me a second Paper by way of Reply containing many bitter Expressions unfriendly Reflections and false Accusations too tedious here to relate but which will sufficiently appear if the Paper happen to be printed most grosly mis-applying that place of Scripture to me Ezek. 18. 24. as if I were turned a wicked man And why Because of my zealously opposing his and their Anti-christian Doctrine and detecting their Hypocrisie Ignorance and Errors even as Friends in England were called wicked men for their opposing and detecting the Ignorance Errors and Hypocrisie of their Opposers To my former Reply that I said The Light viz. within is not the Only Object of Faith J. D. doth answer in his second Paper That little less is affirmed by me pag. 6. where I blame our Adversaries that they do not hold it viz. the divine Illumination of Christ within to be the immediate Object of the Christian Faith To this I answered in my 2d Paper That to say the Light within is the immediate Object of the Christian Faith is not to say it is the Only Object of the Christian Faith excluding the Man Christ Jesus and his Death and Sufferings Resurrection Ascention and Mediation for us in Heaven which are owned generally by Friends yea and by J. D. though in Contradiction to himself to be also the Objects of our Christian Faith seeing he expresly granteth That he and his Brethren do believe in the Man Christ Jesus and citeth R. Barclay saying It is damnable Unbelief not to believe these things where declared ☞ Note R. B. in his printed Letter to H. Paets a Dutch-man doth distinguish betwixt the material and formal Object of Faith granting that Christs Death and Sufferings Resurrection Ascention and Intercession c. with other parts of Christs Doctrine are the material Object of Faith but affirming that the divine Revelation of the Light within is the formal Object thereof And therefore if J. D. were not blinded with Prejudice he would see there is not the least Inconsistency here And tho' the word Object is not a Scripture word yet it is used not only by R. Barclay but by J. Burnet see his Collection printed 1691. in his Answer to Ja. Barry pag. 212. where he says expresly Therefore we expect he should inform in what Gospel he hath to preach to them Christ dyed not for and what Object of Faith he hath to lay down for them to believe in for Faith must have an Object Or whether they do not press it as a Duty upon all to believe and then let us know their Method of Distinction who preach not the Gospel to every one for sure there can be no Gospel of Glad Tidings to them Christ dyed not for Thus John Burnyeat Where it is plain that he understandeth Christs dying for all to be the Object of our Faith and a Doctrine of the Gospel as well as that he doth inwardly enlighten all as it was of that Gospel which Paul preached as it doth plainly appear from 1 Cor. 15. 1 23. Rom. 10. 8 9. 1 Cor. 1. 23 24 25. and many other places And I put J. D. in mind how at the School-house Meeting about 12 Months past he brought the fore-cited place Rom. 10. 9 8. in opposition to T. Lloyd his Father-in-Law to prove that it was not sufficient to Salvation to believe only in the Light within but to believe also that Christ dyed rose again And to this as to other things I expect his particular Answer And I say still that Christs inwardly enlightening all is a Doctrine of the Gospel and the Object of our Faith as well as that Christ dyed for all But I was so far from denying Christs coming the Flesh and his Death and Sufferings to be any part of the Object of the Christian Faith in that Treatise of Universal Grace cited by J. D. that pag. 92. I particularly mention Christs Coming in the Flesh his Miraculous Birth his Doctrine Miracles Sufferings Death Resurrection Ascention c. as being things of the Christian Faith and Religion which the Light within brings us to own and the same upon the matter is confessed by J. D. in both his Papers How then am I guilty of Heresie for saying the same that J. D. saith To my saying that J. D. his blaming my Assertion as being Heresie viz. That the Light within is not sufficient without something else doth oblige him to hold the Antithesis or Contradictory Assertion That the Light within is sufficient without any thing else J. D. Replyeth That is but my Consequence and none of his words To which I replyed That some affirm they heard him say so in so many words but suppose he did not say it yet seeing he hath accused me of the former the necessary unavoidable Consequence of his words makes it to be his and to deny this is to be guilty of the greatest Trifflig and Non-sence that ever I knew in any pretending to common Reason His scurrilous Reflection upon me as abusing my School-Craft as he calls it I pass over not valuing it being conscious of my sincerity and which I freely leave to the Impartial to judge For a Proof that W. Penn layeth not our whole Salvation upon the Light within only as sufficient without the Man Christ Jesus I did cite W. P. in answer to J. Faldo part 1. pag. 243. J. Faldo charging it upon the Quakers That they expect to be saved by the Light within only W. P. answers in behalf of the Quakers This is a wicked Suggestion against us see also his following words And as I said to J. D. in my 2d Paper Now let the Impartial Reader judge who hath any thing of common Reason Whether by these words W. Penn doth not plainly declare his Mind That we are not saved by the Light within without something else For as the word Only is exclusive so are the words Without something else And here let it be noted that John Delavall finding that he could not make good his Charge against me viz. his accusing me of Heresie for saying The Light within is not sufficient without something else he goeth about most sillily to change the state of the Question for whereas the state of the Question was Whether the Light within was sufficient to Salvation without something else viz. without the Man Christ Jesus and his Death and Sufferings and present Intercession for us in Heaven he goeth about not so slyly as sillily quite to alter and change it to another Question altogether different from the former as Whether any can be perfectly saved made perfectly happy without all knowledge and faith of the Man Christ Jesus without us and of his Death and Sufferings c To which I have answered him in my second Paper That these two are quite differing Questions for if this last should be granted yet it still remaineth that the Light within only without the Man Christ Jesus doth not save any for even
many who do not know him nor believe in him having some measure of sincerity under the first Ministration of the Light within them receive the benefit of his Death and Sufferings and Mediation by the general acknowledgment of all that ever I have formerly known of the People called Quakers at least in some measure to begin a good work in them as is clear in the case of Cornelius before he received the Knowledge and Faith of Christ crucified and raised again and therefore as I have told J. D. he will sooner wash an Ethiopian until he be white than he can prove me guilty of Heresie or Error for affirming The Light is not sufficient without something else either according to Scripture or sound Friends But to say The Knowledge and Faith of Christ both as he is God and Man and as he dyed for our sins and rose again for our Justification and is our Mediator in Heaven even the Man Christ Jesus is necessary to finish and perfect the Salvation and Eternal Happiness of all that shall be Eternally saved This doth no wayes derogate from the sufficiency of the Light within for the Light within being God and Christ is abundantly sufficient to reveal this Knowledge and Faith in all them who shall be saved and that either without or with means as God pleaseth tho' in Gods ordinary way of working he maketh use of outward means and therefore if any have not the Knowledge and Faith of Christ crucified as outwardly this doth no more prove that the Light is not sufficient in it self than if any have not the Faith and Obedience of the Light inwardly doth prove that the Light is not sufficient for as J. D. hath confessed in his first Paper Faith and Obedience are the blessed Effects produced by the sufficiency of this Light in all his true Followers So that Faith and Obedience with respect to the Light are not the Cause of its Sufficiency tho' it Then only comes to be sufficient to us when we believe in it and obey it And thus what J. D. affirms with respect to the Light within I affirm also with respect to the Man Christ without us as he dyed and rose again and is our Intercessor in Heaven for as not to believe in the Light within is no argument of its Insufficiency so not to believe in the Man Christ without us is no argument that the Light within is not sufficient to mens Salvation universally because the Light within being a real measure of the eternal Word Christ Jesus can as easily reveal the Faith of the Man Christ without and of his Death and Sufferings c. as it can reveal the Faith of Christ within both which J. D. doth acknowledge to be necessary to all such to whom it is preached or declared for their Eternal Salvation John Delavall's silly Taunt and Reflection That I cause him not to staggar by my profound Logick as he terms it I regard not furdâ—r as I told him in my 2d Paper but to take notice of his scoffing Spirit more like Ishmael than a true Christian or true Minister of Christ I used no profound Logick in the case but one or two of the easiest and plainest Rules in that called Logick belonging to the Rudiments of it and as I told him true Reason teacheth it without all Art of Logick but J. D. in meddling with that he calleth my Logick hath shewed his profound Ignorance in common Reason His accusing me of Pride Fury and Rage I told him is one of the Unclean Streams that flow from his Unclean Fountain so I pass it with other his scurrilous Reflections and false Accusations I also told him his positively charging me with that he calleth my late modelled Doctrine of the Revolutions is a base and vile Forgery and Calumny which I have sufficiently answered in my printed Treatise called Truth and Innocency c. I never made that vulgarly call'd the Revolutions any matter of my Christian Faith and no man living can justly say that ever I did I can defend my Christian Faith without the Doctrine of the Revolutions as well as all other true Christians can who are of the same Faith with me concerning the Necessity of the Knowledge and Faith of Christ crucified to mens perfect Salvation Nor hath the Doctrine of the two Ministrations and of Salvation begun and Salvation perfected a dependance on the Revolutions so called whether true or false for what hath a dependance on another is the Effect of that other but the two Ministrations of the Light within and the Work of our Salvation both in its beginning and finishing have no other Cause but God and Christ and the Spirit and therefore wholly depend thereupon And I freely at any time proffer to defend my Perswasion and Faith concerning the Two Ministrations and Salvation begun and finished without running either to the Papist's Purgatory or the Hypothesis of the Revolutions and let John Delavall or any of his Associates try their strength whether they can drive me by the force of their Arguments to any such pinch or strait as he doth basely infinuate against me in his 2d Paper And his Accusations in this particular do not only strike against me but G. F. E. B. W. P. all whom I can prove to hold the distinction of two inward Ministrations of the Light and two states of Men answering thereunto the first of which G. F. calleth The state of the first Adam which he was in before he fell which he calleth A state of danger where he may fall again but to come to Christs stature and to him before the World began who is first and last beginning and ending such shall know a state that will never fall see his printed Epistle 1666. directed To be read in all the Assemblies of the Righteous and concerning this second state he saith further Christ that never fell is a state beyond Adam and he is to be heard and folowed that never fell and in him are People to sit down who is the Rest and Peace and Life who destroyeth the Devil and his Works and maketh an end of Sin now this being manifest and known in all then the Lamb is known to have the Victory And a little after speaking of this second state he saith And here as you live in the Seed Christ Jesus your Election you know before the World began and Reprobation since the World began And these two states W. Penn plainly distinguisheth in his part of the Chr. Quaker calling the one that of the Law the other that of the Gospel the one that of a Servant the other that of a Son and E. Burrough saith pag. 56. of his Works in folio The Law must have its thorow Operation before the Gospel be witnessed It is therefore manifest that John Delavall is greatly Ignorant as in the holy Scriptures so in the Quakers Principles so to fault my Testimony concerning the two Ministrations and Salvation
ever they will approve his Doctrine but on the contrary if they hold to their former Principles as I am charitable they do they will condemn it and blame his so medling and all them that adhear to him notwithstanding of his Fawning and Flattery whereby he seeketh to have their favour for his professed Subjection to their Determination which if it prove a Contradiction to what he at present thinketh is the dictate of the Infallible Spirit in himself it shall be seen what manner of Person he is and how unfit to teach others that is not truly taught himself in one of the first Principles of the Christian Doctrine And notwithstanding his fawning to have favour with Friends in England he could not do a worse thing to render Friends Odious both in England and every where else to assert it as the Quakers Principle To be a Heresie and Error in a Fundamental Doctrine to say The Light within is not sufficient without something else that something else as confessed by him being the Man Christ Jesus without us and his Death and Sufferings and Intercession for if the generality of Professors in Christendom believe this to be the Quakers Doctrine there cannot be a more mischievous Stumbling block laid in their way to hinder People generally fróm joyning in Society with them Therefore I hope God will put it into the hearts of faithful Friends in England and else-where zealously to withstand this most pernicious Anti-christian Doctrine of J. Delavall and his Associates that say It is a Heresie to assert this sound Christian Doctrine That the Light within is not sufficient to save men without the Man Christ without us for if fo then either there is no Man Christ without us or he is no Saviour to us at all and hath only the bare and empty Title of a Saviour to wit the Man Jesus of Nazareth And tho' J. D. hath again and again asserted That by his so accusing me he doth not exclude the Man Christ Jesus in the Outward from having a part in our Salvation yet who can believe him but he that can believe the greatest Contradiction which no man ever can do that has not lost his common Sense and Reason and is not become a Brute in Understanding Beside if he doth not exclude him from having a part in our Salvation as neither do I but include him then in what part of my Assertion lodgeth the Heresie that he hath charged upon me for saying The Light is not sufficient without something else I confessing that by something else I neither understand Humane Learnning nor the Letter of the Scripture nor outward Preaching as absolutely and universally necessary but the Man Christ Jesus And as great a Contradiction is it in J. D. to blame me for charging him That he holdeth the Measure to be sufficient without the Fullness for if he holds not this he must needs hold That the Light within is not sufficient without the Fullness that is something else than the measure of the Light within or then he must hold two Contradictory Propositions to be false as thus It is false to say The Light is Not sufficient without the Fullness And It is false to say The Light is sufficient without the Fullness Which is an absolute Contradiction to all common Reason of Mankind and I do solemnly say that of all the Adversaries I ever had to do with in Dispute I never met with a more Ignorant or more Unreasonable Adversary And tho in a Letter to me wherein he is concerned with some others he falsly chargeth me as being either Crased c. I appeal to all Impartial Readers of common Reason Whether ever they heard or knew a man that seemeth more Crased than he And to me it seemeth a Judgment of God upon him to be so bewildered and confounded in his common Sense and Reason as a man for daring to oppose so great a Christian Truth asserted by me a poor Servant of the Lord and to call it Heresie he having signally and more than ordinary appeared but of late to joyn with me in the same Testimony as I told him in my former Paper how by his charging me with Heresie he had unministred himself To which he returns not any thing of sollid Answer but instead thereof a silly jest not worth mentioning And thus the Scripture is fullfilled in him Because they received not the Truth in Love God gave them up to strong Delusions to believe Lyes To his saying in his second Paper to me My Answer that things which are inseperable yet are distinct giveth me no Relief I answered him I need no Relief in the Case my Examples were proper and pertinent as that Faith and Repentance are inseperable and yet we are not saved by Faith without Repentance which he in his Ignorance laboureth to render Ridiculous by the Addition of his own words making them a Tautology But he altogether passeth by my Example how Christs Godhead and Manhood are inseperable and yet it is most congruous and proper to say The Man Christ cannot save us without his Godhead which Christ taught himself expresly saying I can do nothing of my self i. e. without my Father Also it doth no more infer that I deny the sufficiency of the Light within because I say it is not sufficient without the Man Christ without us than it inferreth that he that saith John Delavall is not a Man without his Soul denyeth J. D. to be a Man Or J. D. is not sufficiently honest without honest dealing denyeth J. D. to be sufficiently honest Or because Rich. Hubberthorn said Christ is not Christ without God that Christ is not Christ see his Collection pag. 29. As for his other Collections of Testimonies out of mine and other Friends Books in his second Paper added to these in his former as I said before I find none of them inconsistent with my present Doctrine and if he think they do I shall freely consent to it if he please that he may expose them to the World in Print or any other Papers he hath sent me that so Impartial Readers may judge betwixt us To his charging me with Gratifying some ill affected to the Government and my Contentious Behaviour in Church and State I have answered him His Accusation iâ— grosly false and malitious and I reject it as such I have no way medled with the Government but have born my faithful Testimony to Friends antient Principle against the use of outward Weapons It is no new thing for innocent men to be charged with being Enemies to Government by men of his and their Spirit and Stamp so were Friends charged in old England at their first appearance and particularly G. F. and so were the Protestants in Germany and else-where by the Papists In a third Paper I sent John Delavall in answer to his Letter bearing date the 3d of the 11 Month I did argue with him at great length That if because Christ without and Christ within are inseperably one Christ therefore it may be said according to him that it is sufficient to preach Christ within as he and many of his Brethren argue and that it is a Heresie to say The Light within is not sufficient without something else viz. the Man Christ Jesus By the same Argument It is sufficient to preach Christ without and it is a Herefie to say The Man Christ is not sufficient to Salvation without something else viz. the Light within And therefore by John Delavall and his Brethrens way of Argument all these who have only preached Christ without have been in the right and all Friends who have blamed them for not preaching Christ within are blame-worthy Why Because Christ within and Christ without are inseperably one Christ But to this and many other things in my three Papers I have received no Return And as I have told him I desire not further to Dispute with him thus in private that is to little purpose but am willing to commit to publick View partly what is already past betwixt us or what may further pass reserving some other weighty things I sent him in my former Answer to another occasion as I may have Convenience In the mean time let it be remembred that he hath not brought one place of Scripture in all his Papers whereby to convince me that I am guilty of Heresie in the matter he accuseth me And seeing the matter is come to this plain Issue that they have now publickly charged me and my Friends joyned with me of being Guilty of Heresie which formerly they did rather whisper and mutter in Corners and that it now openly appeareth in the face of the World that they accuse that to be Heresie which is a Fundamental Doctrine of the Christian Faith received as we can prove by Geo Fox George Whitehead William Penn and the best of Friends as well as by all Christians in the whole World it evidently appeareth and most necessarily followeth that the Heresie is theirs and they are Hereticks and therefore our Seperation from them is just and is a necessary Duty we having oft admonished them before in private Conferences and Meetings the Scripture saying An Heretick after the first and second Admonition Reject And thus having cleared my self of Heresie the Hatred no more than the Heresie he sought to fix on me doth not at all belong to me and therefore I return both upon him as his Due until he Repent which I can truly say I sincerely wish and desire George Keith THE END The Printer's Advertisement THat notwithstanding the various Reports spread concerning my refusing to Print for these that are George Keith's Opposers These are to signifie That I have never refused but often proffeâ—ed to Print any thing for them and do now again signifie that if John Delavall or any other of his Brethren have any thing to print I am most willing to do it for them not that I want to beg their Work I need it not but to leave them without Excuse that if they be any way wronged or falsly charged by what is published in Print to the World they may have equal priviledge to Vindicate themselves as Publickly though I have little cause to make this Offer to them considering their many Abuses to me W. B.