us from having any share therein as plainly appears from the place referred to though not named by G. Keith viz. A Serious Apology p. 148. Wherein W. Penn reciting an Objection of one Tho. Jenner viz. That we deny Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us WHOLLY without us and therefore deny the Lord that bought us He Answers And indeed this we deny c. Now mark the stress of his denial lies upon his Antagonist's Word WHOLLY whereupon W. Penn argues thus No Man can be Justified without Faith says Jenner No Man hath Faith without Works any more than a Body without a Spirit says James Therefore the Works of Righteousness by the Spirit of Christ Jesus are necessary to Justification Observe he doth not say the Works of the Spirit are only necessary thereby excluding the Righteousness which Christ fulfilled in his own Person without us but joins them together the Works wrought without us and the Works wrought within us and calls that Doctrine which would divide them and Attribute all wholly to the outward A Doctrine of Devils which to manifest the more clearly and thereby the more fully to detect G. Keith's Injustice and Falshood I shall give the Reader another Quotation out of the very next Page of the same Book where explaining our Faith concerning the Father Son and Holy Spirit in that part relating to the Son he saith Who took upon him Flesh and was in the World and in Life Doctrine Miracles Death Resurrection Ascension and Mediation perfectly did and does continue to do the Will of God to whose Holy Life Power Mediation and Blood we only ascribe our Sanctification JUSTIFICATION Redemption and perfect Salvation But besides G. Keith his abusing and misrepresenting W. Penn in the above-mentioned Passage I have another Remark to make upon him and that is That the very same Doctrine which W. Penn in his aforenamed Serious Apology called a Doctrine of Devils in T. Jenner G. Keith in his Postscript to the Nature of Christianity calls corrupt Doctrine in R. Gordon see p. 70. of the said Book The Title of that Part is Some of Robert Gordon 's corrupt Doctrines and p. 71. the eighth Head is That Redemption Justification were finished and compleated in the Crucified Body in Christ for us not in our Persons And the twelfth Head viz. That Redemption c. and all things are wrought purchased c. for us without the help of any thing to be wrought in us Now if these are corrupt Doctrines with G. Keith now which were so it seems with him in 1671. the Time of the Date of that Book is he not insincere in a high Degree in quarrelling with W. Penn for opposing the very same Doctrine in the very same Year his Serious Apology being likewise Printed in 1671. And on the other Hand if these Doctrines be not corrupt according to his Opinion and Judgment at this Time then doth he give himself the lye in this very Paper of his now before me p. 4 and 5. wherein he expresseth himself thus But whereas they upbraid me again and again with contradicting my former Doctrines and Principles as to Articles of Faith I cannot find that they have proved it against me in one Particular Of which more anon Well to conclude this Matter I shall tell him yet farther that I know not of any Quakers who do not ascribe Remission of Sins to that one Offering upon the Cross through Faith in the Name of Jesus Christ but if I understand any thing of the Quakers Principles as I think I do that is one of them and to prove that I speak not by Rote I will produce another Author approved amongst them viz. my Father Isaac Penington to confirm what I say as the Reader may see in his Treatise Entituled The Flesh and Blood of Christ c. p. 16. and of his Works Part 2. p. 186. It was a spotless Sacrifice of great Value and Effectual for the Remission of Sins And I do acknowledge humbly unto the Lord THE REMISSION OF MY SINS THEREBY and bless the Lord for it even for giving up his Son to Death for us all and giving all that believe in his Name and Power to partake of Remission through him In my Brief Observations p. 8. I produced a Proof out of A brief Narrative of the second Meeting c of his Self-contradiction in then saying The whole Protestant cause lieth at stake in the Defence whereof we with all true Protestants are concerned against the Jesuites and Baptists And yet in his Expostulation We promote vile Errours worse than the worst of Popery This he shuffles off saying p. 4. In vain are all his shuffling Aggravations against me upbraiding me with my being changed in my Opinion of what these Quakers were and a little lower I own it they deceived me they were the Deceivers and I was the Deceived Answ Any intelligent Reader may perceive it was Principles and not Persons he vindicated the Cause not Parties he then espoused therefore this is only a Sophistical turn to serve a turn and his Pretences to knowing them better only a false gloss that he may abuse them the worse and the Cause of their Changing their Opinion of him is his changing Sides and now taking up the Baptists old Arguments against his quondam Friends which he once assisted them in Baffling and now wou'd insinuate a mistake in the Men and not in the Principles to hold up his Credit of not being changed whereas the Men are the same their Principles the same now he opposes them as they were when he Vindicated them and he is the Man that is Changed Deviated Apostatized and therefore an ill Man which hath been over and over proved upon him and not disproved by him any other way than by a bare denial without Demonstration and so any farther Proof at present needless Yet to shew the Reader his former Judgment of our Principles both as Consonant with Scripture and also with those of the first Reformers so far as theirs agreed with Scripture I shall add a Quotation out of Help in Time of Need p. 46. viz. And now ye who accuse us in Derision called Quakers by you as Apostates and that we have denied our Fore-fathers Faith try your selves and Paralel your Fathers Principles and Practices with your own and also with ours and ye shall find ye are degenerated from them exceedingly as we were while with you but through the Grace of God are we recovered and brought to witness the Spirit and Life of the Primitive Protestants and Christians and ye cannot Instance to us one Particular wherein we Dissent from them warranted from the very Letter of the Scripture The Second Head viz. His Reflections upon the Protestant Clergy as more Lukewarm if they oppose not the Quakers here than the Popish Clergy at Rome would be in such a case He saith Hath nothing in it worth noticing but their
to his referring to G. Fox's Journal and E. Burroughs's Collected Treatises they are large Books and what part of them he quarrels with I know not therefore let him mention particulars and then if I think it worth my while he may perhaps hear farther from me And since he has not Enervated but only Shufled off the state of the Case I laid down in my former I need say no more at present then that it was too much truth to be denied even by G. Keith himself though I 'le say that for him he is a Man very expert in that faculty The Fourth Head viz. His itch to have you the Pious and Learned Dance after his Pipe viz. Challenge Disputes with the Quakers He tells us contains nothing but repeated Recriminations and Reflections against him already answered except in the latter part of it c. Answ As he says already answered though I say only Evaded as the Reader may see if he please to be at the trouble of comparing the one with the other yet what part of it he has already taken some small notice of is already replied to and so I shall follow him to the latter Part which he gives thus They propose it whether it would not be most equal and reasonable for them viz. such to whom I have directed my Expostulation to begin with me by calling me forth to a publick Hearing upon my former Books To this I answer that I am most willing they do and what I cannot justly and safely defend of any passages in my former Books I will fairly retract Answ A very fair Proposal so say and so do and so far we shall be agreed but I am afraid if it were to be put to the Tryal he would draw back for I can tell him of one Passage which I quoted in my former and which for the remarkableness of it I care not if I quote again which he must retract in the first place or else he can never be sincere in retracting the rest viz. I know not any fundamental Principle nor indeed any one Principle of the Christian Faith that I have varied from ever since I came among the Quakers which is about Thirty three Years ago Exact Narrative p. 15. Moreover in this very Sheet now before me he says But whereas they up-braid me again and again with contradicting my former Doctrines and Principles as to Articles of Faith I cannot find that they have proved it against me in one particular To which I answer If he will shut his Eyes and will not see who can help it Or if he will be so Partial in his own Cause as to resolve not to be convinced of it let what Proof will be offered 't is his own fault T. Ellwood whath proved it upon him in three Tracts and that in more than one particular and his not having answered either of them is sufficient ground to continue the Charge upon him taking it for granted that if he could have done it fairly he would or if by any Sophistical Art he could have neatly blinded it he would not have been wanting in his endeavours In the next place in p. 5. He would fain persuade those to whom he directs his Expostulation that 't is most proper to begin with us first because says he whatever just Offence I have given to any of them my late Adversaries of that Gang among the Quakers have far exceeded me Answ That is but his say so whereof himself is no competent Judge And adds he they have that which casts of Ballance as to them that they justifie all they have said and Printed against them to every Tittle to maintain their Infallibility which I have not done but in divers things I confess my mistakes and wherein I have justly offended any I humbly ask their Forgiveness Answ Supposing but not granting what he says to be true have not those he applies himself to the more need to begin with him first that they may take him in the mind while he is in the mind and bring him from lurking in bare Generals to descend to Particulars and so try whether he be sincere in his Protestations by bringing him to a thorow Recantation Whereas if the Case be as he represents it with us they must expect no such compliance from us but a steddy adherence to our Assertions consequently like to be a more tedious as well as a more difficult Work therefore most Prudence to begin with the easiest first especially having to do with a slippery Chapman of whom they can have no assurance that he will long continue in the same Humour though he were at present never so much seemingly resolved to be as good as his word And as to the Flout he throws at the Quakers concerning Infallibility I shall add a passage out of Help in time of need to shew what he formerly Asserted as to the necessity of People's being led by the Infallible Spirit see p. 23. Therefore another Head was set up in the Church then Jesus Christ and the Pope and his Council was made Judge to determine all Controversies in Religion and no Man was to look at an Infallible Judge the Spirit of Truth within him and are ye not become as bad who openly affirm that ye are not led by the infallible Spirit and consequently not by the Spirit of God My Fifth Head viz. His pretended tender Compassion to the Souls of People highly insincere And my Sixth Head viz. The Irregularity of his Proposal of Disturbing our Meetings contrary to Law He joins together as sufficiently answered in his Narrative and Expostulation so that he sees not the least cause to say any thing unto them Answ He has the prettiest faculty of answering Matters beforehand as a Man shall likely hear of he has answered good part of my Book it seems before its self was in Being 't is much he had not answered it all beforehand when his Hand was in yet here still comes in some buts and onlys that spoil his antecedent Answers and if it were not for these buts and onlys he needed have wrote but two or three Words in Answer to the whole Book and have left it so to the Readers Consideration as he doth now He says Only I take notice of the bold untruth he chargeth me with of my proposing the Disturbing of their Meetings Answ The untruth is his not mine as the Words I then quoted will evince to rational Men which I shall again Transcribe viz. Or if they continue to justifie them to refute them openly in the Face of their own Meetings and in the Presence of them that do so much admire and follow them His Reason for promoting this work is And thus to serve them as they have served others and with what Measure they have met to others the same to meet to them again Which he tells us a little before was Some of their Teachers assaulted the National Ministers in the Face of their
dis-praised as falling short of Papists in Zeal for the Christian Faith and how far this method was like to prove destructive rather than beneficial if practised to the true Protestant Religion I then shewed but he jumps over as indeed he doth most of the most material Points through that whole Treatise from the beginning to the end so that I may truly say he hath not answered it so much as by halves Snapping at this and Snarling at the other but going through little or nothing as he should which how meanly it looks in one of his Qualifications to so pitiful an Antagonist as he renders me I need not determine but shall refer that part to my Reader to think of it as he sees Cause As to what he objects concerning G. Fox the Elder G. Fox the Younger and E. Burroughs he is still in nubibus only a fling and away keeps in bare generals comes to no particulars and therefore not worthy ef notice In my Ninth Head viz. His malice against our Books I charged him with being either grossly insincere in pretending it is far from him to desire the least Sufferings to come upon our Persons or estates or else very Ignorant of the Law in such cases viz. Matters Blasphemous and Heretical which he hath alledged our Books contain which deeply affects both Persons and Estates by Imprisonments Fines and Pillory c. To this saith he I answer 1. Were not by the same Argument they Insincere or Ignorant who have charged not only some of their Brethren but differing from them in Punctilio's of their Church-Government and Womens Meetings as in particular Christopher Taylor his charging William Rogers with high Blasphemy in a Printed Book of his but also in charging with Heresie and Blasphemy many of the Ministry in the Nation reputed Orthodox by Civil Authority Answ His Reflection upon C. Taylor will not do him any kindness for 't is not Paralel with the State of the Case between him and us For C. Taylor dealt with W. Rogers Controversially only in writing and by way of a Religious Reproof and there left it but did not appeal to the Civil Magistrate against him no not at all he was so far from that that he directed it to none but Friends as An Epistle of Caution to them But on the other Hand G. Keith proposed to have the Pious and Learned c. encouraged by the Civil Power to question Friends about Blasphemy Heresie c. which would tend to a Judicial and Civil Tryal and Conviction and so if his attempts could take effect bring them under the danger of the Temporal Laws Again G. Keith says falsly in assigning the difference between W. Rogers and Friends to be a difference only in Punctilio's of Church-Government For had he read the Book and not resolved to close his Eyes he might see that W. Rogers finds fault with our Doctrine Preface p. 32. and Christian Quaker Part 1. p. 69. And therefore in his Second Part treats of Doctrines wherein he opposed his to ours in many particulars Thirdly If nothing of this kind could be offered yet is Recrimination of another no Just Vindication of a Man's self If C. Taylor had been Culpable and done amiss that doth not Justifie G. Keith in doing Evil. And now I think fit to take notice and that once for all of his Unmanly dealing he by way of dislike and reproach mentions in several places of his Vindication G. Fox both Elder and Younger E. Burroughs and C. Taylor who are all Dead two of them I believe before himself went under the name of a Quaker the other two he esteemed as Brethren and seemed to be in Unity with while Living and yet he must now be digging up their Graves I would ask him What hurt they have done him since they were Dead that he cannot let them rest now seeing while Living he had nothing to say against them He goes on to a 2dly But must not their Vile Errours and Heresies be opposed and the Authors of them witnessed against and warning given against them otherwise all that do so must they be reckoned Persecutors and Malicious Answ If he like the work let him go on with it no Body hinders his Printing nor proposes to hinder it Opposition in Meetings by Countenance or Authority from the Civil Magistrate was the thing I found fault with But let me tell him withal it is not his calling this that or the other Errour and Heresie that will make it so and if he call things by their wrong Names on purpose to render a People odious that 's Malice and a degree of Persecution proceeding from a Root of bitterness and if encouraged will not cease 'till it come to Fire and Faggot Rack and Gibbet And if what he wrote above thirty Years ago be worthy of Credit we are not a People deserving such Reflections feâ— Help in Time of Need p. 68. And we the People of the Lord whom he hath formed for himself shall shew forth his Praise and the Lord will make it manifest that we are his and that he hath raised us up and put his Spirit in us and that he dwells in and among us to all the Kindreds and Nations of the Earth and they who will not see shall see and be ashamed and confounded for their Envy at the People whom God hath blessed and will bless for ever and ever and no Deceit nor Violence shall prevail against them Now if he dare believe himself had he not better desist from his fruitless and envious Work he is carrying on against us lest himself be confounded I am now come to his Objections against my Tenth and Last Head wherein he endeavours to evade the Proofs I brought to Evince that The Case between our Books and his Pennsylvania Books as stated by him was far different To my alledging ' It was but common Prudence to hide the Bone of Contention which he had prepared to throw in amongst us lest his quarrelsome Books should infect some with the same Spirit of Discord here as his quarrelsome Discourses and Behaviour had infected some there He Answers p. 7. thus 1. Had it not been more honesty in them as well as Christian Prudence to have disowned these gross Errours which I evidently proved against them in Pennsylvania out of their own Letters and Manuscripts as well as by other Proofs then to have hid and cloaked them and excommunicated me for my faithful opposing them Answ That ever those gross Errours he exclaims against were evidently proved against those he accuses I never yet understood from any but himself who is too much a Party to be esteemed an unbyassed Judge in his own Cause how evident or how lame the Proofs were and upon the same bottom is his Charge laid against those he accuseth of Hiding and Cloaking those Errours he hints at but that he was Excommunicated as he Terms it for his faithful opposing them I deny The Words of
the Paper by him called The nameless Bull being my warrant for so doing which are That the said George Keith is gone from the blessed Unity of the peaceable Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ and hath thereby separated himself from the Holy Fellowship of the Church of Christ Whereby it appears that 't was his Turbulency in the Opposition he made whereby he manifested himself gone from Unity with and separated from the Fellowship of the Church and gone from the peaceable Spirit of Christ so not a bare faithful opposing of what he deemed Errours that drew that Judgment down upon him For if he had in Calmness and Coolness objected what he esteemed Erroneous and managed his Cause in a peaceable Temper of Mind until he were either Convinced of his Errour in so thinking of them or by strength of Argument offered in the Spirit of Meekness he had Convinced them that they really were in Errour I presume that Meeting would not have given forth that Paper against him He proceeds to a 2. But where is the far different Case Why they shouid suppress my Books and the Civil Authority should not suppress theirs Answ I then told him where but since he takes no Notice of it shall tell him again part of what I then offered 1. We had Right and Title to such an Authority over him and his Books at that Time as a Community or Society amongst whom he then pretended Membership and yet contrary to the Method now long since practised amongst us and which himself while himself had practised as well as others Published the said Books without the Approbation of those with whom we had Fellowship with an apparent Design to leaven a Faction for himself 2. His were bought and paid for and so became the real Property of the Purchasers ours he proposes should be suppressed by the Civil Authority without mentioning so much as one word in the least of being paid for by the Seizers which is an Invasion of Property and if therein he sees no difference the reason must be because he won't for the case is plain enough Again Why My Books would have been a Bone of Contention to infect some with the same Spirit of discord Answ That they have so been notwithstanding the Precaution used by purchasing all that could be got by their being Reprinted here by our old Adversaries and by their gratifying those two Apostates F. Bugg and T. Crisp setting them to Scribling anew and giving new Life to their old Contentious Work is so evident that a Man may as well deny the Sun 's Shining at Noon-day as deny that He queries But must not the Truth be contended for Are we not commanded to contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints And such was the contentions of my Books and of my Spirit Answ This is but a begging the Question a taking for granted the thing in Debate we say as well as he that our Books contend for the Faith once delivered to the Saints therefore his contention against us groundless Who must determine this The impartial Christian Reader I think therefore to him I leave it He thinks it seems he hath the advantage we the disadvantage for my part I can see no ground for such a Supposition but am contented he should hug himself with the Fancy if he will not be undeceived but let him have a care lest while he compasses himself about with the Sparks of his own kindling in the end he do not lie down in Sorrow The rest of his Reflections on this Head he spends in flinging contumelious Reproaches on our Books which being nothing but Recrimination without Demonstation and in substance answered already as a weak blast of empty Air I pass over He concludes with a Passage he takes a long stride back to pick out of my Sixth Head I therein only gave him a gentle touch about the Revolutions but rubbing on a Sore place he cannot bear it I had perhaps slipt it over now had he not committed a blunder unbecoming a Man of his Reading I told him Brief Observations p. 16. It would almost tempt a Man to conclude if the Doctrine of Revolutions were as probable an Hypothesis as G. Keith hath represented it to be that the Soul of Erostratus were come again in this Incendiary Having relation in that comparison to the Man who set on Fire the Temple of Diana at Ephesus which was so rare a piece of Workmanship as to be reputed one of the wonders of the World with intent to perpetuate his name to Posterity by a Wicked Deed since he could not by Virtuous Actions whose Name was Erostratus To this he says Were I inclined to retort his idle story of Erasistratus against me c. Now upon Examination I find that this Erasistratus was a famous Physician of Aristotle's Family which how he came to overlook I know not but believe if I had been guilty of such a Trip he would have paid me off with the Epithets of Bold Novice Ideot Junior Sophister c. But now let us see what it is he could retort upon us says he I might say these my late Adversaries who place all upon the inward Principle excluding the Man Christ Jesus from being our Saviour are the old Stoicks Epicureans Pelagian Brittains redivive and other Ethnick Philosophers who bitterly opposed the Christian Faith Answ I know no Quakers guilty of this Charge therefore the Foundation of his Retortion is a Bare-fac'd Calumny for we place not all upon the inward Principle but what God hath joyned together we dare not put asunder neither do we exclude the Man Christ Jesus from being our Saviour but say that the Man Christ Jesus and the Light within which proceeds from Him in whom the Fulnessd wells are one and not divided and He as outwardly offered up and Ascended into Heaven where He sits at the Right Hand of the Majesty on High and as inwardly revealed in the Hearts of his true Believers is one compleat Saviour And wherein G. Keith represents us to believe otherwise he very well knows he greatly Slanders us having himself often declared the contrary Whereof I have given many instances but shall now add another out of the often already quoted Book viz. Help in time of Need p. 78 79. And now whether ye will hear or forbear this I do declare unto you in the Name and Power and Authority of the Living God the Day of the Lord is of a Truth broken forth among us and ye shall look till your Eyes fail you and Rot within your Eye holes e're ever ye see another day or appearance of Jesus Christ to your comfort then what we the People of the Lord called Quakers do witness Come and yet more abundantly Coming and if ye will not hear my Soul shall Mourn for you in secret places and Weep before the Lord on your behalf Well here 's a large Testimony on the Quakers behalf therefore either he falsely