Nature upon him and became in the likeness of sinful Man being born of the Virgin Mary c. G. Whitehead Answer'd p. 12. This Assertion opposeth the Deity and Divinity of Iesus Christ and contradicts the faithful Testimonies of the Holy Men of God in the Scriptures of Truth Again p. 14. Though Jesus signifies a Saviour and Christ Anointed yet to coâ—sine those Names only to the Manhood still agrees with the erroneous Doctrine before that Christ was not the Word from the beginning whereas he took upon him the Manhood in Time in which tho' we own him as the anointed of God yet he was also Gods anointed as he was his only begotten and Delight and so the Son from his Eternal Being or Substance before the Mountains and Hills were settled And in p. 15. he expresly calls that Opinion Heretical that denies the Divinity of Christ. Again p. 16. To say Christ cannot dwell in Man doth not only oppose his Spirituality Deity and Omnipotency bar c. And if He be perfect God he can dwell in his People as he hath promised Again p. 18. It still strictly limits or tyes up the Name Jesus Christ to a Body of Flesh and Blood and so coverâ—ly denies his Being before he took on him that visible Body of Flesh Blood and Bones and so opposeth his Divinity as before Again p. 68. What a gross Error is it to affirm that Christ was not from the beginning or that he was not the Word in the beginning and what a denyal of his Divinity like the old Hereticks Again ib. Much more might be said on the behalf of the Divinity of the Son of God or Christ who was the Word in the beginning and with the Father in his Glory before the World began In another Book also of G. Whitehead's called The Nature of Christianity c. Printed in the Year 1671. to which G. Keith himself writ a Postscript in the Epistle p. 3. G. Whitehead speaking concerning the true Saviour or the Man Christ Jesus says Whom we have frequently Confest both as to his Divinity and as to his taking upon him the Body prepared for him to do the Will of God in according to the Scriptures of Truth yea both his outward and inward Appearance his suffering Nature and glorified State and his Divinity in both we have always truly Believed and Confessed even his Dignity Spiritual outgoing from of old from Everlasting as also his outward Birth c. And in the Book p. 36. G. Whitehead replies upon his Opponent What is this but to deny the Divinity of Christ c. Again p. 40. That the Holy Prophets Apostles and Ministers both pointed and testified unto Jesus Christ both as Man born of the Virgin or to his coming in the Flesh and unto his Divinity and Manifestation in Spirit this is owned Again p. 41. I perceive he is ignorant of Christ both as the Son of God and as the Son of Man For according to the Spirit he was the Son of God c. Again p. 52. says he to his Opponent R. Gordon Thou having confest that his Christ's out-goings were from Everlasting hast thereby granted to what I said that the Son of God and his Light are not under a Limitation as to Time and Place especially if thou wilt own his Divinity or that he ever was the Son of God before he took a Body in the Womb of the Virgin but if thou dost not own that the Son of God was before then than thou dost not own his Divinity nor him no more than a Finite Creature I choose to confront G. Keith out of these Books rather than others because these are some of the Books he hath cited and out of which he hath pretended to make good his Charges against us and therefore he may not be supposed to have been ignorant that these Passages were in them But how horribly unjust and wicked he must be in charging G. Whitehead with denying the Divinity of Christ or that Christ is God who hath so fully and frequently asserted and maintained his Divinity against others and that at the same time wherein he is charged to have denied it I leave to the Reader 's Judgment The next part of his Charge against G. Whitehead is That he has denied Christ to be Man Nar. p. 16. For proof of which he cites that Book of G. Whitehead's which I lately mentioned called The Divinity of Christ c. p. 18. but the Reader must take Notice It is in the Second Part of that Book for the Book is by its Pages divided into two parts The Words G. Keith cites first are these If the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both Created doth not this render him a Fourth Person c. There G. Keith breaks off with an c. But it follows in G. Whitehead's Book thus For Creation was in Time which contradicts their Doctrine of three Distinct Increated Co-Eternal Co-Essential Persons in the Deity seeing that which was Created was not so This shews the occasion of those Words and that they weâ—â—â— ad hominem to shew his Opponent T. Danson the absurdity of his Assertions about the Personalities of the Deity But this Passage though G. Keith mentioned it to make the greater noise and flourish he leans not on For without Commenting on it he says But the stress I lay is in the Words following which he gives thus But herein whether doth not his and their ignorance of the only begotten of the Father plainly appear There he leaves out these Words And their denyal of Christs Divinity which he knew would make against him and then goes on thus Where doth the Scripture say That his Soul was Created For was not he the brightness of the Fathers Glory and the express Image of his Divine Substance But supposing the Soul of Christ was with the Body created in Time c. There G. Keith breaks off again with an c. But in G. Whiteheads Book it follows thus I ask if from Eternity he was a Person distinct from God and his Holy Spirit without either Soul or Body And where doth the Scripture speak of any Person without either Soul or Body Let 's have plain Scripture This further shews that this whole Passage related to Danson's strange Notions of the Personalities of the Deity to shew his Confusion therein and also to bring him back to the Scripture which he with the rest for there were several other Priests concerned also at that time in the Controversie had set up for the only Rule in Religion but would not keep to Therefore did G. Whitehead put it upon them Where doth the Scripture say Let 's have plain Scripture But G. Keith perverts the whole Passage and abuses G. Whitehead for he tells his Auditors Here ye see He will not own that Christ had a Created Soul Th. Danson being a Presbyterian Minister says he did plead That Christ as Man had a Created Soul Nay
hold there Tho. Danson spake of the Son of God And to those Terms G. VVhitehead answered To this I say if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both Created doth not this render him a fourth Person For Creation was in time which contradicts their Doctrine of three Distinct Increated Co-Eternal Co-Essential Persons in the Deity seeing that which was Created was not so Plain it is from hence that in this whole Answer G. VVhitehead did not so much express his own Sense as expose Danson's and the other Priests their Confusion and Contradiction to themselves and one another Therefore he asks Danson If from Eternity He the Son of God was a Person distinct from God and his Holy Spirit without either Soul or Body And where says he doth the Scripture speak of any Person without either Soul or Body And because you Priests contend so hotly that the Scripture is the only Rule of Faith and Life for that was part of that Controversie p. 45 c. Let 's have plain Scripture Where doth the Scripture say that the Son of God the only begotten of the Father one of the Three Distinct Increated Co-Eternal Co-Essential Persons in the Deity as ye call him that his Soul was Created Thus G. VVhitehead hampered his Adversaries by putting the Questions which shew'd the aâ—surdity and inconsistency of their Notions and Assertions a way of dealing with G. Keith hath sometimes used towards an unfair Adversary himself And though he says such a way of questioning plainly impâ—rts a Denial now that he writes against Truth and the Friends of it yet when â—ormerly he wrot in Truth 's Defence a Book under that Title Printed in 1682. in Answer to his Countreyman Iohn Alexander of Leith he told him p. 59. I. Alexander ought to know that to query a thing will not conclude that the Questionist doth positively affirm or deny what is Queried But it is common to him to forget himself as oft as he has a Mind not to remember However I think those Words where doth the Scripture say that his Soul was Created which G. Keith would have taken notice of and which he says he laies the stress in will not bear the stress he lays if right notice with respect to the occasion drift and manner of Speech be taken of them But that G. VVhitehead hath fully and frequently owned the Holy Manhood of Christ with respect both to Soul and Body shall be shewed by more Instances than one At present let me shew G. Keith what he hath written concerning the Soul of Christ in his VVay cast up p. 104. And therefore says he 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 of David and of Abraham And in p. 103. Yet before this even from the beginning he was the Heavenly Man and had his Soul and heavenly Flesh and Blood c. Here G. Keith is positive that Christ the heavenly Man had his Soul from the beginning before he did partake of our Flesh and Blood by his outward Birth And he is as positive that Christ did nâ—t take to himself the Soul of Man nay that he did not become Man at his Conception in the Womb of the Virgin Mary How will he scape now from falling into Appollinarius his Error or contradicting himself to escape it G. Keith brings another Passage out of another Book of G. VVhitehead's in order to prove that G. VVhitehead has denied Christ to be Man He brings it in thus Next I prove says he p. 16. that G. Whitehead says He speaking of Christ has not the Body of a Man See his Nature of Christianity p. 29 41. This were an home Proof if he could make it good But being conscious to himself of the falseness of this Charge and how easily it may be disproved out of G. VVhitehead's Book he staggers in his undertaking and before he recites G. VVhitehead's Words makes his own excuse thus If he has said otherwise in any of his late Printed Books I am glad of it But let him retract these for these have done much mischief Now says he when I said he was Orthodox I mean noâ— as he was Heterodox For there is a G. Whitehead Orthodox and a G. Whitehead not Orthodox I did not know G. Whitehead not Orthodox till lately I do not say there are two Persons in G. Whitehead he is but one and the same Person in this and some other things Orthodox and not Orthodox I own it that I have cited divers Passages out of his later Books that are Orthodox to prove him sound c. This plainly shews that G. Keith knew G. VVhiteheads Judgement to be otherwise than he has represented him But is it not a most horrible Wickedness for one Man designedly and wilfully to represent another Man's Judgment quite contrary to what he knows it to be Now let us return to G. Keith's Charge and Proof His Charge is that G. VVhitehead says He Christ has not the Body of a Man His Proof is from the Book last mentioned p. 29 41. thus Or dost thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee according to thy VVords p. 30. If thou dost thou mayst look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him Is this a Proof that G. VVhitehead says Christ has not the Body of a Man I expected when G. Keith said I prove that G. VVhitehead says He Christ has not the Body of a Man he would have pretended at least to have produced some place wherein G. VVhitehead had exprest those very VVords But instead of that he brings a place that hath neither those VVords nor any thing like them There is not in these Words of G. VVhitehead's a Denial either that Christ hath a bodily Existence or that he will appear in that Bodily Existence But from them may be gathered that thâ—t Appearance of Christ shall not be to save but to judge the World at the last Day and that that Day was not so near at hand as R. Gordon seem'd to expect or think For the Words are or 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 until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him to wit only as the Son of Mary and to save thee The Word Such may respect the End of his Appearance as well as the Manner of it The End viz. to save thee as if Man should not be saved until the Day of general Judgment The manner viz. As the Son of Mary as if Christ should come in no higher powerful and more glorious Appearance than as
though that Book not treating so directly of that Subject hath not so many Instances in it as are in other Books of his In that very Page 47. out of which he takes his first Quotation against G. Whitehead upon Iohn 17.5 And now O Father glorifie me with thine own self with the Glory which I had with thee before the World was G. Whitehead says Was not he the true Christ the Son of God that so prayed unto the Father And in the same Page just after the Words G. Keith carps at upon the Baptist's saying Which Word was God yet he was not a Saviour as he was the Word or Creator of the World c. G. Whitehead replies How then doth He say I am God a Saviour c. And in Page 48. upon the Baptist's saying He was not a Saviour as the Root and Creator of Man but as he was to be the Offspring of Man c. G. Whitehead Answer'd Do but mark the Confusion and Darkness of this Man who hath denyed that God the Word or Creator of Man is a Saviour and Christ as he was the Root and Creator of Man and as He was the Eternal Son of God from the Days of Eternity he hath denied to be a Saviour but as he was the Off-spring of Man Do but Eye the tendency of this Doctrine thus to deny the Son of God to be a Saviour whereas it is through the Son of God that Eternal Life is received Iohn 3.16 And God's Love was manifest in sending his only begotten Son into the World So here the Efficacy of the Son of God and the Eternal Word is proved against the Baptist's false and unscripture like Distinction It was in the Year 1668. that this Book was Printed In the Year 1669. G. Whitehead writ another Book which I mentioned before called The Divinity of Christ and Vnity of the Three that bear Record in Heaven with the blessed End and Effects of Christ's Appearance coming in the Flesh Suffering and Sacrifice for Sinners Confessâ—d and Vindicated by his Followers called Quâ—kers In that Book between the Epistle and the first Chapter giving a brief Account of what we own touchâ—ng the Divinity and Godhead of Christ he says That there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and that these Three are one both in Divinity Divine Substance and Essence not three Gods nor separate Beings That they are called by several Names in Scripture yet they are Eternally One in Nature and Being One Infinite Wisdom one Power one Love one Light and Life c. Then adds We never denied the Divinity of Christ as most injuriously we have been accused by some prejudiced Spirits who prejudicially in their perverse Contests have sought occasion against us as chiefly because when some of us were in Dispute with some Presbyterians we could not own their unscriptural Distinction and Terms The Father's begetting the Son and the Spirit 's being sent we witness to and own Yea the Son of God is the brightness of his Glory and the express Image of his Substance So the Manifestation of the Father of the Son and Holy Spirit we confess to c. And that Iesus Christ being in the Form of God thought it no robbery to be equal with God and yet as a Son was sent of the Father c. So that the Deity or Divinity of Christ in his Eternal Infinite Glorious State we really confess and own In the Book it self p. 18. He says He Christ was equal with God in Glory before the World was Again p. 19. It was never any Design or Plot of ours to endeavour to prejudice the Minds of any against the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost as falsly and blasphemously we are accused by this our prejudiced Opposer Again p. 22. We never disowned the Deity of Christ or Holy Ghost as falsly and injuriously is insinuated against us Again p. 26. Charging us with designing to blast and overthrow the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost upon which Blasphemers and Blasphemy and damnable Speeches are hideously cast upon us but most unjustly and falsly For no such design ever had we as either to blast or overthrow the Deity of Christ or Holy Spirit we having openly professed and declared the contrary both in Words and Writings Again p. 32. That the Divine Essence or Godhead can be but one and this in each of the Three we never denied Again p. 38. I have heard of some beyond the Sea who were accused with denying the Divinity of Christ but I know of none here that either deny the Divinity of Christ or him to be of one Substance with the Father Again p. 41. Christ being the Brightness of the Glory of God and the express Image of his Divine Substance as also truly called the Son of his Love c. Second Part of the same Book p. 3. We never denied the Deity or Divinity of either Father Word or Holy Ghost Again p. 39. His Opponent T. Danson having charged the Quakers with denying Christ to be God G. Whitehead Answers This is an apparent slander cast upon us as our Books and Writings do shew that we never denied Christ to be God or his Divinity c. Again p. 54. As to Socinianism as he calls it we are neither discipled in it nor baptized into Socinus his Name neither do we own him for our Author or Pattern in those things which we believe and testifie nor yet do we own several Principles which I. O. relates as from Socinus and principally that of Christ's being God but not the most High God It was never our Principle for tho' we do confess to his Condescension Humility and Suffering in the Days of his Flesh wherein he appeared in the form of a Servant being made in Fashion as a Man Yet his being in the Form of God and being glorified with the same Glory he had with the Father before the World began and his being God over all blessed for ever These things we professed and believed in the beginning and do the same still it never being in our Hearts in the least to oppose or desert them Again p. 58. As to a great part of his I. O's Book wherein he goes about to prove the Divinity or Deity of Christ c. We are unconcerned therein having never denied Christ's Divinity Here one would think were Instances enough of G. Whitehead's and ours owning and confessing Christ to be God to make G. Keith blush for charging him with denying it But because I know G. Keith hath too far and too long abandoned Modesty and Vertue to be easily drawn to blush I will add some more out of another Book written by G. Whitehead and Printed the same Year 1669. called Christ ascended above the Clouds c. in Answer to one Iohn Newman a Baptist who having it seems asserted that The Word was in the beginning but Christ was in time not till he had taken
he knows wâ—re Io. Horn's terms But I observe he takes occasion from hence to make Sport with G. Whitehead and W. Penn their Philosophy even so far as to ridicule Divine Inspiration For he says he has oft told G. Whitehead that he and W. Penn will needs embrace false Notions in Philosophy they will needs seem to be Philosophers by Divine Inspiration as well as Ministers and Preachers by 〈◊〉 Had not the Philosophy himself so much dotes on and glories in been as his own phrase was a Ditch and a foul Ditch too he would have been more cleanly in his Expression and not have made Divine Inspiration the Subject of his Frothy Flout But it is high time for him to tack about and deny Divine Inspiration if he aspire to Preferment in that Church against which he has formerly said so much for it Thus having answered all his Quotations against G. Whitehead concerning the holy Manhood or Divine Existence and spiritual Being of Christ in Heaven as he is the Heavenly Man shewed that G. Whitehead hath not denied it I shall give a few Instances out of G. Whitehead's Books those especially which G. Keith has pickt his Cavils out of to manifest his owning the Holy Manhood or Bodily Existence of Christ in Heaven In his Book called The Light and Life of Christ within p. 9. refuting the slander of his Opponent he says False it is That the Quakers Christ is not Gods Christ or that they deny the Man Christ or the Christ that is in the Heavens In his Book called Christ ascended above the Clouds p 16. when his Opponent had asserted that Christ cannot dwell in Man and given this as his Reason For Christ is perfect Man as well as perfect God He does not deny that Christ is perfect Man as well as perfect God but denies the Consequence that therefore Christ cannot dwell in Man Mind his Answer which is this To say Christ cannot dwell in Man doth not only oppose his Spirituality Deity and Omnipotency but also is contrary to the Apostles plain Testimonies of Christs being in the Saints And if he be perfect God he can dwell in his People as he hath promised and surely his being perfect Man doth not put a Limitation upon him as a Let or Hinderance to disable him from being in his People whilst he who was Christ as come in the Flesh was also truly Jesus Christ within in his spiritual Appearance and we do not confine him under this or that particular Name Again p. 17. I grant that Christ arose with the same Body that was crucifiâ—d and put to Death and that he ascended into glory even the same glory which he had with the Father before the World begun Many more Instances might be added But the Reader may take notice that in my last Book called Truth Defended written about a year ago in Answer to two Books of G. Keith's and which he hath not yet replied to I gave a dozen Instances out of those Books which G. Keith has carped at to shew that G. Whitehead did own the Manhood of Christ one of which seeing he hath not taken notice of them I may repeat here referring the Reader to p. 161. of that Book of mine for the rest That which I now repeat is out of a Book called The Christian Quaker and his Divine Testimony Vindicated Part 2. p. 97. where G. Whitehead saith To prevent these Mens scruples concerning our owning the Man Christ or the Son of Man in glory I tell them seriously That I do confess both to his miraculous Conception by the Power of the holy Spirit over-shadowing the Virgin Mary and to his being born of her according to the Flesh and so that he took upon him a real Body and not a fantastical and that he was real Man come of the Seed of Abraham and that he in the days of his Flesh preached Righteousness â—rought Miracles was Crucifiâ—d and put to Death by wicked hands that he was buried and rose again the third Day according to the Scriptures and after he arose he appeared diversly or in divers forms and manners he really appeared to many Brethren 1 Cor. 15. and afterwards ascended into Glory being translated according to the Wisdom and Power of the Heavenly Father and is glorified with the same glory which he had with the Father before the World began c. Is it not strange Reader that G. Keith should have the face to charge G. Whitehead with denying the Manhood of Christ who hath so often and so plainly confessed to it What else is this but to pin a wrong Belief upon a Man to make him seem erroneous whether he will or no But this is worst of all in G. Keith who hath so often taken upon him to defend our Principles and Us against Opposers in his former Books And even but lately in his Serious Appeal printed in America 1692. in Answer to Cotton Mather of New-England having justified G. Whitehead and W. Penn in their Answer to Hicks and Faldo says p. 6. I do here solemnly charge Cotton Mather to give us but one single Instance of any One Fundamental Article of Christian Faith denied by us as a People or by aâ—y One of our Writers or Preachers generally owned and approved by us And in p. 7. he adds According to the best knowledge I have of the People called Quakers and these most generally owned by them as Preachers and Publishers of their Faith of unquestioned Esteem amongst them and worthy of double Honour as many such there are I know none that are guilty of any one of such Heresies and Blasphemies as he accuseth them And I think says he I should know and do know these called Quakers and their Principles far better than C. M. or any or all his Brethren having been conversant with them in Publick Meetings as well as in private Discourses with the most noted and esteemed among them for about 28 years past and that in many places of the World in Europe and for these divers years in America This more generally But with respect more particularly to our owning the Man Christ hear what he said in the Appendix to his Book of Immediate Revelation 2d Edit p. 133. And here says he I give the Reader an Advertisement that although the Worlds Teachers and Professors of Christ in the Letter accuse us as Deniers of Christ at least as Man and of the Benefits and Blessings we have by him yet that the Doctrine and Principles of the People called Quakers as well as the People do indeed more acknowledge the Man Christ Iesus and do more impute all our Blessings and Mercies that are given us of God as conveyed unto us through him unto the Man Iesus than any of them all And he gives the Reason too Inasmuch says he as we do believe and acknowledge that a measure of the same Life and Spirit of the Man Iesus which dwelt in him in its Fulness and
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
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
learnt this Trickling Art from that Apostate as he represents him C. L He compares us to the Arrians and Macedonians some of the worst of Hereticks and in that for which they were more to be condemned than for their Heresies since these might possibly proceed from Ignorance and Mistake that must flow from Hypocrisy and Design I reject his comparison and in plain and sober words deny his Charge as a most abominable Falsehood and Slander In p. 31. he quarrels with G. Whitehead for saying S. Eccles's intent in those words No more than the Blood of another Saint was as to Papists and you whose minds are Carnal who oppose the Light within and also simply as to the Essence of the Blood which you dare not say is still in being To the first part of this Sentence he says This never was my Quakerism For my belief all along was that Papists and Baptists and all have a benefit by Christ's Death And so was G. Whitehead's too Because his Death being a general Attonement for all that shall believe in and receive him all are thereby put into a Capacity by receiving and believing in him to attain unto Salvation But if any whether Papists Baptists or other being carnally minded which is or brings Death Rom. 8.6 do in their carnal mind Oppose the Light within and continue so to do of what particular benefit to the Salvation of the Soul will the Blood of Christ be to them Therefore G. Keith in this as in almost all places deals unfairly with G. Whitehead neither taking his right sense nor giving his full words For what G. Whitehead delivered as S. E's intent with respect to such Papists and Baptists whose minds are carnal and who Oppose the Light within that G. Keith extends to Papists and Baptists Vniversally and draws his Conclusion accordingly thus Now it is come to this says he That the Blood of Christ is no more to Papists and Baptists than the Blood of another Saint As if all Papists and Baptists quâ tales must of necessity be carnally minded and oppose the Light within In like manner he deals with him in the latter part of that Sentence viz. And also simply as to the essence of the Blood which you dare not say is still in being c. Which plainly appears to have been Spoken ad hominem only upon the Baptists Notion that that Blood which was shed was not in being Yet upon this G. Keith descants alledging what no Quaker that I know of ever denied viz. That it was never defiled with Sin and had a Miraculous Conception but wholly conceals those other words of G. Whitehead's which in his Book immediately follow But not as to the Spiritual Virtue and Testimony which is still in being Which said G. Whitehead S. E. owned to be his Intention And that plainly proves that S. E. owned the Blood shed was more than the Blood of another Saint as to the Spiritual Virtue and Testimony of it But says G. Keith Let us consider these words of S. E. which G. Whitehead saith might satisfy any Spiritual or unbyassed man viz. I do very highly esteem of the Blood of Christ to be more excellent c. There G. Keith stops with an c. which he should not have done For if he had a mind to save the Transcribing those other good Epithets Living Holy Precious which S. E. added to the Blood yet he should not have overppassed those explanatory Words of S. E's which follow viz. I mean the Blood which was offered up in the Eternal Spirit Heb. 9.14 The words of that Scripture are How much more shall the Blood of Christ who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without Spot or fault to God purge your Consciences c. Hence it is evident that by the Blood of Christ which S. E. said he so highly esteemed he meant the Blood that was of and in that Body which was offered up upon the Cross For he refers expresly to this Scripture which Speaks directly of that Offering This G. Keith unfairly but like himself concealed and then cries out Here 's S. E's Fallacy and G. Whitehead's Fallacy also But I think he will not be able to make it out without the help of one of his former Tricks nor even with it Thus he goes on Now you know what Blood they mean and see what Blood G. Whitehead means The Blood is Spiritual and Inward the other is a Type If they know what we mean it is a sign we mean as we speak and write for they could not know our meaning but by our speaking or writing But such as mean to know our meaning aright will do well to take it from our selves not from an unjust and implacable Enemy That the Blood is Spiritual and that it is inward as well as outward and outward as well as inward I grant But that the outward is a Type is not the saying nor meaning of the Quakers but a meaning invented by G. Keith to put a Trick upon us He quotes G. Whitehead's Book Light and Life p. 56. both in his Gross Error p. 17. and here thus It is confessed that God by his own Blood Purchased to himself a Church Acts 20.28 Now the Blood of God or that Blood that relates to God must needs be Spiritual he being a Spirit and the Covenant of God is inward and Spiritual and so is the Blood of it Upon this says G. Keith Nar. p. 31. So you see he doth not allow the Blood outwardly shed to relate to God or to be the Blood of the New Covenant or that God Purchased his Church with that Blood outwardly shed on the Cross. Why so I pray G. Whitehead said nothing against the Blood outwardly shed on the Cross but having to do with a Baptist who would have the Blood to be only outward and not Spiritual and who as G. Whitehead cites him in that 56 p. confessed he was as Ignorant of any such Blood as may be G. Whitehead asserted the Blood of God by which he purchased to himself a Church and the Blood of the New Covenant to be Spiritual not only outward as the Type of it was And will G. Keith say that the Blood of Christ which was outwardly shed had no Spirituality in it nor might in any sense be called Spiritual considering the Miraculous conception of the Body whereof the Blood was a Principal part through the overshadowing of the Power of the Highest G. Keith might have remembred that when he was in The way to the City of God which now he hath turned his Back upon he writ thus p. 131. Even according to that Birth to wit his outward Birth he was the Son of God no less than the Son of Man as having God for his Father as he had the Virgin Mary for his Mother Now the Child we know doth partake an Image or Nature from both Parents and thus did Christ who did partake of the Nature and Image of
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
delivered in the Scriptures that the Body that shall be raised is the very same Body that died but we find the quite contrary expresly delivered in Scripture Thou sowest not that Body that shall be 1 Cor. 15.37 And therefore we see no Reason any more than G. Keith formerly did to receive or believe it as a common Article or Principle of the Christian Faith much less that we should be blamed for not so receiving it and least of all by him who hath provided so good a Defence for himself against being blamed for not receiving as an Article of the Christian Faith what he cannot find expresly delivered in the Scripture I could shew a great deal of Absurdity and Self-contradiction of G. Keith's in what he has delivered on this Subject of the Resurrection But I am unwilling to spend time or too much to enlarge the Bulk of these Sheets which are already increast beyond my Expectation when I began by my giving particular and full Answers to the foregoing Heads I shall therefore in the Remainder contract my Answers as much as well I may and either pass wholly over the lighter parts of his Narrative or touch but lightly on them Towards the bottom of p. 35. having done with the Doctrine of the Resurrection he takes an occasion to give another Flurt at Infallibility though not relating to any of his four Heads or Charges which makes me think he did it to gratifie the more prophane and loose party of his Auditors as knowing that such Persons use to scoff at Inspiration and Infallibility to whom he was willing by that means to endear himself and them to him He takes his occasion from a Passage in a Book of G. Whitehead's mentioned before called The Voice of VVisdom in Answer to T. Danson where p. 33. to the Priest's saying Our want of Infallibility is no valid Plea against our Ministry G. Whitehead answered His falshood here appears plainly for they that want Infallibility and have not the Spirit of Christ they are out of the Truth and are fallible and their Ministry is not of the Spirit seeing they speak not from the Spirit but from their own Hearts which are deceitful where they want Infallibility The Inference G. Keith makes from hence is this Now I hope says he I have proved they want Infallibility and therefore by their own Doctrine they are no true Ministers of Christ. But his Consequence will not hold For it depends not upon certainty but hope and false hope too He hopes he has proved they want Infallibility But his Hope is but the Hope of an Hypocrite which will perish as he also will unless he repent If Infallibility be so ludibrious a thing with him how comes it to pass that he hath not yet openly renounced what he has formerly written in Defence of Divine Inspiration Immediate Revelation and Infallibility who perhaps has writ more on those Subjects than any Quaker has done In p. 36. I observe a Passage dropt from a Friend of ours that happened to be present thus I do not know but you will find when you have an Answer to what G. Keith has offered that those he Charges and Paraphrases â—n will agree with him in Principles He that spake this must be understood to mean If G. Keith will agree with himself in Principles that is will own the same Principles now which he owned maintained and defended while he was a Quaker which as G. Keith had not openly renounced so neither did that Friend of ours know whether he would or no. The Stranger therefore that in p. 37. undertook to Answer in G. Keith's behalf did somewhat mistake the Matter when from those Words I do not know but you will find they whom he Charges will agree with him in Principles he inferr'd You say that he differs not from you in Principles Nor was he less out in concluding that that was to clear him from the Charge of Apostasie For It was aptly replied by another There is an Apostasie from the Spirit of Christianity as well as from the Principles But that Stranger was strangely out who in p. 45. said For a Man to Apostatize is to Apostatize from the whole Faith but for a Man to differ with respect to particular things this is not Apostasie He might have consider'd that Apostasie is either General or Special Apostasie General is that which he calls an Apostasie from the whole Faith which I think cannot be properly said of any but such as wholly renounce the Christian Religion in all parts of its Profession and turn Iews or Infidels But if any who have profest the Protestant Religion and held Communion with Protestants under any particular Denomination should renounce Protestantism and turn Papist I presume any considerate Protestant would account such an one an Apostate and yet such an one could not be rightly said to have apostatized from the whole Christian Faith inasmuch as the Church of Rome as Corrupt as she is doth hold divers Articles of the Christian Faith in Common with all Protestants But since Apostasie in the common acceptance of the Word and from the Etymon thereof Signifies a departing or Falling off from that Religious Society or Body of People to which a man was before joyned and it is evident G. Keith is fallen off and departed from the Society of the People called Quakers to which he was once joyned he comes properly under the Denomination of an Apostate and it is no Injury to him to call him so In p. 37. he repeats the Story which he formerly told of the Man that he says told him he would rather Die or lose his right Hand than sign a Sentence as he calls it against him And that man he says has since come to him and told him he did not joyn in the Judgment given against him Whether this latter part be true I know not nor much regard knowing what a sort of unstable man that has been But of the rest of that matter so far as it did concern the Meeting I have given so particular and full an account in my former Book called Truth Defended p. 64 65 66 67. as I doubt not will give Satisfaction to any unbyassed Reader whether I refer such that I may not spend time upon so impertinent a matter here as I perceive some of his Auditors judged it For after he had ended his relation of it one of his Auditors whom he calls a Stranger said All this is very Impertinent to the Business in Hand Yet I find he ran on in a loose way of telling Stories against the Quakers both the rest of that page and p. 38. Towards the bottom of that page he tells a Story of three Ministers of London that in the Year 1678. Rose up he says against him and he opposed their Errors Being asked by an Auditor What Ministers they were He readily answered They were Quakers But being put upon it and prest hard to tell their Names