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
Penn's Words that a Man may be owned to be a Christian and yet disbelieve that Christ is either God or Man it carries in its front too evident Marks of Envy and Injustice to be regarded by any who bear not the same Marks For did W. Penn there treat of Iews Mahometans Pagans Or of such as have a general Faith of Christianity but never adhered to any particular Party as his express Words are in that 118. p. Nay does he not there directly mention such as believe in God and Christ For setting forth the Partiality and Cruelty of those professed Christians who would renounce a meer just Man their Society and send him packing among the Heathen for Damnation he thus expostulates the Case And pray What 's the Matter Then subsuming the Person of an Opponent he answers Why though this Person be a sober Liver yet he is but a general Believer his Faith is at large 'T is true He believes in God but I hear little of his Faith in Christ Then replies Very well Does he not therefore believe in Christ Or must he therefore be without the Pale of Salvation Is it possible that a Man can truly believe in God and be damned But adds he As he that believes in Christ believes in God so he that believes in God believes in Christ For he that believes on him that raised up Iesus from the Dead his Faith shall be imputed to him for Righteousness Rom. 4.22 c. And in p. 119. having enumerated several Moral Vertues and alluding to the saying of Wisdom Prov. 8.15 By me Kings Reign and Princes decree Iustice so may I say here says he By Christ Men are Meek Just Merciful Patient Charitable and Virtuous And adds he Christians ought to be distinguished by their Likness to Christ and not their Notions of Christ by his Holy Qualifications rather than their own lofty Professions and invented Formalities Does not this plainly shew he treated there of those that professed the Christian Religion preferring such of them as in their Lives shewed most of Moral Vertue and true Goodness to the highest Pretenders and most flourishing Talkers without it But that which still falls heavy upon G. Keith is that he should thus cavil at W. Penn who himself in his former Books not yet retracted by him has so far out-gone W. Penn on this subject and has also expresly extended Salvation by Christ to the Gentiles or Heathens that knew nothing of him outwardly For instance In his Book called Vniversal Grace p. 28. he says There was such a Principle in them speaking of the Gentiles whereby they did the things contained in the Law Therefore it was a Principle of the very saving Light and Life of Jesus Christ which is that Divine Nature mentioned 2 Pet. 1.4 And in p. 29. he says These Gentiles did the things contained in the Law so that they were excused yea and Iustified and did receive the Reward of Glory Honour and Peace in so doing Again in the same p. he says In divers of these Gentiles the Seed was raised which is that Divine Nature or Birth by which they did the things contained in the Law and so were Iustified by him who gave them Power to fulfil it And in p. 30. Answering an adverse Argument which was this There can be no Justification without Faith in Christ but these Gentiles had not Faith in Christ therefore c. He says I deny the second Proposition for if they did cleave unto and believe in the Light they believed in Christ for he is the Light nor is the outward Name that which saves but the inward Nature Virtue and Power signified thereby which was made manifest in them and thus is Christ even that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which may or must be known of God c. I could multiply Instances of this kind out of that and other Books of his if it were needful but these at present may suffice In p. 21. of his Narrat he recommends to his Auditory the Book called The Christian Quaker and so do I to every Body but with different Ends He out of ill-will I out of good-will to the Truth therein defended He refers in particular to p. 125 126 127. which Pages he says are bestow'd to define what a Christian Quaker is and he Objects that in all this large Definition there is not one Word of the Man Christ who is God over all blessed for ever to be the Object either of this Christian Quaker's Faith Love or Homage That which he calls a Definition of a Christian Quaker is indeed an Answer to a Question put by Tho. Hicks which was Who he or they are that obey the Light c. In answering which W. Penn doth not so much meddle with Faith and Doctrine as set forth the Life Practice and Sufferings of such as truly obey the Light especially in those things wherein they are acted diversly from or contrary to other People It is therefore no prejudice at all nor ought to be objected either to VV. Penn or the Christian Quaker that in that Answer to Hicks's Question the Man Christ is not mentioned as the Object of Faith c. since the Object of Faith c. is not there treated of but presupposed and taken for granted Yet G. Keith might have observed that Christ Iesus was there mentioned and that with respect to his Manhood For in p. 125. The true Quaker who obeys the Light is represented to be one That willingly drinks of the Cup of bitter Mockings and yields to be baptized with the Baptism of deep Tryals Christ Iesus his Lord drank of and was baptized with which Cup and Baptism our Lord Christ took and was baptized with as he was Man And there is also in p. 127. a Testimony born to the Blood of Jesus Christ and the Vertue of it in these Words So is the Light the Just Man's Path that in every Age still shined brighter and brighter in which the cleansing Blood of Iesus Christ is felt to cleanse from all Sin And in Quakerism a new Nick-name p. 5 and 6. Sect. 8. out of which G. Keith pickt a Cavil but lately answered he might have read these Words Christianity then is not an Historical Belief of the Exteriour Acts the true Christ did in that bodily Appearance which is but historical Christianity But a firm Belief in him that so appeared lived died rose and ascended both as testified in the Scriptures of Truth and more especially as he breaks in upon the Soul by his Divine Discoveries as the true Light inlightning every Man This said VV. Penn there I call Christianity His next Cavil is concerning the Mystery of Christ with respect to his coming outwardly in that Body in which he suffered for Mankind at Ierusalem and his coming inwardly in the Hearts of Men working the Work of Regeneration in them This he objected formerly in his Book called The true Copy and I answered largely to it
Flesh as afterwards we have as good cause to believe him to be true and real Man before his outward Birth in the Flesh as after For it is not the outward Flesh and Blood that is the Man otherwise the Saints that have put off the outward Body should cease to be Men and Christ should have ceased to be Man betwixt his Death and his Resurrection but it is the Soul or inward Man that dwelleth in the Outward Flesh or Body that is the Man most properly such as Christ was even from the beginning And therefore adds he p. 104. Let all the Scriptures be searched and it shall not be found that Christ became Man and took to himself the Soul of Man at his Conception in the Womb of the Virgin Mary but Only that he took Flesh and was the Son of Mary David and Abraham according to the Flesh But according to his Heavenly Nature even as Man he was the Son of God and was the Father and Lord of all the Faithful in all Ages c. Thus far out of my former Book Besides these take the following out of his Way to the City of God p. 125. And thus even from the beginning yea upon Mans Fall God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself and Christ was manifest in the holy Seed inwardly and so stood in the way to ward off the wrath c. For even at Man's Fall the Seed of the Woman was given not only to bruise the Serpents Head but also to be a Lamb or Sacrifice to attone and pacifie the wrath of God towards Men. And this is the Lamb that was slain from the beginning of the World Again p. 154. And in this holy Seed the Sufferings of Christ and how he bore the Iniquities of the Soul and makes Intercession or Attonement unto God may be learned in some measure with many other things concerning Christ in relation to him and his Doings and Sufferings in the outward which was an outward and visible Testimony of his inward Doings and Sufferings in all Ages in Men and Women in the holy Seed And indeed we find that this is only the true and effectual way of knowing the Use and Work of his Coming and Sufferings and Death in the outward by turning and having our Minds turned inwards unto himself near and in our hearts in the holy Seed to know by an inward feeling and good experience his Doings and Sufferings in us by being made conformable thereunto In which Holy Seed as it ariseth in us such a clear Light shineth forth in our Hearts as giveth unto us the true knowledge of the use of his Inward Doings and Sufferings In his Additional Postscript to G. Whitehead's Book called The Nature of Christianity which is one of the Books he cavils at in his Narrative and which very Postscript he mentions there also but does not retract any thing therein he says p. 66. to his Opponent Gordon Because Christ is called the one Offering and that he once offered up his Body c. Thou wouldst exclude him as in us from being one Offering but herein thy work is vain for Christ Jesus is the one Offering still and tho' he offered up his Body outwardly but once upon the Cross yet he remains still an Offering for us within us c. Again p. 67. That thou challenge it that one said Christ was never seen with any Carnal Eye thou hast no more ground than to challenge himself who said He who hath seen me hath seen the Father and yet he said to the Jews who saw the outward Body of Iesus You have neither seen him nor known him Thus G. Keith And yet in his Gross Error p. 14. he blames G. Whitehead for this Expression and bringing Iohn 14. to defend it Again says he We deny not but the Names Messiah Iesus Christ c. were given to him as Man even as in the Flesh but they do More Eminently and More Originally belong to him as he was before he took that Body on him yea more immediately and more originally to the Word the Light the Seed the Life the quickning Spirit that dwelt in that Body which he called This Temple and it was called The Body of Iesus To give more Instances out of his Books would be redious as to comment on these would be needless they speak so plain the same things which he now calls gross and fundamental Errors in others Wherefore leaving that to the Reader as he now says he has done at present with his first Head so have I also In handling which and Answering his many Cavils thereupon I have been the larger because I look upon this to be the greatest and most important part of his Charge For if Christ were denied both as God and Man not only the Object of Faith but the whole Christian Religion would fall But as I have proved his Charge false and wrong in this part so I shall endeavour to shew it is in the other parts also in which I will be more brief if I can The Second Head of G. Keith's Charge viz. That we deny Iustification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed Considered The Second Head says G. Keith is Iustification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed which he says is opposed by W. Penn G. Whitehead aâ—d others Now before I mention his pretended Proofs I think fit to tell the Reader what this very Man has said of W. Penn concerning Iustification within these four years viz. in his Serious Appeal p. 10. he says Nor are W. Penn's words so to be understood concerning Justification as if he excluded Christs Righteousness which he fulfilled in his own Person but only he denieth that any can be justified by that alone without Faith and Repentance c. Did he write thus by rote without reading what W. Penn had written Or had he then read and upon reading did then approve and justifie what W. Penn had writ of Justification and yet now condemn it The Proof he now pretends to bring Nar. p. 24 25. is out of W. Penn's Book called Reason against Railing p. 91. And forgive us our Debts as we forgive our Debtors Says W. Penn Where nothing can be more obvious than that which is forgiven is not paid and if it is our duty to forgive without a Satisfaction received and that God is to forgive us as we forgive them then is a Satisfaction totally excluded This also G. Keith objected in his Gross Error p. 19. Upon this G. Keith says here I confess I was surprized with this word totally excluded Satisfaction adds he is not the strict solution of a Debt in all respects and circumstances VVhen we consider the Dignity of our Lord that was both God and Man his Sufferings suppose they were not the Thousand part of what the Damned suffer yet it was a true satisfaction Therefore I was scandalized with these words says he But he needed not have been
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
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
he was the Son of Mary And as to the Time of it if R. Gordon be dead his Eyes may be already dropt out without seeing it and yet the Appearance of Christ in a bodily Existence to judge the World at the last Day be yet to come and owned to be so These things I mention to shew the feeble grounds G. Keith hath for his Cavils But from the Book it self out of which G. Keith took these Words it is manifest that G. Whitehead used these Words only to manifest his Opponent Gordon's Confusion and Contradiction for they were not treating then concerning the Existence or Body of Christ but concerning Justification Redemption Salvation by Christ which R. Gordon it seems had asserted was wrought and compleated by the Sacrifice of Christ's Crucified Body upon the Cross and yet would put off Believers from being made Partakers of that Salvation till after their bodily Death that they should be raised from the Grave yet granted that it must be done by Christ's Appearance in Believers through Faith by his Spirit Whereupon says G. Whitehead to him Nature of Christian p. 29. See thy manifest Contradiction viz. A perfect Justification and Redemption of Sinners without them when no good is wrought in them But in Contradiction now it must be done by Christs Appearance in Believers through Faith by his Spirit As also thou grantest that his appearing the second time is without Sin to Salvation But when thinkest thou that must be Is it in this Life or hereafter Thou sayst that after the bodily Death you shall be raised out of the Grave and made partakers of that Salvation p. 13. T is strange the Salvation of Sinners yea of the whole World as thy Word is should be compleated at once above 1600. Years since and yet to be so long after Death lookt for how long is not known to thee or dost thou pretend to know or think thou know'st and thereupon dost thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee according to thy Words p. 30. If thou dost thou mayst look till thy Eyes drop out before Thou wilt see such an Appearance of him This says G. Keith is but one place that is that Christ will not so appear But why adds he will he not so appear but because he has no bodily Existence without us G. Whitehead said not so That 's only G. Keith's wrong Inference And That says he p. 16. I come now to prove So then what he has hitherto said is no proof of it for it seems he is but now coming to prove it For which purpose Nar. p. 17. he cites another Passage of G. Whitehead's in p. 4â— thus And that he existeth outwardly bodily without us at God's right Hand What Scripture-Proof hath he for these Words And then what and where is God's right Hand Is it Visible or Invisible Within us or without us only And is Christ the Saviour as an outward bodily Existence or Person without us distinct from God and on that consideration to be worshipped as God Yea or Nay And where doth the Scripture say he is outwardly and bodily glorified at God's right Hand Do these Terms express the Glory that he had with the Father before the World began in which he is now glorified These last Words from Where doth the Scripture say Is he says the thing that Rivets But if by Rivetting he means Fastening a Proof upon G. VVhitehead that he denies Christ to have a bodily Existence without us G. Keith himself has cut off the Head of his Rivet and made it uncapable to hold by saying which I shewed before from his Answer to his Countryman Iohn Alexander He ought to know that to Query a thing will not conclude that the Questionist doth positively affirm or deny what is Queried Truths Defence p. 59. Especially when it is only used in a Socratical way of Disputing or Arguing against an Adversary as it is used here and which he observes to be G. VVhitehead's way of Writing And indeed from the whole Answer which fills near two Pages out of which G. Keith hath cropt his Quotation it appears that G. VVhitehead's drift was to shew the Absurdity and Inconsistency of his Opponent's Assertion which was as in p. 40. that Christs Apostles and all his Ministers in all Ages pointed to Jesus the Son of Mary this Son of Man with an Hosannah to this Son of David and to none before him or to any ever since These Words The Son of Mary this Son of Man this Son of David and to none before him had a tendency to deny the Divinity or Godhead of Christ and to set up the Body that was born of the Virgin for the only whole intire Christ and Saviour And therefore to this G. VVhitehead answered That the Holy Prophets Apostles and Ministers hath pointed and testified unto Iesus Christ both as Man born of the Virgin or to his coming in the Flesh and unto his Divinity and Manifestation in Spirit this is owned â—ut that they all cried Hosanna to the Son of David is a mistake For it was the Multitudes that went before and that followed when Christ rid to Jerusalem that cryed Hosannah to the Son of David Mat. 21.9 Adding Many 〈…〉 cry Hosannah who never knew his Salvation within nor believed in his Power but rather spiritually crucifie him And the Scribes and Pharisees could talk of Christs being the Son of David when they neither truly believed nor owned him that was the true Christ either as the Root or Offspring of David But Christ asked these Pharisees and Scribes who said Christ is the Son of David this Question VVhat think ye of Christ VVhose Son is he They said unto him The Son of David He said unto them How then doth David in Spirit call him Lord If David then call him Lord how is he his Son c Now says G. VVhitehead there VVas not this the true Christ whom David in Spirit called Lord before he took upon him Flesh or came of his Seed There 's another Question put to his Opponent who had asserted That all the Apostles and Ministers of Christ in all Ages pointed to Jesus the Son of Mary this Son of Man with an Hosannah to this Son of David and to none before him Was not this the true Christ whom David in Spirit called Lord says G. VVhitehead What then Did this Question imply that G. VVhitehead denied Christ according to the Flesh or as he was born of Mary to be the Son or Offspring of David Nothing less For he says he took upon him Flesh and came of David's Seed and is owned as pointed at and testified unto by the Holy Prophets Apostles c. as Man born of the Virgin No more doth his asking his Opponent for it is not a general Question but particular to his Opponent grounded upon the particular Terms his Opponent had exprest himself in thus Whereupon
Words thus Now the Quakers would be so far from directing Men to go to the material Temple at Ierusalem that they make it but a vain thing to look to Ierusalem to the Antitype of that Temple viz. to Jesus Christ as he was there Crucified or to that Blood that was there shed for Justification he says now see the Answer which he gives thus The Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype neither to the outward Temple nor yet to Ierusalem either to Jesus Christ or his Blood knowing that neither the Righteousness of Faith nor the Word of it doth so direct Rom. 10. And is it the Baptists Doctrine to direct Men to the material Temple and Ierusalem the Type for the Antitype What Nonsense and Darkness is this And where do the Scriptures say The Blood was there shed for Justification and that Men must be directed to Ierusalem to it Whereas that Blood shed is not in being said G. Whitehead out of p. 40. of Burnets Book This Charge G. Keith exhibited once before in his Book called The True Copy p. 19. And in his Gross Error p. 1 2. And I have answered it already in mine called Truth Defended p. 108 109 110. Where amongst other things I shewed that there is a Typographical Error in the Passage he carps at and that whereas it is Printed thus The Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype viz. neither to the outward Temple nor yet to Ierusalem either to Jesus Christ or his Blood it should have been either for Jesus Christ or his Blood This G. Keith could not well shun noting though he doth the rest of my Answer Therefore he says Nar. p. 27. T. Ellwood thinks to put a Trick on the Reader and says it is wrong Printed and that it should have been for instead of to And in the Postscript to his Gross Error calls it a dull and silly Juggle But I not only said it should have been for instead of to but proved it and that I think very plainly For I did not only say I find it hath been so amended with a Pen in the Book which I have which as having the least weight in it G. Keith takes notice of and says I do not say G. Whitehead mended it which is a very idle Cavil For though I do not know but G. Whitehead might mend it yet if he did not what then Could it be expected he should with a Pen mend a whole Impression But that which I gave as a more demonstrative Proof of the Place being misprinted G. Keith takes no notice of which was this viz. The former part of the Answer shews it should have been so for there it is the Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype mark for the Antitype not to the Antitype And as it is so there to the Type for the Antitype so it must be here also to the Temple or to Ierusalem for Jesus Christ or his Blood This plain Evidence G. Keith willingly shuns and says nothing to it But shuffles about and says G. Whitehead has it to to to several Times for which he quotes p. 38 39. and 61. That in p. 38. is the place in Controversie In p. 39. he uses the Word to as referring directly to Burnet's Words whose the Word to was saying Where do the Scriptures say the Blood was there shed for Justification and that Men must be directed to Ierusalem to it to that Blood that was shed there were Burnets express Words and therefore it was expedient G. Whitehead repeating his Words should use it So likewise in that other instance p. 61. where G. Whitehead setting forth the Confusion and Self-contradiction of his Adversary keeps in expressing it to his own Terms and therefore says Mark how one while W. Burnet makes that Blood and the shedding of it his Justifier Redeemer c. which he has confessed is not in being Then which G. Keith quotes another while People must seek their Saviour above the Clouds and Firmament contrary to the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 10.6 Another while they must look to Ierusalem for Justification to the Blood that was there shed The Word to was expresly Burnets there therefore G. Whitehead kept to it But in the very next Line when he spake his own Words he changed the Word to into for saying But if Men should look to Ierusalem for that Blood it is not there to be found for it 's not in being says VV. Burnet Now as this and what I have said before manifests that it was a mistake in the Printing So G. Keith's contending to have it wrong rather than right against the Author's Sense and Mind rather than with it shews him to be not only an unfair Adversary but a Man of an evil and malicious Mind For none else would have repeated a Charge of Error against another and persisted to urge it as G. Keith hath done this from a Word denied to be the Authors and so apparently proved to be a Typographical Error only as this was before In his Controversie formerly with R. Gordon he blames him sharply for serving him so and tells him Thou abusest my VVords taking occasion from a small Error in the Printing which is a disingenuous way of dealing and had not thy prejudice blinded thee thou might'st easily have Corrected it by the Sense So might he this had â—ot his prejudice not blinded him For I suppose he saw it at first however I shewed him it a Year ago but prevailed upon him to wrong G. Whitehead knowingly which is worse than if he had been blinded Yet so earnest is G. Keith in pursuit of his false Charge that upon G. VVhitehead saying Burnet's directing Men to Ierusalem for Christ is contrary to Deut. 30.13 14. and Rom. 10. G. Keith cries out Is not this abominable Perversion of Scripture to confirm his Antichristian Doctrine But as forward as he was to Charge another he was as backward to clear or defend himself For in my former Answer to this Charge Truth Defended p. 110. I shewed him that what he now calls in G. VVhitehead an abominable Perversion of Scripture is not more than if so much as he himself had written thirty Years ago in his Book called Help in time of Need not retracted by him p. 63. where he saith expresly thus And now we need not say Who will go down into the Grave and bring up Christ to us or who will ascend to Heaven to bring him down to us or who will go over the Seas and bring us Tidings of him from Jerusalem where he suffered in the Flesh Herein he had direct Relation to the Words of Moses and Paul in Deut. 30. and Rom. 10. Him says he whose Name is the Word of God Rev. 19. we of a Truth witness nigh us even in our Hearts so that we need not either ascend or descend or go forth c. Upon which I