludes thus So you see he takes it away from the outward Blood and gives it to the inward Blood No such matter He does not divide the outward Blood from the inward with respect to the Virtue and Efficacy of it Neither indeed did he mention outward Blood or inward Blood either in this place But he said The Spirit of Christ which is Life doth both quicken sanctify and justify the true Believers is not that true He said That Blood and Water that 's said to cleanse is not of another kind but agrees in one with the Spirit is not that true And he said All which is known within ' the Quickening the Sanctifying the Iustifying the Cleansing and the Effects thereof is known within is not that true also Whatever the Efficient be the work is wrought within and both the work and the effects there of is known within By this time his Auditors seem to be as weary of G. Keith as he of the work And therefore they bid him go to the
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
it profited nothing So Wilson in his Christian Dictionary Sixth Edition Printed at London 1655. expounds those Words The Flesh profiteth nothing that is to say the Humane Nature of Christ is not profitable to us of it self but as the Godhead dwelleth in it giving Life to it and quickning us by it And thus he says Tindal and the Bible Note expound this Place In like manner I understand Iohn Humphreys both when he said in his first Letter I am grieved to hear some say they did expect to be justified by that Blood that was shed at Ierusalem and in his second Letter from those Words of Christ it is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing So he himself ascribed the Work of Man's Salvation and Sanctification not to the Flesh that suffered but to the Spirit that quickned not to the Blood that was shed at Ierusalem but unto the Flesh and Blood that is spiritual c. to intend and mean not the outward Flesh and Blood of it self only without or apart from the Divine Life Spirit and Power that appeared in it and gave Virtue to it but both together Nor Primarily or Principally the outward Flesh and Blood but the Divine Life Spirit and Power that dwelt in that outward Body and made it what it was if he meant otherwise we cannot stand by him therein But whereas G. Keith says of Iohn Humphreys in Nar. p. 43. That some of his own Fraternity perswaded him to put in the Word Only and that would excuse the Matter he puts in the Word Only and says G. Keith he thinks it was against his Conscience and so bids put it out again That some of his own Fraternity as G. Keith scoffingly speaks perswaded him to put in the Word Only doth not appear to be true but that when he had put it in he thought it was against his Conscience appears to be false And from thence it appears that G. Keith did not think it was against his Conscience to belie him Where did I. Humphreys declare that the putting in the Word Only was against his Conscience and that therefore he bid put it out again The Words of his Letter as G. Keith has given them shew the contrary His 43. p. is spent in a confused rambling Discourse in which he flits to and fro from one thing to another in a loose way without sticking to any thing But in the Close of it he mentions a Testimony from W. Penn to prove that Bodily Death did not come in by Man's Sin Which in p. 44. he gives out of W. Penn's Book in Answer to Reeve and Muggleton called The New Witnesses proved Old Hereticks p. 55. thus If the Flesh of Beasts is capable of dying rotting and going to dust who never sinned why should not Man have died and gone to Dust though he had never sinned He should have noted that W. Penn spake this upon an extravagant Notion of theirs That The Reason why Men's Bodies in Death or after Death do rot or stink in the Grave and come to Dust is because there was Sin in their Bodies whilst they lived but on the contrary if Men had no Sin in their Natures or Bodies they might live and die and naturally rise again by their own Power in their own Time Upon this he thus observed Why should Sin only cause the Body to rot stink and go to Dust Does not the Scripure and Reeve himself in his Book p. 44. give another Reason namely That what came from Dust is that which must go to Dust Then adds to shew their weakness in assigning Sin only for the cause of the Bodies rotting and going to Dust Besides if the Flesh of Beasts is capable of Dying Rotting and going to Dust who never sinned why should not Man have dyed and gone to Dust though he had never sinned And in p. 5 6. he attacks Reeve again upon his own Assertion saying And it is further evident That Sin is not the cause of Mens Bodies crumbling into Dust from Reeves his own Words c. So that what W. Penn said on that Subject might be but Argumentum ad Hominem which ought not to be turned upon himself But if W. Penn had directly affirmed that Man's Natural Body as it was formed of the Dust of the Ground Gen. 2.7 Should have returned to Dust again although he had not sinned would that have been a gross and vile Error contrary to the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith Indeed according to G. Keith's wild Notions of Adam's and Eve's Bodies both before the Fall while they grew together back to back before they were split asunder as he Fables and after the Fall too the Bodies which they had after the Fall did derive from Sin not only their Mortality but their beginning and the Cause of their Being made For he Dreams that the Bodies in which they lived after the Fall were not the same that they had before the Fall but were those Coats of Skins which God is said Gen. 3.21 to have made for them which he fancies to be their outward Bodies of Flesh Blood and Bones and that those were made to cover the nakedness of their former Bodies Of which and many more such Dotages the Reader if he have any thing of a sober Brain may soon read himself Sick in his Book called Truth Advanced more especially from p. 16. to p. 32. In this 44. p. again He acknowledges G. Whitehead and W. Penn to be Orthodox though he has charged them with being Heterodox and for ought I see makes them Heterodox and Orthodox in the same things which is pretty Before he got hither he had pretty well tired his Auditors He was fain in p. 41. to say I beg of you I shall be but short And so drill'd them on the Contents of three Pages further Now says he I beg your Patience for one or two Quotations more before I have done This was heavy dull Work It is says he out of Tho. Ellwood to shew you that T. Ellwood Charges me with Forgery because I said the Yearly Meeting did censure some of these Vnsound Papers This he has been harping at divers times before both in p. 41 42 and 43. But I deferr'd my Answer to it till I came hither The ground of his Cavil here at me is this He to support his tottering Credit among those few that seemed at first willing to listen a little to him had in his Book called A seasonable Information c. p. 26. affirmed That the Paper called A true Account of the Proceedings of the Yearly Meeting in 1694. which his Agent R. Hannay publish't doth own them of the other side by whom he meant the Friends in America whom he had separated from to be guilty of unsound and erroneous Doctrines I in my Book called A further Discovery written in Answer to that of his said p. 84. How false and unfair he is in this the Words of that Paper shall shew which
the Conclusion of it is thus Which G. Keith alledgeth is Proof that G. Keith intended the Ligh within Here G. Keith's pretended Advocates instead of shewing that the Word Within was in the Words charged or in the Words proved which they should have done if they would have convicted me of mischarging him in saying he had cunningly slid in the Word Within come no nearer the Matter than to say that something or other not naming what G. Keith alledgeth is Proof that G. Keith intended the Light within They don't adventure so far as to say that that something or All which whatever it was is a Proof but that G. Keith alledgeth it is a Proof And a Proof of what I Pray Why a Proof that G. Keith intended the Light within But is not that a fair Proof at least by Implication that G. Keith did not express the Word Within whatever he intended and consequently that I said true in saying He knew it was not in the Words charged nor in the Words proved for how should it when it was not in the Words spoken as is here implicitely acknowledged but only in his Intention Was G. Keith so dull he could not see that this was so far from being a Defence for him that it wholly makes against him and for me To peice out this there is added in his Paper a Passage in one Ben. Chamber 's Letter Another Passage in Iohn Delaval's Letter And then is added Iohn Humphrey's two Letters read and both to the same Purpose It may be so And yet all to little or no purpose For what were all these Letters I pray Were they made publick in Print Or only private Letters lying in G. Keith's Pocket How then could it be expected I should know or take notice what was in them But I can assure G. Keith and his Advocates too if he hath any that I went upon surer Ground than the Letters in his Pocket could be to me For when I said He knows the Word Within was not in the Words charged nor in the Words proved I had G. Keith himself for my Author and I thought I could not have a better against himself than himself He in his Seasonable Information to which I then answered speaking of T. Fitz-water's Charge against him p. 12. said His Charge was That I denied the sufficiency of the Light Here 's not the Word VVithin and therefore he knew if he knew what he writ that the Word VVithin was not in the Words Charged Then three Lines lower in the same Page speaking of what the Witnesses proved he says They proved against me That I did not believe the Light was sufficient without something else Here 's not the Word VVithin and therefore he knew if he knew what he writ that the Word VVithin was not in the Words proved This I think were enough on this Head to clear me But to manifest more fully that I had good ground to say as I did viz. that he knew the Word VVithin was not in the Words charged I add that in the same Book p. 17. he says I stand recorded on the Monthly Meeting Book at Philadelphia by the Monthly Meetings Judgment given out against me and clearing T. Fitz-water for his accusing me that I denyed the sufficiency of the Light and the Evidence says he against me was That I said I did not believe the Light was sufficient without something else Here he has set down the VVords charged and the VVords proved as they stand recorded if he may be believed on the Monthly Meeting Book at Philadelphia and yet here is not the Word VVithin either in the VVords charged or in the VVords proved And this both he and his pretended Advocates might have seen in my Further Discovery p. 62. Yet further in his Book called Reasons and Causes p. 8. where he gives this Matter as the first Cause of the Separation he sets down T. Fitzwater's Charge against him thus T having openly in the Face of the Meeting accused G. Keith for denying the sufficiency of the Light Here is not the VVord VVithin And lower in the same Page telling what others witnessed for him he says they said They heard him both then and at all occasions that he delivered his Mind on that subject always bear Testimony to the sufficiency of the Light to Salvation Here 's not the VVord VVithin And this I noted formerly in my Further Discovery p. 63. whom would G. Keith have me to believe if not himself Yet G. Keith has the Face in his Comment upon this Head Nar. p. 48. to say The Question was not concerning the Light indefinitely but the Light within And that I accuse him unjustly The Second Head of that Paper is That in my Further Discovery p. 101. are these Words And this makes a Verbal Confession yea a bare verbal Confession sufficient to Yoak them as he phrases it together in Church-Fellowship To this they oppose Reasons and Causes of the Separation p. 22. ad finem Tho. Ellwood leaves this out viz. Touching these necessary and Fundamental Principles of Christian Doctrine as well as that their Conversation is such as becomes the Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ. They add also another Sentence out of Reasons and Causes p. 36. But as this last Sentence relates not to those Words of mine which were expresly restrained to the Quotation there given out of Reasons and Causes p. 22. So they or he for them for that it is his Work whoever he got to Patronize it I don't doubt leave out the former part of my Words which explain the latter The Dispute between him and me there was not about Conversation or how far he either admitted or required that as a Term of Communion with him but it was about a verbal Confession of Faith or Principles as a Door of Admittance into Society or Fellowship or Terms of Communion therein See my Epistle p. 59 60 and 61. In his Answer to which called A Seasonable Information p. 34. Sect. 37 38. He mentioned not a Word of Conversation but excepted against the Words Door of Admittance and said he made not a verbal Confession the Terms at all of Church-Communion when the Profession is but barely verbal but when the Confession or Profession floweth from the living Faith of Christ c. To this I replying in my Further Discovery p. 101. shewed that he had not guarded his Expression about a verbal Confession so before in the Place I had quoted of his which was that in Reasons and Causes p. 22. Then reciting the Words again viz. We are convinced and perswaded in our Consciences that God calleth us to separate from such Vnbelievers and not to be yoaked together in Church-Fellowship and Discipline with any that we have not proof of by Confession of the Mouth that they are sound in Faith I thereupon made this twofold Inference So that he makes a verbal Confession a Proof of their being sound in the Faith and this
makes a Verbal Confession yea a bare verbal Confession sufficient to yoak them as he phrases it together in Church-Fellowship Now the leaving out the first Part of my Words is injurious to the Sense of the Latter For it makes as if the latter Part viz. That he makes abare verbal Confession sufficient to Yoak them together in Church-Fellowship had been an Assertion of mine whereas it is but an Inference from the former and that former an Inference from his Words there quoted For I did not affirm he makes a bare verbal Confession sufficient to Yoak them c. But from his saying we are convinced c. that God calleth us to separate c. and not to be yoaked in Church-Fellowship c. with any that we have not proof of by Confession of the Mouth that they are sound in Faith I inferr'd 1. That he made a verbal Confession a proof of their being sound in the Faith And 2. That his doing so his making a Verbal Confession a Proof of their being sound in the Faith makes a verbal Confession yea a bare verbal Confession sufficient to yoak in Church-Fellowship Now in this I do not apprehend I did him any wrong at all either in the Inferences or in ending the Quotation where I did and not giving the Words now added in the Paper Touching these necessary and fundamental Principles it should have been Parts of Christian Doctrine as well as that their Conversation is such as becomes the Gospel c. For the necessary Parts of Christian Doctrine are comprehended in the Words sound in Faith and Conversation was not in the Terms of the Debate and therefore not proper to have been there put in G. Keith's Clamour therefore in Nar. p. 48. is groundless where he says Take notice how they the supposed Authors of his Paper notifie his Forgery that he leaves out my Words This may be rather câ—lled his Forgery For the Paper he read says nothing of Forgery but only mentions what Words I left out without passing any Censure or making any Observation upon it The Third Head of that Paper is That in Page 103. T. Ellwood accuseth G. Keith for giving of false Quotation or forging Quotation this is the Scotch Dialect by which I guess who framed it out of R. Barclay's Book Then it saâ—s G. Keith's Quotation compared with R. Barclay 's agrees as quoted Reasons and Causes c. p. 16. For Substance of Doctrine p. 24 25 26. in express VVords and adds p. 106. T. Ellwood admits of Substance In the Margin is set Let the Quotations be read out of R. Barclay's Anar Now whereas G. Keith's pretended Advocates or Compurgators say here that G. Keith's Quotation compared with R. Barclay's agâ—ees as quoted Reasons and Causes p. 16. for Substance of Doctrine I deny it and that upon good ground having now again examined the one with the other And I put both G. Keith and all his Advocates upon it to make it appear if they can The mentioning the Quotations G. Keith gave in p. 24 25 26. of Reasons and Causes out of R. Barclay is nothing to the purpose if they do agree because it was not in those Pages that I charged him with false quoting But in my Epistle First I taxed him with wronging R. Barclay in the Words he gave in his Causeless Ground p. 8. as the express Doctrine and Testimony of R. Barclay in his Anarchy p 48. and I shewed it and plainly proved it by comparing the places together And in p. 61 62. of that Epistle I shewed a like abuse he had put upon R. Barclay and his Reader in his Reasons and Causes p. 16. in giving that Passage as R. Barclay's Doctrine in Anarchy p. 32 33 48 49. which was neither his Words nor his Doctrine And though he would have shuffled this off in his Seasonable Information p. 34 35. Yet I would not suffer him so to do but in my Further Discovery p. 101 102 103 104 105 106. drove him out of all his Holes and Subterfuges about it and fixed it as a false Quotation on him which neither he has cleared himself nor his Advocates have acquiâ—ted him of nor can Whereas they say T. Ellwood admits of Substance they speak not plainly If they mean that in p. 106. which they mention I admit G. Keith to have given the Substance of R. Barclay's Doctrine in that Quotation Reasons and Causes p. 16. which I taxed him for I deny it I only say there He hath not attempted to prove that this is the Doctrine or Substance of the Doctrine of R. Barclay in that Book by producing now R. Barclay's own Words to manifest it This is not admitting G. Keith's Quotation to be the Substance of R. Barclay's Doctrine there But to remove this conceit wholly I said in the Page but just before viz. p. 105. Ye see now G. Keith not only confesses they are not his VVords but dares not adventure to say they are plainly and directly his Doctrine but the Substance of his Doctrine And yet said I even that I deny I say they are neither R. Barclay's VVords nor Doctrine nor the Substance of his Doctrine What now may we suppose to be meant by those Words in the Paper T. Ellwood admits of Substance Why if we may Credit G. Keith in his Commentary upon it Nar. p. 48. He says These Men take notice that T. Ellwood is unfair in taking that Liberty to himself he will not allow to me They adds he observe he admits of Substance of Doctrine in his own Citations but will not allow it to me Whence will he pretend to have this The Paper he read and has Printed says nothing of it nothing towards it nothing like it This therefore I charge upon him as a plain downright Falshood and Forgery The fourth Head of that Paper is That in Further Discovery p. 19. T. Ellwood accuses G. Keith that he blames Friends that they were gone too much from the Outward to the Inward But G. Keith p. 20. it should be p. 10. which T. Ellwood brings for Proof says That he blames some Persons for not rightly and fully preaching Christ without So that T. Ellwood's Consequences seems not fair but strain'd This is weakness at least I shewed in that page that the word too much there related to their going from the Outward which I proved he blamed Friends for by his own saying Seas Inform. p. 10. I have blamed some Persons for not rightly and fully Preaching Christ without Now if according to him they did not Preach Christ without righâ—ly nor fully then according to him they were gone too much from the Outward And so my Consequence was not Strain'd but fair The fifth Head says p. 22. T. Ellwood accuseth G. Keith of a Fallacy in declaring he refused not to go forth at the Yearly Meeting which Fallacy alledged was that G. Keith should refuse to go out some one Day of the Yearly Meeting But that not appearing
his Narrative where he hath repeated these Charges against W. Penn and G. Whitehead and I as before have endeavoured to free them from his Perversions and Abuses The Fourth Error he bestows on me is That I deny that the Gift of the Divine Grace or Power within is the real Purchase of Christ's Obedience unto Death arguing that if so that would not be the Free Gift of God p. 121. Here are two notable Pieces of Art he has shewed in the framing of this Error First He has changed my VVords from The Gift of the promised Seed to The Gift of the Divine Grace or Power within Which quite alters the Sence of the Place For whereas I inferred from his Words that the Gift of the promised Seed was not a free Gift or did not proceed from the free Love of God to Man contrary to Iohn 3.16 but was the real purchase of Christ's most holy and perfect Obedience unto Death when he came which was the Error and Absurdity I drew upon him from his own Words He to slip from under that changes the Words as I shewed before from the Gift of the promised Seed to the Gift of the Divine Grace and Power within referring to Rom. 5.15 Eph. 4.7 8. and Psalm 68.18 which latter Places mention Christ's giving Gifts unto Men when he ascended up on High after his Death and Resurrection So turning the Free Gift of God in promising the Seed and giving his only begotten Sun to the Gift of Divine Grace and Power within which Christ the promised Seed gave when he ascended up on high and then charges me with Error in denying this Gift given by Christ to be the real purchase of his Obedience unto Death whereas it was the Gift of Christ himself as the promised Seed that I spake of which was the Effect of God's free Love not the purchase of Christ's Death The other piece of his Art is in turning this upon me saving He denies Whereas I neither denyed nor affirmed but shewed him the Absurdity and Error of his own Words The Fifth Error he assigns me is That I blame him for saying Christ's Body is the same in substance it was on Earth p. 129. I desire the Reader to examine that Place in my Book and he will see that I do not blame G. Keith for saying Christ's Body is the same in substance it was on Earth But I expose his Confusion and Folly in saying it is the same in substance that it was on Earth and yet saying It is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure ethereal or Heavenly Body as if Christ's Body when on Earth had not been a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but an Ethereal or Airy Body Or as if Flesh Blood and Bones were not of the substance of an outward visible tangible Body such as was that which was nailed to the Cross at Ierusalem The Sixth Error he allots me is That I deny that Christ came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary p. 136. In this as in the rest he is extreamly unjust In this place also we treated of Christ as he was the promised Seed And he undertaking to prove in p. 22. of his Book called The True Copy c. from Mat. 1.1 That the Seed of Promise came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary I pinched him up close with his own words in that same Book of his p. 20. where he had said It is neither the Body of Christ strictly considered nor the Soul of Christ strictly considered without the Godhead nor the Godhead strictly considered without the Soul and Body of the Manhood of Christ that is the Seed of the Woman or Seed of Abraham but the Godhead and Manhood jointly considered and most gloriously united Hereupon I shewed him that in urging Mat. 1.1 to prove the Seed of Promise as he had defined it came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary he shewed himself to be of a corrupt Judgment and contradicted his former Saying I was so favourable before as only to say Should I not serve him right if from hence I should conclude against him that he holds the Seed of Promise as consisting of Godhead and Manhood united to have come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary since he blamed S. C. for denying it But I think I have just cause now to set it harder on him and charge it home upon him as a vile and gross Error That he holds that Christ who he says in the same place was the Son of God by an eternal Generation before the World began the promised Seed which he says is neither the Body of Christ strictly considered nor the Soul of Christ strictly considered without the Godhead nor the Godhead strictly considered without the Soul and Body of the Manhood of Christ but the Godhead and Manhood joinâ—ly considered and most gloriously united that Christ the promised Seed or Seed of the Woman thus defined did come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary And I hope he will think himself or that others however will think him obliged to clear himself of this Error which is vile and gross enough before he take upon him to arraign others The Seventh Error he abuses me with is That I pervert the Apostle's Creed in that Clause Conceived of the Holy Ghost p. 138. by which I infer that Christ came not by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary and in so doing he says I make the Holy Ghost to be the maâ—erial Cause of that Generation as if that Holy Thing conceived were of the substance of the Holy Ghost whereas the Holy Ghost was the Efficient Cause thereof but not the Material Cause Perversion is so natural to him that he can do nothing at this sort of work without it That he might fasten an Error upon me he perverts yea alâ—ers the words of that Creed For the words of that Creed in that Clause are Conceived by the Holy Ghost and so I gave them in my Book he has changed the word by to of and renders it Conceived of the Holy Ghost Whereas the word by imports the Holy Ghost to have been the Efficient Cause that by vertue of which Mary conceived But the word of imports him to have been the Material Cause as if the thing conceived had been taken of the Matter or substance of the Holy Ghost To avoid which I following the express words of that Creed said the common Creed called The Apostles says Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost though born of the Virgin Mary Now how shameless is this Man to charge me with vile and gross Error in perverting the Apostle's Creed in that Clause Conceived of the Holy Ghost When it plainly appears from his own Book that it is he himself that has altered and thereby perverted the words of that Creed and not I Besides
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