ANSWER TO George Keith's NARRATIVE OF HIS Proceedings at Turners-Hall, On the 11th of the Month called Iune, 1696.

WHEREIN His CHARGES against divers of the People called QUAKERS (Both in that, and in another Book of his, CALLED, Gross Error & Hypocrisie Detected) Are fairly Considered, Examined, and Refuted.


London: Printed and Sold by T. Sowle near, the Meeting-House in White-Hart-Court in Gracious-street 1696.


IT is not surely, without good Reason, that the Church of Christ, here on Earth, is called the Church Militant: For (besides the inward and spiritual Enemies, which her several Members have to encounter with, in their Pilgrimage through this trou­blesome World) such hath been, and is, her Lot and Portion, that she hath rarely been free from outward Enemies of one kind or other; her great Adversa­ry, Satan, continually raising up some evil Instruments or other, to fall upon her, all aiming at her Ruine, though after divers Ways and Manners. Sometimes the Civil Powers, under which she hath lived, have been stirred up to proclaim as it were, open War against her; and to inflict severe and heavy Penalties upon her, for her faithful adherence to her Lord and Master, Christ Jesus. When, through Faith and Patience, she hath overcome, and the Wrath and Fury of Men hath been asswaged, so that she hath had some respit from those outward Sufferings: Then hath her old Adversary [Page 4] (the common Enemy of Mankind) bestirr'd himself in another way, to raise up Persecution against her of ano­ther kind, by instigating some or other (either such as were always avowed Enemies to her, or such as for some time appeared to be of her, but by the sweep of his Tail had been struck off from her) to speak or write against her, falsly to accuse her, and load her with the foulest Reproaches, and most infamous Slanders and Scandals; that by so misrepresenting her, they might hinder others from joyning to, or favouring her, and stir up the Civil Magistrate again, to persecute her afresh. This hath been the Lot, this the Condition of the lit­tle Flock of Christ, in former Ages, as Ecclesiastical Histo­ries declare. As for the present Age, and with respect to the People called Quakers (whom God by an Invi­sible Arm of Power hath raised up, and held up, and made a peculiar People to himself) Experience gives sufficient Proof, the matter being yet fresh in Memo­ry. For (not to look back so far as that which was called the Commonwealth's Time, wherein many of the leading Men, in most Professions, put forth their ut­most Strength against us, both in Preaching and Print­ing, raising those false Reports concerning us, and charge­ing many false Accusations upon us, with respect both to Doctrine and Practice, which others of our Adversa­ries, that followed after, have taken up upon Trust from them) no sooner was that great Persecution a little a­bated (which soon after the Restoration of K. Charles the Second, through the fault of some Dissenters, fell up­on▪ All, but most heavily upon Vs) and that a little Calm and Quiet ensued; but out came several Books against us, written by some of those Professors, who either in some Measure did suffer, or (if they had been faithful to their own Principle) should have suf­fered in the same storm with us. By that Time the Dust, which those Books had raised, was laid by our [Page 5] Answers thereunto, a fresh Persecution from the Go­vernment arose, upon the Informing Act, the main weight of which, it is well known, fell upon us; they who before, and afterwards, assaulted us in Print, find­ing Ways then to hide, and save themselves from Suf­fering. But when that Storm was a little over out they came again, and in divers Books, written by Fal­do, Hicks, and others, heaped up many wrong Charges, Defamations, Slanders and false Accusations against us; all which were refuted, and wiped off in our Books, Printed in Answer thereunto: Nor have those of other Professions been so forward to attaque us since. But now, that Liberty of Conscience, in the free Exercise of Religious Worship, is by Authority granted, and thereby outward Sufferings in a great measure abated; our old Enemy, envying us so great a Benefit (though but in common with others) hath contrived ways and means to raise a new War against us; by stirring up some, who have formerly walked with us, and for some­time professed to be of us (but upon some peevish Dis­content or other, have turned aside and left us) to turn now against us, and oppose us, and to pour forth Floods of Reproach, slander and false Accusations upon us. His chief Agent, at present, in this Work, is George Keith, a Scotchman, whose ambitious Aims not being an­swered, nor his absurd and fantastical Notions received; by and amongst the People called Quakers, he is now become, of a seeming Friend, a real Enemy. He having published many Books against us, and in defence of those Books wrangled with us for a while in Print, till he found himself too closely pinched, to be able to give an An­swer fit to be seen in Print, hath at length bethought himself of a Wile to excuse himself from answering, which was, to set up a kind of Iudicial Court, of this own Head, and by his own Authority, in a Place at his own Command, on a Day of his own Appointing, there [Page 6] to Charge and Try divers of us who are called Quakers, whether present or absent, concerning matters of Faith and Doctrine; and that the rude Multitude might not be wanting to his Assistance there, he gave publick no­tice of it sometime before, by an Advertisement in Print, and therein a sort of Summons to some of us by Name, to others by Designation, to be present. This Arbitrary Proceeding, and Vsurped Authority, as we judged it unreasonable in him to impose, so we did not think fit to submit to, or own; and therefore forbore to appear at the Time and Place by him appointed. Yet lest any whom he should draw thither, might mistake the Cause of our not appearing, the Reasons thereof, drawn up in short Heads, were sent thither to be read, and given among the People, which they were. How­ever, according to his before declared. Intention, to proceed whether any of us were there or no▪ he, be­ing Iudge in his own Court, over-ruled our Reasons, and went on to Arraign, and Convict us Absent. The Pa­geantry of which days Work, as acted there by himself, he hath since Published, with his Name to it, under the Title of An exact Narrative of the Proceedings at Turn­ers-Hall, &c. Together with the Disputes and Speeches there between G. Keith and other Quakers, differing from him in some Religious Principles. How idle is this in him, to pretend in his Title to give an Account of Disputes and Speeches between him and other Quakers, whenas his Narrative it self gives no account of any Dispute there, nor any thing like it, and of that little that was said by any of those few Quakers, that were present, most was to the People (tending to shew them the unreasonableness of his undertaking, and desi­ring them to reserve one Ear for the other side) very little of it to him.

Before the Narrative, he hath Reprinted his former Advertisement, by which he gave Notice of his inteded [Page 7] Meeting. Now in as much as he hath done so, why did he not also Print with it the Reasons given for our not Meeting him then and there, that the Reader might have judged of the sufficiency of them? In this G. Keith hath not been just either to the Reader▪ or to us. He that pr [...]tends to give an exact Narrative of a thing, ought to do so, as well as say so. And what­soever was in that Meeting communicated to the Hear­er, ought to be in like manner communicated to the Reader, if a Narrative of the Proceedings thereof be made, otherwise such Narrative is not [...]exact. Now he acknowledges that such Reasons were ostered, and Read; for he says, p. 13. At the opening of the Meeting, when G. Keith stood up to make some Introductory Speech, to give an Account of the occasion of the Meeting, H. Goldney, with some other Quakers of W. Penn's Party, came with a Printed Paper, giving some Reasons why W. Penn and G. Whitehead did not appear, which he desired might be Read. Then adds, It was readily granted, and the Reasons why W. Penn and G. Whitehead did not appear, were Read by G. Keith. This made those Reasons part of the Proceedings of that Meeting, and therefore they ought to have been Published in the Narrative, that where-ever that had been read, they might have been read with it. The blame for this falls upon him, in as much as he acknowledges, in his Title Page, the wh [...]le to have been Published and Revised (instead of Re­vised and then Published) by him. And this shews his partial Dealing, and how willing he was to keep his Reader in the dark as to any thing that made against him. However, that I may give my Reader that Infor­mation and Satisfaction, which he hath with-held from his, I here insert those Reasons, as followeth.


REASONS, why those of the People called Qua­kers, challenged by George Keith, to meet him at Turners Hall the Eleventh of this Month called June, 1696. refuse their Appearance at his Pe­remptory Summons.

‘WHereas G. Keith hath, after his wonted irregu­lar and unruly Manner, Challeng'd divers of us to defend our selves against such Charges as he has to exhibite against us at Turners Hall: These are to Cer­tifie all whom it may Concern, That the Reasons why we decline any such Meeting, are as follow.’

‘1. Because the said G. Keith has given us such fre­quent Proofs of his very Passionate and Abusive Beha­viour, at the many more Select Meetings we have had with him, in all Manner of Sweetness, long Suffering and Patience, on our side, to satisfie, and preserve him from these Extreams: That we cannot assure our selves now of any better Entertainment, or that the Meeting can have any desirable Success, for a through Information.’

‘2. We decline to Meet, because it is not an agreed Meeting on both sides, which it ought to have been; and where that is not, or cannot be adjusted; the Press is the next fair Way and Expedient, which he has began with, and now seems to decline; nor hath he sent us a Copy of his Charge or Indictment against us, which also he ought to have done.’

‘3. That he has two of our Books which lie hard at his Door; in Vindication of us and our Doctrines from his Exceptions, and which he has not yet answered; so that he is not upon equal Terms with us; and there­fore we think his Challenge, Appointment and Sum­mons unfair; and that all that are not partial will be of the same Min [...] with us.’

[Page 9] ‘4. Such publick and unlimitted Meetings are too of­ten attended with Heats, Levity and Confusion, and answer not the End desired by sober and enquiring Men. Besides, that it lets up a Practise that Autho­rity may Judge to be an Abuse to our Liberty, and so draw that under Reflection, as no Friend to the Civil Peace.’

‘5. We know not what Religion or Perswasion this Wavering Man is of, or what Church or People he ad­heres to, or will receive him, with his vain Speculati­ons, that have led him to desert us; nor who are ac­countable to us for him and his Irregularities and Abu­ses; the generality of such Assemblies usually making ill Auditors, worse Judges, and no good Security for our Satisfaction. And we must therefore take leave to say, it seems to us an indirect way of disquieting and invading our present Liberty, that so Irreligious a Meeting should be held, whose End is to abuse other Men for their Religion. If this should be imitated by all the several sorts of different Perswasions in this City, what Heaps and Confusions must necessarily ensue!’

‘6. Wherefore Lastly, Be it known unto all, That for the sake of Religion, the Liber [...]y granted us, and the Civil Peace, we decline to Meet him; and not from any apprehensions we have of his Abilities, or our own consciousness of Error, or Injustice to the said G. Keith, whose weak and unbridled Temper we know is such, that what Learning and Parts he hath, have not been able to ballance and support him on less occa­sions, so that we may say they are in ill hands; and if he proceeds as he begins, they will be employed to an ill End, which his (poor Man!) cannot but be, unless he change his Course; which we heartily pray for, that a place of Repentance he may find; and thro' a true Contrition, the Remission of his great Sin of Envy, and evilly Intreating the Lords People and Way▪ which [Page 10] we profess, and which he the said G. Keith hath long and lately both professed, and zealously vindicated, as such.’

What weight there is in these Reasons, I leave the Reader to Judge. G. Keith, in his Pref. says, p. 7. They are so Frivolous and Weak, that they are scarce worth noting. And in Nar. p. 13. The Reasons are so slen­der, that I hope every Iudicious Person here can answer them, and he pretends (Pref. p. 7.) that he did answer the Chiefest of them on the Place, and refers to the Narrative for it. How Slender, Weak, and Frivolous, his Answers were, appears by the Narrative, in which he says little to the Reasons; and that little, as little to the purpose. To the First he sa [...]s, Nar. p. 13. If I am such an angry Person as they represent me, I shall lay my Self the more Open, and they shall have the greater advantage; you know well enough, says he, that they would be [...]lad of any advantage against me. How could those Auditors know this, when it is false in it self? We would not be glad of any Advantage against him, especially not of such an advantage as should arise from his Intem­perate Tongue, and r [...]de [...]ehaviour: We have had too much of that kind of advantage against him already, at other Meetings we have had with him, when there was more Reason to have expected Sobriety and Temper from him, than there is now. Had he as publickly Renoun­ced the profession and name of Quaker, as he hath plain­ly departed from the Spirit and Life of Jesus, in which the People called Quakers Live and Walk (and in some measure of which he once Walked with them we might have been the sooner induced to have m [...]t him, as an Open and Professed Adversary to us, our Principles and Profession. But since, to do us the [...]eater despite, tho' he be gone from us in Spirit and Mind, and hath Open­ly separated from us in Worship, and hath been also dis­owned by us, he chooses yet to retain the same name, [Page 11] and make a pretence to the same Profession with us, (both the Title of his Narrative pretending to relate Disputes between G. Keith, and other Quakers, implying himself to be one, and he expresly saying, p. 31. l. 15. I am a Quaker still:) We were not willing, nor are, to give, or admit an occasion for him to expose our Profession (how unjustly soever) to the Censure and Contempt of the Inconsiderate and Undiscerning Multitude, by his unruly Passions and Rudeness, which we had reason from our frequ [...]n [...] experience of him, to expect would break forth, if we were there to op­pose him. Nor do we think that any Advantage which c [...]uld have been made for it, could have m [...]de amends for the disadvantage that might have ensued, if he thereby should have raised an Hurly Burly, or Tumult a­mong the People.

To the Fourth, (for he seldom keeps method) which had respect to Civil Authority and the Publick Peace, he only says, he had the Lord Mayor's Leave, who sent his Marshal to preserve the Peace, and therefore there can be nothing in that. But, besides that he gave no notice in his Advertisement, that he had the Mayors Leave, (which renders it suspected that he had not askt the Mayor's Leave, till after he had Published his Adver­tisement) not only we, but others (as judicious perhaps as himself, & more immediately concerned in the Securi­ty of the publick Peace) Considering the present state of things, the Kings absence, and the great discontent which many, especially of the Lower Rank of People, are under, by reason of want of Trade (occasion'd by the present Scarcity of Currant Money) did think there might be more of danger in that, than was fit to be hazarded on so needless an Occasion. For if, upon the Invitation given a Month before; but a few Thou­sands of Discontented (and some, perhaps, not ve­ry well affected) Persons, should have got together [Page 12] and taken head, they might soon have Increased to grea­ter numbers and strength, than the City Marshal (how sufficient soever to his Office) might have been able to dis­perse. The number of Reasons in our Paper is Six. He has given these Slender Weak and Frivolous Answers to two of them; and says, This is enough at present to answer this Paper, Nar. P. 13. Yet four lines after, in the same page, bethinking himself further of it, he adds, They say, I did not exhibit to them a Copy of my Charge against them (an Indictment they call it, they would represent me as a man setting up a Spiritual Court) but my Printed Pa­per says, W. Penn, and G. Whitehead, are justly desired to be present. This, says he, is no Indictment nor Summons, as they falsely call i [...]. 'Tis true, the word [Summons] is not used, but the nature of a Summons is implied. He did not indeed expresly say, They are required to be present, but used the word [Desired] But it is a desire Sub poena (as I may say) for he backs it with a Declara­tion of his full Intention, to proceed against them, if they shall not be present; so that if they stay away, be it at their Peril, of being Calumniated and Traduced be­hind their backs. Whether he will call his Meeting a Spiritual Court, or a Temporal, let him choose: Cer­tain it is, that a Iurisdiction he usurped, not belonging to him, over such as he had no Power over. And after what manner he intended to have received and treated us, if we had been there, may well be gathered from what his Narrative says he spake about the close of that Meeting, and what he hath added in his Preface since. That in the Nar. is in p. 50. where he thus says, I am perswaded the Reasons given in the Paper, read at the begin­ning, were no just reason for their not appearing. But though some Comparisons are Odious, yet give me leave to make a Comparison. May a Malefactor make this ex­cuse, You shall not call me before a Iustice without my consent? If a Man Robb me, I may Complain of him as a Robber, and [Page 13] without his consent call him to account. But here is a strange thing, Injuring Men may not be called to account without their consent, it will trespass against the Law, and intren­ches upon Liberty of Conscience: Judge now, Reader, by the Comparison he hath made, Whether we have done him any wrong in calling his Advertisement a Summons, his Charge an Indictment. He compares us to Male­factors; But Malefactors do not use to be desired to ap­pear, but Summoned, Required, Commanded at least, if not Compelled; and Indicted when they do appear. Had not we been finely holpen up (as they say) if we had been there, only to have stood there as Malefa­ctors, to have Pleaded our Cause before Iudge Keith and his Associates, the Mobb, and I know not whom else? Tho' he spake not so plain in his Advertisement, as he hath done since, yet there was enough in that to give us to understand what entertainment we were to expect there. There was nothing like Equality pro­posed in it, nothing of Indifferency; no liberty reser­ved to us, to charge him, if we saw meet, as well as he us. No, no, the Scene was laid only for us to hear our selves Charged and proved Guilty (for that we should be proved Guilty, was, it seemes, determined before­hand) And to what end then was it o [...]fered, that we should be freely heard, to answer to our several Charges? This was worse dealing than is used towards Malefactors. For when they are Summoned to hear themselves Char­ged, they have full Liberty given them, not only to Answer for themselves, but to Object (if they have cause) against their Accuser, against his Witnesses, Yea, and against the Iury too. But they are not called to hear themselves proved Guilty; (as it seemes we were) whether they shall be proved Guilty or not Guilty, is left upon the Issue of their Tryal: But in our Case, it was resolved before hand; We were called thither to hear our selves Charged, and proved Guilty. Now though G. [Page 14] Keith's Malefactory Comparison shews his both Envy and Folly in making it, yet it answers not his case. For al­though a Malefactor may not say, You shall not call me before a Iustice without my consent: Yet I fancy a Ma­lefactor might say, You shall not make your Self a Iustice, and then call me before your self, without my consent. Neither shall you call me, without my consent, before any Man else; that is no otherwise a Justice, than of your making, till I better understand your Power for making Justices. No wonder this little Man speaks so Bigg, if he hath entertained a Notion, that he hath Power not only to convene Persons, at his pleasure, before him­self; but also to confer Iusticiary Authority on such others as shall assemble on his Advertisement. He threatens, if he be not humoured, to repeat his Advertisement. If he should do so, such as are ambitious of such an Im­ployment, may hasten to Turners-Hall, if they would be made Iustices by G. Keith. He pursues his Compari­son further, saying, ib. If a man Rob me, I may com­plain of him as a Robber, and without his consent, call him to an Account. He may so, but he must complain then, coram competenti Iudice, Before one that hath a just Au­thority over him: For if he complain coram non Iudice, Before one that hath nothing to do with it, he may go as he came, without Redress. In his Pref. p. 8. he saith, And as Insignificant is their Excuse of declining to meet, be­cause it was not an agreed Meeting on both sides: As if Guilty Persons are not to be tried without their Consent and Agreement. Observe here, he reputes us Guilty first, and talks of Trying us afterwards. What else is this, but to condemn first, and try after? As if (says he) Guilty persons are not to be tried without their consent. When Persons are pronounced Guilty, it is to be suppo­sed, they have had Trial: For it is from a Trial and Con­viction that they are Denominated Guilty. The Law calls no Man Guilty, until upon due Trial, he be proved [Page 15] and found Gui [...]y. Till then the Law supposes him In­nocent. If a man be justly suspected of any Crime, he may and ought be fairly tried, in a due and right Method, that it may appear whether he be Guilty or Innocent. But none I hope, except G. Keith, is so weak to think, that any one who hath a mind to it, may take upon him to try such a man, and pass Sentence on him. He adds there, Their upbraiding me by Insinuating my assum­ing a Spiritual Iurisdiction over them, and Summoning them to appear before me, is Idle and Vain. The Injurer is Debtor to the Injured, and Accountable to him. Tho' his representing us to be the Injurers, and himself the Inju­red, is but precarious, and a begging of the Question, which we deny: Yet his urging, that the Injurer is Debtor to the Injured, and accountable to him, in Justification of his appointing a Meeting for us to appear at, doth im­ply he assumed a Iurisdiction over us, & thought he might Summon us to appear, which was Idle and Vain in him to think, much more to do. What should induce him to think so highly of himself, and take so much upon him, I know not, unless he hath some little Ecclesiasti­cal Preferment in the Wind; which if he has, perhaps it may never rise higher than an Apparitor, or some such small Officer.

But he says, ib. Let them tell me what Spiritual Iu­risdiction they had over me, to call me several times to them at their Yearly-Meeting, 1694. more than I had over them, to call them to our Meeting at Turners-Hall, 1696, unless they will fly to their common Pretence, com­mon to them with the Church of Rome, their Infallibility? First let me tell him, His Contempt of, and Scoff at In­fallibility (asserted and maintained by himself in his Book of Immediate Revelation not ceased, p. 36, 37, 38. Se­cond Edition, 1676.) is an Infallible Proof of his A­postacy. Next I'll tell him (seeing he asks it) what Pow­er we had then, to call him, more than he hath now, to [Page 16] call us. Every Religious Society or Body, hath a cer­tain Power within it self over the particular Members that make up, or pretend to be of, that Society or Bo­dy; by vertue of which, such Society or Body may call to account, deal with, and (if they see cause) deny any such Member as shall walk disorderly, contrary to the Rules, and against the Safety or Honour of the Society. Now G. Keith, knows full well, that at the time he men­tions, in 1694. he pretended to be a Member of our So­ciety, and thrust himself amongst us, and upon us, which gave us Right to deal with him as we did. But since the the time he was disowned by us, as one gone out from us, we never pretended to fellowship with him, or to be Members of, or any way related to, that Society he is of (if indeed he be of any.) And therefore he has not the like ground to call us to his Meeting (which we were never of, but against) as we then had to call him to our Meeting, which he then pretended, and pro­fessed to be of.

He asks, p. 7. Why should Disputes viva voce, be more offensive to civil Peace, than Disputes in Print. I believe (says he) they can give no Reason. I believe I have given a Reason already, and that Demonstrative too. He might as well ask, Why should the gathering together of many Hundreds, or thousands, of Men▪ in a time of Faction and great Discontents, be more offensive to civil Peace, than People's Reading Books, privately in their Houses or Closets? I believe if he cannot, (be­cause he will not) every body else can see the Reason.

From our not answering him, viva voce, he is willing to infer that we should not answer him in Print neither. For he says, ib. If I be not worthy, nor fit to be answered by word, nor am I to be answered by writ. It is not his worthiness that Inclines us to Answer him at all; but the defence and clearing of our Principles, and our selves, from his Calumnies and false Accusations. In doing which [Page 17] we think not our selves obliged to follow his Direction, or to alter our Course, as oft as he is driven to alter his. When he was in Pensilvania, where he was answered viva voce, (and indeed could not well be answered other­wise, the only Press in those Parts being then at his com­mand) he voided Books, against his Opponents there, thick and threefold, (as the saying is.) He complained not then of lack, either of Time to Write, or outward Ability to Print, but conceived and brought forth Book upon Book, as fast, in a manner, as the Press could deli­ver him. When he came first over hither, if any one displeased him, his ordinary Threat was, I'll put thee in Print. And it was not long before he fell to Printing here, and ran on for some time, as if he would have dri­ven down all before him. But having undertaken an Evil Cause, he quickly found himself unable to maintain it, or defend himself; and that hath made him weary of Printing, because indeed he cannot answer what lies up­on him already in Print. And because he is not wil­ling to own that, nor would be thought to be driven out of the Press, he now pretends want of Time and 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 [Page 18] 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 l [...]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 in [...]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. [Page 19] Penn, Nar. p 9. he saith, I charge him to be guilty of false Accusation and De [...]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 [Page 20] 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 [Page 21] 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 comp [...]tent Judges, than the shouting Mobb at Turners-Hall. (For twice in one page, viz. p. 45. he says the A [...]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 [...]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 ne [...]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. Wh [...]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? [Page 22] 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 [...]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 [Page 23] 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 i [...] 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.

[Page 24]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 would have expected any other, than that he would have read some Sentence out of some Book of G. Whitehead's, wherein he had denied Faith in Christ, as he outwardly suffered at Ierusalem; because he said, Most of my business is, to read my Proofs out of their Books? But instead of that, he attempts to prove it Logically: Thus he begins: That this is opposed by them, I prove thus, says he, The Object of Faith is opposed by them, and therefore the Faith it self must needs be opposed: I hope, says he, the Consequence is clear enough, it needs no Proof. Let us see then how he proves his Premise: The Object of Christian Faith, says he, is Christ, both God and Man, and yet but one Christ. Here he hath shifted the Terms of his Pro­position already. First he spake of Faith in Christ, as he outwardly suffered at Ierusalem. By the words [outward­ly suffered at Ierusalem] I take him to mean (as is thereby [Page 25] generally understood) his suffering Death upon the Cross. Now he says, The Object of Christian Faith is Christ, both God and Man. But did he outwardly suffer at Ierusalem as God? Was the Godhead crucified and put to Death? He will not say it sure. If then the Object of Christian Faith be Christ, both God and Man, why did he before place it only in Christ, as he outwardly suffered for us at Ierusalem? I only touch this transiently, and that not to deliver my own sense, but to shew how he blundered at the very entrance of his Work, and that he is not an exact and clean Disputant. However, he goes on thus, I offer to prove that G. Whitehead has denied Christ both to be God and Man. (To the same purpose he spoke in his Gross Error, p. 14.) How! Deny'd him both to be God and Man! What does he own him to be then, if no [...] her God nor Man? There have been some, who have denied Christ to be God, acknowledging him to be Man; there have been others, who have denied Christ to be Man, acknowledging him to be God. (Both Condemnable.) But who ever heard of any before, that denied Christ both to be God and Man? Yet this he charges on G. Whitehead. And first offers to prove that G. Whitehead, in a Book of his, called The Light and Life of Christ within, has denied Christ to be God. It were strange, one would think, that G. Whitehead should deny Christ to be God, and yet, about the same time too, write a Book of above 20 sheets, to assert and prove the Divinity of Christ, calling his Book, The Divinity of Christ, and Vnity of the Three that bear R [...]cord in Heaven, with the blessed End and Effects of Christs Appearance, coming in the Flesh, Suffering and Sacrifice for Sin­ners, Confessed and Vindicated by his Followers, called Quakers. Which Book G. Keith cannot pretend Ignorance of, for he picks somewhat out of it, (though, as his manner is, perversly) in this very Narrative of his. The proof he now offers against G. Whitehead, is out of a Book of his called The Light and Life of Christ within, p. 47. in Answer [Page 26] to VV. Burnet, a Baptist Preacher, who writing of Christ, said, As he was God, he was Co-Creator with the Father, and so was before Abraham, and had glory with God before the world was, and in this sence came down from Hea­ven. To which G. Whitehead replied, What Nonsense and Vnscripture-like Language is this, to tell of God being Co-Creator with the Father? Or that God had glory with God? Does not this imply two Gods, and that God had a Fa­ther? Let the Reader judge. In these words G. Whitehead blamed not the matter expressed, but the manner of ex­pressing it: He did not deny Christ to be God, nor that as God he was Creator, and before Abraham, &c. But he excepted against the word Co-Creator, as unscripture-like Language, and implying two Gods. For since [Co] contracted from the Prepositive Particle [Con] signifies (Cum, or Simul) with, or together with, he that says God (or Christ, as God) was Co-Creator, must intend he was Creator with himself, or Creator with another. To say God was C [...]eator with, or together with, himself, is that which G. Whitehead call'd Nonsense. To say God was Creator with, or together with, Another, is to imply two Gods, two Creators, which is that G. Whitehead called Vnscripture like Language. For as God is a pure, sim­ple, undivided Essence or Being, so the Language of Scri­pture concerning God, is, that God is One, Gal. 3.20. Mark 12.29, 32. And although, in some respect this One is said to be Three, 1 John 5.7. yet in this respect of Essence, Being, and Godhead, those Three are there said to be One: Not only (as of the Three that bear witness in Earth, vers. 8.) to agree in One, but to be One. And Christ himself (with respect to his Godhead) says, I and my Father are One, John 10 30

G. Keith adds another Passage of G. Whitehead's, or rather the same Passage in another place of the same Book, wherein he says, p. 15 G. VVhitehead denies the Divinity of Christ, and that he deceives the Nation and the [Page 27] Parliament, by telling them, They own Christ to be both God and Man, and believe all that is Recorded of him in the Holy Scripture. In this G. VVhitehead hath not deceived ei­ther the Parliament, or the Nation, or any one in it. For certain it is, that the People called Quakers do own Christ to be both God and Man, and do believe all that is Recorded of him in the Holy Scriptures. But G. Keith did endeavour then to deceive his Hearers, and since to deceive his Readers, by suggesting to them that G. VVhitehead, or any of the Quakers, did ever deny the Divinity of Christ, or not own Christ to be both God and Man.

The other Passage which G. Keith now brings, Nar. p. 15. taken out of p. 24. of G. Whitehead's foremen­tioned Book called, The Light and Life of Christ within, whereupon the Baptist's calling God the Word, Co-Crea­tor with the Father, G. Whitehead answer'd, To tell of the Word God, Co-Creator with the Father, is all one as to tell of God being Co-Creator with God, if the Father be God; and this is to make two Gods, two Creators, &c. For God, Co-Creator with the Father, plainly implies two. This, as I noted, is one and the same Passage in Sense, and almost in Words, with the former, and the same Answer serves to his Cavil against both. It is plain, to any considerate and unbyassed Reader, that G. White­head did not by these Words deny the Divinity of Christ, or disown Christ to be God; but rather that he did own Christ to be G [...]d, and both the Father and He to be one God, and one Creator, not two: And therefore blamed the Baptist for using such Expressions [God Co-Creator with the Father,] as implyed two Gods, two Creators. But that G. Whitehead did then (as well as now) own Christ to be God, is plain from several passages in that very Book (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 [Page 28] 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 Off­spring 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, Confess [...]d and Vindicated by his Fol­lowers, called Qu [...]kers. ‘In that Book, between the Epi­stle and the first Chapter, giving a brief Account of what we own, touch [...]ng the Divinity and Godhead of Christ, [Page 29] 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 [Page 30] 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, [Page 31] 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 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 co [...]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 [Page 32] still strictly limits, or tyes up the Name Jesus Christ to a Body of Flesh and Blood, and so cover [...]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, [Page 33] 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 we [...] ad hominem, to shew his Opponent (T. Danson) the [Page 34] 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 [Page 35] 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 a [...]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 imp [...]rts a Denial, now that he writes against Truth, and the Friends of it; yet when [...]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 [Page 36] 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 n [...]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 [Page 37] of it. But let him retract these, for these have done much mischief. Now, says he, when I said he was Orthodox, I mean no [...] 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 th [...]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 [Page 38] 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 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 [Page 39] 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.’ ‘Tis 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. 4 [...]. 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? [Page 40] 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. [...]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, [Page 41] 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 I ask him [...] seeing he would restrain all to the fleshly Appearance, and make all the Apostles, &c. to have pointed to Jesus the Son of Ma­ry, this Son of Man, with an Hosannah to this Son of David, and to none before him) If he hath so considered him to be God the Saviour, or the Son from the Substance of the Father, as some of his Brethren have confessed the Son is? And what Scripture-Proof hath he (who pretends so high­ly [Page 42] to Scripture, and blames us though falsly; for not holding to it?) for these VVords, He existeth outwardly bo­dily without us, at God's right Hand? 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 VVorld began, in which he is now glorified? The Exception here is not against the thing, but the Terms by which it is exprest. The Thing that Christ hath a bodily Existence without us, and is therein glorified, and that at God's right hand, is so far from being denied, that it was never doubted. But that this should he exprest in such Terms as the Holy Scripture doth not afford, and which would limit Christ to any certain place, or exclude him (by the Word outward) from being in his Saints, is justly ex­cepted against, as contrary both to the Nature of Christ, and Scope of the Scriptures. And therefore G. VVhite­head asks his Opponent, what Scripture-Proof hath he? VVhere doth the Scripture say so? And the more to lay open his Opponents absurdity in this Case, goes on questioning him, in the same place, p. 41. thus. And then, VVhat and where is Gods right Hand? Is it visible, or invisible? within us, or without us only? Now G. Keith might as well from hence infer and charge G. VVhite­head with denying that God has a right Hand, as he doth from the other Questions, That Christ hath no bodily Existence without us; and both a like absurdly and falsly. For he himself says in another place also of his Book called, Truth's Defence, p. 165. When his Opponent would have drawn a Conclusion, and infer­red a Charge, from a Query, ‘What is proposed in the Query is not positively concluded one way or another, as the Nature of a Query doth plainly demonstrate.’ And blaming his then Opponent, for urging Matters of Doctrine in unscriptural Terms, he says, in Truth's Defence, p. 169. ‘Why is it, that the Scriptures are so [Page 43] full and large in their Testimony to the Doctrines and Principles of Religion, but to let us understand, that all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith, which God requireth in common of all Christi­ans, are expresly there Delivered and Recorded? And therefore, says he, for my part, what I cannot find expresly delivered in Scripture, I see no Reason why I should receive or believe it as any common Ar­ticle or Principle of the Christian Faith or Life:’ And p. 170. he adds, ‘Now if this were but received among those called Christians, that nothing should be requi­red by one sort from another, as an Article of Faith, or Doctrine, or Principle of the Christian Religion in com­mon to be believed, but what is expresly delivered in the Scripture, in plain express Scripture Terms, of how great an Advantage might it be to bring a true Reconcilement among them, and beget true Christian Unity, Peace, Love and Concord?’ Yet G. Keith him­self (who but in the Year 1682. wrote thus) doth now (which shews his inconsistency with himself, and Inju­stice to G. Whitehead) charge G. Whitehead with deny­ing the thing it self, because he did but ask his Opponent for a Scripture-Proof, of a thing laid down not in Scrip­ture Terms. So industrious is he now to seek an Ad­vantage (instead of furthering a Reconcilement among them called Christians) to hinder any such Reconcile­ment, and cause a greater distance between them; and instead of begetting true Christian Unity, Peace, Love and Concord, to break and destroy (as much as in him lies) that Love and Peace that hath been, and (but for him, and such other Incendiaries) might be, and increase among them. But though G. Whitehead did reject the Baptists unscriptural Terms; yet that he owned the Manhood of Christ, as well as his Divinity, may be seen in another Book also of his called, The Quakers Plainness detecting Fallacy (a Book not written [Page 44] t'other Day▪ but in 1674. two and twenty Years ago) where p. 18. answering an Objection, that we own nothing but the Divine Nature to be Christ, he answers, ‘Where proves he these words to be ours? Have we not plainly and often confest also, that the Divine Na­ture or Word, Cloathed with the most holy Manhood, and as having taken Flesh of the Seed of Abraham, was and is the Christ.’

Before I pass to G. Keith's next Proof, I must here take notice of a Marginal note which G. Keith, makes in his seventeenth p. relating to the Book he last cited, of G. Whitehead's, called The Nature of Christianity. The Reader may take notice, that in p. 15. when it was Objected to him, that the Book which he then mentioned was written An [...]e [...]tly, and that he had written in Vindication of our Principles since; He there, to turn off the Objection, says, I do say, If it were my last Word [...], I know no [...] that I over Read a line of this Book, till I came last to England. But here, quoting another Book of G. Whitehead's, which he could not pretend Ignorance of, in as much as he himself, was not only concerned with G. Whitehead, in the contro­versy on which that Book was written, but had also a part in the same Book against his Country-man Rob. Gordon, (whom he, Principally, had undertaken to An­swer in another Book, called The Light of Truth Tri­umphing, Published but the Year before) Now to se­cure himself (if he could) from the like Objection, he adds here, his Marginal note thus, Note, There is an Additional Postscript by me G. Keith, put to this Book of G. Whitehead, Nature of Christianity, the which Postscript I left in a Manuscript at London, and with the Quakers: Printed with this of G. Whitehead. I acknow­ledge (says he) my want of due Consideration, that I did not better consider G. Whitehead's, words in that Book, having many Years ago Read it, but too overly, and not [Page 45] having seen it since, for many Years, till of late. Does this sound likely? Does it savour of Sincerity and plainness? Or does it not rather look like a silly shifting Excuse, for his Condemning that now, which he owned then, and yet pretending to be the same in Judgment, that he was then? He goes on in his note thus, But I am sure, I did really then believe (as I now do) that Christ as man, did outwardly and bodily exist without us; for proof of which see my words in that Additional Postscript, p. 73. where at N. 11. I blame R. Gordon, for saying, That the now present, Glorified Existence of that Body (or man Christ) that suffered at Jerusalem, is denied by some Teachers a­mong us. And to be sure, he did then really believe (and had good cause so to do) that G. Whitehead, and all the Quakers, did so believe as well as himself (which he had no cause since to disbelieve) and therefore he did than Vindicate them all, as well as himself, charging Gordon, with a Lye, and false Accusation, for saying the contrary. And yet, whatever pretence he may make of his Ignorance, what was in other Books of G. Whitehead's, written but a little before, he may not be supposed Ignorant of what was in that Book (which he himself had a share in) out of which, yet he now makes his greatest Cavil, on this Head, against, G. Whitehead. He adds in his note, I confess I happened to find Divers Passages in G. Whitehead's, and other Qua­kers Books, that seemed to me unsound; but in an excess of Charity, I did construe them to be better meant than worded, and that they had rather unwarily slipped from them, than that they were the expressions of their unsound mind, &c. How long it is since this Accident befel him, that (as he words it) he happened to find those divers passages which seemed to him unsound, he does not tell. But the tenour of his words import it to have been long ago: For (if ever he did) to be sure he has not exceeded in Charity towards the Quakers, of late Years. But when­ever [Page 46] he had found any passages, either in G. Whitehead's, or other Quakers Books, that had seemed to him un­sound, had he been really sound himself, and soundly (tho' not excessively) Charitable, he would have Charitably, and Friendly, in a private manner, have opened such passages to the respective Authors of such Books, and have understood from themselves, their Sense and Mea­ning therein, that thereby he might have both inform'd and reform'd their Minds and Judgments, in the passages, if they had been really unsound; or they have recti­fied his mistaking understanding, by manifesting to him the soundness, both of their minds and words. And this Friendly Office, he might more easily and inoffen­sively have undertaken, if (as he says) he construed those Passages, which to him seem'd unsound, to be better meant than worded, and that they had rather unwarily slipt from them, than that they were the expressions of an unsound Mind. But tho' he has not told us when, that excessive Charity of his began, yet he pretty plainly intimates when it ended, and why, by saying, I constru­ed those passages, better meant than worded,—until that of late, I had found them to Iustify the same, and the like unsound words, in my Adversaries in Pensilvania, and to hate and excommunicate me for telling them of them. Ay, there's the Hing of the business! their Excommunica­ting him, as he calls it (that is, their declaring him to be gone out from them, and their Communion, and to be no longer one of them) From that time forward, (and some time before) his excess of Charity turned to an excess of Enmity, and then he saw the same things, and Persons to be far worse than he saw them before, because he saw them with a far worse Eye. But to go on to his Charge and Proofs.

The next Proof he brings, that G. Whitehead has denied the Existence of Christ in a body without us, is out of a Book of G. Whitehead's, called Christ ascen­ded [Page 47] above the Clouds, Printed in 1669. in answer to Io. Newman, a Baptist. The Quotation begins thus, p. 17. Io. Newman, his Opponent's words were from Rev. 1.7. Those that pierced him in his Body of Flesh, shall see that Body Visibly come again, p. 21, 22. G. Whitehead, an­swereth, These are not the words of Scripture, but a [...]ed, altho' to add or diminish be forbidden under a Penalty, Rev. 22.18, 19. Yet this Mans presumption leads him to incur that; There G. Keith, breaks off with a dash, thus, —thereby leaving out what follows next, in G. White­head, which is thus, See also for answer to him, Rev. 1.8. and 13, 14.16. In none of which is Iesus Christ either called (or represented as) a Body of Flesh, Blood, and Bones, visi­bly to come again. The leaving out these words, was not fair in G. Keith, because they shew upon what ground G. Whitehead, opposed the Baptists, and what sort of Body it was they disputed about, viz. a Body of Flesh, Blood, and Bones. Certain it is indeed, that that Body which was pierced on the Cross, was a Bo­dy of Flesh, Blood, and Bones. And the Baptists, from Rev. 1.7. said, Those that pierced him in his Body of Flesh, shall see that Body visibly come again, not so much as mentioning any change in it. G. Keith, thereupon, Nar. p. 17. says, Is there any thing here offensive? No­thing (adds he) but what is the declared Opinion of the Church of Rome, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and mine all along. He had forgot it seemes (tho' I lately put him in mind of it) that in his Book called The way cast up (Printed 1677. long after the Book he carps at) he said, ‘That Body that was crucified on the Cross at Ierusalem, and is now ascended and glorified in Heaven—is no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, but a pure, Ethereal, or Heavenly Body, p. 131.’ And although (to shew his own Con­fusion) he there says, That Body, notwithstanding its being changed from being a Body of Flesh, Blood and [Page 48] Bones, to be no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones, but a pure Ethereal, or Heavenly Body, re-mains the same in substance, that it was on Earth, making the change (from being a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, to be no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones) to be a change not in sub­s [...]ce, but in mode and manner only of its being: Yet he had no reason to cavil with, or blame G. Whitehead, for opposing the Baptists notion of a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, now in Heaven, since he himself declares, it is no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, but a pure, Ethereal Body, which the Baptists, I am confident never dreamt of, and which, I suppose, none of the Churches or People, he has named, will agree with him in, if he will now agree with himself. But he would have found less cause, or colour to quarrel with G. Whitehead, about that description of Christ, in Rev. 1. if he had considered what himself hath writ, further upon that Subject, in his said Way cast up, p. 141, 142. N. 6. Where treating of Christ the Heavenly Man, he says, ‘And as Iohn, Rev. 1. describeth him, he is a wonderfully great Man, even that Son of Man, whom Iohn saw, after his A­scension, in the midst of the Golden Candlesticks, e­ven he that liveth and was dead, ver. 18. to shew that it was the Man Christ, and he had in his right Hand seven Stars, which are expounded to be the Seven Angels or Pastors of the Seven Churches. Now mark. This sheweth (saith he) it is not his external Person, or outward Body that is here described, for it is impossi­ble to conceive, how he can hold a number of Men, in the right Hand of his external Person. Therefore by his right Hand is signified his Power, as he is the great Heavenly Man, which can well hold all the Men that ever were in the World.’ So also in the same p. 142. N. 7. upon the words of Christ, Iohn. 1.51. Verily, verily, I say vnto you, Hereafter ye shall see Heaven Opened, and the Angels of God ascending and descending [Page 49] upon the Son of Man; he says, ‘This cannot be the external Person of Christ.)’ But if it was not the external Person or outward Body (as he says) of Christ that Iohn spake of, in Rev. 1. much less was it a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones; and least of all doth G. Whitehead's op­posing the Baptists carnal notion of Christ's having a Body now in Heaven, of Flesh Blood and Bones, and his being to come Visibly again in that Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, deny Christs existence in his Glorified Body without us. G. Keith, says, Io. Newman, here only uses the word Body, to his coming again, and G. White­head, finds fault with that. But in that G. Keith, slips, for I. N. used not only the word Body, but the words [that Body] to shew he meant a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones. And it is well known, that many of the Bap­tists (as well as others of other Professions) do hold the Body of Christ now in Heaven, to be as really and materially, a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones, as it was, when upon the Cross; which G. Whitehead might as well find fault with then, as G. Keith, did after­wards. He quarrels also with G. Whitehead, for citing the words of Christ, Iohn. 14.19. Yet a little while, and the World seeth me no more. Upon this, he carps at the Translation of that Scripture, and says, It may be better Translated [as yet] But I think it were better for him to let the Translation alone as it is, which he cannot mend; for though he hath declared himself to be one in Opinion, with the Church of Rome, the Church of Eng­land, the Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists, Yet I scarce think he will find any among them, to be one with him, in altering the Translation of that Scrip­ture, at least as he would alter it. Yet upon his confident altering the Text from [no more] to [not as yet] he says, Does this prove that Christ has no Body at all? This is very bad reasoning, says he. Ay sure, so it is. But who reasoned so, besides himself? Can he see no diffe­rence [Page 50] between Christs not having a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, and having no Body at all; he has a very bad sight then. When he formerly held, that the Bo­dy that was Crucified on the Cross at Ierusalem, is no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, did he urge that, to prove that Christ has no Body at all? If not, why will he infer so upon another, without cause? He alledges that G. Whitehead brings that Scripture for a Proof, that those that Pierced Christ in his Body, shall not see that Body Visibly come again: And thereupon he cries out, Here is a Proof that Christ was Evanished. But it must be again remembred, that that Body which the Baptist there contended for, and which G. White­head opposed him about, was a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones. And therefore doth it not fall unavoida­bly upon G. Keith, that herein he holds that Body only of Flesh, Blood and Bones, which suffered death upon the Cross, to be the whole entire Christ; seeing he infers, that if that Body (of Flesh, Blood and Bones) which suffered death upon the Cross, be not now in Heaven, and to be seen come Visibly again, a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, then Christ is evanished? But it appears from G. Whitehead's following words, that he did not believe Christ was evanished, but that he believed his existence in a Spiritual glorified Body, and that he should so come again, and be seen of all, though not in a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, or after a carnal manner. For he says (in the next words after, Iohn, 14.19.) ‘But his second coming and appear­ance without Sin to Salvation, I own, and witness; and that he is therein to be seen Spiritually in his King­dom, and Fathers Glory, (which is an Invisible Glo­ry, not seen Carnally) Mark that. Howbeit his appea­ance shall be universally seen, both to the joy of the Righ­teous, and universal Conviction, and Condemnation of the Wicked, who have rejected his Light within, [Page 51] and his saving appearance thereby made manifest. Yea, every Eye shall see him (both of good and bad) both those that have waited for his second coming without Sin to Salvation; and they also which have Pierced or Crucified him; which all those in general are chargeable with, (as really as his Persecutors that Pierced him outwardly) who profess his name, and yet Crucifie to themselves his Life or Spiritual Appearance. He was Spiritually Pierced and Crucified in Spiritual Sodom and Egypt, Rev 11.8. The same Jesus, as he was seen ascend (when a Cloud received him out of their sight, who stood gazing, Acts. 1.9, 10, 11.) it is said, shall so come in like manner, &c. Which tho' every like manner is not the very same, nor all Clouds the same, yet the same Jesus certainly cometh, and in like manner, his coming being in the Clouds.’

This same Objecton G. Keith, had made against G, Whitehead, in his Gross Error, p. 3. and again p. 6. In which latter place, reciting the foregoing words of the Baptist, viz. That those that pierced Christ in his Body of Flesh, shall see that Body visibly come again, and part of G. Whitehead's answer to it, he taxes G. Whitehead, with having blamed the Baptist for use­ing the word [Visibly] with respect to Christ's com­ming again, and yet that G. Whitehead, in his late answer to some Queries, had used the word [Visibly] with respect to Christ's Ascension. Upon which G. Keith, there says, Now I am sure there is the same ground in Scripture for his Visible appearance and coming again, as there is for his Visible ascending. But let me ask G. Keith, (as sure as he says he is) whe­ther he then considered the great and wonderful change, which himself elsewhere hath often said, was made in the Body of Christ, after it was taken up into glory; and then, Whether there is the same ground, either in Scripture or Reason, for the same manner of [Page 52] Visibility of his appearance and coming again in his glorified Body, as was of his ascending before his Body was so glorified. The Body of Christ in which he suf­fered, (being an outward Fleshly substance) was at the time of his Ascension, as well as before, conspicuous and visible to the outward carnal Eyes, of outward carnal Men. But will it be in like manner Visible to outward carnal Eyes, when he shall come again, now that it is so transcendently glorified, that it is become a pure, Heavenly, Spiritual, Glorious Body? Is there, according to G. Keith's, Philosophy, no difference, in point of visibility, and with respect to the Opticks, and Organs of sight, between a Body of Flesh not glo­rified, and the most glorious of glorified Bodies? Is the one, with him, as perceptible by the Natural Eye, as the other? If not: Why was he so inconsiderately bold to say, I am sure there is the same ground in Scrip­ture for his visible appearance and coming again, as there is for his visible ascending? If he understand the same manner of visibility in his coming again, as was in his ascending, he then makes no difference in point of visibility between an unglorified and glorified Body. If he understand not the same manner of visibility in each appearance, he does but trifle, quibble, & play the sophister.

G. Keith cites two passages more, p. 18. out of the same Book of G. Whitehead, (Christ ascended p. 24. and p. 69.) that in p. 24. he gives thus, First, the Baptists words, By denying any Personal being of Christ, without all men, at the right Hand of God, but only a fain­ed Christ within, then remission of Sins must die, and [...]aith also, for want of the Object, Christ. This G. Keith says, he looks on to be good Doctrine, tho' he cannot but know, that by a feigned▪ Christ within, the Baptist meant that Light within, which G. Keith, confesses [...]o be Divine. G. Whitehead's answer he gives thus, This manner of exclud­ing God's right Hand, and Christ to a limitation out of his [Page 53] People in a Personal being (which are no Scripture Terms) still implies him to be a Personal God or Christ, like the Anthropomorphite, and Muggletonians conceits of him: (This he caviled also at in his Gross Error, p. 10.) to all which I answer; The word Person, or Personal, with respect to God, or the God-head, G. Keith, knows the Quakers always excepted against, as unscriptural, and tending to beget or keep up gross and carnal Con­ceits in People's minds, concerning God and Christ, as if they were like Men, having the shape and appear­ance of Men, and so were Circumscribed and Limited to place, as Men are. And that it was against such a gross No­tion as this, that G. Whitehead there contended, is ma­nifest from his answer it self. For he says, This man­ner of excluding God's right Hand, and Christ to a limi­tation out of his People in a personal Being (which are no Scripture Terms) still implies him to be a personal God, or Christ, like the Anthropomorphites and Muggletoni­ans conceits of him. The Anthropomorphites were therefore so called, because they held God to have the shape of Man. Which extravagant notion Muggleton resumed. And tho' G. Keith says, There is no Church of England Man, Presbyterian, or Baptist, &c. That holds that notion, That the God-head has the shape of a Man: Yet he is too slight to make a Voucher for all of those Communions, tho' his Et Cetera, had been left out. Nay, he himself seems doubtful what to deter­mine in that case for himself, saying, What shape Christs Body has now, that I leave, Nar. p. 18. However, it is plain from G. Whitehead's Book, both there and els­where, that it was this notion, and the asserting such a Personal existence of God and Christ, and in unscriptural Terms, has tended to confirm that Notion, which G. Whitehead opposed both here, in p. 24. and in that o­ther place, p. 69. cited also by G. Keith, where G. Whitehead, having exposed his Opponents, Self-cont [...]a­dictions [Page 54] (as one while saying, Christ was remote from them, Christ doth not dwell in any Man, Christ in Person remote at the right Hand of God, &c. And yet otherwhiles speaking of the Indwellings of Christ by his Word and Truth, being of the same nature with him, and that Christ is setting forth himself to be the Vine, and his People the Branches, and adviseth them,—to abide in me, and I in you, &c.) He makes this Animadversion thereupon, If the Indwelling of God and Christ be such in his People, and the Saints in such near Vnion and Conjunction with Christ, as the Branches with the Vine, and Members with the Body, then 'tis false, and a lying Imagination, to Imagine either Christ, God, and his right Hand so remote, as not to dwell in any Man, no, not in their own People; [and these words Christ in Person, remo [...]e in his Body of Flesh, &c. And not in any Man] are not Scripture, but added: What strange Conceits and Limitations would J. Newman put upon the unlimitted God (like the Old Here [...]ical Monks of Egypt, called Anthropomorphites) contrary to his own con­fession. This shews it was not Christ's Spiritual exist­ence or being, in a Spiritual glorified Body without us, That G. Whitehead opposed; but such a carnal Notion of a Personal being or existence of Christ, at the right Hand of God, as confined both Christ and God, to a remote­ness from his People, and excluded them from being in his People. And therefore G. Keith, abused G. White­head, in telling his Auditors, that by these words of G. Whitehead, All Papists, Church of England Men, Pres­byterians, Independents, Baptists, who believe that the Man Christ has any Bodily existence in Heaven, as he thinks, are Anthropomorphites and Muggletonians: For there is a wide difference between holding that Christ has any Bodily ex­istence in Heaven, and that he has such a carnal Bodily existence in Heaven, as excludes him out of his People, and confines and lim [...]s both him, and God's right Hand, at which he is, to a remot [...]ness from them. Which gross and [Page 55] carnal Notion, G, Keith, not many Years since, seemed sensible of the hurt of, and writ against in his Book, cal­led, Asreious Appeal, Printed at Philadelphia, in 1692. (since he began to quarrel with the Quakers.) In which he says, p. 11. ‘We cannot approve of the too carnal Conceptions of many carnal and ignorant Professors, that have too carnal Imaginations of Christ, and confine him altogether to such a Remoteness, that they will not allow any measure of him to dwell in Believers, plain contrary to the Scripture.’ And in p. 24. he says to the New-England Professors, ‘How can ye Build on him, when ye have no belief, that Christ is nearer unto you, than in some remote place beyond the Skies?’ And yet now, in his Enmity against G. Whitehead, he charges him with denying Christ, for but opposing those too carnal Conceptions, which some carnal and ignorant Professors, in their too carnal Imaginations, had of Christ, whereby they would limit him to a remoteness from his People. This limiting Christ, by such a carnal Notion of a Bodily existence, as excludes him out of his People, and confines him to a Remoteness from them, if it be not now, was once an uncomfortable Doctrine to G. Keith, when he said, ‘Surely it is no less a Comforta­ble, than it is a true Doctrine, that we have the Man Jesus Christ so near unto us, in vertue of his Divine Life and Soul, in his Divine Seed and Body extended into us: And thus he is the incarnate Word, or Word made Flesh, dwelling in our Flesh, &c.’ VVay cast up, p. 133. And G. Keith, in his answer to the Rector of Arrow, said, ‘I put thee to prove, by any one place in all the Scripture, that Christ hath now any other Flesh or Body, but that which is Spiritual, Rector Corrected, p. 24. and again, p. 54.’ ‘As concerning the Body of Christ, that was Crucified, was it not again raised up to be made a living Body? And after he arose and ascended, was it not a Spiritual Body? [Page 56] Why then (says G. Keith to the Rector) sayst thou, shew a syllable, that intimates a spiritual Body? Is not Christ's Body a spiritual Body, which he hath now in the Heavens?—Shew a Syllable, that Christ hath any other Body, but that which is spiri [...]ual.’ And p. 55 he says, ‘What is that Body of Christ, mentioned by the Apostle, Col. 2.17. which puts an end unto the out­ward Observation of Meats, and Drinks, new Moons and Sabbath-days? Is that only the outward Body that was Crucified? If thou sayst yea, then thou dividest Christ, whereas Christ is not divided.’ And p. 44. he says, ‘That there is no such a distance betwixt Christ, that is gone into the Holiest, and his Saints upon Earth, as thou imaginest, see but ver. 19, 20, 21, 22. of Heb. 10.’ And in p. 23. speaking of the Power and Vertue of the Body of Christ that rose and ascended a spiritual and glorious Body, he says, ‘But this vertue is not any visible thing, nor is the glorified Body of Christ visible Flesh; and therefore (says he to the Rector) thou dost grosly erre, to say, as thou dost, the Son of Man is visible Flesh: For seeing the Body of Christ is glorified, and wholly spiritual (as the Body of every true Believer shall be at the Resurrection) how can it be visible Flesh? And (adds he) ‘Christ, the second Adam is called in Scripture the quickning Spirit, but not visible Flesh. Therefore (says he) in this (see how he banters him) thou 'dost grosly erre, and needest Correction. None of these Passages hath ever yet been retracted by G. Keith (that I have seen or heard of) and therefore he is the more to be blamed for blaming G. Whitehead for asser­ting Christ's Body to be a glorified spiritual Body, not a gross, carnal visible Body of Flesh, which he himself says it is not.

He hath one Cavil more upon this Head against G. Whitehead, and a m [...]r Cavil it seems to be: He grounds [Page 57] it on a passage he takes out of a Book of G. Whitehead's, called, The He goats Horn broken, written about 36 years ago, in answer to two Books written by three Opposers, whereof one was named Io. Horn; and G. Keith seems to fancy that this Book of G. Whitehead's had that Title, as alluding to the Name of Iohn Horn, and he took occa­sion from thence to make himself and his Auditors some Sport about it, Nar. p. 19. But unless he had be [...]ter ground to go upon than bare likeness in [...]ound of words, he may be mistaken for all that. For I could shew him a Book, written some years before that, by R. Hubber­thorn, called The Horn of the He-goat broken, in Answer to a Book published by one Tho. Winterton, betwixt which Name and Title there is not the least likeness of sound. That which G. Keith objects to G. Whitehead here, is, That he contradicts a passage in his Opponents Book, which G. Keith says, if he understands any thing of true Di­vinity or Theology, is a sound Passage, viz. That our Nature, Kind, or Being, as in us, not in Christ, is corrupt and filthy in it self, yet Christ took upon him our Nature, not as it is filthy in us by sin in it, &c. How sound this Passage is, I will not here dispute, because I would not dilate Controversie to feed a carping Mind in a peevish Adversary, neither will I presume to question G. Keith's understanding any thing of true Divinity, lost I should be thought as ignorant as he is arrogant. But yet I think it may be worthy of con­sideration, how far that Passage is sound, which says, Our Nature, Kind, or Being is corrupt and filthy in it self, (not only as in us, by sin in it, but in it self.) And how suitable it was for Christ to take upon him a Nature that was corrupt and filthy in it self. That Christ took on him the Nature of Man, (though it be not in Scripture exprest in those terms, that I remember) may in a right sense (for the word Nature is taken in divers Acceptati­ons) be admitted: The Scripture says, he took upon him the form of a Servant, and was made in the likeness of Men, [Page 58] Phil. 2.7. And that, Forasmuch as the Children are Parta­kers of Flesh and Blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, Heb. 2.14. And in verse 16. it is said, He took on him the Seed of Abraham: But the Margin expresses it (more agreeably to the Greek, as G. Keith knows) thus, He ta­keth not hold of Angels, but of the Seed of Abraham he ta­keth hold. Now I do not find by G. Whitehead's Answer, that he denies that Christ took Mans Nature; but that he taxes his Opponents with Confusion, in two respects [...] one, for that they excepted against his former wording of their Assertion, thus, That their Nature is restored in Christ; and yet that their Nature is a filthy Nature, and Christ took upon him their Nature. The other, that, to free themselves from the imputation of Confusion in the former, they say, He might as well have taxed the Apo­stle with Confusion, for saying, Men by Nature do the things contained in the Law, Rom. 2.14. And yet by Nature Chil­dren of wrath, Ephes. 2.3. In which two places, G. Keith, I presume, will not deny the word Nature to be used very differently. Now to this▪ G. Whitehead's Answer was, We may justly tax th [...]se Men with Confusion indeed, but not the Apostle; for here they cannot discern between the sin­ful Nature, and the pure Nature; for the Nature of Christ is pure, so that it's not their Nature, for their Nature is filthy, and therefore it is not in Christ (that is, as it is filthy.) Then he goes on to shew their Confusion in the other part; And their bringing that of Rom. 2.14. & Ephes. 2.3. together, to prove their confusion, sheweth that they cannot discern between that Nature by which Men do the things con­tained in the Law, and that Nature by which Men break the Law, and are Children of wrath; but make as if it were all one. Now I do not [...]ind G. Keith is able to make any great advantage by his Cavil against G. Whitehead. He says indeed, Our blessed Lord might well take on him our Nature, and the Nature in us be sinful, and in him pure and holy. But will he say, that that Nature which our Lord [Page 59] took on him was sinful (or corrupt and filthy) in it self? Which he knows w [...]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; [Page 60] 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 cruci­fi [...]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, [...]rought Mira­cles, was Crucifi [...]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 [Page 61] 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 a [...]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 [Page 62] 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 had its Center in him which then came in the Flesh, &c. is communicated unto us, and doth extend it self into our very Hearts and Souls, and whole inward Man; so that the Man Iesus, whom Si­meon embraced with his Arms, according to the Flesh, is, according to the Spirit, our Light, and Life, and Glory. And (in p. 246.) thus I hope it may appear, how much more we own Christ Iesus, not only as God, but as Man, and that both inwardly and outwardly; for through the Measure of the Life of Iesus Christ, as Man made manifest in us, we have immediate Fellow­ship and Union with the Man Christ Iesus also with­out us, who is ascended into the Heavens.’ He has done, he says, as to the Object of Faith, at least at pre­sent; and so have I. Wherein I observe he charges not VV. Penn at all directly, nor otherwise than as having owned those Books of G. VVhitehead's, out of which G. Keith pretends to prove his Charge. But before I fol­low him to his next Head. I would Note to the Rea­der, that all he hath said, or can say, against G. White­head or W. Penn, concerning their denying Christ, the [Page 63] Object of Faith, either as God or Man, he himself hath plainly and fully overthrown, by a Story he tells in p. 38. of his Narrative, where he says, that in the Year▪ 1678. three Persons (whom he calls Quakers, but will not Name) did blame him for saying, it was lawful to pray to Jesus Christ Crucified, and dared him (he says) to give an instance of one English Qua­ker that he ever heard pray to Christ. Whereupon (says he) W. Penn said, I am an English Man, and a Quaker, and I own I have oft prayed to Christ Jesus, even him that was Crucified. And he adds, that G. Whitehead to decide the Matter, took the Bible, and read, 1 Cor. 1.2. To all that call upon the Lord Iesus Christ, both their Lord and ours. This, it seems G. Whitehead did to prove the lawfulness of praying to Christ Jesus, even him that was crucified. And this, (whether the Story in all its Circumstances be true or no) proves beyond gainsaying, against G. Keith, that G. VVhitehead and VV. Penn were then sound in the Faith, and of a sound Judgment concerning the Object of Faith, Christ Jesus, both as he was God and as he was Man. And that is enough to shew, both that the Charge itself, of their denying Christ, the Object of Faith, is false; and that the Quotations G. Keith gives for Proofs thereof, out of Books of theirs (writ­ten mostly about that time, or not long before) are perverted and wrested by him to a Sence quite contra­ry to their Judgments, who writ them. And there­fore ought not by a considerate and impartial Reader, to be regarded, or received against them.

He now comes to that which he calls the Act of Faith, or the Vertue of Faith, which he would have People be­lieve has been denied, or contradicted by VV. Penn, and for Proof refers (Nar. p. 19.) to a Book of VV. Penn's, called, Quakerism a new Nick-name for old Chri­stianity, written in 1672. in Answer to Iohn Faldo, [Page 64] whom G. Keith himself, within these four Years, cal­led, A most partial and envious Adversary (serious Ap­peal, p. 60.) and mentioned with Approbation W▪ Penn's Answers to him, and in his Book, called, The Christian Faith, &c. p. 6. refers his Reader thereto for satisfaction. The Words he now carps at, he takes out of p. 12. of VV. Penn's said Book, where having set down Faldo's Charge, that Christianity was introdu­ced by Preaching the promised Messiah, and pointing at his humane Person; but Quakerism by Preaching a Light with­in; G. Keith first tells us what he would have said, if he had this to Answer, viz. Any Quakerism (says he) I know of, that I learned, was introduced into my Heart both by believing in Christ without, and in Christ within, at once, and by one Faith. Here he makes a Transition from Preaching to Believing, and from a General, to a Parti­cular. I. Faldo shews how (in his Sence) Christianity and Quakerism, so called (which, though one, he sets in Opposition) came into the World; namely, both by Preaching: But that, by Preaching the Promised Messiah, and pointing at his humane Person; this, by Preaching a Light within. If it be true, which G. Keith says, that what he knew, or had learnt of Quakerism, was intro­duced into his Heart by Believing in Christ without, and in Christ within at once, and by one Faith: Yet cer­tainly he hath formerly delivered himself much other­wise. And therefore, that he would have given that Answer which he now doth, had he been then to An­swer Faldo, is very unlikely, seeing in a Book of his, called, The Vnivers [...]l free Grace of the Gospel asserted, (Printed but the Year before, viz. in 1671.) he says, ‘This is the true and only Method which should be used by Preachers, for the bringing People into the Faith and acknowledgment of the Christian Religion, First, to inform them of this Vniversal Principle, what it is, and turn them towards it, that they may observe its Ope­ration [Page 65] in them, as it appeareth against the Lusts of this World, and for Righteousness and Temperance: And so as wise Builders, to lay this true Foundation in its Pro­per place; and as wise Husband-men and Planters to place this Divine Seed, where it ought to be, in order to its growth, that it may spring up in them, and the Life, Power and Vertue of God in it may be felt; And this will naturally bring People to own the Scriptures, &c. and to own Christ in the Flesh, his miraculous Birth, his Do­ctrine, Miracles, Sufferings, Death, Resurrection and Ascention, &c. p. 92. And thus, (says he again, p 93.) Men should be First turned towards this inward Principle, Light, Word and Seed of the Kingdom, which being in them, and they coming to feel it there, they may the more readily be perswaded to own and believe it. And as they come so to joyn to it, that it springs up in them in the Light and Glory thereof, they will see and feel the Scripture, and the things therein declared, to be of God, &c.—And this is good Method and Order in the prea­ching of the Gospel. So that it is evident, saith he, —that we have the Best and Only True Method in in our Words and Writings, First to turn People to the Light, that they may believe it,—and then to di­rect them to, and inform them of the Scriptures, and things therein declared; which they cannot receive, be­lieve, or understand, but in the Divine Light.’ And in his Book called The Way to the City of God, (written in the year 1669, though not printed till 1678) p. 3. spea­king of Christs coming both Outwardly and Inwardly, he saith, ‘The knowledge of this Inward coming is that which is the More Needful, and in the First place, as being that by which the true and comfortable use of his Outward Coming, is Alone sufficiently understood.’ And in p. 154. having said, ‘That this is the Only True and effectual way of knowing the Vse and Work of his Coming, and Sufferings, and Death, in the Outward, by [Page 66] turning and having our Minds turned inward 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.’ He adds, p. 156. ‘And therefore, This is the True Method and Order, which we have found great­ly bl [...]ssed of God, which the Lord hath taught us to hold forth unto People, whereby they attain unto Holiness, to a being made conformable unto the holy Life of Je­sus Christ, and come to know the true and great End and Use of his outward Coming, viz. In the First place, to point and turn their Minds unto the Light of Jesus Christ, who hath enlightened them and every one, and hath sown a Seed of his Light, Life and Spirit, in every one, unto which Seed they should give the most inward of their Hearts.’ The Reader may easily see the difference between G. Keith then, and G. Keith now. Now he says Quakerism was introduced into his heart, by believing in Christ without, and in Christ within, at once, and by one Faith. But then he told us, The True and Only Method, yea, not only the best, but the only true Method of Preaching, for the bringing People into the Faith and acknowledgment of the Christian Religion, is First (which word he repeats over and over, again and again) and in the First place to inform them of this Univer­sal Principle (the Light within) so that they may be­lieve it; and not only so, but may also observe its opera­tion in them. This he then made the Chief thing, the First thing, the First step, (the Introduction) in the right, the best, the true, the only true Method and Order of Prea­ching the Gospel. And then, viz. after this inward Prin­ciple, this Light within, is preached, received, believed, and its operation within observed, than to direct them to, and inform them of the Scriptures, and things therein declared, which, said he, they cannot receive, believe, or understand, but in the Divine Light. So that what­ever [Page 67] he may now pretend he would have answered to Faldo's Charge, (as he call▪ it) if he would have answer­ed according to what he hath formerly writ, he must have acknowledged that Quakerism (as it is called) was introduced by Preaching the Light of Christ within, tho' not in opposition to Christs Appearance without, in that Body of Flesh wherein he suffered; which W. Penn took particular care to express.

Now let us again set down Faldo's Exception, and W. Penn's Answer to it, so far at least, as G. Keith cites it. I. Faldo said, Christanity was introduced by preaching the pro­mised Messias, and pointing at his Humane Person; but Qua­kerism, by preaching a Light within. To this, said VV. Penn, I answer, That this is nothing injurious to the Quakers at all, but highly on their side; for had they preached a Christ now coming in the Flesh, they had denyed his True, and only Great Visible Appearance at Jerusalem, which all true Quakers own (let that be marked by the way) since then they be­lieve that appearance, and therefore need not Preach what is not to be again; and that the whole Christian World be­sides, have so long and lazily depended on it, without their Thirsting after his Inward Holy Appearance in the Conscience, &c. There G. Keith stops, and having made a false and envious Comment upon it, p. 20, he says, But let me again read out the intire paragraph, yet reads no more but these few words (being the imperfect part of a sen­tence he read before) Since then they believe that Appea­rance, but therefore need not Preach what is not to be again: and there stops, saying, There it clinches. But with his leave, or without, I shall Transcribe more of W. Penn's Answer, as what, I think conduces much to the opening of his meaning in this; for after he hath in many particu­lars, set forth the Effects and Benefit of Christ's Inward, Holy Appearance in the Conscience; he adds, ‘Since he has been so much talked of, and depended on, as to his then visible manifestation of himself, and so little, if at all, [Page 68] desired after, as to his spiritual and invisible coming in­to the hearts of Men, to finish Transgression, and bring in Everlasting Righteousness; therefore God raised us up, and we are now gone forth into the World, to de­clare, That he is spiritually manifested, as then fully in that Body, so now measurably in the Conscience of all People, a Divine Light, reproving every unfruitful Work of Darkness: So that here is the Mischief, saith he, the Malice and Ignorance of our Enemies do us in this World, that because we speak so much of, and preach up and write for Christ's Inward and Spiritual Appearance, as a Light to Mankind, therefore they con­clude with a mighty confidence, that we deny his outward Coming, Life, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, and the Benefits thereof: O Darkness it self! We have our Witness with the Lord of Heaven and Earth, that we own him to be the Saviour General of the whole World, as to that Appearance, and that he obtained precious Gifts for Men; but we say, (and our Adversaries have not wherewith reasonably to unsay it) that First, the Divine Light, Life, or Power that shined through that blessed Man­hood, was excellently the Saviour, and the Manhood but Instrumentally — And Secondly No Man or Wo­man in the World is savingly benefited by his then ap­pearing as a Saviour, &c▪ but as every such individual Person comes to experience his Internal manifestation, to convince, condemn, wound, heal, break, bind up, slay, make alive, in the Ne [...]ness of the Spirit. This is the state of Right Redemption and Salvation, and thus is he particularly a Saviour, and every such one is greatly be­nefited by him, as he was, in that former Appearance, the general Saviour of Mankind.’ Now mind how he concludes, ‘Behold then, O ye that are Impartial! how unworthily he hath injured us, to make People believe that we testifie to Christ's Inward Appearance, in Oppo­sition to, and denial of his Outward; which is far from our [Page 69] hearts, so much as to conceive. The like may well be said concerning G. Keith, B [...]hold, O ye that are Impar­tial! how unworthily he hath injured W. Penn, to endea­vour to make People believe that he would have Christs Birth, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, &c. thrown over the Shoul [...]er (as hi [...] Phrase is) given up, and buried in Oblivion from Posterity, which is the wicked Comment he makes upon, and false Consequence he draws from W. Penn's words, though far from W. Penn's heart, so much as to conceive; and indeed far from his Practice too: For it is well known (and G. Keith himself cannot be ignorant) that W. Penn (as well as other Ministers a­mongst the Quakers) hath many times in Preaching commemorated the miraculous Birth, Holy Life, admi­rable Miracles, and most heavenly Doctrines of the Man Christ Iesus, while he was on Earth, and pathetically set forth his Sufferings, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, with the blessed Effects, and great and manifold Benefits that arise and accrue therefrom, unto all them that right­ly receive him, believe in him, and obey him. So that had W. Penn's Words been ambigu [...]us, and liable, with­out wresting, to such a construction: Yet since his Known Practice explained his meaning to be altogether contra­ry to what G. Keith would fasten on him, it was most injuriously and unworthily done of G. Keith, to suggest so false and so base a thing. But neither will W. Penn's Words rightly taken, bear or admit it. For it must be considered, that as I. Faldo's Objection against Quaker­ism (a [...] he called it) lay in the different way or manner of introducing Christianity of old, and Quakerism of later years: So likewise must W. Penn's Answer thereunto be understood to relate to the way or manner of introdu­cing each. Now touching the Introduction of Christia­nity, Faldo said it was by Preaching the promised Mes­sias, and pointing at his humane Person. This related to the very time wherein he came, or when he was but [Page 70] newly come, and it was the main Controversie of that time, and that whereon the Mind [...] of Men did hang in suspence, Whether he who was then come, was indeed the Messias that was promised; and therefore it was more especially needful at the first Introduction of Chri­stianity, to assert and demonstrate that he who was then come, and did suffer on the Cross, was indeed the pro­mis [...]d Messias. But it is no prej [...]dice at all to Quaker­ism (so called) or to the Quakers, that, when the Be­lief of this had generally obtained, and was held through­out that part of the World which is called Christian, they were raised up, and brought forth with a Testimo­ny, not so immediately and principally to the Outward Appearance of Christ (the promised M [...]ssias) in that Bo­dy of Flesh, at Ierusalem, (the Belief whereof was still generally retained) as to his inward and spiritual Appear­ance (and that too as the promised Messiah) by the in­shining of his Divine Light in the Hearts of Men and Women, the belief and knowledge of which was well nigh lost in the World For it was as suitable and fit that Quakerism should be introduced (or rather, that Christianity) Nick named Quakerism, should be re-intro­duced) into the World, by Preaching up that inward Appearance of Christ; which was to give it a Re-intro­duction, as Christiani [...]y was at the first introduced by Preaching up that outward Appearance of Christ, which was then to give it its first Introduction.

Upon this Consideration was W. Penn's Answer grounded: For Faldo endeavouring to unchristian Qua­kerism, because it was not introduced by Preaching the same Appearance of Christ, by which he said Christi­anity was introduced at first. To this I Answer (said W. Penn) that this is nothing injurious to the Quakers at all, but highly on their side: For had they preach­ed a Christ now coming in the Flesh (or then newly come, which was done at the first Introduction of Chri­stianity) [Page 71] they had denied his true and only great visible Appearance at Ierusalem, which all true Quakers own. They ha [...] not Christ to Preach as now coming, or newly come, in the Flesh, as the first Promulgators of the Gospel Dis­pensation had: But they had Christ to preach as now come, and coming in Spirit, by his Divine Light in the Hearts of People, which there was no need of his coming again in the Flesh, to re-introduce. Therefore said W. Penn since they (the Quakers) believe that Appearance (of Christ in the Flesh at Ierusalem) and the whole Christian World not only believe it, but depend (though not rightly) on it, and therefore they need not preach what is not to be again (that is, they need not Preach that with respect to the Asserting, Evincing, Proving, Demon­stra [...]ing, or Confirming the Doctrine or Message, which they bring, of the inward or spiritual Appearance of Christ. Not that it is not needful, that the Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation, Birth, Life, Sufferings, Death, Resurre­ction, Ascension, &c. should be still preached (which is the unjust and malicious Inference, G. Keith would draw from W. Penn's Words) But that as it was not the End of the Quakers being raised up as a People, that they should only inform the Christian World, that Christ, the promised Messiah, was come, and had suffered, in that Body at Ierusalem (of which the Christian World (so called) hath through all Ages since, had at least an historical Knowledge and Belief:) So since that was so generally believed, and was not to be transacted over again, in order to introduce his spiritual Appearance, there was no need on that Account (that is, for the asserting, or proving his spiritual Appearance) to preach again his outward Appearance (which was believed already) un­til his inward Appearance was preacht, received, believed in and subjected to; and then (which according to G. Keith himself, is the best and only true Method) to di­rect them to, and inform them of the Scriptures, and [Page 72] the things therein declared, which he said well, they cannot receive, believe, or understand (aright) but in the Divine Light. And this, he says, will natural­ly bring People to own the Scriptures, and things there­in contained, to own Moses and the Prophets,—and to own Christ in the Flesh, his Miraculous Birth, his Do­ctrine, Miracles, Sufferings, Death, Resurrection and Ascension, together with the wonderful End and De­sign of God therein, &c. Vniversal Grace, p. 92, 93. Besides G. Keith might have read, p. 5. of W. Penn's Quakerism a new Nick-name, &c. that W. Penn says, ‘The outward History of Christ's exceeding Love to Mankind, deserves all humble and reverent Credit, as a Godly Tradition, and it should for ever bind Men to receive, and fear, and worship him.’ This sufficiently shews VV. Penn was not for having the History of Christ's outward Appearance in the Flesh, and what he did and suffered therein for Mankind, thrown away, and buried in Oblivion from Posterity, but that it should be preached, and kept in remembrance through all Ages, that it might bind Men for ever to receive, and fear, and worship him. So that G. Keith is doubly unjust, not only in perverting VV. Penn's Words, but infer­ring that VV. Penn would have Christ's outward Com­ing, Death, &c. thrown over the Shoulder, given up and buried in Oblivion, when as not only VV. Penn's Words last cited imply the contrary, but even upon G. Keith's own Principle just before recited, the Preach­ing the inward Appearance of Christ (which he also says, according to the only true Method, should be first preached) will naturally bring People to own Christ in the Flesh, and the things declared of him in the Scrip­tures. But G. Keith is the more to be blamed for urg­ing this against VV. Penn now, in as much as it is (with respect to the Substance of it) an Objection he hath formerly made, and to which I answered at large, [Page 73] in a Treatise of mine, called, An Epistle to Friends, Printed in 1694. from p. 51. to p. 56. And again in another Book of mine, called, A further Discovery, Printed the same Year, from p. 93. to p. 98. Which latter is one of those Books G. Keith hath not replied to.

He taxes VV. Penn with uncharitable Dealing in say­ing above, The whole Christian VVorld has lazily depended on it. Is there none, says he, in the Christian VVorld but the Quakers, that thi [...]st after the Power of God in their Souls? I was never so uncharitable to think so, cryes he. But had he had either Charity or Iustice, he would not have thought VV. Penn by saying the whole Christian World, intended every individual Person in the Christi­an World. When the Apostle Iohn said, The whole VVorld lieth in wickedness, 1 John 5.19. Did he mean there was not one Person in the whole World, but what lay in Wickedness? When Iohn said, All the VVorld wondred after the Beast, Rev. 13.3. Did he mean every individual Person in the World? No sure, the VVoman that fled into the Wilderness, Chap. 12.6. did not won­der after the Beast, for she fled from the Beast. When Mathew says, The whole City came out to meet Je­sus, Mat. 8.34. Did he mean, that there was never a man nor woman left in the City? G. Keith knows that that way of speaking is Figurative, used Syn [...]chdochically, the greater part being taken for the whole. And in his Se­rious Appeal, in Answer to Cot. Mather, p. 9. he could urge that by way of Defence, saying, The Denomination of a thing is taken chiefly from that which is the greatest part; and he might have taken it so here, had not En­mity had too great a part in him: For in p. 7. of the same Book, W. Penn mentions Churches (which is more extensive than particular Persons) in these latter Ages, in whom there might once have been begotten some earnest, living Thirst after the inward Life of Righteousness.

[Page 74]This G. Keith might well have observed, for he makes another Cavil out of the foregoing part of this very Sentence, which was this, p. 6, 7. The Distinction betwixt Moral and Christian, the making Holy Life legal, and Faith in the History of Christ's outward Manifestation, Christianity; (so it should be read, the Words [Christi­anity and Manifestation] being transposed and mispla­ced in the Printing, as is obvious) has been a d [...]adly Poyson these latter Ages have been infected with, to the De­struction of Godly Living, and Apostatizing of those Church­es, in whom there might once have been begotten some ear­nest, living Thirst after the inward Life of Righteousness. This Passage depends upon the different Definitions of Christianity given by I. Faldo, and W. Penn. I. Faldo, it seems defining Christianity, said, By Christianity we are not to understand all those Matters of Faith and Practice, which Christianity doth oblige us unto. This W. Penn excepted against, as reckoning that All those Matters of Faith and Practice which Christianity doth oblige us unto, might well pass for Christianity. Yet Faldo having granted that Christianity takes in whatever is worthy in those Religions it hath super [...]ed [...]d; yea, the very Heathens. From those Words VV. Penn inferred, This then does not make Chri­stianity a distinct thing in kind, from what was worthy, as he calls it, that is Godly, among either Iews or Heathen: This is in p. 2, 3. of VV. Penn's Book called, Quaker­ism a New Nick-name for Old Christianity; and having ar­gued upon it in p. 4, 5, and 6. and shewed the hurt and mischief that ensues upon rejecting Moral Vertues from being any part of Christianity, he there concludes, in the Words G. Keith carps at, viz, The Distinction betwixt Moral and Christian, the making Holy Life legal, and Faith in the History of Christ's outward Manifestation Christianity, has been a deadly Poyson these latter Ages have been infected with, to the Destruction of Godly Living, &c. As tending to perswade People (too apt to be easily perswa­ded [Page 75] to looseness) that a bare historical Belief of Christ's outward Appearance in the Flesh, is of more value and advantage to them, than a Vertuous, Pious, Godly Life.

To this G. Keith tacks another Proof (as he calls it) against W. Penn, and then makes his Reflection on both together. That other Proof he takes out of W. Penn's Address to Protestants, p. 118, 119. thus, For it seems a most unreasonable thing, that Faith in God and keep­ing his Commandments, should be no part of the Christian Religion: But if a part it be (as upon serious Reflection who dare deny it?) then those before and since Christ's Time, who never had the external Law nor History, yet have done the things contained in the Law, their Consciences not accusing, nor Hearts condemning, but excusing them before God, are in some degree concerned in the Chara­cter of a true Christian. For Christ himself preached and kept his Father's Commandments; he came to fulfil and not to destroy the Law, and that not only in his own Person, but that the Righteousness of the Law might be also fulfilled in us, Rom. 8.4. Now, says G. Keith, comes the main thing: Let us but soberly consider, What Christ is, and we shall the better know, whethe [...] Moral Men are to be reckoned Chri­stians. What is Christ, but Meekness, Iustice, Mercy, Patience, Charity and Virtue, in Perfection? Can we then deny a meek Man to be a Christian? A Iust, a Merciful, a Patient, a Charitable and a Virtuous Man, to be like Christ? G. Keith says, In this way of arguing there is a Fallacy. These Moral Vertues, he says, are a part of a Christian,—and belong to the Genus of a Christian. But there are two things in the true Definition of a Man, the Genus and the Differentia: They have the Genus, says he, but not the Differentia. And, I pray, which is of most moment in this Case, the Genus, or the Differentia? To have the Kind and Nature of a Christian, or to have only some outward Character, or discriminating Diffe­rence, to distinguish a Christian from a Child of God, [Page 76] as namely an historical Faith of Christ's outward Appea­rance in the Flesh at Ierusalem? But since G. Keith al­lows these Moral Virtues to be a part of a Christian, he needed not on this score, have fallen so foul on W. Penn, for he might have observed in those Words him­self has cited, that that which seemed to W. Penn so un­reasonable a thing, was, That Faith in God, and keep­ing his Commandments, should be no part (that is, should by some be accounted no part) of the Christian Re­ligion. And the Inference he made, from what he had offered to shew it was a part of the Christian Religion, was, that, If it be a part (he does not say, If it be the whole) Then those before and since Christ's time, who never had the external Law or History, yet have done the things contained in the Law, &c. are in some degree concern'd in the Character of a true Christian. But for that extra­vagant Inference G. Keith would draw from W. 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: 'Tis 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 [Page 77] 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 [Page 78] 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 [Page 79] 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, in mine called Truth Defended, [Page 80] from p. 148. to p. 155. which he has not replied to. 'Tis true, he doth not begin his Cavil now with the same Quotation he did then; but (for a blind ▪) brings it in now with a Quotation of the same Matter in Sub­stance, taken out of another Peice, viz. A Preface to the Collection of R. Barclay's Book (which he supposes, and I deny not, was writ by VV. Penn) and then claps his former Quotation (out of VV. Penn's Rejoynd [...]r to Faldo) behind it, to support it, taking no notice that I had answered it before. This in him was neither In­genuous nor Fair. He should have answered my Book, before he had renewed the Charge therein answered. But instead of that, he conceals that it was already an­swered, and proposes it as a new thing, as if it had not been answered before. Now, seeing he hath dealt so unfairly, I shall take the less notice of what he now says in the Case, but (that I may not actum agere) shall re­fer the Reader to my former Answer, in the Book and Pages abovementioned; yet not wholly pass by what he says here.

First, I observe he quarrels with VV. Penn for say­ing (upon 1 Tim. 3.16. Great is the Mystery of Godli­ness, God manifest in the Flesh, &c.) ‘And if the Apo­stle said it of the Manifestation of the Son of God in the Flesh, if that be a Mystery (and if a Mystery, it is not to be spelt out but by the Revelation of the Spi­rit) how much more, &c. From hence G. Keith in­fers, VV. Penn doth not say it is a Mystery, but he puts three Ifs to it. This Objection is childish, in all but the Malice of it: For G. Keith knows VV. Penn hath al­ways acknowledged that Manifestation of Christ in the outward Body of Flesh in which he suffered at Ierusalem, to be a very great and wonderful Mystery. And he, and every one else, that understands Words aright, knows, that the Particle If both divers Significations, some­times it is Conditional, sometimes Dubitative, sometimes [Page 81] Concessive, or Granting. Of which there are plenty of Instances in Scripture, Rom. 11.6. If by Grace, then no more of VVorks. The Apostle there cannot be supposed to doubt or question, much less to deny, that the Ele­ction is of Grace, for he positively affirm'd it in the verse before. So ver. 12. If the fall of them (the Iews) be the Riches of the World, &c. how much more their Fulness? ver. 16. If the first Fruit, and if the Root be Holy, so the Lump, so the Branches. ver. 21. If God spared not the natural Branches, &c. 1 Pet. 4.17, 18. If it (Judgment) first begin at us,—And if the Righ­teous scarcely be saved, &c. 2 Pet. 2.4, 5. If God spa­red not the Angels that sinned, but cast them down to Hell, &c. And spared not the old World, but saved Noah, &c. Might not G. Keith as well have charged the Apostle with denying or doubting, that God spared not the Angels that sinned, and the old World? Yet upon this, he asks, Pray was our blessed Lord a meer Shell? Was he like the Shell of an Egg without the Meat of an Egg? I answer no; He was not a meer Shell, nei­ther was he like the Shell of an Egg, either without the Meat, or with it: For he was full of Grace and Truth, John 1.14. And in him dwelleth all the Fulness of the Godhead bodily, Col. 2.9. For it pleased the Father that in him should all Fulness dwell, chap. 1.19.

Again He asks, Was there any Holiness ever in any Pro­phet or Apostle, but it is like a Drop to the Ocean to what was in our blessed Lord? If it were or could be less than a Drop to the Ocean, that affects not us in this Case: For we draw no Comparison between the Holiness that was in him, and that which is, or ever hath been, in any of the Saints, with respect to the Degrees thereof. Grant it to be the same in Nature and Quality, and it suffices, which a Drop is with the Ocean. But G. Keith's Comparison in his Marginal Notes in this p. 21. run higher in Degree than a Drop to the Ocean. For he says, [Page 82] The same Seed and Life is in us which was in the Man Christ, and is in him in the Fulness, as Water in the Spring, and in us a [...] the Stream; which is more than a Drop, and bears more pro­portion in quantity to the spring it flows from, than a Drop does to the Ocean. Again he says, As the natural Life is in all the Members, but more principally in the Head and Heart, without any Division; so this spiritual Life and Nature is both in Christ our Head, and in us, by which he dwelleth in us, as the Spirit of Man doth in the Body. But is the disproportion as great, in the natural Body, between the Life in the Member, and in the Head & Heart, as between a Drop and the Ocean?

He suggests, that W. Penn compares the Work of Re­generation to the Incarnation of our Lord, so as to equal, yea, prefer it, with respect to Holiness, and thereupon says, Nar. p. 22. I Appeal to you (the Auditors) whether is it not a most abominable Error, and whether it doth not make every regenerate Man not only equal to the Man Christ, but greater? for, says he, VVe truly value any Man as more Holy, according as the Manifestation of God is more in one Man than in another. Now this is a great abuse in him. For the Comparison (if he will have it to be one) was not originally W. Penn's, but his Adversaries; and it lay not between the Incarnation of Christ, and the Work of Regeneration: But between the difficulty of Believing the one, and Experiencing the other. So W. Penn understood I. Faldo at first; and thereupon said, ‘Regeneration is a slight thing (meaning with I. Faldo) in Com­parison of the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh.’ (Mark that) He did not say, in Comparison of Christ after the Flesh: But in Comparison of the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh. And thereupon he added, ‘The History is made (viz. by I. Faldo) the great­est Mystery: And to believe the one, matter of great­er difficulty, than to Experience the other.’ Rejoynder, p. 336. The Comparison here lay not between the Dig­ni [...]y or Excellency of Christ's Incarnation in that Body [Page 83] which he took of the Virgin, and his spiritual Formati­on and Birth in his Saints (which is intended in the Word [Regeneration:] But between the difficulty of Believing the one, and of Experiencing the other. Nei­ther would the Comparison between the Incarnation of our Lord Christ, and the Work of Regeneration (had such a Comparison been made) have been with respect to the Degrees of Holiness in each: But with re­spect to the greatness of the Mystery in the one, and in the other, which depended not simply upon the Holi­ness in either. For though this Mystery of the Incar­nation of Christ, be by way of Emphasis, or Excellency, to distinguish it from other Mysteries, called by the A­postle, The Mystery of Godliness, as being a great part of that great Mystery: Yet it is not properly called a Mystery from the Perfection of Holiness that was in him; but from the wonderful and miraculous Manner of his Conception, &c. not easily to be apprehended by humane Understanding. In which sense also, and for which Reason, the spiritual Vnion betwixt Christ and his Church, is by the same Apostle called, A great Mystery, Eph. 5.32. And in 1 Cor. 15.51. The Apostle treat­ing of the Resurrection, saith, Behold, I shew you a My­stery, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. The Mystery here lay not in the point of Holiness; but in the strangeness of the thing, that whereas the gene­ral Change is made by Death, some should be changed without dying. We shall not all Sleep, (that is, we shall not all Dye; Sleep, in this Sense, being a Synonima of Death, Dan. 12.2. John 11.11. and 14. Acts 7.60. and 13.36. 1 Thess. 4.14.) but we shall all be chan­ged. So that the plain import of W. Penn's Words is but this; Seeing the Incarnation of Christ, which was his outward Appearance in the World, being outward­ly born of, and brought forth by a Virgin, was called a Mystery, because of the extraordinary and superna­tural [Page 84] Way and Manner of his Conception: Much more may the Work of Regeneration, Christ's being formed in the Saints, Gal. 4.19. (So that according to G. Keith himself, they are his Mother that bring him forth by a Spiritual and Divine Birth, Mat. 12.49. Way cast up, p. 111.) be called a Mystery, seeing it is wholly inward and spiritual in its Operation, and consequent­ly more remote from outward Sense, and harder to be comprehended by humane Understanding. In which W. Penn would not in any respect, lessen that great and glorious Work of God in the Incarnation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: But would exalt the glorious Work of Christ in his Saints. And as plain also it is, that the Scope and Drift of those Words of W. Penn both here, and in his Rejoynder to Faldo (which I have Answered elsewhere) was to perswade People not to rest barely in an historical Belief of Christ's Incarnati­on, and Manifestation in that Body of Flesh, wherein he suffered at Ierusalem, and obtained Redemption for all them that should lay hold on him by a living Faith: But to come to that living Faith, that thereby they might experimentally know, and witness the great Work of Regeneration, to be wrought in them, Christ to be spiri­tually formed in them, and to dwell in their Hearts by Faith; without which, the most exact literal Know­ledge of the History of Christ's Incarnation, Sufferings, Death, Resurrection and Ascension, will stand them in no stead, but add to their Condemnation.

He taxes VV. Penn with thinking it is a matter of little or no difficulty to believe, that God sent Christ to die for Sin­ners, and to reconcile God to Men by his Death. How lit­tle of difficulty there is in barely and historically believing this, the Common Faith of all that part of the World called Christian shews, wherein all Professions, and the most profligate and prophane in any Profession, doth so believe it. And though G. Keith talks of a true saving [Page 85] Faith, and says, Nar. p. 23. None of all the Church of England Men, Independents, or Presbyterians, say, the meer Historical, Literal, Traditional, Faith of Christ, will save any: Yet I think it may, without breach of Chari­ty, be doubted, that too many in some, at least, of those Professions, have no other; and certain it is, W. Penn's words related chiefly to such: For he says, in the place quoted by G. Keith, At this rate the Lord, Lord-Crier is highly priviledged, alluding therein to the words of Christ Mat. 7.21. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Hea­ven: But he that doth the Will of my Father which is in Heaven. From which, and his Answer in v. 23. Then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work Iniquity; It is evident that these knew not him aright, nor had true Faith in him, notwithstanding their high pretences, of having Prophesied, cast out Devils, and done many wonderful things in his name, v. 22.

Again, G. Keith, says, p. 23. The matter is, there is a saving Faith of Christ without us; there he stops, as to saving Faith, but too short: For Faith of Christ with­out us, (i. e. a Belief of all Christ did and suffered in that outward Body, which he took of the Virgin) with­out Faith in Christ within (i. e. a receiving Christ by Faith into the Heart, to cleanse the Heart, and by his precious Blood to purge the Conscience from dead works, to serve the living God) will not prove a saving Faith. Then he goes on, saying, And Christ without us, as he is both God and Man, the Emanuel, as well as his inward Appearance in us, is the Object of saving Faith; but these Men would not own it. If by these Men he means, either the Quakers in general, or any of those he has traduced by name, his Charge is false. We own Christ without, as he is both God and Man, joyntly and together with his inward appearance in the Heart, to be the Object of saving Faith to all those, to whom [Page 86] the knowledge of his outward Appearance hath come. But in asmuch as a great part of Mankind hath not the Knowledge of that outward Appearance of Christ, and what he therein did and suffered; Christ without, with respect to his Manhood, and what he did and suffered in that prepared Body, cannot be the Object of Faith to such, until revealed to them. And therefore if G. Keith, will yet admit that such have been, or may be saved, (and consequently that they had, or may have saving Faith, without which none can be saved, because, Without Faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11.6.) he must grant the Object of their Faith to be, not that out­ward Appearance of Christ in the Flesh, but his inward Appearance and Manifestation in and by his Divine Light, Life, Word, and Power, in their Hearts. I say, if he will yet admit it, because he has of late so turned and wheel'd about from his former Principles, that one knows not where to find him. In his Way to the City of God, p. 125. he said, ‘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. And through the coming of Jesus Christ, thus in the inward, even before he was outwardly come, or manifest, many were saved, and attained unto perfect Peace and Reconciliation with God in their Souls, yet not in unholiness, but in departing there­from, and becoming Holy and Sanctified unto God.’ In p. 152. of the same Book, in Answer to a Question, Whether the knowledge of the outward coming, suffer­ings and Death of Christ, is not of absolute necessity unto every one? He says, ‘Though express knowledge of his outward coming, sufferings and Death, is very pro­fitable to beget Faith and Love in Men towards God, as aforesaid, and ought to be highly valued in its place. [Page 87] Nevertheless, this express knowledge, is not of absolute necessity unto Faith and Love, &c. And in p. 153. How many thousand have been saved before Christ's coming in the outward, who knew it not expresly?’ And a little lower, ‘Seeing then that some had Faith and Love to God, and were saved, without the express knowledge thereof (to wit, of Christ's coming in the outward) before he came outwardly, why not also after his coming, where his coming outwardly hath not been preached nor revealed? — For now Christ is inwardly come in a Seed of Life and Light, in all, which is the Word of Reconciliation, by which men may be Reconciled with God, as they joyn and apply their Minds there­unto.’ Such passages as these abound in his former (not yet retracted) Book, which it would be tedious to transcribe. Yet inasmuch as he says here (Nar. p. 23.) that though Regeneration is no [...]light thing, yet com­paring Christ's Incarnation with the Work of Regeneration, I do affirm the Work of Regeneration is a light thing, tho' not light in it self; I will shew him (though it be some what beside the present Business) how much he formerly pre­fer'd the inward Appearance, and Manifestation of Christ in Spirit, to his outward Appearance in the Flesh. In his Book called Immediate Revelation not ceased (nor retracted) p. 59. he says,— ‘If his Bodily presence was not sufficient to the Church, his teaching them out­wardly by word of Mouth, Face to Face; but he said, It was expedient that he should go away from them, and he would send another Teacher, who would do greater things, and more Manifestly and Gloriously reveal unto them God, and the things of his King­dom: If Christ's Bodily presence in the Flesh, was not sufficient of it self, to Minister, though he spake as ne­ver Man spake, yet I say, If this Ministration was not sufficient, but a more Glorious they were to expect; and as they waited, they witnessed it fulfilled, and [Page 88] come unto them: Then far less is the outward Admi­nistration of any other Man, &c.— Seeing the know­ledge of Christ after the Flesh was not sufficient, nor to be rested in; but they were to look for a better, a more clear, and full manifestation in themselves, he appearing in a Spiritual, Glorious, Heavenly, Myste­rious way in their Hearts &c. And in p. 120. ha­ving cited before many Scripture sayings out of the Old and New Testament, Concerning Christ, he says, ‘All these Glorious things both he, in the Days of his Flesh, and the Prophets, before that his appearance in that Body of Flesh, declared, neither only nor prin­cipally, concerning his coming in the Flesh, (namely, in that Vessel or Temple which appeared at Ierusalem) but mainly and principally concerning his Spiritual Appearance in his Saints, after his being Crucified, Risen and Ascended; for till then, the Son of Man was not Glorified. And though he was Bodily present with his Disciples, yet he told them, they were to see greater things.—And p. 121. He told them, It was expedient he should go away, that he might come again in a more Glorious and Comfortable Appear­ance, by the Revelation of his Glorious Power in their Hearts, for his Kingdom was not of this World, but an inward Kingdom, and he said, that it was with­in; and pointed to this Spiritual Appearance, by his Light in their Hearts, under many Parables and Fi­gures, &c. Again, p. 107. he says, ‘The Iews and People of Israel who lived in Moses's time, and were saved, it was through Faith in this Word, in this Pro­phet, raised up in them, in their Hearts, not at a di­stance, but nigh; the Word is nigh in thy Heart. And this is Christ in them, the hope of Glory, the Myste­ry hid from Ages and Generations, but was ever made manifest in his Saints, but in the latter Days more clearly: Christ in all that believe, the hope of Glory.’ [Page 89] Does he not here plainly make that Mystery which the Apostle (and he from him) calls the Mystery which hath been hid from Ages and from Generations, Col. 1.2.6. to be the inward Appearance of Christ, the hope of Glory, in all that believe, and says, It was ever made manifest in his Saints.

He pretends, Nar. p. 23. to have some other prin­cipal Proofs remaining about this Gross Error (as he calls it) of W. Penn: But he brings forth but one (that I find) and that the same which he charged formerly, in his Book called The True Copy, &c. And which I an­swered at large in my Book called Truth Defended, from p. 113. to p. 123. Of which he takes no notice. Had he been either fair or manly, he should first have refuted the former Answers, before he had renewed his Charge. Yet not only here, but in his Gross Error, p. 18, 19. he repeats this same Charge, without so much as owning that it had been answered to before. So that, with respect to him, it is to little purpose to answer at all, since he has so little honesty, as to wink over the answer, and repeat his Charge a new, as if there had been nothing said to it. But for the undeceiv­ing of them, whom he labours to deceive, and by false Accusations and Calumnies, to bring into a dislike of our Principles and us, I shall here wipe off some of his Abu­ses, and refer the Reader, for further satisfaction, to my former Book called Truth Defended.

The Quotation he now gives, is out of a Book cal­led The Christian Quaker, p. 97.98. It is a Controversial Book, and the Controversy in that part of it is, Whe­ther Christ, as Christ, was before he took Flesh of the Vir­gin, or no? Which the Adversaries denied; W. Penn affirmed, and gave many Arguments, from Scripture and Reason, to prove it, which the Reader may there see at large from p. 92. to p. 99. Amongst those ma­ny Arguments, one was drawn from the promised Seed, which all acknowledge to be Christ, and therefore, as a [Page 90] fit Medium was used by W. Penn, to prove that Christ, as Christ, was before he took that Body of Flesh upon him; and therefore that that Body, simply considered as a Natural Body (which was the Notion the Adversaries had of it, and from whence they Spake so much of Christ's Humane Nature) was not properly the Christ, but he (most properly) who was the Heavenly Spiritual Man, who came down from Heaven, and took upon him that outward Body; in as much as the Seed is a Spiritual Substance —Now to prove that the Seed is inward and Spiritual, he argued thus (which is the pas­sage G. Keith quotes.) ‘As Abraham outward and natu­ral was the great Father of the Jews outward and na­tural, whose Seed God promised to Bless, with Earth­ly Blessings, &c. And that they were Figurative of the one Seed Christ, and such as he should beget unto a lively hope, &c. it will consequently follow that this Seed must be inward and Spiritual; since one out­ward thing cannot be the proper Figure or Represen­tation of another: Nor is it the way of holy Scrip­ture so to teach us; the outward Lamb shews forth the inward Lamb; the Jew outward, the Jew inward, &c. —’ ‘I have these two short Arguments to prove what I believe and assert, as to the Spirituality of the true Seed; and a clearer overthrow it is to the Opinion of our Adversaries, to the true Christ. First, Every thing begets its like; what is Simply Natural, produces not a Spiritual being, Material things, bring not forth things that are Immaterial. Now because the Nature, or Image, begotten in the Hearts of true Believers, is Spiritual, it will follow, that the Seed which so begets, and brings forth that Birth, must be the same in Nature, with that which is begotten, therefore Spiritual; then Christs Body, or what he had from the Virgin, strictly considered as such, was not the Seed. Secondly, It is clear from hence; The Serpent is a [Page 91] Spirit: Now nothing can bruise the Head of the Ser­pent, but something that is also Internal and Spiritual, as the Serpent is; But if that Body of Christ were the Seed, then could he not bruise the Serpents Head in all, because the Body of Christ is not so much as in any one, and consequently the Seed of the Promise is an Holy and Spiritual Principle of Light, Life and Power, that being received into the Heart, bruiseth the Serpent's Head. And because the Seed, which cannot be that Body, is Christ, as testify the Scrip­tures, the Seed is one, and that Seed Christ, and Christ God over all, Blessed for ever; we do conclude, and that most truly, that Christ was, and is the Divine Word of Light and Life, that was in the beginning with God, and was, and is God over all, blessed for ever. And that this may yet more evidently appear, let it but be seriously weigh'd, that before ever that visible. Appearance was, the Seed bruised, in good Mea­sure, the Serpent's Head in the Holy Men and Wo­men of all Generations, otherwise they had not been Holy but Serpentine and Wicked; And if the Seed was before, and that Seed be Christ; because there is but one Christ, as well as but one only Seed, it doth clear­ly follow, that Christ was Christ, before that outward Appearance. Which was the thing intended to be proved.’ Upon this G. Keith says, W. Penn will needs have this to be not Christ without, but Christ within. But W. Penn neither said so, nor meant so. He does not deny the Seed to be Christ without. He says, the Seed Christ is Spiritual and inward, that is, in Man; which doth not hinder, but that it may be and is outward also, that is, out of Man, or elsewhere, besides in Man; but that, whether inward or outward, it is a Spiritual Sub­stance. Yet as it is a Seed bruising the Serpent's Head in Man, it is inward, working against the Serpent in the Heart, where the Serpent puts up his Head, to [Page 92] deceive and defile the Heart of Man, and draw him from his Duty and Obedience to God. And indeed, in that great and most Eminent Encounter between the two Seeds, when the Divine Seed had taken on it out­ward Flesh, and so was born of the Virgin, (with re­spect to which he was Denominated, and was the Seed of the Woman, and so of Abraham, and David, (of whose Seed she was) though the Serpent could not as­sault him, from any thing in himself (having nothing in him, John. 14.30.) Yet it was the Divine Word or Power which is called the Seed in Man (the same which had bruised the Head of the Serpent, in Mary, David, Abraham, and all the Holy Men and Women before) inwardly dwelling in that Immaculate Body, by which he repelled the assaults of the Tempter, broke the Power of the Prince of Darkness, vanquished and put him to flight, and Triumphed most Gloriously over him.

Again, G. Keith says, p. 24. So the Paschal Lamb was no Figure of Christ without. And when John said, Behold the Lamb of God! It was meant of Christ with­in us, not of Christ without us, for our Passover is Slain for us. This G. Keith sets down, as if they were W. Penn's words, and accordingly they are Printed, with Co­ma's in the Margin, as the Quotations out of W. Penn's Books are. And then G. Keith says upon it, You see, according to W. Penn, that Passover that was slain for us, was slain in us, not without us: And so they throw away our Arguments against the Iews. But this is an Abuse in G. Keith. The words he gives before, as W. Penn's, are not W. Penn's, but G. Keith's unfair inference from W. Penn's words. W. Penn did not say the Paschal Lamb was no Figure of Christ without. He said the Outward Lamb shews forth the Inward Lamb; the Jew Outward, the Jew Inward. And doth it not so? And when Iohn said, Behold the Lamb of God, W. Penn doth not say, It was meant of Christ within us, not of Christ [Page 93] without us: For Christ within us, and Christ without us, is but one Christ, not two Christs, nor divided. But when Iohn said, Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the Sins of the World! Did he mean the Body only, or Outward Manhood of Christ? Or did he not mean more especially that Divine and Heavenly Manhood, which then dwelt and appeared in that Body, with respect to which he was called Christ, long before he took on him that Body, and is said to be the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World, Rev. 13.8. It is not then according to W. Penn, that the Passover that was slain for us, was slain in us, not without us; but it is accord­ing to G. Keith's perverse Inference: For the Passover that was slain for us, was slain without us; but it was not only an Outward thing, or the Body only, which was taken of the Virgin, that is designed under that name of the Passover, but that Son of Man who came down from Heaven, and took upon him that Outward Body, and suffered in that Body, and so became a part, yea, a chief part of that Blessed Sacrifice, although it was the Outward Body, or Manhood only of Christ our Spiritual Passover (as he is called, Wilson's Christian Di­ctionary, verbo Passover) that in a strict and proper sense was said to be slain.

Next he quarrels with W. Penn's Logick, in saying, Then Christ's Body, he had from the Virgin, strictly considered as such, was not the Seed. This is rare Lo­gick, says G. Keith. Here's a Fallacy, but I believe (says he) it proceeds not from any design, but from his weakness in Logick. (But the Abuse he would put upon W. Penn, proceeds I fear, not so much from his weakness in Lo­gick, as from an evil Design in him) He adds, You know, there should be no Term, nor thing of Importance, in the Conclusion of any Syllogism or Argument, but what should be in the Premises; but strictly considered is not in the Pre­mises, therefore it should not be in the Conclusion. Had he [Page 94] minded the Premises better, he might have seen, that though those very Terms [strictly Considered] were not expresly in the Premises, yet equivalent Terms were; namely, the Terms [Material, and simply Natural,] (which last yet was used only ad hominem, upon the Adver­sary's Opinion) therefore G. Keith might well have spa­red his Flurt at W. Penn's Logick, but that he had a mind to crack of his own Skill therein. He says, No Man says, The Body of Christ strictly considered without the Soul of Christ, is Christ, or that either the Soul and Bo­dy of Christ strictly considered, without the Godhead, is the Christ. But let him tell me what they say, or upon their own Principle ought to say, Who affirm that Christ, as Christ, was not in being, till he was born of the Virgin. He says, The Sense of W. Penn's Argument is, That Christ's Body was no part of him. Herein he doth not say the Truth; but gives a wrong sense of W. Penn's words. Though Christ was Christ, before he took upon him that Body, yet after he had assumed that Body, it was a part of him, though but the Outward part. He goes on to pervert W. Penn's both sense and words, saying as from W. Penn. The one Seed cannot be an Out­ward thing; and then says upon it, This ye see is univer­sal and exclusive of any outward thing. W. Penn did not say, The one Seed cannot be an Outward thing. His words were, as a Deduction from his Premises, It will consequently follow, that this Seed must be Inward and Spiritual; which doth not universally exclude it, from being in some respect an Outward thing also. But if VV. Penn had said, This Seed cannot be an Outward thing, intending thereby a thing simply, and wholly outward, so as to exclude its being Spiritual and at all Inward, Would G. Keith have consented to that? I think not. It is evident W. Penn contended with such as would restrain the Divine Seed of Promise to the Body, which Christ took of the Virgin, not being Spiritually-Mind­ed [Page 95] enough to apprehend any other Seed, than that which he then took of her; whereas the Promised Seed, which was the Heavenly Man, Christ Jesus, was in being and did operate, in the Hearts of Men, and bruised the Serpent's Head there, many Ages before he took upon him, that Body of Flesh of the Seed of the Virgin. And during that time, even from the making of that Promise, until the time of his outward coming at Ieru­salem, he was altogether Spiritual, working inwardly and Spiritually, against the Enemy in the [...]eart, and could not properly be called an Outward thing, at least in the gross Notion wherein we commonly use and understand the word Outward. Not that he was so Inward, as to be no where, but in Man (for he was in Heaven with his Father, Iohn. 3.13.) But when, in the fulness of time, he descended, and took on him the Seed of Abraham (by taking on him that Body of Flesh from the Seed of the Virgin) he was then, and in that respect, Outward as well as Inward. Yet even then, a [...]d since, his Operation as a Seed of Light, Life and Power, to bruise the Head of the Serpent in Men, has been Inwardly and Spiritually felt in the Heart, working against, and subduing the Enemy there, where the Ser­pent is, and where he works most to the hurt and dis­advantage of Mankind. And therefore it was idly done of G. Keith to ask (in a Marginal note) Is not the Ser­p [...]nt or D [...]vil without Men, as well as within many Men? Since his being without is not so Destructive, or danger­ous to Man, as his being within: And therefore the Ope­ration of the Holy Seed within, to bruise his Head, to break his Strength and Power there, and to cast him out, is the more advantageous and necessary. And whereas G. Keith would infer from W. Penn's saying, This Seed must be Inward and Spiritual, that he universally ex­cludes any Outward thing, because he adds, since one out­ward thing cannot be the Proper Figure and Represen­tation [Page 96] of another. He should have considered, that though it cannot be so properly, yet it may be so im­properly, or in a less proper way of Speaking; which is not unusual in Scripture: And that therefore to say, one Outward thing cannot be the proper Figure, and Representation of another, is not universally exclusive of any other thing.

His charging W. Penn with a Sorites (an imperfect or confused Argument) in saying, Because the Seed is one, and that Seed Christ, and Christ God over all, blessed for ever, We do conclude, and that most truly, that Christ was, and is the Divine Word of Light and Life, that was in the beginning with God, and was and is God over all, blessed for ever; I say his quarrelling at this is Idle, and shews he did not understand the Matter. But the In­ference he makes is worse: For he says, Thus you see, he makes the promised Seed to be nothing, but an Inward Principle, God over all, &c. Why then, is God over all nothing but an Inward Principle, with G. Keith? But W. Penn did not so confound things: For though (with the Apostle, Gal. 3.16.) he said, The one Seed is Christ; And (with the same Apostle, Rom. 9.5.) Christ is over all, God blessed for ever: Yet he did not say, that Christ was God over all, as he was the Seed, nor that the Seed of God in Men, was God. So that G. Keith in his heat and haste, has overstruck himself, and lost his Blow. So also he shoots at random, when he says, But to say, Christ is only God, and not Man without us, as W. Penn's way of arguing imports, is most false Doctrine. For neither did W. Penn say so, nor doth his way of arguing import so. The plain import of all his arguments in that long Quotation given out of him (which G. Keith cavils at) is, that Christ, as Christ, was from the beginning, be­fore he took that outward Body of Flesh, in which he suffered at Ierusalem; which is so far from a denyal of his being Man as well as God, that it is a fair acknow­ledgment [Page 97] of it, inasmuch as he would not have been Christ, if he had not been Man, as well as God. As therefore he was Christ from the beginning, so was he also both God and Man, and that not only in his Peo­ple, but out of, or without them also. And if he was truly Man then, before he appeared in that outward Body, which was nailed to the Cross, to be sure he is not less truly Man now, since that outward Manhood became (as I may say) a Cloathing to that Divine and Heavenly Manhood, which he had before, and is glorifi­ed with it.

What he intimates of a pretended Contradiction be­tween W. Penn and I. Whitehead, is very Idle in it self, and wicked in him, and the worse, for that he urged it formerly in his Book called The true Copy, &c. And I answered then, in mine called Truth Defended, p. 131. (which he takes no notice of;) as I did also an­swer in that Book, much of what he hath now urged concerning Christ and his being the promised Seed, from p. 113. to p. 123. Where also I gave several Quo­tations out of G. Keith's Bôoks, shewing most plainly, that he hath maintained the very same things he now condemns in others, and yet will not condemn in himself, as particularly in his Book called The Way cast up, where, Sect. 8. p. 93. In answer to an Adversary's Charge, that we deny Jesus the Son of Mary, to be the alone true Christ. He first answers, ‘This is a false Accusation; We own no other Jesus Christ, but him, that was born of the Virgin Mary, who, as concerning the Flesh, is the Son of Mary, and the Son of David, and the Seed of Abraham. Then adds, p. 93. And yet he was the true Christ of God before he took Flesh, and before he was the Son of Mary, or David, or of Abraham: For his being Born of the Virgin Mary, made him not to be Christ, as if he had not been Christ before; But he was Christ before, even from the beginning, as (says he [...] I [Page 98] shall prove out of Scripture, &c. And having brought divers Scriptures and Arguments, from p. 93. to p. 99. to prove that Christ Jesus, as Man, was from the begin­ning, and had from the beginning an Heavenly Man­hood, and Spiritual Flesh and Blood; He there concludes thus, ‘This is the promised Seed, which God promised to our Parents after the Fall, and actually gave unto them, even the Seed of the Woman, that should bruise the Head of the Serpent. And therefore, tho' the outward coming of the Man Christ was deferred, according to his outward Birth in the Flesh, for many Ages; yet from the beginning this Heavenly man, the promised Seed, did inwardly come into the Hearts of those that believed in him, and bruised the Head of the Serpent, &c. Here G. Keith, not only as­serts, that this Heavenly Man Christ, was the promised Seed; and did from the beginning inwardly come into the Hearts of Believers, and bruised the Head of the Ser­pent; but also calls him, the Seed of the Woman; and says, God not only promised him, but actually gave him, even the Seed of the Woman (that should bruise the Serpents Head) unto our Parents after the Fall, many Ages before his outward Birth in the Flesh. Surely, he that writ this, had no cause to quarrel with W. Penn for saying, Christ's Body, strictly considered as such, was not the Seed of Promise. G. Keith had more need to have recon­ciled himself to himself (if he could) in these two op­posite Expressions of his, viz. [That God gave the promi­sed Seed, even the Seed of the Woman, actually to our Pa­rents after the Fall, many Ages before his outward Birth in the Flesh; Way cast up, p. 99.] And [That Christ did not become the Seed of the Woman, according to the Sense of Gen. 3. Vntil the fulness of time, that he was made of a Woman, True Copy of a Paper, p. 20.] And he should have done well, to have informed his Reader, how God did actually give unto our Parents after the Fall (so [Page 99] many Ages before Christ's outward Birth in the Flesh) the Seed he promised them, Gen. 3. Even the Seed of the Woman: And yet Christ, not be the Seed of the Woman, according to Gen. 3. until so many Ages after he was actually given, as the Seed of the Woman.

This is part of what I said to him in my former Book, called Truth Defended, p. 117, 118. which rather than An­swer, he chose to cut himself out new work at Turners-Hall. He pretends he did not Answer my Books in Print, because he had not time to write, nor outward Abi­lity to Print. I have shewed the Falshood of that pre­tence, in the fore part of this Book; yet let me now ask, If that had been true, why did he not then, at his Meeting at Turners-Hall, Answer my Books viva voce, which then lay at his door unanswered, and both Refute them, if he could, and acquit himself from those many Clinching Quotations I had therein h [...]mpered him with, out of his own Books, by explaining, defending, or Re­tracting them? This, I think, every considerate Person will judge had been more properly his Province, than wholly over-looking this, to spend his time in impeach­ing Others, by Renewing his old Baffled Charges, before he had cleared himself from being guilty of the same Errors (as he calls them) which he had charged others with. For if they whom he hath charged, were as bad as he endeavours to make them; yet he of all men is not fit to charge them, till he has acquitted himself from the Imputation he lies under of being guilty of the same things. This is so plain a Case, that it may be hoped upon his next Indiction of such a Mock Meeting at Tur­ners-Hall, or elsewhere, some of his Auditors (when they are together) will think fit to put him upon this just and necessary Work, and, I had like to have said, hold him to it, but that I consider he will be held to nothing. However, to furnish any such a little further, with mat­ter of that kind to invite him to, I will not think much [Page 100] to transcribe another Quotation or two of his, which I gave him in my former Book, p. 119, 120.

The first is taken out of his Appendix to his Book of Immediate Revelation, p. 256. where speaking of the spi­ritual Generation and Birth of Christ in us, he says, ‘Thus we become the Mother of Christ in a spiritual sense, or according to the Spirit, as the Virgin Mary was his Mother after the Flesh. And this Spiritual Mystery Christ himself did teach in the days of his Flesh, when he said, Whosoever shall do the Will of my Father which is in Heaven, the same is my Brother, and Sister, and Mother, Mat. 12.50. And thus (says G. Keith) Christ, according to his spiritual Birth in the Saints, is the Seed of the Woman; for that the Saints are the Woman that bring him forth after the Spirit, and are his Mo­ther;’ ‘as Mary brought him forth after the Flesh, and after the Spirit also; so that she was the Mother of Iesus in a double respect; for as she brought him forth in her Body, so she brought him forth in her Soul, other­wise he could not have been her Saviour, &c. Here G. Keith calls Christ the Seed of the Woman, according to his spiritual Birth in the Saints; and yet quarrels with W. Penn for saying, The Seed Christ must be inward and spiritual.

Again, In the Way cast up, p. 102. he says, ‘For indeed, seeing he [Christ] is called as really Man, before his ou [...]ward Birth in the 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 [Page 101] 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. [Page 102] 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 [Page 103] 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, a [...]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 [Page 104] 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 scandalized with those words, (unless he be altogether run back to the most rigid Presbyterians, in the strictest Notion of Satisfaction, rejected by the Church of England, whose Hands he seems most desirous now to kiss, perhaps that he may lick some Advantage there­from) if he would have seen (what was so obvious, that he must wink, to avoid seeing it) that those words relate to, and are expresly spoken of that rigid or extream Satis­faction which those Presbyterians (and some Baptists) affirm God required and exacted of his Son. For thus VV. Penn introduced those words which G. Keith cavils at, in Rea­son against Railing, p. 90. ‘I shall now, said he, be as good as my word, and that is, to produce an Argument or two against the common Doctrines of rigid Satisfa­ction and Justification, as they have been opposed by me in this short Discourse, and that out of my Book cal­led The Sandy Foundation shaken, &c.’ Then out of that Book, he produced first an Argument drawn from Mic. 7.18. p. 90. and in p. 91. from Mat. 6.12. another Argu­ment, in which are those words G. Keith takes offence at. What sort of Satisfaction W. Penn there opposed, ap­pears from that Book called The Sandy Foundation sha­ken, out of which he transcribed those words. Now in the Title Page of that Book, that which is undertaken to be Refuted, on that Head of Satisfaction, is, The impos­sibility of Gods pardoning Sinners, without a Plenary Sa­tisfaction. In the Epistle, p. 8. it is called God's Incapa­city to forgive, without the Fullest Satisfaction paid him by another. In the Book it self, p. 16. the Doctrine op­pugned [Page 105] is, That Man having transgressed the Righteous Law of God, and so exposed to the Penalty of Eternal Wrath, it is altogether impossible for God to remit or forgive without a Plenary Satisfaction; and that there was no other way by which God could obtain Satisfaction, or save Men, than by inflicting the Penalty of Infinite Wrath and Uengeance on Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, who for Sins past, present, and to come, hath wholly born and paid it to the offended infinite Justice of his Father. This shews plainly enough, what a sort of Satisfaction (or rather Notion of Satisfa­ction) W. Penn meant, which he said is totally excluded; namely, a plenary (or full) Satisfaction, by inflicting the penalty of Infinite Wrath and Vengeance on Jesus Christ, without which it is altogether impossible for God to for­give; and there was no other way by which God could ob­tain Satisfaction. Which too rigid Notion of Satisfaction G. Keith himself, whilst he stood in The way to the City of God, was as much against as W. Penn: For in his Book that bears that Title, p. 140. he saith, ‘That he (Christ) did bear the wrath of God, either in that manner or measure which the Damned in Hell do, or we should have done, had not the Lord recovered us, I altogether deny; for he could and did satisfie the Father well and accept­ably, without bearing it in that way.

But though the Word Satisfaction (with respect to Christ) be not a Scripture-term, nor was used by W. Penn's Opponents, in a Scripture-sense: Yet that W. Penn did not deny the Thing Satisfaction (rightly understood) appears in the same Book wherein he treated of it, Sandy Foundation shaken, p. 32. where he says, ‘I can boldly chal­lenge any Person to give me one Scripture-phrase which does approach the Doctrine of Satisfaction, (much less the Name) considering to what degree it is stretched; not that we do deny, but really confess, that Jesus Christ, in Life, Doctrine and Death, fulfilled his Fathers Will, and offered up a most satisfactory Sacrifice.’

[Page 106]But G. Keith himself, to his own Condemnation and Shame has justified W. Penn (yea and G. Whitehead too) in that for which he now condemns them. For in his Postscript to the Nature of Christianity, p. 63. he tells Gordon (who had charged him with something of this tendency) ‘Both G. Whitehead and I expresly affirmed, that Christ was a Sacrifice most acceptable and satis­factory; so said G. Whitehead, yea and W. Penn in his Book, said as much, whom thou falsly hast accused) and a Ransom, a Propitiation and Offering for the Sins of the whole World; but not that Men should be justified while in their Sins, but in having forsaken them.’ G. Keith observes, that W. Penn, in the Book he Quoted, gives nine Arguments to prove that the Notion of Christ's Satisfaction for Sin brings with it nine irrational Consequen­ces and Irreligious: But he says they are so weak and in­significant, that it were but loss of time to mention them here, or answer them. From whence I observe, that those Ar­guments were not against Christ's Satisfaction, but the Notion of it, that is, the Notion which his Opponents (both Presbyterians and some Baptists) had of it, which I have shew'd was, A Plenary, or Full, Satisfaction, by inflicting the Penalty of i [...]finite Wrath and Vengeance on Jesus Christ, without which, they held it was alto­gether impossible for God to remit or forgive; and the nine Arguments he mentions (how weak so ever he may repute them) are levelled, he knows against that Notion; which he himself seems not yet to be fully come up to: For he says, Satisfaction is not the strict So­lution (that is, Payment) of a Debt in all respects and circumstances; yet their Notion makes it a strict solution, and they say Christ hath wholly Born and Paid it. And G. Whitehead in his Book, called, The Divinity of Christ, &c. p. 45. (of the first Part) pressing T. Vincent to prove by Scripture, that Christ did suffer under infinite Wrath, saith, ‘He should have produced his plain Scrip­ture; [Page 107] for Scripture we own, and Christ's Satisfaction as rightly Stated, and what a most acceptable Sacrifice he was to the Father for all: Yea, his Suffering as Man, or in the Flesh, without the Gates at Ierusalem, was all acceptable to God; his Soul also was made an Offer­ing for Sin, &c. Yet so unjust is G. Keith that though he knows it was that false Notion of Satisfaction which W. Penn opposed, yet he here Charges G. VVhitehead and VV. Penn (as also he did in his Gross Error, p. 20.) with having thrust out of Doors by their false Logick, Christ's Satisfaction without us; and then, that they own that Christ in us offereth up himself a Sacrifice, to appease the VVrath of God. For which he cites, VV. Penn's Re­joynder, p. 284. and G. VVhitehead's Light and Life, p. 44. in both which Places, the Words he mentions are a Passage taken out of a Book, called, a New Catechism, written by VV. Smith Deceased, objected against by Burnet and Faldo, and explained and defended by G. VVhitehead and VV. Penn, But neither of them admits, that those Words of VV. Smith have any tendency to make void the Sufferings or Sacrifice of Christ without. But it appears, that the Words were in Answer to a Question, about Christs being a Mediator within, me­diating with God, on behalf of any, of his People, that commit evil, and so appeasing the Wrath of God, by being a Propitiation for them, according to 1 Iohn 2.1, 2. This, one would have thought, might have gone down with G. Keith, it being so agreeable to his own Doctrine. For in his VVay cast up (a Book not yet re­tracted) p. 157. he said, ‘And thus Christ doth declare himself to be the Mediator betwixt God and Man, as he is in them, Thou in me and I in them; here Christ is the Middle-man or Mediator, as being in the Saints: Which Confutes the gross and most comfortless Doctrine of the Presbyterians and others, who affirm that Christ as Mediator is only without us, in Heaven, and is not [Page 108] Mediator in us, whereas he himself in this place hath declared the contrary.’ And lest G: Keith should a­gain Cavil at the Words [offereth up himself, &c.] I will remind him, that he himself (in his Additional Postscript to G. VVhitehead's Book, called, The Nature of Christianity, p. 66.) answered his Opponent Gordon thus, ‘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 VVork is vain; for Christ Iesus is the one Offer­ing still; and though he offered up his Body outwardly but once upon the Cross, yet he remains still an Offering for us, within us: For he is a Priest for ever, and eve­ry Priest hath somewhat to offer; and he is both the Of­fering and the Priest, who liveth for ever to make In­tercession for us.’ This is too good Doctrine still in G. Keith to be retracted by him (for though he has menti­oned this very Postscript of his in his Narrative, yet [...]e has not retracted any thing in it) though he can condemn the same in others; unjust Man as he is! Before I leave this place, let me put G. Keith in Mind (seeing he seem to have forgot it) of a necessary Caution he gave in his VVay to the City of God, p. 127. thus, ‘There­fore we are not too nicely to distinguish betwixt the Influ­ences of his inward and outward Coming and the Ef­fects thereof, but rather to take them conjunctly, as in a perfect Conjunction, having a perfect Influence up­on all Mankind, for their Reconciliation and Renova­tion unto God, as obtaining that Measure of Light and Grace from God unto all and every one, whereby it is possible for them in a Day to be saved.’ And a­gain, p. 139. thus, ‘But as I said above, so I do again repeat it, that it may have the more weight, viz. that we are not too nicely to make a difference betwixt the In­fluence and Effects of his Outward and Inward Suffer­ings, but to understand them in a perfect Conjunction, [Page 109] &c.’ And so the People called Quakers do, say I.

Having had a fling at VV. Penn, he says, Let me come to G. Whitehead again. And that he might stir up the People to Lightness, he tells them, You shall have here a rare Dish of Divinity; and then to provide himself some Defence or Excuse, after he had done it, he adds, Not that I would provoke any to Lightness. What Hypo­crisie is this? Then to garnish his rare Dish, he says, I have read many Books in my Time, but I never read such a Book (except the Ranters) in my Life; Popery is Ortho­doxy to it; no Popish Priest will argue as he has done. (See how he Banters him, Nar. p. 22.) The Book he quotes is called, The Light and Life of Christ within, &c. p. 8. where he says G. VVhitehead blames VV. Burnet for say­ing, The Blood shed upon the Cross sprinkles the Conscience, Sanctifies, Iustifies, Redeems us. And in p. 18. of his Gross Error, where he carps at the same Passage, and gives the Quotation more at large, but not truly) he says, Note, Here it is plain that G. Whitehead doth al­together deny Iustification by that outward Blood, or that it was the meritorious Cause of Salvation. But this is a ma­nifest Falshood, and Abuse put upon G. VV. For he did neither deny the outward Blood to be the meritorious Cause of Salvation, Nor did he there undertake to discuss, blame, or censure any of Burnet's Doctrines or Assertions. That was to be done, and (with respect to some of them) was done, in the after part of the Book, to which that former Part was but as an Intro­duction; wherein Burnet's Contradictions were collected and exposed; and therefore immediately after those Words of Burnets, p. 7. partly cited by G. Keith, viz. The Blood shed upon the Cross, the material Blood, merito­rious to Salvation, sprinkles the Consciences, Sanctifies, Iu­stifies, Redeems us, &c. G. VVhitehead added thus, But in Contradiction, p. 40. That Blood shed is not in being (says Burnet) but he compares it to a price lost. Upon [Page 110] which G. VVhitehead made this Observation, p. 8. Ob­serve, said he, here a twofold stress is laid upon that Blood. 1. Merit to Salvation; 2. VVork to Sanctification; and so he hath set it up above God: For God could not save, he saith, and yet it is not in being (this G. Keith, in re­citing G. VVhitehead's Words, left out) gross Absur­dity! VVhereas Sanctification being a real VVork inward, that is certainly in being which Effects it. This plainly shews, that that which G. Whitehead blamed his Oppo­nent for was his Self-contradiction, in saying that Blood shed, Sprinkles, Sanctifies, Justifies, Redeems (which are all of the present Time) and yet withal saying, that Blood shed is not in being. This part G. Keith (as I no­ted) concealed; and then falls upon G. Whitehead (as he had done before, Gross Error, p. 22.) for wronging Burnet, in charging him with having said, God could not save. And he makes as if he would help Burnet out, but he quickly pulls in his Horns, saying, Nar. p. 25. But I wholly wave that Dispute; I think it is above Mans capacity, Whether antecedently to God's pur­pose, he could have saved us without the Death of his own dear Son. Truly I doubted nothing had been above G. Keith's Presumption, because I have scarce seen him stick at any thing before, how much soever above his Capa­city. But though he is willing to wave that Dispute, yet to help off the Baptist, and fall in with other Op­posers, he says, But God having so ordained it, consequen­tially to his purpose, it (viz. That God could not save) may be as safely and truly said, as when the Scripture saith, God cannot lye. Is it any Reflection, says he, to say, God cannot lye, and that he cannot contradict his Purpose? But I would know of him, whether to contradict (or to al [...]er) ones Purpose, be the same thing, as to Lye? But it is probable G. Keith might borrow this Notion from Io. Owen, who in his Book against the Quakers, called A Declaration, &c. has a touch of this kind, if I mi­stake not, in p. 178.

[Page 111] G. Keith gives another Proof against G. Whitehead, out of the same Book, called, Light and Life, p. 38. and having set down the Baptists 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 [Page 112] 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 [Page 113] 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 [...]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. [Page 114] 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 then told him there, p. 111. ‘By this he may see how far he is degenerated, and apostatized from his former Principles: Then he was not for ascending, de­scending, or sending to Jerusalem, to have Tydings of Christ brought from thence; because he then witnessed him, Christ, the Word of God, nigh him, even in his Heart: But now, being gone from the Word in his Heart, and turned against it, he is (it seems) for having Men directed to the Type, for the Antitype, to the outward Temple, or to Ierusalem, for Jesu [...] Christ, and his Blood.’ Thus far in my former; of which he takes no more notice, than if he had winked with both Eyes, and never seen it.

His Cavil in p. 26. That they (the Quakers) in their Preachments (a Word he uses in contempt and scorn, as other Prophane People do) have used to stop at the eighth [Page 115] verse of Rom. 10. and go no farther; is both idle and false: For they have not used to stop there, but have gone fur­ther, and from ver. 9th. have opened and shewed what that Mouth Confession and Heart-belief there spoken of, should be, which is necessary and effectual to Salvation, which in the 10. ver. is called, a Believing unto Righteous­ness, the same that in the 6th ver. is called, The Righteousness of Faith, which directs, not to say who shall ascend, or descend, to bring Christ down, or up; but directs to the Word that is nigh thee, in thy Mouth, and in thy Heart (which, says the Apostle, Is the VVord of Faith which we preach) that if thou shalt confess with thy Mouth (from this Word of Faith that is nigh thee, even in thy Mouth) the Lord Iesus, and shalt believe in thine Heart (from and by this Word of Faith that is nigh thee, even in thine Heart) that God hath raised him from the Dead, thou shalt be Saved; though thou go not to the Type (the material Temple) for the Antitype, nor look to Ierusalem (the place where Christ suffered, whither the Baptist and G. Keith would send thee.) to find him now there: For as it was said by the Angel a [...] the Sepulchre, after his Resurrection, Surrexit, non est hic, He is risen, He is not here, Mark 16.6. much more may it be said, since his Ascension, (with respect to those outward places where he was Crucified and Buried) Ascendit, non est hic, He is ascended, He is not here. Now as the Apostle, by disswading Believers from saying, who shall ascend or descend, to bring Christ down or up, and directing them to him, as the Word nigh in the Mouth and Heart, did not reject nor under­value the Death of Christ at Ierusalem, or the Vertue of his Blood shed there: So neither did G. Whitehead in blaming the Baptist for directing People now to go thither or look thither for it, as if it were now to be found there. This, in effect, I told G. Keith before, in Truth Defended, p. 109. Where I said, ‘It was no [Page 116] Error in the Apostle Paul to direct (according to the Righteousness of Faith) to the Word nigh, in the Mouth, and in the Heart. Though he knew well e­nough, that Christ had suffered at Ierusalem, and that but a little before; yet he did not direct Men to the outward Temple, or to Ierusalem (though both then standing) to find Christ, or his Blood there: For he knew, that Christ was not then to be found outward­ly, either at the outward Temple, or at Ierusalem; but they that came to the Word nigh in the Mouth, and in the Heart, would both find Christ, and feel the Virtue of his blood (even of that Blood which he offered upon the Cross) nearer home. So neither is it any Error in G. VVhitehead to say, The Quakers see no need to direct Men to the Type for the Antitype, viz. neither to the outward Temple, nor to Ierusa­lem, either for Jesus Christ, or his Blood: Nor in so saying doth he deny, or disesteem Jesus Christ, or his Blood (for he directs, with the Apostle, where Men may both find Jesus Christ, and may feel the Virtue of his Blood;) but he rejects the Notion of his Oppo­nent, who (it seems) would have Men directed to the Type for the Antitype.’ G. VVhite [...]ead therefore has not falsified the Scriptures, and made them to say what they say not, as G. Keith falsly Charges him. But G. Keith hath falsly accused G. Whitehead, and grosly perverted both his Meaning and his Words, and that not only here, but in his Gross Error, p. 15. also.

The next thing h [...] offers is Solomon Eccles's Letter, a Copy of which he gives in p. 28. But before he read it, he said, p. 27. Next, you shall hear Solomon Eccles's Letter, That the Blood of Christ is no more than the Blood of another Saint. This he did to prepossess his Auditors with an ill Opinion of it, before they heard it; and he also wrong'd S. Eccles in those Words: For he deli­vers it as S. Eccles's, That the Blood of Christ, (in­definitely, [Page 117] and without any Distinction) is no more than the Blood of another Saint. Whereas it is evident by the Letter it self (as he has given it) that S. Eccles did distinguish between the Blood of Christ, which was offered up in the Eternal Spirit, Heb. 9.14. and the Blood that was forced out of him by the Souldier, after he was Dead. The Blood that was offered up by Christ him­self in the Eternal Spirit, Heb. 9.14. he declares he did very highly esteem of, even to be more Excellent, and Living, and Holy, and Precious, than is able to be ut­tered by the Tongues of Men and Angels. But that Blood which he said was no more than the Blood of an other Saint, was the Blood that was forced out of him by the Souldier after he was Dead. So that, that upon which S. Eccles did ground the difference he put be­tween the Blood of Christ in one respect, and in ano­ther, was, that in the one, it was a voluntary offering of Christ himself, in and by the Eternal Spirit, before his Death: In the other, it was the forcible Act of a Soul­dier, after he was Dead, and the Sacrifice compleat­ed. This G. Keith (had he been fair, even as an Ad­versary) should have observed to his Auditors, how much so ever he had disliked S. Eccles's Expression; which I know no Quaker did ever approve, much less undertook to Iustifie, or Defend; I am sure I did not, nor G. VVhitehead neither, in his Answer to Burnet, out of which G. Keith Charges him with it: For he therein (as I noted in my former) both disclaimed those VVords, by saying, I do not make S. Eccles's Ex­pressions therein an Article of our Faith: and also for himself declared, that he did own the Blood shed to be more than the Blood of another Saint, Light and Life, p. 59. And I called those Words of S. Eccles's an unjustifiable Expression, Truth Defended, p. 112. Therefore G. Keith is unjust in reflecting upon us as he does in p. 30. for though he gave the Copy of the Letter in p. 28. yet [Page 118] (for what Reason, I know not, whether to perplex the Cause, or that he himself was in Confusion and Disorder when he delivered it) he interweaves another Matter, which takes up wholly his 29th Page, and then in p. 30. returns to the Letter, saying, Now as to the Letter, we go on, &c. But for what end soever he made that Irre­gular Transition from one thing to another, though I might justly step over what he has interposed, and fol­low the Thread of his Discourse upon the Letter; yet that it may appear how willing I am to answer all his Cavils, I will suspend what is further to be said to his Ex­ceptions about the Letter, and go back with him to p. 29.

There he sets down Burnet's Words, and as a Sign he did not well know what he did, he sets them down twice over. ‘They were these, All things under the Law, in the Type, was purged with Blood, and this Blood was material Blood, and not Mystical; and that Blood that Christ shed, in order to the effecting the Salvation of Man, must need be Visible and Material Blood. To this G. Whitehead's Answer, was, 'Do but mark here what a sad Cons [...]quence he has drawn; as if one should Reason, that because the Type was Material, Visible, and not Mystical; therefore the An­titype or Substance must needs be Material, and not Mystical. By this all Mysteries, or Divine Things, are excluded from being either Spiritual, Antitype, or Substance; whereas it was the heavenly things themselves that are in Christ, in which consists the Substance and End of Types and Shadows. But to say, that material Blood was a Type of that which was material; this is to give the Substance no prehe­minence above the Type (especially if neither of them be Mystical, nor in being (which was the Baptist's Opinion) or like as if one should say, one Type was 'a Type of another; there G. Keith makes a full stop, leaving out about half a score Lines of G. Whitehead's [Page 119] Answer, without discovering that he did do so.’ ‘I will put them in between two Crochets, that the Reader may observe which they were, thus, As to say, because Circumcision, which was a Type, was material or out­ward, therefore the Circumcision of the Spirit, which is the Antitype of it, must needs be outward too, and not Mystical (which would be sad Doctrine:) And thus he might as well Reason, touching all other Types and Shadows under the Law, and the heavenly or good things to come, prefigured or shadowed by them. That because the Priests under the Law (at the outward Tabernacle and Temple) were Ministers of outward, or temporal Things, carnal Ordinances, Shadows, &c. Therefore those good things to come, those heavenly things, which Christ was said to be the High-Priest of, must needs be Temporal, and not My­stical; which were absur'd to assert;] Whereas both the heavenly and more perfect Tabernacle and Altar, with the heavenly Things, are all a Mystery, and Spi­ritual; the Offering and Living Sacrifices are Spiritu­al; the Passover Spiritual, the Seed Spiritual; the Bread, the Fruit of the Vine, the Oyl, the Flesh and the Blood, (which give Life to the Soul) yea, the Water and Blood (which washeth and sprinkleth the Conscience) are all Spiritual and Mysterious, as the New Cove­nant it self is, which they belong to, and these things known in; and this is the new and living Way which Christ set open, through the Vail of his Flesh, Heb. 10. Let them receive this who can, p. 59, 60.’ I would not have transcribed this whole Answer, (especially having given it at full length before in my former Book) but that I observed G. Keith had slily dropt a considerable part of it, and I thought he might probably take advan­tage against me, if I should have omitted any of the rest. From the whole it appears, that G. Whitehead did not so much apply himself in his Answer to overthrow his [Page 120] Opponent's Argument in that one Particular, as to shew the general absurdity and mischief of the Consequence of that Argument, which reached alike from the other Types in the Old Covenant, to the other Antitypes in the New Covenant. This G. Keith observed, and to help the Baptist off, he says, VV. Burnet does not express it universally, but in this particular Case: And G. White­head extends it to an universal. He says right in the first part, VV. Burnet does not express it universally; but the Consequence of his Argument has such an uni­versal extent: Which G. VVhitehead observing, attackt him there; not as G. Keith represents it (who has the Art of Sophisticating) as if all the Types of the Old Testament signified nothing internally and spiritually, (upon which he says, But W. Burnet said no such thing) But as if all the Antitypes in the New Testament must be altogether as external and void of Spiritual Mystery, as their respective Types in the Old Testament were; which the Consequence of VV. Burnet's Argument says.

G. Keith Notes that, by G. VVhitehead's Argument, as the New Covenant is spiritual and inward, and not outward, so the Blood of the New Covenant is Inward, and not outward, so the Passover is inward, which is Christ the Mediator, and not outward. Now take no­tice, that the Words [and not outward] in all these three places, are not G. Whitehead's, nor to be found in his Answer, but are added by G. Keith of his own Head. And from this Addition of his, he makes this Inference, This is a plain denyal of the Man Christ without us, to be our Mediator, our Passover, Offering, or his Flesh and Blood without us to be concerned in our Salvation, o­therwise than as the Type. Now I do not think this pro­ceeds either from his Ignorance, or Oversight; but from his Injustice and Malice. For he knows, that when we speak of Christ, we do not put asunder what God hath [Page 121] joyned together, but we take his Divinity and Manhood conjointly and united, always acknowledging him to be without us, as well as within us. And as little Iustice as G. Keith shews to us, I have so much Charity for G. Keith, as to think, that when, in his VVay cast up, p. 157. he said, ‘Thus Christ doth declare himself to be the Mediator betwixt God and Man, as he is in them; he did not intend a plain denyal of the Man Christ without to be our Mediator.’ But he knows (if he would, or by this Time could, be Iust) that the great Reason of our so much asserting Christ's Inward Ap­pearance and spiritual Manifestation as a Mediator, San­ctifier, Justifier and Saviour within, has been (as to assert the Truth, so) to counterpoise (if I may so speak) the contrary Doctrine and Assertion of those who deny him to be, with respect to these Offices, at all within, and shut him wholly out, making the Work of Mediation, Sanctification, Justification and Salvation, to be only and altogether outward; whereas we acknow­ledge to the utmost whatever Christ hath done, or doth, without us, in order to our Salvation; yet cannot ex­clude the inward Work. And I am perswaded, this Consideration which I have now mentioned, had some impression on G. Keith's Mind, when he writ those Words I last cited of his, out of his VVay cast up, p. 157. which made him (after he had repeated, from those Words of Christ, Thou in me, and I in them, here Christ is the Middle-man, or Mediator, as being in the Saints) add these Words, viz. ‘Which confutes the gross and most comfortless Doctrine of the Pres­byterians and others, who affirm that Christ, as Medi­ator, is only without us, in Heaven, and is not Mediator in us, whereas he himself in this Place hath declared the contrary.’

Let us go on to his Clinch: For he says, Now here I clinch the Matter; and he attempts it thus. G. VVhite­head [Page 122] (says he) says, But to say material Blood was a Type of that which was material, this is to give the Sub­stance no preheminence above the Type (especially, if neither of them be Mystical, nor in being) or as if one should say, one Type was a Type of another, (so also, Gross Error, p. 18.) Well, this explains it self, by those Words in the Parenthesis, (especially, if neither of them be My­stical;) For those Words shew that he no otherwise opposes the Antitype's being Material, than his Ad­versaries Argument excludes it from being Mystical, or Spiritual. This also appears to be his Sence, from the very Entrance of his Answer, where he said, ‘Do but mark here what a sad Consequence he has drawn; as if one should Reason, that because the Type was Material, Visible, and not Mystical (which was Bur­net's Term) therefore the Antitype, or Substance, must needs be Material, and not Mystical: By this all Mysteries or Divine things are excluded from being either Spiritual, Antitype, or Substance:’ And from hence it was that G. VVhitehead said, This is to give the Substance no preheminence above the Type, when the Substance or Antitype is denied to be Mystical, and made only Material, because the Type thereof was only Ma­terial, and not Mystical. As to the other part of G. VVhitehead's Words, which G. Keith takes into his Clinch, viz. ‘[Or like as if one should say, one Type was a Type of another:]’ It appears from the Place in G. VVhitehead's Book, that he spake it of those Temporal and Carnal Ordinances, which he there mentions, and particularly of Circumcision, which in the very next Words he joyns to those former, thus, ‘As to say, be­cause Circumcision, which was a Type, was material or outward, therefore the Circumcision of the Spirit, which is the Antitype of it, must needs be outward too, and not Mystical. Wherein perhaps he might give a close Nip to those who hold Circumcision to have been a Type [Page 123] of VVater Baptism, and VVater Baptism to be a Type of the Spiritual Baptism; thereby making one Type a Type of another.

But I find G. Keith cannot clinch his Matter, until he has made an Argument for G. Whitehead, therefore he says, Now the Argument lies here, If the Sacrifices under the Law were Types of Christ's Blood, then that Blood must not be outward Blood, but inward. Nay, nay; G. White­head said not so. He did not say it must not be outward, but it must not be only outward: It must not be so out­ward, as to destroy its being Inward. It is both Inward and outward, and hath always been so believed and own­ed by the Quakers in general, and G. Whitehead in par­ticular. Whereas therefore G. Keith says, This is a false Consequence of G. Whitehead, and sheweth that he denie [...] Remission of Sin, and Iustification by the Blood of Chris [...] outwardly shed; I say, That false Consequence is G. Keith's, and shews that he hath renounced honesty and shame. For G. Whitehead doth not deny, but owns Re­mission of Sin, and Justification so far, by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed; but not that Justification (in the right sense of the Word, as it imports a being made Iust or Righteous) is wrought only by the shedding of the Blood outwardly, without feeling the living Vertue of the Blood inwardly, purging the Conscience from dead Works, to serve the living God. Thus G. Keith's Matter is left unclinched. Now let us return to what he says upon S. Eccles's Letter, in p. 30. where he begins thus:

Now as to the Letter, says he, we go on to what T. Ell­wood says. He (says G. Keith) is so unfair, he will have it, that G. Whitehead owns, that the material Blood of Christ is that by which we are justified. Of that I have newly spoken, and shewed how far, and in what Sence, that is, and ought to be owned. But alas! Does he call me unfair for this? I rather thought he would have [Page 124] called, at least have accounted, me fair in that. Would he therefore rather have G. Whitehead not own, than own it, only that he might have a spiteful blow at him? What an evil Mind is that! Yet in that evil Mind, he goes on thus; But here, says he, is the Trick, G. White­head makes a Typical Offering of Christ, and an Antitypi­cal; the Typical was the Offering of Christ at Jerusalem, the Antitypical is the Offering of Christ within. This is a Trick indeed, an horrible false Trick of G. Keith's own de­vising. So again, a little below, he says, If Christ's Blood outwardly shed was a Type, as G. Whitehead affirms it was. (Where does G. Whitehead affirm so? I affirm I never saw that Affirmation yet; but since he affirms that G. Whitehead has so affirmed, I put him to pro­duce that Affirmation.) See here then, says he, their Answer; It was queried, whether they owned that [...] are by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed, justified: Or that the Blood that was outwardly shed, did belong to the Sacri­fice? G. Whitehead has since of late answered, Yea: Here, says he, they have sought to blind all the VVorld; Christ, adds he, as he outwardly suffered, was a Sacri­fice, but a Typical Sacrifice. Therefore, says he, the next Question to be put, must be, VVhether he was the Antitypi­cal Sacrifice? Ay, so let it: And the Answer to it shall be, Yea, He was the Antitypical Sacrifice, of which the le­gal Sacrifices were a Type; but that he was ever called a Typical Sacrifice, I never heard nor saw from any Qua­ker's Mouth or Pen. Such foul Falshoods, and gross Slanders as these, neither deserve nor need any other Refutation than a bare denyal.

He is highly offended with G. Whitehead, about S. Ec­cles's Letter: He would have had him blamed, and cen­sured it severely and sharply, as blasphemous. If G. White­head had been as hot-headed as G. Keith, perhaps he might: But Blasphemy is an high Charge, and they that under­stand it aright, are not so forward as G. Keith (it seems) [Page 125] would be, to brand Persons with it, for every unsound Ex­pression. G. Keith is too hot and husty to see aright. He can find nothing at all in G. Whitehead's Answer to blame or censure the Letter: Yet in p. 31. his Narrative tells us, A Quaker did observe to him, That G. Whitehead did find fault with the Letter: G. VVhitehead's saying, He did not make S. Eccles's Expression an Article of our Faith, (which is as much as to say, I don't believe what he says in that matter, or am one with him in it) is not a disowning, with G. Keith. But if he reasons well, when he says, p. 31. He that doth not testifie against a thing, when he has just occasion for it, justifies it: May I not, with as good rea­son, say, He that doth not justifie a thing, when he is put upon it, disowns it. There is an implicit, as well as an explicit owning or disowning of a thing. But G. Keith is in and out. In one place he says, He can find nothing of blame or censure at all: A few lines lower he says, But I find not that he censur­ed it all. It did not all deserve censure. Next (says G. Keith) G.W. tells you in what sence he owns it, (understands by it not the Letter, but the Blood shed) viz. That Blood had a pe­culiar signification; I told him (says G. Keith) so had the Blood of Beasts a peculiar signification, for their Blood signified Remission of Sin, but was no satisfactory Offering for sin. But the signification which that Blood had, did peculiarly ex­cel that of the Blood of Beasts: For the Blood shed was a satisfactory offering for sin, and did obtain Remission of Sin for all those that truly believe in, and faithfully follow the Lord Jesus Christ. But G. Keith did not fairly by G. Whitehead, in saying, He tells you in what sense he owns it, viz. That Blood had a peculiar signification; and stops there, as if that were all G. Whitehead had said. For G. Whitehead went on, and shewed wherein he own­ed that Blood shed to be more than that of another Saint, in many particulars of great weight.

He confesses that I say, G VVhitehead does own, That the Blood of Christ is more than the Blood of another [Page 126] Saint; But what Blood, says G. Keith? The Blood of Christ within, says he, and then says, There's the Trick. He is full of his Tricks; and it were well that he had not more Tricks than are good: But such Tricks as these he never learnt among the Quakers. Neither will his putting these Tricks upon us, hurt us, so much as himself: For the Just God, who knows our Innocency, and his Envy, will clear us, and give him, unless he unfeignedly Re­pent, the Reward due to him for his wicked and unjust Ac­cusations. In the mean time, he himself shall Convict himself of Falshood in this foul Charge. Here he makes me to mean by the Blood of Christ, which G. VVhite­head said he owns is more than the Blood of another Saint, the Blood of Christ within. Yet in the same page, (p. 30.) had said before, He (T. Ellwood) is so un­fair, he will have it, that G. VVhitehead own [...], that the material Blood of Christ is that by which we are justified. How hangs this together, That I would have the Blood which G. Whitehead then treated of, and owned, to be the Material Blood of Christ: And yet at the same time I would have the same Blood to be (not the Material Blood, but) the Blood of Christ within? Besides, G. Whitehead spake of that Blood mentioned in the Letter, which S. Eccles said was forced out by the Sol­dier, and expresly said, he owned the Blood shed was more than the Blood of another Saint. And will G. Keith call that the Blood of Christ within? Do these things square? Does not this manifest the Trick to be G. Keith's? Yet upon this Trick of his, he cries out, Is not this enough to Cheat all the World? Have not I more cause to say, Are not such false Trick as these enough to belie, abuse, defame, slander all the World? What Man can be secure from such a Tricker as G. Keith is! He goes on with his Trick further, They have, says he, a double meaning, as Arius had. They say they own the Blood of Christ, and every other thing said of him according to the [Page 127] Scripture; so, (adds he) said the Arians and Macedoni­ans, when at other times they discovered their meaning to be quite contrary to Scripture. Is not this Man past shame? He says we have a double meaning, as Arius had. He must say this either from Supposition, or Knowledge. If from Supposition, what can be more horribly wicked, than to brand a People, or Persons with so great a Blemish, upon Supposition only? If he will pretend to know, that we have a double meaning, he must pretend to have that Knowledge either from our Books, or our Mouths. From our Books he can know it no more than another Man, they being publick and common to all; neither has he proved, nor can he prove it from our Books. If he will pretend to have had it from any of our Mouths, let him name the Person; I provoke him to it. He says in his Solemn Appeal, p. 7. ‘He thinks he should know, and doth know, these called Quakers, and their Prin­ciples, far better than Cotton Mather (his then Oppo­nent) 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, both in Europe and America. Now if we had a double meaning, as he says we have, so as to say one thing, and mean another; he who has had (as he pretends) so close and intimate a Conversation with us, for so many Years, must needs in that time have observed it, discovered it, known it, been privy to it, and consequently be able to make a plain, demonstra­tive, evidential Discovery and Proof thereof; which I again provoke him to. Had he that Trick when he was a­mong us? He complains, (in his Book called, The Christian Faith, &c. printed but in 1692. p. 3.) of Christian Lodowick (such another Apostate as himself) that ‘Whereas divers of us (says he) declared sincere­ly before many People their sincere Faith, as concern­ing [Page 128] the Lord Iesus Christ of Nazareth, and what the holy Scriptures testifie of him, yet he did continue to accuse them still, as denying the true Christ, alledging, They had another sense than the Scripture-words did bear: Appealing to their Consciences, whether it was not so: Thus making himself Judge (says G. Keith,) over our secret thoughts, as having a secret Sense in our thoughts of Scripture words, contrary to the true Sense of them, though we have not given him, or any other, occasion to judge so rashly and uncharitably of us; and our Consciences bear us witness, in the sight of God, that we do sincerely believe and think as we speak: Thus G. Keith but four years ago, even after he had begun his quarrelling in Pensilvania; yet the very same thing he then blamed C. Lodowick for doing towards him, he now does himself towards us: Would one not think he had 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 [Page 129] 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 [Page 130] 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 [Page 131] 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 Man, from the Seed of Mary, but did par­take of a Nature and Image, much more excellent, than that of Man, in its greatest Glory, from God and his Seed, who did really sow a most Divine and Heavenly Seed in the Virgin's Womb, which as it supplied the Males Seed, so it had much more in it, and brought forth a Birth, which as it had the true and whole Na­ture [Page 132] of Man, so I say, it had a perfection above it, and that not only in accidental Qualities (as men will readi­ly confess) but even in Substance and Essence. But if he had forgotten this, yet he might have remembred, and ought to have considered, that Christ having offered up himself through the Eternal Spirit to God, the Blood that was outwardly shed, was included in that offering, as part thereof; and will he not admit that Blood, after it was offered up to God through the Eternal Spirit, to be called Spiritual?

In p. 32. he tells his Auditors, You have had an ac­count of them as to Iustification (and a false account too, say I;) Now, says he, it is worth your while to see how these [pretended] infallible Men, contradict one another. What more frothy Flout could the most prophane Scoffer at In­fallibility have used? Is not this strange Language from one, that in the same Breath (as it were, see p. 31.) said, I am a Quaker still? Truly if he were, I should think the worse of Quakerism (as he calls it) for his sake. The Contradiction he pretends to find, or rather make, is between W. Penn, and G. Whitehead both, in answer to Danson. ‘He gives W. Penn's words out of Reason a­gainst Railing, p. 82. thus, Rewardableness is a work without which God will not bestow his Favour, and yet not the Meritorious Cause, for that there is no Pro­portion betwixt the work that is Fini [...]e and Temporary, and the Reward which is Infinite and Eternal, &c.’ G. Whitehead's words he gives out of a little Book called The Voice of VVisdome, p. 36. thus, The Righteousness which God effects in us, is not Finite, but Infinite, for Christ is God's Righteousness, and Christ is formed in us, Gal. 4.19. and so that Righteousness which God works in us by his Spirit, is of the same kind and nature with that which worketh it, for the Saints are made Par­takers of the Divine Nature, 2 Pet. 1.4.’ G. Keith should have observed, first that these words of G. [Page 133] Whitehead's (for he approves and highly commends VV: Penn in this place: But his Hosannah has commonly a Crucify at the Tail of it) were a Deduction or Inference from T. Danson's Affirmation, who had laid down, that the Righteousness whereof Christ is the Subject, and that whereof he is the Efficient, are of one Species or kind. From which G. Whitehead makes his Inference thus, Then say I, the Righteousness which God effects in us, is not Finite, but Infinite: For Christ is God's Righteousness, and Christ is formed in us, 2. Which takes away the Con­tradiction wholly, W. Penn, and G. Whitehead do not speak of one and the same thing. W. Penn speaks of the works which we perform: G. VVhitehead speaks of Christ, God's Righteousness, formed in us. So the pre­tended Contradiction being removed, G. Keith's envious notes thereupon fall with it, which only shew his cap­tious nature and cavilling Spirit. ‘He should have called to mind, that in his Serious Appeal, p. 24. he told Cot. Mather, That the nature of a Contradiction is difficult many times to understand, even in natural things, so that it is reckoned the Subtillest part of Logick or Me­taphysicks, to understand throughly what are always Contradictions, and what not; And therefore much more hard it is, to undertand in Spiritual things, that contain many seeming Contradictions.’ But this, now I think on't, was to help himself off, when C. Mather charged him with Contradicting himself.

In p. 33. he says, Now I would hasten to a Conclusion. And though he takes time to tell an untruth in the very entrance, saying, I have proved to you, that they have ex­cluded the Blood of Christ, &c. Yet he makes so much haste, that going on to prove that we say, we are not san­ctified by that Blood, he gives us three pages, but names no Book, out of which he takes them. I shall read to you, says he, G. Whitehead, p. 49, 50, 51. Here's one Proof, says he, if ye think this is not enough, I will bring [Page 134] more. What ground they had to think that Proof e­nough, who heard it, I cannot tell. But I think no man by reading the Narrative can tell what to think of it: For he gives neither the Book, nor the words; but on­ly the Authors name, and three pages. He brings one more, and that is out of G. VVhitehead's Book called Light and Life, p. 59. ‘The Baptists words he gives thus, Neither did I ever read that it was the Blood or Life of Christ in his People that we are Iustified by. See now the Treachery of this false Man, in setting down the Bap­tists words. The Baptist's words were, ‘Neither did I ever read that it was the Blood or Life in Christ, or the Life of Christ in his People, that we are Justi­fied by.’ He leaves out the words [in Christ] and makes it only the Blood or Life of Christ in his People. Whereas the Baptist's words import a denyal of Justi­fication, not only by the Life of Christ in his People, but by the Blood or Life in Christ himself. For said the Baptist, Neither did I ever read that it was the Blood or Life in Christ, or the Life of Christ in his People, that we are Justified by. G. W's answer he gives thus; ‘The Spirit of Christ (which is Life) doth both Quicken, Sanctify and Justify, the true Believers, Iohn. 6.63. 1 Cor. 6. And that Blood and Water that is said to cleanse; is not of another kind, but agrees in one with the Spirit, all which is known within, and the effects thereof.’ Upon this G. Keith concludes thus, So you see he takes it away from the outward Blood, and gives it to the inward Blood. No such matter. He does not divide the outward Blood from the inward, with respect to the Virtue and Efficacy of it; Neither indeed, did he mention outward Blood, or inward Blood either, in this place. But he said, The Spirit of Christ (which is Life) doth both quicken, sanctify and justify, the true Believers (is not that true?) He said, That Blood and Water that's said to cleanse, is not of another kind, but agrees in one with the Spirit (is [Page 135] not that true?) And he said, All which is known within' the Quickening, the Sanctifying, the Iustifying, the Clean­sing, and the Effects thereof, is known within (is not that true also?) Whatever the Efficient be, the work is wrought within, and both the work, and the effects there of, is known within.

By this time his Auditors seem to be as weary of G. Keith, as he of the work. And therefore they bid him go to the next head; but being loth to lose a Proof (as he calls it) he even thrusts it upon them. He intends this Proof against VV. Penn, but he names not the Book he takes it out of, as he did not before upon G. White­head, which shews he was in haste indeed. But giving the words, though not the Book (which he did not in the other Case) I have, from the Circumstances of the mat­ter, found his Quotation, in that Book of W. Penn's called Quakerism a New Nickname for Old Christianity, p. 149. It is upon a Passage which I. Faldo had quarrel­led with and perverted in a Book of Is. Penington's; which G. K. having occasion to speak of, makes as if he were so chary of Isaac Penington, that he would be loth so much as to mention him; and says, I charitably think this Passage dropt from him unawares. Then adds, I wish I could have that ground of Charity to others of them. It seems his Cha­rity is very narrow, if it can extend to but one, and he not living neither. But they are in best case, that have no need of his Charity (as the Quakers have not) for it is as kind as the Crocodile's Tears. But to his Proof, he begins it thus, J. Faldo thinks that he has made Is. Penington his own. Can outward Blood wash the Conscience? p. 29. A plain Denyal, says J. Faldo. Here is J. Faldo's Commentary on Is. Penington's words. Is this Intelligible? 'Tis 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 [Page 136] the outward) put this Question, Can outward Blood cleanse the Conscience? Can outward VVater wash the Soul cleàn? 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 [Page 137] 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, [Page 138] 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 have no Money. I expect he will (as he uses to do) pay me off with Ignorance and Folly, for questioning any thing of his Philosophy; But 'tis no matter if he do. I learnt when I was a Boy,

S [...]ultitiam Simulare loco Prudentia Summa est.

That little Skill I have, I know when, where and how to use, and how to hide: It were well if he knew how to make better use, than he doth of his greater Stock. But Breaking off this short Digression, which I hope will be excused (for though I cannot dress out Dishes, nor serve them up so elegantly as he; yet I ex­pect he should allow me,

[Page 139]
Interferre meis interdum gaudia curis.

He sees I rather chuse to change the Verb, than break the Poet's Head, and thereby hazard the breaking of my own, if I had chnaged the Mood of Interpono;) I re­turn to the matter again; where I observe, that he makes the outward Blood, not at all the Efficient Cause (I mean the worker) of Sanctification in the Heart, but the Spirit, and the Blood no more the Cause of Sanctifi­cation, than Money is the Cause of Health and Nourish­ment to the Body, to wit, by procuring the Spirit to Sanctify, as Money procures Medicine and Bread to Cure and Nourish the Body. And in that sense per­haps, as he says, he agrees with all true Christians, we may agree with him; provided he will, under the Name of Blood, take in the whole Offering of Christ, his Obedience and Sufferings both inwardly and outward­ly, and not divide the Sacrifice.

At the close of this page, he tells his Auditors, he has now done with the two first Heads; and asks them, Shall I go on to prove the other two, or shall we adjourn to another Day? And truly his Auditors seem'd to have had so fully enough of that Days work, that they would rather endure the Fatigue of one half Hour more, than be troubled with him another Day; And bid him, if half an Hour would do, go on. So on he goes.

The Third Head of G. Keith's Charge, (viz. That We deny the Resurrection of the Body that dieth) Considered.

The Third Head (says he, p. 34.) to be proved, is, That the Body that dieth, riseth not again. First, says he, from W. Penn's holding the Resurrection immediately after Death [Page 140] in his Rejoynder, p. 138. I think, adds he, this will be enough for W. Penn, if I give no more. It may be so indeed; but I don't think it will be enough for G. Keith, if he intends to make a Proof against W. Penn about the Resurrection: For that place in that Book treats of the Scriptures; but not a Word of the Resurrection. The poor Man in his over-eager haste, mistook his Books, and quo­ted Rejoynder instead of Reason against Railing; in which latter I have found the place he quotes. I defend Truth, and therefore need not take advantage of Errors of the Press (if this had been the Printers Error, as it is not, but his own fumbling mistake) though he hath most un­worthily done so against G. Whitehead, and that after it hath been proved unto him. Before I recite the Quota­tion (which I find he cited also before in his Gross Error, p. 12. and perverted there as here) I cannot but take notice of the Medium he uses to prove his Charge by, viz. That W. Penn holds the Resurrection immediately after Death. So that G. Keith to prove one Charge, makes ano­ther, which needs Proof as much as the former. Now let us see how he attempts it. T. Hicks, says he, argues thus for the Resurrection of the Body; That if there be no Resur­rection of the Body, the Ioys of Heaven should else be imper­fect. Now here (says G. Keith) is W. Penn's Answer to it, ‘I answer, Is the Joy of the Antients now in Glory imper­fect? Or are they in Heaven but by halves? If it be so unequitable, that the Body which hath suffered, should not partake of the Joys Coelestial, is it not in mea­sure unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body? This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul, (held-by many Baptists) on I am mistaken. But why must the Felicity of the Soul de­pend upon that of the Body? Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Widow, and so in a state of Mourning and dis­consolateness to be without its beloved Body? Which state is but a better sort of Purgatory.’ Thus far he [Page 141] gives out of W. Penn, then adds, G. Whitehead argues the same way; but does not tell where, naming neither Page nor Book. But he gives his words thus, ‘If the deceased Saints in Heaven, or their Souls, have not all that they expect to all Eternity, all the Resurrection they look for, then they must be in Purgatory for the time: But if the latter be not, then not the former.’ Upon this G. K says, But this Contradicts many Scriptures, that especially in Act. 26. That Christ should suffer, and should be the first that should rise from the Dead. Now, says he, ac­cording to this Doctrine of W. Penn and G. Whitehead, Christs Resurrection was later than that of many Millions. Tho' he has much curtail'd W. Penn's Answer, and given no di­rection whereby to find G. Whitehead's, (neither have I, upon diligent search, found it, and G. Whitehead deni [...] the words above given as his, to be his) yet from the words of each which he has given, I find that neither of those Quotations will answer the End for which he brings them. They both relate to one and the same Objection, That if there be not a Resurrection of the same Body, the Joys of Heaven should be imperfect. To shew the absurdity of that Objection, they both ar­gued, That if the Joys of Heaven, to the Souls already in Heaven, depend upon the Resurrection of the same Bo­dies in which those Souls lived on Earth, then the Joys of Heaven, to the Saints already there, should have been imperfect hitherto, and must continue to be imper­fect, until the same Bodies shall be raised. But this does not at all conclude that they held the Resurrection imme­diately after Death, but rather the contrary. For they did not argue, That the Souls of the deceased Saints have perfect Joy in heaven, because their Bodies in which they lived on Earth have had a Resurrection already, but be­cause the Joys of Heaven do not depend upon the Resur­rection of those Bodies. This then is no proof that they held the Resurrection immediately after Death, nor, [Page 142] consequently, that they contradicted that Scripture, Acts 26. That Christ should be the first that should rise from the dead; which whether in a strict Sense he was, has been questioned by some, who have urged the In­stance of Lazarus and some others before him.

But it seems as if he did not intend those Words of G. Whitehead for a Proof; because after he had passed his Sentence upon that, he says, Now if you will hear a Proof from G. Whitehead, you may; and cites p. 353. of the Book, called, the Christian Quaker, &c. Where in An­swer to T. Danson's, saying, ‘The Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body, its dear and be­loved Companion, the Soul having a strong Desire and Inclination to a Re-union to the Body, as the Schools not without ground determine, vide Calvin. He gives a part of G. Whitehead's Answer (as also he did in his Gross Error, p. 11.) thus, ‘Both Calvin, T. Danson, and the Schools, and divers Anabaptists, are mistaken in this very Matter, and see not with the Eye of true Faith, either that the Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body, or that the Soul hath a strong Desire to a Re-union to the Body, while they intend the Terrestrial, Elementary Bodies: For this im­plies the Soul to be in a kind of Purgatory or Disqui­etness, till the supposed Resumption of the Body.’ This place (as that of G. Whitehead, and of W. Penn cited before) speaks not of Resurrection of the Body, but of the supposed Imperfection of the Souls Happiness without the Body, and the strong Desire they fancy it hath to a Re-union to the Body; which the immedi­ately following Part of G. Whitehead's Answer (left wholly out by G. Keith here, and not fully given in his Gross Error, though he confidently says, Nar. p. 37. I have quoted full Periods at length) plainly shews: ‘For says G. Whitehead there; And their Assertion and Determination therein, is contrary to what the Apostle [Page 143] saith, 2 Cor. 5.’ For we know, that if our earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an House not made with Hands, Eternal in the Heavens, ver. 1. For we that are in this Tabernacle, do groan, being burdened, &c. ver. 4. We are confident, I say, and wil­ling rather to be absent from the Body, and to be present with the Lord, ver. 8. And said he (the Apostle) I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, &c. Phil. 1.23. It is manifest, I say, from hence, that G. Whitehead's Words (cited by G. Keith) related di­rectly to that Notion of T. Danson and others, That the Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Bo­dy, and that the Soul hath a strong Desire to a Re-uni­on to the Body, to which he opposed those Words of the Apostle before recited. Yet from hence G. Keith tells his Hearers; You see, I hope, here is Proof enough, that G. Whitehead holds, that the deceased Saints look for no Resurrection of the Body. But in this he concludes unfairly: For the Words he gives for Proof, do not prove he held so.

Here G. Keith was put in Mind, it seems, that G. Whitehead, said Elementary Bodies (which he did and Terrestrial also) to which G. Keith replies, What other Body could it be? As much as to say, What other Body could the Soul desire to be re-united to, but a Terrestrial, Elementary Body? For of such Bodies G. Whitehead spake, as the Soul was said to have a strong desire of re-union to, which was the Terrestrial, Elementary Bo­dy, which T. Danson said had been it's dear and beloved Companion. So that, it seems, according to G. Keith, it must be a Terrestrial, Elementary Body after it is re-uni­ted to the Soul in Heaven. What other Body could it be, says G. Keith? But he is fain to step down into his Ditch, to fetch up a little of his Ditch-Philosophy to make it out by. I hope, says he, a little Philosophy will not offend you. The Objection, says he, they make, is the same against [Page 144] Christ's Body. Pray, says he, Was not Christ's Body Elementary? Did he not Eat and Drink? And was it not the same as we Eat and Drink? And if we Eat and Drink of what are Elementary, then his Body did receive the same Elements, and they were converted into his Body. First, let me tell him, the Objection made against a Resurre­ction of Terrestrial, Elementary Bodies, is not the same against Christ's Body. For there was a difference be­tween Christ's Body, and the Bodies of other Men. His was a more excellent Body, with respect to its Ge­neration. G. Keith hath said it, Way to the City of God, p. 134. ‘And thus he was both the Son of God, and the Son of Man, according to his very Birth in Ma­ry: And therefore even according to that Birth, he hath a Divine Perfection and Vertue, and that Substan­tial, above all other Men that ever were, are, or shall be. And in p. 135. 'His body hath not only the Perfections of our Body, but also much more, because of its being generate, not only of a Seed of Mary, but of a Divine Seed. This made him contend against the Word Humane, as too mean a Title for the outward and visible Flesh which Christ took of the Virgin, Re­ctor Corrected, p. 27, &c. But now calls Christ's Bo­dy not only Elementary, but plainly Terrestrial.

He says, G. Whitehead owns in his latter Writings, that Christ's Body that rose, is the same with his Body that suffered. Here he uses the Word [Latter] de­ceitfully and maliciously, to insinuate, as if G. Whitehead had not owned this till now of late; whereas he could not but know, that in a Postscript to a Book, called, The Malice of the Independent Agent rebuked, written in the third Month, 1678. which is eighteen Years ago, G. Whitehead (for to him G. Keith ascribes that Postscript) said, Christ did rise in that Body wherein he suffered, and in the same ascended into the Heavens. I say G. Keith could not but know this, because in his Book called, [Page 145] The true Copy (Printed but last Year) p. 21. he quo­ted a Passage, as G. Whitehead's, out of that very Post­script. But says he in p. 35. his Pride will not suffer him to own his forme Error, either in that, or in other things. I may rather say of G. Keith, His Envy will not suffer him to be Iust or Honest. For he can no where find in any of G. Whitehead's Writings, that he did ever disown Christ's Body that rose, to be the same Body that suffered. But there is not an equal Compa­rison betwixt Christ's Body and Man's. His saw no Corruption. But Man's Body is subject to Corruption and Putrefaction.

In p. 35. He says, And seeing W. Penn thinks it ab­surd that a Body can be transformed from an Earthly and Animal Body to an Heavenly Body, as (says he) he ar­gueth, Reason against Railing, p. 134. He makes it not only as gross as Transubstantiation, but worse. But this (says he) is his gross Ignorance in true Philosophy, and his false Philosophy destroys his Faith. But what, I won­der, has destroyed G. Keith's Honesty, except it be his gross Enmity? For he has most grosly abused W. Penn in this Passage. Where doth W. Penn say, or hold, it is absurd that a Body can be transformed from an Earthly or Animal Body to an Heavenly Body? There is no Word in the Place cited, nor any where that I know of, that either speaks so, or has a tendency that way. But that which W. Penn reputed absurd was, that a Body should be said to be changed from an Earthly or Animal Body to an Heavenly Body, and yet after such change conti­nue to be the same Earthly or Animal Body that it was before. This is that of which W. Penn said, How is it possible, that it should be the same, and not the same? And if a thing can yet be the same, and notwithstanding changed, for shame let us never much so make stir, against the Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation. And indeed, as easily may G. Keith defend the one as the other. And if, among [Page 146] those of the Protestant Parties he now Courts, he should miss of the End of his turning from the Quakers, it is not altogether unlikely, but that he may try what Earn­ings he can make among them that hold that Doctrine. He says, It is not Transubstantiation, if I say, a Saint's Body is the same at the Resurrection for Substance, as it was when it went into the Grave, leaving the faces or drossie Part of it behind. I say, that is beside the Question. But the Question is, Whether a Natural or Carnal Body (that is, a Body consisting of Flesh, Blood and Bones) can be raised out of the Grave without Flesh, Blood and Bones, and yet be properly and truely said to be the same na­tural or carnal Body, that it was while it consisted of Flesh, Blood and Bones? For if he would argue from the Sub­stance of a Body, he should first have defined what the Substance of a Natural or Carnal Body is, that it might have been agreed; whether the Faces or drossy Part (as he calls it, by which I understand him to mean the Flesh, Blood and Bones) be the Substance, or any Part of the Substance, of a Natural or Carnal Body. He seems to hold that it is not: For he blames W. Penn for holding, that Carniety is essential to a Carnal Body (that is, that Flesh is essential to a Body of Flesh) and he says thereupon, see how contrary this is to common Sense and Vnderstanding. But sure I think every one that has but common Sense and Understanding, may have ground to Question, Whether he has not lost his. To mani­fest how contrary it is to common Sense and Under­standing (and withal to give his Auditors to under­stand, that he is not only a mickle Philosopher, but a lit­tle Piece of an Hen-Housewife too) he says, There is no VVoman that sets an Hen to breed Chickens, but knows the contrary. You know, says he, the Substance of the Egg (the VVhite and Yolk) by the force and heat of the Hen sitting on the Egg, is changed into a Chicken. Is here, s [...]s he, any Transubstantiation? First, observe he grants the [Page 147] White and the Yolk to be the Substance of the Egg. Next, that this Substance of the Egg, the VVhite and the Yolk, is changed into a Chicken. Now unless he will affirm, that the Substance of a Chicken, after it comes to be a Chicken, is the VVhite and Yolk, I see not how he will avoid a Transubstantiation, that is, a changing of the Substance of the Egg, which was VVhite and Yolk, into the Substance of a Chicken, which of all the Chicken I have eaten of, I always took to be Flesh, Blood and Bones. If he thinks otherwise, and it should ever hap­pen that he and I should be F [...]llow-Commoners at a Chic­ken, let him but let me have what I call the Substance of it, and I will readily resign all the rest to him, even the VVhite and the Yolk, if he can find it, and, in requital of his Courtesie, some part (and the most solid) of that which I call the Substance too, which will not be un­suitable to a Cynical Philosopher. But whereas he makes himself a little sport with VV. Penn's Philosophy, he might have considered, that what VV. Penn writ on that subject was not to entertain the Schools, but to inform common and vulgar Capacities; and therefore he han­dled it Scripturally, not Philosophically, using the Terms he writ in, according to the ordinary Signifi­cation, and common Acceptation of them.

What he says of a Chymical Operation, I take to be but a Chymical VVhimsie in his Head, or a Chimera, which he pleases, viz. That a gross Body of Herbs, or other Substance, can by Chymical Operation be made so sub­tile, volatile, and spiritual (without any Transubstantiati­on, or Change of the Substance) that a Glass can scarce confine, or hold it. I don't think many have that under­standing, that he pretends to have of Chymical Opera­tions. That a subtile, volatile, spirituous Substance may by Chymical Operation, be extracted from a gross Sub­stance or Body of Herbs, is easily apprehensible. And that which is so extracted is usually called the Spirit of [Page 148] that Body out of which it is drawn, not the Body it self. But that the gross Body it self of Herbs, or other Sub­stance, can be made so subtile and volatile, as scarce to be contained in a Glass, requires better Proof, to gain belief, than his bare saying it. Besides, if the gross Body be made so subtile and volatile, as he says, how is the Faeces or drossy part left behind, as he says. But that which must make his Chymical Conceit bear any right Parallel with that Notion of the Resurrection, which VV. Penn opposed, must be, that this gross Body of Herbs, which he says, may be made so subtile and vo­latile, must still remain the same gross Body of Herbs, that it was before, notwithstanding its almost unconfinable subtility by Chymical Operation; as they hold the Bo­dy that dies and is laid in the Grave, to be changed in the Resurrection, and yet to be the same Body after the Resurrection, as it was when it died, and was laid in the Grave. This is that which VV. Penn compared to the Absurdity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; the Folly of which Doctrine, (not to meddle here with the Impiety of it) lies in this, that the Patrons of that Opi­nion affirm the very Substance of the Bread and VVine, (after the Words of Consecration, as they call them, are spoken) to be really changed into the very Substance of Christ's Body, and yet the Accidents of the Bread and Wine enforce the Senses to confess, that the Substance of the Bread and VVine, remains in them as before.

I perceive he has done, and that quickly, with his Third Head, about the Resurrection. Which, as he has stated it, he needed not at all have attempted to prove our denial of. For it is a known thing, that as we have always asserted a Resurrection of Bodies, so we have al­ways denied the Body which shall be raised to be the same Body that died, with respect to Grosness and Carniety; and that, 1. From the Principles of our Op­posers about it, who hold that it is wonderfully changed, [Page 149] and therefore it is a wonder it should be the very same 2. From the Reason and Nature of the thing, which will not admit a Natural, Carnal Body to be a suitable Ha­bitation for a Glorified Soul in Heaven to dwell in, nor to be the same Body, that it was when it was a Natu­ral and Carnal Body, if it cease to be a Natural and Car­nal Body, and be made wholly Spiritual. 3. From the uncontroulable Testimony of the Holy Apostle, who says, expresly, That Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdoms of God, 1 Cor. 15.50. And by a Metaphor borrowed from Agriculture, says, That which thou sowest (which is the Body that dies and is put into the Grave) thou sowest not that Body that shall be, ver. 37. which is alike, as if he had said in so many Syllables, The Body that shall arise, is not the same Carnal Body that dies, and is put into the Grave. No, the Body that is put into the Grave (or is sown) is a Natural Body: But the Bo­dy that is raised is a Spiritual Body. It is sown a Natural Body, it is raised a spiritual Body, says the Apostle, ver. 44. And that none might think this spiritual Body was the same with the Natural Body, he adds, There is a Natural Body, and there is a spiritual Body. He does not say, the Natural is made a spiritual Body, or the Natu­ral Body and the Spiritual Body is but one and the same Body. But he sets them in Opposition, as two distinct Bodies. There is a Natural Body, and there is a Spiritu­al Body. The Apostle illustrates this Difference be­tween the Body that dies, (or is sown) and the Body that is raised, from the two Adams, the first and the last, saying, The first Man Adam was made a living Soul, the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit, ver. 45. Is this quickening Spirit the same with that living Soul? Is the last Adam, and the first Adam, but one and the self same Adam? The first Man is of the Earth Earth­ly, the second Man is the Lord from Heaven, ver. 47. Will G. Keith say, This second Man, which is the Lord [Page 150] from Heaven, is the same with the First Man, which is of the Earth Earthy? As is the Earthy, such are they also that are Earthy; and as is the Heavenly, such are they also that are Heavenly, ver. 48. Does not the Apostle here plainly shew, that as the second Man, the Lord from Heaven, is not the same with the first Man of the Earth Earthy: So the Heavenly Bodies which the Saints shall have, are not the same with the Earthy Bodies which they have had? And, says he, as we have born the Image of the Earthy, we shall also bear the Image of the Heavenly, ver. 49. This shews we shall bear the Image of another Body in Heaven, than that which we bore on the Earth, consequently not the Image of the same Body. But if by Heavenly Body were meant the same Body that was Earthy, then we should bear the Image of the same Body hereafter in Heaven, which we have born here on Earth, quite contrary to the Apostle's Doctrine; who to clear the matter fully, that in all this Discourse of his about the Resurrection, he did not mean the same Body of Flesh and Blood that dies should be raised, concludes thus, ver. 50. Now this I say, Brethren, that [...] Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. But the [...] that dies every one knows is a Body of Flesh and Blood, therefore, that Body cannot inherit the Kingdom of God; but it must be a Body which is not of Flesh and Blood, and that cannot be the Body of Flesh and Blood that dies.

This is so fully handled in those Books of W. Penn and G. Whitehead (out of which G. Keith took his pre­tended Proofs) as well as in other Books of theirs, that G. Keith needed not have fetched a Round to prove it, by alledging that they hold the Resurrection immediately after Death, but that he had a Mind to fix (if he could) that slander on them, which they no where say, nor do the Places he has quoted prove it: For they therein only argued against the absurd and gross Notion [Page 151] of their Opponents, which was, that the Body which is raised, is the same Carnal Body, that Died and was Bu­ried: which he, if he have a Mind, may undertake the Proof of. But though we cannot subscribe to that gross and carnal Notion; yet both the Quakers in gene­ral, and they in particular, do own, and always have owned, a Resurrection, and that of Bodies. So said W. Penn in the Book G. Keith quoted (or should have quoted, if he had not mistaken, and quoted another, for it) Reason against Railing, p. 133. ‘We do acknow­ledge a Resurrection in order to Eternal Recompence, and that every Seed shall have its own Body; and we rest contented with what Body it shall please God to give us. But as we are not such Fools, as curiously to enquire What; So must we for ever deny the gross Conceits of T. Hicks and his Adherents’ (of whom G. Keith is now become one) concerning the ‘Resurre­ction. And having refuted those gross Conceits he spa [...] of, he concluded thus, in p. 140.’ ‘For our parts, [...] we believe, and of Bodies too, unto [...]. What they shall not be, I have briefly said [...]roved; what they shall be, we leave with God, [...] will give every one a Body as pleaseth him; and [...] Fool, belongs to the unnecessary medler.’ G Keith himself, but a while ago, undertook W. Penn's Defence in this Point of the Resurrection, against Cot­ton M [...]ther, in his Serious Appeal, p. 9. where he says, ‘As for his citing W. Penn's Words arguing against that same Numerical Body its rising at the Resurrecti­on, it is clear that he understandeth the same exact Number of the small Particles or Dusts, nei [...]her more nor less than what is commonly buried; and what hurt is there in that? Said G. Keith then. If G. Keith has a Mind now to maintain and defend the contrary, and will undertake to prove that it is the same Numerical Body, with all its Numerical Particles, that rises, which [Page 152] was buried, let him do it Scripturally, not only Philo­sophically (and that by false Notions of Philosophy) lest he make People suspect he intends only a Resurrecti­on of Philosophers, or at most but a Philosophical Resurre­ction. I advise him to keep to Scripture-Terms, because he hath so often recommended that to others, and bla­med his Opponents formerly for going from it. And particularly in his Book, called, Truth's Defence, p. 169. is Positive, ‘That all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith, which God requireth in common of all Christians, are expresly delivered and recorded in the Scriptures; and therefore, says he there, for my part, what I cannot find expresly delivered in Scripture, I see no Reason why I should receive or believe as any common Ar­ticle or Principle of the Christian Faith or Life. The Do­ctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead, is a common Arti­cle of the Christian Faith, which we find expresly delive­red in the Scriptures, and accordingly we sincerely believe it. But we do not find it expresly 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 [Page 153] 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?

[Page 154]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 [...]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 [Page 155] 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 [Page 156] put upon it, and prest hard to tell their Names, he said, I will not do it, it is not convenient; there is one of them a Citizen of very good repute, and therefore it will be better to conceal his name. Can there be any thing but Hypocri­sy in this pretence? For is not G. Whitehead a Citizen of very good repute also? And yet so far has G. Keith been from concealing his name, that he has endeavoured to blemish his name as much as in him lies, and to load him with Infamy and Slander. Besides, being urged again to tell his name, He answers, I think it not convenient, we must use a little Policy as well as you. This more ful­ly shews his Deceit, who before pretended Charity in con­cealing the Persons names, but now discovers the Ground thereof was Policy. But to be sure he shewed no Policy in that. I might justly enough reject this story whol­ly, and tell him, as he did his Countryman Iohn Alex­ander (who charged a Misinterpretation of Scripture upon some of the Quakers, without naming whom) Seeing he has produced no names, of any among us, un­derstanding that, &c. We are not concern'd to answer him, Truth's Defence, p. 67. And again, in p. 77. to a like Charge made by I. Alexander against some Quakers without naming them, He says, ‘He ought to have produced their names, or we are not bound to be­lieve him, that any have said so.’ May I not with as good reason, say so to G. Keith in this Case, especially seeing he refused to name them, tho' so earnestly pres­sed to it? As he says, they were three Ministers, so he charges them with three great Errors. 1. That they said Christ's Body did never rise out of the Grave. 2. That they denied it was lawful to pray to Jesus Christ Crucified 3. That they could come to God without the Mediator, the Man Christ Jesus. These are so Contrary to our known Principles, that I cannot believe his Charge to be true, as he has given it. He says, he can appeal to W. Penn, and G. Whitehead. But [Page 157] is it not strange, he should pick out them two (from amongst forty or fifty, that he says were present) to appeal to, when he has made them the common Butts, to shoot the Arrows of his Envy at, through the grea­test part of his Narrative? Could he find none to ap­peal to, out of forty or fifty, but them? Well, I have enquired of them both, Concerning it. W. Penn faith, he doth not Remember it. G. Whitehead doth Remem­ber that some (but not near so many as G. Keith men­tions) had some Discourse with him about that time, upon something that he had written; but that any of them said, Christ's Body did never rise out of the Grave; Or, that they could come to God, without the Medi­ator, the Man Christ Jesus; Or, that Paul was Dark and Ignorant, (which in Nar. p. 38, 39. G. Keith Char­ges on them) he says, He neither heard, nor doth be­lieve. But that some Discourse did pass betwixt him, and them, Concerning praying to Christ, he doth Remember; but believes it was not altogether as G. Keith hath related it. However it was, I observe, that in one part of that Story (even as G. Keith hath given it) he clears W. Penn and G. Whitehead, and represents them as taking part with him, against those others, who he says opposed him. For he here says, that (upon their denying that it was lawful to Pray to Jesus Christ Crucified, and daring him to give an In­stance of one English Quaker that he ever heard Pray to Christ) W. Penn said, I am an English Man, and a Qua­ker, and I own I have oft Prayed to Jesus Christ, even him that was Crucified. And that G. Whitehead, to prove the lawfulness thereof, took the Bible. and Read 1 Cor. 1.2. To all that call upon the Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord, and ours. It is evident from hence, that both W. Penn and G. Whitehead did, in G. Keith's sence and defence, own Chrst, even him that was Cru­cified, to be the Object of Faith, and that not only [Page 158] now of late, (as G. Keith would have it) but so long a­go as 1678. which is Eighteen Years past. This quite overthrows all he has said before, of their denying the Object of Faith, and may well pass, with all Ingenuous Readers, for a full Confutation of all his Clamours up­on that Head against them. But though he has hereby acquitted them; yet I see not how he will acquit him­self. For this he says, was in 1678. which was Eigh­teen Years ago; and yet in 1692. which was but four Years ago; he told Cotton Mather in Print, ‘That accord­ing to the best knowledge he had of the People called Quakers, and these most generally owned by them, as Preachers, and Publishers of their Faith, of unque­stioned esteem among them, and worthy of double Honour, (as many such there are) he knew none that were guilty of any one of such Heresies and Blasphe­mies as he accuseth them, Serious Appeal p, 7.’ And to shew that he had ground for what he said, he added a little lower in the same page, ‘And I think I should know, and do know, these called Quakers, better than C. Mather 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 twenty-eight Years past, and that in many places in the World in Europe, and and for these divers Years in America. What must we think of this? That he writ a Falsehood then, or spake a Falsehood now? But be that as it will.

The Fourth, and last Head of G. Keith's Charge, (viz. That we deny Christ's Coming without us, in his Glorified Body, to Iudge the Quick and the Dead) Considered.

In p. 39. he says, I will cite a passage or two out of a Manuscript from Pensilvania, but instead of that says, [Page 159] See the Book called Light and Life, p. 41. See what is here said by G. Whitehead, That there is not an outward coming of Christ to Iudge the Quick and the Dead. What I prove from G. Whitehead, says he, is proved from W. Penn, for W. Penn has Authorized his Book. This he has hin­ted in several places of his Narrative, referring some­times to p. 185, 186. of Reason against Railing, where W. Penn mentioned divers Books, which he referr'd the Adversaries to, in defence of our Principles. I pre­sume he will find no cause to be sorry for having men­tioned any of those Books, unless it be such as G. Keith was either solely, or partly, the Author of. But if W. Penn's so mentioning those Books, doth so Intitle him to them, as to render him accountable for whatso­ver is in them; I would know of G. Keith, why he should not, for the same reason, he accountable for what­soever is in those Books, which G. Whitehead and W. Penn have written in Answer to T. Hicks and I. E [...]ldo, since he, with as much Approbation, has mentioned those Answers, in his Serious Appeal, p. 6. and 60. and yet those are some of the principal Books he picks his Ca­vils out of, against G. Whitehead and W. Penn.

Now let us see how G. Keith deals with G. White­head in the Quotation he brings against him. Observe that first, he says, See what is here said by G. White­head, That there is not an outward Coming of Christ, to Iudge the Quick and Dead; therefore look well to his Quotation, and mind to find those words in it. He be­gins the Quotation thus, Moreover, Christ said, the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his Angels, &c. There G. Keith stops with an &c. Citing Mat. 1 [...].27, 28, Luke 9.26, 27. But leaves out the remaining words in those Scriptures, which in Matthew follow thus, [And then he shall Reward every Man according to his Works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of Death, till they see the Son [Page 160] of Man coming in his Kingdom] Why G. Keith left out these words, I may shew anon. Now he goes on with G. Whitehead's words, thus, ‘Now what is that Glory of the Father, in which his Coming is? Is it Visible to the Carnal Eye? And when was that coming to be? Is it now to be looked for outwardly? But farther we do acknowledge the several comings of Christ, accord­ing to the Scriptures, both that in the Flesh, and that in the Spirit, which is Manifest in several degrees, as there is a growing from Glory to Glory. But three Comings of Christ, [not only that in the Flesh at Ie­rusalem, and that in the Spirit; but also another com­ing in the Flesh, yet to be expected] we do not Read of, but a Second Coming without Sin unto Salva­tion, which in the Apostles Days, was looked for, (this latter Clause he cited before in his Gross Errror, p. 2.)’

Now, Reader, observe, First, That those words G. Keith charges to be here said by G. Whitehead, viz That there is not an outward Coming of Christ to judge the Quick and the Dead, are not here: That's but an Inference of G. Keith's own making, though he unfairly pretended G. VVhitehead said it. Next he left out those words in the Text▪ Mat. 16.28. Verily I say unto you, There are some standing here which shall not taste of Death, until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom. Upon which words those Questions of G. Whitehead were grounded, When was that coming to be? Is it now to be looked for outwardly? For that coming there spoken of by Christ, Mat. 16.27. could not be meant of his coming at the end of the World, because it was to begin in that very Age, some then living and present with him, were to see it before they died: There are some standing here, which shall not taste of Death, until they see the Son of Man coming in his King­dom. By his Kingdom, saith Beza, is to be understood the Glory of his Ascension, and what followeth thereof, Ephes. [Page 161] 4.10. or the Preaching of the Gospel. In the latter part of the Quotation, G. Whitehead had respect to the Bap­tists Notion of an Outward Personal Coming of Christ in a Fleshly Appearance, to reign on Earth a thousand years. And it is with relation to such a manner of coming in an out­ward Body of Flesh, to reign Personally on Earth, for a cer­tain time, as an Outward King, that he there said (after he had acknowledged the several Comings of Christ ac­cording to the Scriptures, both that in the Flesh, and that in the Spirit.) But three Comings of Christ [not on­ly that in the Flesh at Ierusalem, and that in the Spirit; but also another coming in the Flesh, yet to be expected] we do not read of. And indeed, how should he, if G. Keith says true, Way cast up, p. 131. that ‘That Body which was crucified on the Cross at Ierusalem, and is now ascended and glorified in Heaven—is no more a Body of Flesh, Blood, and Bones, but a pure, ethereal, or heavenly Body.’ ‘But that G. Whitehead's words there, related to such a Coming of Christ in an outward Body of outward Flesh, visible to Carnal Eyes, therein to reign, as an outward King, after an outward manner, a thousand years on Earth, (which some Baptists call the Personal Reign of Christ) may be gather'd also from another Book of G. Whitehead's, called Christ Ascended, written near the same time, in Answer to Iohn Newman, a Baptist, where having in p. 22. treated of Christs coming, so as that his Appearance shall be universally seen, both to the Joy of the Righteous, and universal Conviction and Condemnation of the wicked, &c. ‘he speaks, p. 23. of the disappointment of them, who are expecting that Christs second Coming, or Appearance to Salvation, will be a Personal Coming, and his Reign a Personal Reign, which word [Personal] they add to the Scripture; and do they not herein shew their Carnal Expectations, said he?’

[Page 162] G. Keith has another Cavil in this page, (which also he had in p. 3. of his Gross Error) against G. Whitehead about 1 Thes. 4.17. which he says, G. Whitehead denies to be meant of his Personal Coming. G. Whitehead then, it seems, did not deny it to be meant of Christs Coming, and of his Coming to Iudgment; but that which he excepted against, was such a Carnal sort of Personal Coming, as the Baptists expected him to come in, and as is mentioned before: To shew the Baptists the folly of which, he asks them, from those words of the Apostle, both in the 15th and 17th Verses [We which are alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord] if they did live and remain to a Perso­nal Coming of Christ in the Clouds, yea, or nay? Which G. Keith sophistically calls a Sophism, to wrest it to his in­ward Coming; Whereas G. Whitehead did not turn it to his inward Coming, nor did he use the word [inward] in that place at all. But he shewed by the Description Iohn gave of him, when he saw him in the midst of the Seven Golden Candlesticks, that such an outward Coming as the Baptists looked for him in, in such a Personal Ap­pearance as should be visible to the carnal Eye, was not suitable to him. But whereas G. Keith says, (both in his gross Error, p. 5. and here also) The Apostle's using the word we, there, [we that remain] is an Enallage Personae, putting [we] for [They] like that of Iames, Therewith bless we God, and therewith curse we Men, Iames 3 9. Though he delivers it positively, and like a Dictator, yet I see not why he must needs be believed: Why might not the Apostle speak in the first Person, [we] as suppo­sing that great and extraordinary Appearance and Com­ing of Christ (the certain time of which no Man knew, Mat. 24.36.) was so near at hand, that it might probably fall out in his Life-time: For as the Apostles account­ed the Times they lived in, the Last Days, or Last Times, and ordinarily called them so, (Heb. 1.2. and 9.26. 1 Pet. 1.20. 1 Iohn 2.18.) so they thought the End of the [Page 163] World was not far off. What else made Paul, when he had told the Corinthians, That the things he had related were written for our Admonition, add, Vpon whom the Ends of the Word are come? 1 Cor. 10.11. Why else did Peter say, The End of all things is at hand? 1 Pet. 4.7.

G. Keith concludes this Page with a most horrible Fals­hood and Slander upon G. Whitehead, saying, He has Allego­rized away Christs Birth, his Death, Resurrection and Ascen­sion, and Coming to Iudgment. This I say is a most horri­ble Falsehood and Slander. For though there is none of these that may not be allegorized, (and perhaps, none among the Quakers has allegorized them so frequently and so far, as G. Keith himself) yet has not G. Whitehead so allegorized any of them, as to take away the Literal sence and meaning of them; but has owned and asserted the Truth and Benefit of them according to the Letter of the Scriptures.

In p. 40. He makes a Digression to entertain his Com­pany, thus, I hope I have proved that I am not petulant, and that I have just cause to accuse them of these Errors. Then adds, I was presented by a Grand Iury at Philadelphia, and the Presentment would have been prosecuted, if the Govern­ment had not been changed; and I had been accused for endea­vouring to alter the Government, which is Capital by their Law; and they would have found me guilty of Death, had they not been turned out of the Government, &c. Now though in this he does but deliver his own Conjectures, what would have been (which how unlikely they are, may be gathered from what was, seeing when he was fined for some Evil Demeanor, the Fine was not exacted, though there was time enough to have done it, before the Go­vernment was Changed) yet his telling his Hearers that he had just cause to accuse the Quakers of Error, and then immediately acquainting them with his having been Presented at Philadelphia, is a sufficient Indication, that the [Page 164] ground of his accusing the Quakers, is not Zeal for Reli­gion, but Malice and Revenge.

In the same page he pretends to give another Proof against G. Whitehead, but he does indeed but repeat one of the Proofs he gave before upon his first Head, in p. 16. where I answer'd it at large. He takes it out of p. 29. of that Book called The Nature of Christianity, to which himself writ the Additional Postscript: And he gives it thus: Says G. Whitehead to R. Gordon, Dost thou look for Christ's coming again to appear outwardly in a Bodily Exist­ence? If thou doest, thou mayst look until thy Eyes drop out, before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him. See now the Fraud and Falseness of this Man, who that he might make this Passage look towards the End for which he brought it, hath corrupted the place, by leaving out those words that he knew would defeat his purpose: For where­as he gives the words thus, Dost thou look for Christ's coming again, to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence? If thou dost, &c. The words in G. Whitehead's Book, are thus, Doest 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, &c. It happened that one of the Auditors, being a Quaker, said, Let the passage be read out. G. Keith to have put it by, said, If we had not had these Oppositions, we might have saved an hour. Had he but now had an Auditor ready (as he had in p. 39.) to have said, He has done enough, it had passed, and he had gone off so: But no body offering to help him out, he was fain to read the passage right, and so it is set down at the top of his p. 41. He had put in the words [coming again] and left out the words [as the Son of Mary] and the words [to save thee] upon which the stress of the passage lay, that so he might make himself a proof. And yet in p. 41. upon his offering to read another Passage, out of a Manuscript Paper; he said, I am glad that my Neighbour has such Charity for me, that he thinks I will not [Page 165] read wrong: (for it seems the Person he called his Neigh­bour, not suspecting him guilty of so great Baseness, had said in another case, p. 24. I think he does not read false) And to beget the like Charity now, he added, I shall forfeit the Name of an Honest Man, if I read one word different from the Original. How differently from the Original he read this passage in p. 40. will appear by comparing it with the same Passage, as he was fain at last to read it, in p. 41. How far he has forfeited the Name of an Honest Man, (if he then had it to forfeit) I leave the Reader to judge.

Upon this Quotation, he says, p. 41. Ye see these are plain and express words against Christ's outward Coming. But in making this Inference, he is doubly to Blame. For first, Here are no plain or express words against Christs outward Coming,; neither doth the passage relate to his outward Coming it self, but to the End of that com­ing, and to the manner, state and quality, in which he shall then come. For the End of his coming then is not to Save, as if Salvation were not to be obtained, or known till then; neither will he come in that low state of Humiliation and form of a Servant, wherein he ap­peared as the Son of Mary (tho' he was always more than barely the Son of Mary) for he shall come in the glo­ry of his Father, Mat. 16.27. Or as Luke expresses it, In his own Glory, and in his Fathers, and of the Holy Angels, Luke 9.26. But secondly, G. Keith is the more to be blamed, for saying, of those Words of G. Whitehead. Here are plain and express Words against Christ's outward Coming, seeing he confesses in p. 40. That in another Book, called The Real Quaker a Real Protestant, G. White­head hath declared He did not mean it of Christs coming to Iudgment; but he meant it thus, Because R. Gordon would needs have it, that Salvation was delayed till Christs outward Coming.’ Who, but a Man of a m [...]st malicious Mind, would urge another Mans words against [Page 166] him, contrary to his own declared Sence and Meaning? G. Keith says, He is apt to think G. Whitehead abuses R. Gordon: But every indifferent Reader will be apt to con­clude, beyond thinking, that G. Keith has abused G. White­head, and that very grosly.

In p. 41. he has a little Flurt at me, which shews he wanted either Matter or Wit, that he would entertain so great an Assembly with such a Trifle. He tells it that I had said, I had upward of six Manuscripts. What, says T. Ellwood, (in his way of Quibbling) six and an half? His words were, I produced above six Manuscripts. I know­ing he loved a loose way of expressing himself, and shunn'd plainness of Speech, in my Answer to the Matter for which he said he produced those Manuscripts, as a Nip for his conceited Folly, asked in a Parenthesis, What means he by above six? Does he mean six and a half? For if they had been seven or eight, he might as well have said so, as above six. This he calls my way of Quibbling; which I think was suitable enough to his way of Scribbling. Why should such a conceited Philosopher play the Fool, and not be told of it?

He says, I tell him he is guilty of Forgery, in saying the Yearly Meeting censured any Expressions in his Manuscripts: But because he repeats this over and over in the follow­ing part of his Narrative, I say nothing to it here, in­tending to speak to it once for all, when he is got past his Manuscripts, which he now says are seven or eight (it seems he does not yet know whether; however it is more than six and an half, and not quite so uncertain as above six.) Yet I find not that he produced any more than two, and those but private Letters from one Man, and out of them he read but a piece of each; and how truly and fair­ly he read those Pieces, I know not, having no Copy to prove them thereby; for when they were read at the Yearly Meeting he mentions, we could not obtain a Copy of them from him; and we have seen but lately how unfair [Page 167] and unjust he was, in giving a Passage out of G. White­head's Book. The Letters he mentions go under the Name of one Iohn Humphreys, and the substance of that part he read out of the first Letter, is, 1. A blaming them that divide Christ, and put asunder what God hath joyned to­gether, by making such a distinction between Christ within and Christ without, as divides Christs Body from his Spirit. 2. A censuring G. Keith's Ten Articles of Faith, as relishing too much of Carnality. And then says, I am grieved to hear some say, They did expect to be justified by that Blood that was shed at Ierusalem. When G. Keith had read what he thought would serve his purpose, he gave over, and said, I have not read the whole Letter, but an intire Para­graph of it. And thereupon says, So farewel Christ with­out; You divide Christ, if you mention Christ without. I think he wrongs the Man in the Inference, for I take his meaning to be, (not that the bare mentioning Christ without, is a Dividing of Christ but) that so to distinguish between Christ within and Christ without, as to make two distinct Christs of them, (whereas Christ within and Christ without, is but one Christ) this is to divide Christ; and this I take to be that which Io. Humphreys did there blame. But I would fain know, why G. Keith did not read the whole Letter: For (though I would not be over­confident upon my own Memory, of a thing I never heard read but once, and that more than two years ago, yet) I am strongly perswaded there were other Passages in that Letter which was read in the Yearly Meeting, that did explain I. Humphreys his meaning in these. And I cannot think why G. Keith (who is prolix enough at other times) should pick out a piece of a Letter only, and conceal the rest, if he had not found some­thing in the rest, that he thought would take off the edge of his Objection against that he took. As for those pieces of I. Humphreys Letters, which G. Keith hath exposed in his Narrative, (though I do not hold my self [Page 168] (nor the People called Quakers) accountable for them, or for every thing that particular Persons may write in private Letters, yet) I charitably hope (though I know not the Man) that wherein he hath erred, it hath rather been in the Expression of his Mind, than in his real In­tent and Meaning. For in that passage of his first Let­ter, wherein he says, I am grieved to hear some say they did expect to be justified by that Blood that was shed at Ieru­salem, I take these words to depend upon that complaint which he had made before, of Dividing Christ, by that kind of Distinction which some had made, between Christ within and Christ without, whereby they attributed (at least he thought they did) that to one part only, as distinct and divided from the other, which ought in a right sence to be ascribed to both joyntly. I am the rather in­duced to believe this was his meaning, from that Passage which G. Keith hath given out of his second Letter, (which seems to have been written on this occasion) wherein he says the word [Only] should have been put in, and that the leaving it out, was the Omission of his Pen. Now had that word been in, (as it seems he inten­ded it should have been) the Sentence would have been thus, I am grieved to hear some say, They did expect to be justified by that Blood Only, tha [...] was shed at Ierusalem; And then I suppose G. Keith would not have quarrelled with it. And though I. Humphreys, when he saw how his Meaning was wrested in his first Letter, did in his se­cond Letter, (after he had declared the word [Only] should have been in, and that that was his meaning) in contempt of the deceitful and malicious workings of the Adversaries, seemed indifferent whether they put in the word [only] or no, saying, as G. Keith cites him, But however, Let Deceit and Malice have its full force and scope upon it, and that word (only) taken off the Conclusion of my Paper, &c. Yet it seems he did this, not as intend­ing thereby to exclude the Blood shed at Ierusalem from ha­ving [Page 169] any share or part in our Justification; but as be­lieving from his before declared Sense, that Christ (and consequently his Sacrifice) ought not to be divided, but taken joyntly; that it would appear his Words had the force and import of the Word [only] and that that was his Meaning, though the Word only was through inadvertency left out. And therefore he refers to the Words of Christ, Iohn 6.63. Which saying, says he, of our Saviour himself, will clear me of your Aspersion.

So that (even from what G. Keith hath thought fit to give of his second Letter) it appears, that their wrest­ing the Words in his former Letter, and inferring there­from that he wholly excluded the Blood shed at Jerusalem from being concerned in our Iustification, he took to be an Aspersion upon him, and so called it. Now the Words of our Saviour, which he referr'd to in Iohn 6.63. are these, It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth no­thing. In which Words it may not be supposed our Saviour meant that his Flesh or Body, as it was in Con­junction with his Spirit and Soul, and contained that Di­vine Life which dwelt in it, and was offered up together, a compleat Sacrifice to the Father, did profit nothing, did avail nothing, did contribute nothing to the Benefit and Advantage of Man: But that the Flesh or Body con­sidered simply of it self and by it self, without that Divine Life, Soul and Spirit that was in it, profited nothing. So Wilson, in his Christian Dictionary (Sixth Edition, Printed at London, 1655.) expounds those Words, The Flesh profiteth nothing, that is to say, the Humane Nature of Christ is not profitable to us of it self, but as the Godhead dwelleth in it, giving Life to it, and quickning us by it.’ And thus, he says, Tindal and the Bible Note expound this Place. In like manner I understand Iohn Humphreys, both when he said in his first Letter, ‘I am grieved to hear some say, they did expect to be justified by that Blood that was shed at [Page 170] Ierusalem; and in his second Letter (from those Words of Christ, it is the Spirit that quickneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing)’ ‘So he himself ascribed the Work of Man's Salvation, and Sanctification, not to the Flesh that suffered, but to the Spirit that quick­ned; not to the Blood that was shed at Ierusalem, but unto the Flesh and Blood that is spiritual, &c.) to in­tend and mean, not the outward Flesh and Blood of it self only, without or apart from the Divine Life, Spi­rit and Power that appeared in it, and gave Virtue to it, but both together.’ Nor Primarily or Principally the outward Flesh and Blood; but the Divine Life, Spirit and Power that dwelt in that outward Body, and made it what it was; if he meant otherwise, we cannot stand by him therein.

But whereas G. Keith says of Iohn Humphreys, in Nar. p. 43. That some of his own Fraternity perswaded him to put in the Word, Only, and that would excuse the Matter; he puts in the Word Only, and (says G. Keith) he thinks it was against his Conscience, and so bids put it out again. That some of his own Fraternity (as G. Keith scoffingly speaks) perswaded him to put in the Word, Only, doth not appear to be true; but that, when he had put it in, he thought it was against his Conscience, ap­pears to be false: And from thence it appears, that G. Keith did not think it was against his Conscience to belie him. Where did I. Humphreys declare that the putting in the Word, Only, was against his Conscience, and that therefore he bid put it out again? The Words of his Letter (as G. Keith has given them) shew the contrary.

His 43. p. is spent in a confused, rambling Dis­course, in which he flits to and fro, from one thing to another, in a loose way, without sticking to any thing. But in the Close of it, he mentions a Testimony from W. Penn, to prove that Bodily Death did not come in [Page 171] by Man's Sin: Which in p. 44. he gives out of W. Penn's Book (in Answer to Reeve and Muggleton, cal­led, The New Witnesses proved Old Hereticks, p. 55.) thus, If the Flesh of Beasts is capable of dying, rotting and going to dust, who never sinned, why should not Man have died, and gone to Dust, though he had never sinned? He should have noted that W. Penn spake this upon an ex­travagant Notion of theirs, That, ‘The Reason why Men's Bodies in Death, or after Death, do rot, or stink, in the Grave, and come to Dust, is, because there was Sin in their Bodies whilst they lived; but on the contrary, if Men had no Sin in their Natures or Bodies, they might live and die, and naturally rise again, by their own Power, in their own Time.’ Upon this he thus observed, ‘Why should Sin only cause the Body to rot, stink and go to Dust? Does not the Scripure, and Reeve himself (in his Book, p. 44.) give another Reason, namely, That what came from Dust, is that which must go to Dust?’ Then adds (to shew their weakness in assigning Sin only for the cause of the Bodies rotting and going to Dust) ‘Be­sides, if the Flesh of Beasts is capable of Dying, Rot­ting and going to Dust, who never sinned, why should not Man have dyed, and gone to Dust, though he had never sinned?’ And in p. 5, 6. he attacks Reeve again, upon his own Assertion, saying, ‘And it is further evi­dent, That Sin is not the cause of Mens Bodies crum­bling into Dust, from Reeves his own Words, &c. So that what W. Penn said, on that Subject, might be but Argumentum ad Hominem, which ought not to be turned upon himself, But if W. Penn had directly af­firmed that Man's Natural Body, as it was formed of the Dust of the Ground, Gen. 2.7. Should have returned to Dust, again, although he had not sinned, would that have been a gross and vile Error contrary to the Funda­mental Articles of the Christian Faith? Indeed, accor­ding [Page 172] to G. Keith's wild Notions of Adam's and Eve's Bodies (both before the Fall, while they grew together back to back, before they were split asunder, as he Fa­bles, and after the Fall too) the Bodies which they had after the Fall, did derive from Sin, not only their Mortality, but their beginning, and the Cause of their Be­ing made: For he Dreams that the Bodies in which they lived after the Fall, were not the same that they had be­fore the Fall; but were those Coats of Skins, which God is said, Gen. 3.21. to have made for them, which he fancies to be their outward Bodies of Flesh, Blood and Bones, and that those were made to cover the nakedness of their former Bodies. Of which, and many more such Dotages, the Reader (if he have any thing of a so­ber Brain) may soon read himself Sick, in his Book, called, Truth Advanced, more especially from p. 16. to p. 32.

In this 44. p. again He acknowledges G. Whitehead and W. Penn to be Orthodox, though he has charged them with being Heterodox, and for ought I see makes them Heterodox and Orthodox in the same things; which is pretty.

Before he got hither, he had pretty well tired his Au­ditors. He was fain, in p. 41. to say, I beg of you; I shall be but short: And so drill'd them on the Contents of three Pages further. Now, says he, I beg your Pa­tience for one or two Quotations more, before I have done. (This was heavy, dull Work.) It is, says he, out of Tho. Ellwood, to shew you that T. Ellwood Char­ges me with Forgery, because I said the Yearly Meeting did censure some of these Vnsound Papers. This he has been harping at divers times before, both in p. 41, 42, and 43. But I deferr'd my Answer to it, till I came hither. The ground of his Cavil here at me is this, He (to support his tottering Credit among those few that seem­ed at first willing to listen a little to him) had in his [Page 173] Book, called, A seasonable Information, &c. p. 26. af­firmed, That the Paper, called, A true Account of the Pro­ceedings of the Yearly Meeting in 1694. (which his A­gent R. Hannay publish't) doth own them of the other side (by whom, he meant, the Friends in America whom he had separated from) to be guilty of unsound and erroneous Doctrines. I (in my Book, called, A fur­ther Discovery, written in Answer to that of his) said, p. 84. ‘How false and unfair he is in this, the Words of that Paper shall shew, which are these, viz. And although it appears, that some few Persons have given Offence, either through erronious Doctrines, un­sound Expressions, or Weakness, Forwardness, want of Wisdom and right Understanding, yet, &c. Up­on this I then made this Observation (which he now repeats in his Narrative, p. 44.) ‘Here ye see, Friends, that that Paper of the Yearly Meeting is so far from owning them of the other side, as he calls them (that is, the Friends in America) to be guilty of unsound and erronious Doctrines (which G. Keith here ex­presly saith it doth) that it doth not undertake to de­termine, whether the Offence (said to be given by some few Persons) was through erronious Doctrines, and unsound Expressions, or through Weakness, For­wardness, want of Wisdom and right Understand­ing. And yet this Man hath the Confidence and False­ness, to say positively, that Paper doth own them guilty of holding unsound and erronious Doctrines.’ This is that for which he says, I charged him with Forgery. And if I did, he well deserved it; for I proved it so plain upon him, that he has not had the Confi­dence so much as to attempt to acquit himself of it: And that, with many more such gross things, which I fastened on him in that Book, were, I suppose, the reaon, why he has not hitherto replied to it, though it has been in Print well nigh these two Years. Now, [Page 174] not being able to shake off the Forgery, he turns Cat in Pan, and endeavours to make some Advantage against me, for having denied that the Yearly Meeting had owned those Friends in America to be guilty of erroni­ous Doctrines, alledging that thereby I make both the Meeting and my self to approve and justifie them. But that is no fair Consequent. I hope there were some, at least, in his Auditory at Turners Hall, that were more just that to condemn us (so much as in their own Thoughts) whom he had Arraigned and so highly Charged behind our backs, (though he pretended to Convict us from our own Books) but would, like wise and upright Men, suspend their Judgment, till they should have heard or read our Defence? And if any that were there, fell short of this impartial Iustice, we value their Judge­ment no more than it deserves. But if this is but right and reasonable in this Case; how unright and unreasona­ble would it have been in the Yearly Meeting, to have given forth, judicially and authoritatively, as a Yearly Meeting, a Judgment against any particular Person or Persons, upon the Accusation of a declared Enemy, with­out due Proof, and without hearing the Parties Face to Face, or at all hearing the Defence of the Accused; nay, when the Persons accused were not only not present, nor in the Nation, but some thousands (perhaps) of Miles distant, in another Quarter of the World! This was the Case of that Yearly Meeting, in 1694. G. Keith made a Clamour then against some in America, for hold­ing (as he said) gross and vile Errors, as he has since done against some here; And he urged the reading of some Papers he had brought with him, relating to that Af­fair. Which though the Meeting was not obliged, in strict Justice, to admit (the Accused not being pre­sent) yet to stop his present, and to have prevented (if it might have been) his future Clamour, the Meet­ing condescended, and he read (or caused to be read) [Page 175] several Manuscripts. But when they were read (be­sides that divers of them appeared to be rather the ha­sty Products of Heat and Contention, which he had raised and kindled there, than the well-weighed Senti­ments of a sedate and deliberate Judgment) of what Authority could they be to the Meeting to ground a Judicial Sentence upon? Or who would be willing to have Judgment given against him, upon no Evidence but the bare reading of Letters (supposed to be his own) without having Liberty to make his own Defence, and to give his own Sence of any Expression laid to his Charge? This is not new to G. Keith, for in my Book, called, A further Discovery, in Answer to his, called, A sea­sonable Information, I debated this Case fairly with him. In p. 59. With respect to my self, I told him (which I had also told him before, in another Book called, An Epistle to Friends, p. 41.) ‘I observe he makes a great Noise and Ou [...]ery of gross and vile Errors held by some, and them upheld by others, which he gives for one Reason or Cause of the Separation. But in­asmuch as this is only his Charge, without due Proof, and the Persons by him Charged with those vile Er­rors, are not here present, to make Answer to his Charge, and defend themselves, or to shew the Occasi­ons that led to, and Circumstances that attended those Discourses, from which he pickt the Words he Char­ges them with, and to explain their meanings therein, I have not thought it fit, or becoming me, on no better Ground, to meddle with those Matters, being alike unwilling to justifie them, if in any thing they have done or said amiss, as to condemn them unheard, up­on the report of another, and him their professed Ad­versary.’

In p. 65. (With respect to the Meeting's Words before cited) which he would have strained to be a Judgment against the Friends in America, whom he [Page 176] had warred with) I told him, ‘What offence was gi­ven, might as well be through Weakness, Forward­ness, want of Wisdom and right Understanding, as through erronious Doctrines, or unsound Expressions. Nay, if it were through unsound Expressions (though they are not to be excused, yet) that doth not prove a Man guilty of holding gross and vile Errors, &c. For a Man that is sound in Iudgment, and Doctrine, m [...]a chance to drop an unsound Expression, through weak­ness, as some perhaps in America, through G. Keith's catching Questions, may have been drawn to do, whose Weakness for him to expose in Print, in that aggrava­ting manner as he has done, to the Reproach of the whole Profession, is very great Wickedness in him, and for which his Condemnation from God slumbers not.’ And in p. 66. with respect to his Manuscripts, (which he would have had pass for sufficient Proofs) I told him thus. ‘He being a Party is not a compe­tent Iudge what is sufficient Proof in this Case. That some Manuscripts were read in the Yearly Meeting by him, or on his part, I remember; how many they they were, or whether signed by the Persons own Hands, I know not. But, supposing (not granting) those Manuscripts to be either Autographs, or Authen­tick Copies, I believe he himself would think much, to be concluded or condemned from Inferences, or Con­structions made upon Manuscripts (especially, if they be private Letters, as I think, some of those he had read, were) without his being present, and having the Liberty to open and explain his Sense and Meaning in any Passage, Word or Sentence in them.’ Thus had I controverted this Point with him formerly, in that Book of mine, called, A further Discovery, which he has never replied to; which might have been enough to have stopped him from telling that Story at Turners-Hall, if he had not wanted Matter. And this I sup­pose [Page 177] will be sufficient to satisfie any impartial Reader: That the Yearly Meeting had no sufficient Ground, from what G. Keith offered to them, to censure judi­cially those Persons in America, whom he exclaimed here against; consequently that he has no just ground to Charge the Meeting (or me for defending the Meeting against his unjust Charge) with approving and justifying those things which he calls vile Errors in them.

But he comes off most lamely in pretending that he was charitable to the Yearly Meeting, in construing the Disjunctive [or] in their Words, to be equivalent to the Copulative [and] as, says he, sometimes it is. Did he ever know or taken for and, in an Alternative Proposition▪ or Sentence, as this was, by any that pre­tended to understand Words? Let him blush at his Fol­ly, and repent of his Hypocrisie, in calling that Charity, which was indeed but a deceitful Shift. And let him learn to be just, before he pretends to be Charitable.

He thrust upon his Auditors, one Quotation more, out of a Book of mine, which he almost pro­mised them, should be the last, at least of Printed ones. He tells them, That I blame him, for comparing the Books of Freinds, to the Books of the Greek and Latin Fathers. which in p. 45. he gives out of p. 99. of my Further Discovery, thus, In comparing the Books of Friends, to the Books of them called the Greek and Latin Fathers, he has not done as a Friend and Brother, but as an Enemy, in supposing Friends Books to have been written by no better Guidance, nor clearer sight, than theirs, who lived and writ in those Dark times. Upon this he said, You see how modest they are here? And upon that he makes his Auditors give a shout, Signifying, says he, their dislike that the Quakers Books should be preferr'd so far to the Greek and Latin Fa­thers, next to the Days of the Apostles. One might won­der here, at the Cause of his Auditors shouting: For [Page 178] such of them, as could understand what was meant by Greek and Latin Fathers, one might expect should be men of greater Wisdom and Gravity, than to shout in such Assemblies; And for the undiscerning Mob, it was a Subject so much above their Capacity and Pretences, that it cannot be supposed they should shout at that, if they had not been excited thereunto, by some little antick Gesticulation from him. But to the matter. They shouted, he says, Signifying their dislike, that the Qua­kers Books should be preferred so far to the Greek and Latin Fathers, next to the Days of the Apostles. Why next to the Days of the Apostles? These were not my words. I did not refer to the times next to the Days of the Apostles. But my words were,—Who lived and writ in those Dark times. Must those Dark times, needs be next to the Days of the Apostles? See what an Vnfair Stretch this was. Were not most, and the most noted, of them, in the fourth and fifth Centuries, three or four hundred Years or more, after the Apostles Days, as Athanasius, Basilius, the two Gregories (Naziansen and Nysen,) Cyril, Ambrose, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Hiero­nimus, Augustin, Hilarius, and so on to Gregory the great, Pope of Rome. Nay, are not Oecumenius, The­ophilact, and Bernard (none of the worst) reckoned a­mongst the Fathers, though the first of them lived above eight hundred Years, the second above a thousand, and the last above eleven hundred Years after Christ? And why then must what I spake of those who lived and writ in those Dark times, be applied to them that liv­ed next to the Days of the Apostles? Could he find no other times to be accounted Dark, but the Days next to the Apostles? He has shewed his good Will; and that he is no Changling in this respect (how great so­ever in another) but is always for perverting, and taking words in the worst sense.

[Page 179]That the times were Dark in the 4th and 5th Centu­ries, I suppose he will grant, when I shall have put him in mind, that much of the Superstition, and not a little of Corruption in Doctrine, now retained in the Church of Rome, crept in in those times (of which, were this a suitable place, I could give plenty of Instances) nor was the third Secle so clear, but that Tertullian (who lived in the very beginning of it) and Origen (about the middle of it) gave sufficient Occasion in their writings, for others to see, they were too much in the Dark. Per­kins in his Problem of the Church of Rome, p. 12. tells us, that Hierom says, Tertullian was not a man of the Church, because he fell a way, to the Opinion of Mon­tanus. Yea, that he was a chief Heretick. He gives a Catalogue of the Books, Tertullian wrote against the Or­thodox, and says, Gelasius adjudged all his Books to be A [...]rcryphal.

Origen, Perkins says, was Errorum plenus, Full of Errors; And that Hierom called his Writings Venemous. Of Cyp­rian, he says, p. 13. While he too much admires Tertullian, he sometimes favours the Montanists. Alstedius in Lex. Theol, p. 11. Blames Hierom, Augustine Ambrose, Hillary and Origen, altogether, for their absurd Al­legories; Nay he taxes Ambrose and Hillary with soul Contradictions. And in p. 17. he says, St. Hierom is ri­diculous in Allegories over and over. And Augustin, he says, does sometimes after the same manner. Jurieu a French Protestant, in his late Book called The Accom­plishment of the Prophecies, Second Edit. Part, 1. and p. 217. says, St. Basil, St. Ambrose, and the two Grego­ries, are the most antient Authors, in whom we begin to find the Worship and Invocation of Creatures. And in Part, 2. p. 43, he says, St. Basil in the East, and St. Ambrose in the West, are the most Antient Fathers, in whom we find the Footsteps of the Invocation and Intercession of the Saints. In Part 1. p. 270. he says, The Antients did Copy one a­nother, [Page 180] almost without any Iudgment, and always without Consideration. And he concludes, Part, 1 p. 112. If the Authority of the Fathers, be not good in many Places, 'tis good in none, 'tis doubtful every where. I give but these few Touches Concerning those Fathers (as they are called) who lived (not next to, yet) not many Ages after the Apostles Days. They who have a mind to know more on this Subject, may find enough (if not too much) in the learned Dalleus.

But that it may appear, I spake no [...] by rote, in cal­ling those times Dark, wherein most of those called Fathers before mentioned lived, I think fit to let the Reader understand, from Perkins's Problem before ci [...]ed, That Praying for the Dead (which is a peculiar Doctrine of Popery) is as Old as Tertullians time, about the latter End of the Second, and beginning of the Third Centu­ry, p. 97. And the Conceit of Purgatory, must to be sure, be some what Older. Perkins makes the Mon­tanists Authors of it, p. 99. And Tertullian and Origen the Chief, p. 175. The Honouring of the Relick of the Dead came in a little after the Year 300. p 81. Praying to Saints, about the Year 380. p. 90. The Caelibacy, or Single Life of Priests, between the Years 300. and 400. p 190, 191, 192. Monkery ▪ about t [...]e Year 260. p. 226. And for Superstitious Ceremo [...]i [...]s used in the Church of Rome, if Genebrard, Fas [...]iculus Temporum, Polidore, de invent Rerum, and other Writers may be believed, the greatest part of them were introdu­ced before the Sixth Century, and not a few in the Third.

In p. 46. he ob [...]rudes upon his Auditory, the Copy of a Paper, which he pretends to have Received from some of the Church-Party (as he calls them) by which I confess at the first sight, I thought he had meant some Episcopal Men, [...]till Reading on, I found he described them to be some that go among the Quakers. Why [Page 181] he Denominates them, some of the Church-Party, (or of a Party for the Church) I know not, unless to distin­guish them from himself, and such as he was in hopes to get to him, to make a Party against the Church. However, he says, They were such as favoured him; and (if he say true) it appears they favoured him, more than Truth, otherwise they would not have gone out of the way of Truth, and common Iustice, to gratify him. For he says, They gave him a Meeting (There were, he think [...], Nine or Ten of them;) They took notice, he says, of some of Ellwood's Forgeries and Abuses; And it seems they dr [...]w up a Paper against me, as a Censure and Judgment upon my Book, for he says, They said in their Paper, T. Ellwood had done him wrong. And yet all this (if ever it was done) was done in the Dark, and in Hug­ger Mugger (as the saying is) without ever convening me, or acquainting me with it, before or after; nor did I ever hear of it, till now. He says, Some of them are Eminent, and that they are Generally in good Repute among us. If they were so, it would have added some Repute to his Cause, to have named them; but that, I observe, he would not be drawn to, by all the Importunity that was used. His Narrative gives Account that H. G. said, Let us know their names, who they are; which he refusing to tell, the other said, I dare thee to name their names, or else thou art a Lyar, an Impostor, a Cheat, adding, I dare say it is a Cheat. All this would not prevail with G. Keith to name a Man of them: And yet he says, Some of them have, I hope, that Courage, that I believe they would not be offended nor afraid, if I named them. This makes me the more suspect his Story to be false. And though I will not say positively, It is a Cheat; yet I dare say, It looks as like a Cheat, as any thing can well look. And I think an Impartial and Iudicious Auditory would have required their names, and been better sa­tisfied of the Authority of that Paper, before they [Page 182] would have lent him their Ears to the Hearing of it. But, as if he had been feeding Iackdaws, all went down (for ought I find) that he offered, without the least chew­ing, or Examination.

Now if there be any thing of reality in the Story he has told (of some Persons whom he will not name, that gave him that Paper, of which he read the Copy in his Meeting at Turner's-Hall) and that it be not a meer Fiction of his own, to bring forth that as the work of others, which (for the weakness of it,) he might well have been ashamed to have brought forth as his own; what ever might be their intent in doing it, (as perhaps to still and quiet him, by making some little shew of bla­ming me, which supposing the Story true in Fact, is the most Charitable Construction I can put upon it.) Yet I plainly see his design in publishing it is, to slip his Neck cut of the Collar, (as they say) and thereby excuse him­self (if he might) from Answering that Book of mine (cal­led A further Discovery) out of which the Cavils contain­ed in the Paper he read, were pickt up. For he says, in a Marginal Note to p. 50. (both of that Book, and the t'other called Truth Defended) I think I have effectu­ally answered them here, as to the main. Now I think it fit to give the Reader an Account, That that Book of mine, called A further Discovery, &c. and was an Answer to a Book of G. Keith's called A Seasonable Information, and Caveat, &c. (the Epistle to which was Published first by it self, about a Month before the Book) in which he charged me with Fifty False Accusations, Perversions and Forgeries (which he pretended to have gathered up, out of a Former Treatise of mine, called An Epistle to Friends) and undertook, in so Many distinct Sections, to prove against me. All which in my Further Disco­very, I Answered, and fully too, and returned the Charge of False Accusations, Perversions and Forgeries upon him. This has lain upon him now near two Years, [Page 183] without so much as attempting to Answer it. Now he would sham me off with an Idle Story (if not a meer Fa­ble) of what some few Persons (that must not be named, that they may not be blamed and shamed) have in a Blind and Indirect manner, signified to him, as their Judg­ment Concerning some few (and little material) Passages in that Book of mine. And this he would have pass for an Answer to that Book. Which that it may not, but that that Book (as well as the other, called Truth De­fended) may still remain upon him, as unanswered; I will go through the several particulars of it (which he for want of weight in himself, calls weighty) and shew both the emptiness and weakness of them, and the Folly and Falshood of his Comments upon them.

The First Head is, that I blame G. Keith for mi­stating the Controversie (about the sufficiency of the Light) and cunningly sliding in the Word [Within] when he knew it was not in the Words charged, nor in the Words proved: To this it is opposed, in that Paper thus, A true Copy of the three Iudgments, p. 6. are those Words: All which are something else than the People called Quakers understand by the Light, [...]o wit, the Light in eve­ry Man's Conscience, which G. Keith alledgeth, is Proof that G. Keith intended the Light within. To this I say, 1. What is meant by A true Copy of the three Iudgments, I know not. If it be a Book (as, by quoting, p. 6. it seems to be) I do not remember I have ever seen it; nor is it much material, to this business; whether I ever do or not. 2. Here's a Relative without an Antecedent, all which are something else, &c. All which? all what? All nothing at all: For there is nothing mentioned, or recited out of that True Copy, to which the Relative Which may be referr'd. So that this is a Nonsensi [...]al Pas­sage. And, to compleat the Folly of this weighty Parti­cular, as he calls it, the Conclusion of it is thus, Which G. Keith alledgeth, is Proof that G. Keith intended the [Page 184] Ligh within. Here G. Keith's pretended Advocates, in­stead of shewing that the Word Within was in the Words charged, or in the Words proved (which they should have done; if they would have convicted me of mis­charging him, in saying he had cunningly slid in the Word, Within) come no nearer the Matter than to say, that something or other (not naming what) G. Keith alledgeth, is Proof that G. Keith intended the Light within. They don't adventure so far as to say, that that something (or All which, whatever it was) is a Proof, but that G. Keith alledgeth it is a Proof. And a Proof of what, I Pray? Why, a Proof that G. Keith inten­ded the Light within. But is not that a fair Proof, at least by Implication, that G. Keith did not express the Word Within (whatever he intended) and consequent­ly, that I said true, in saying, He knew it was not in the Words charged, nor in the Words proved (for how should it, when it was not in the Words spoken, as is here implicitely acknowledged) but only in his Inten­tion? Was G. Keith so dull, he could not see, that this was so far from being a Defence for him, that it whol­ly makes against him, and for me? To peice out this, there is added in his Paper, a Passage in one Ben. Chamber's Letter: Another Passage in Iohn Delaval's Letter. And then is added, Iohn Humphrey's two Let­ters read, and both to the same Purpose. It may be so: And yet all to little or no purpose. For what were all these Letters, I pray? Were they made publick in Print? Or only private Letters lying in G. Keith's Poc­ket? How then could it be expected I should know, or take notice, what was in them? But I can assure G. Keith (and his Advocates too, if he hath any) that I went upon surer Ground than the Letters in his Pocket could be to me: For when I said, He knows the Word With­in was not in the Words charged, nor in the Words pro­ved, I had G. Keith himself for my Author; and I thought [Page 185] I could not have a better, against himself, than himself. He, in his Seasonable Information (to which I then an­swered) speaking of T. Fitz-water's Charge against him, p. 12. said, His Charge was, That I denied the suf­ficiency of the Light. Here's not the Word VVithin; and therefore he knew (if he knew what he writ) that the Word VVithin was not in the Words Charged. Then three Lines lower, in the same Page, speaking of what the Witnesses proved, he says, They proved against me, That I did not believe the Light was sufficient without some­thing else. Here's not the Word VVithin; and there­fore he knew (if he knew what he writ) that the Word VVithin was not in the Words proved. This, I think were enough, on this Head, to clear me. But to manifest more fully, that I had good ground to say as I did, viz. that he knew the Word VVithin was not in the Words charged, I add, that in the same Book, p. 17. he says, ‘I stand recorded on the Monthly Meet­ing Book at Philadelphia, by the Monthly Meetings Judgment given out against me, and clearing T. Fitz-water for his accusing me, that I denyed the suffi­ciency of the Light; and the Evidence (says he) against me was, That I said, I did not believe the Light was suf­ficient without something else. Here he has set down the VVords charged, and the VVords proved, as they stand recorded (if he may be believed) on the Monthly Meeting Book at Philadelphia, and yet here is not the Word VVithin, either in the VVords charged, or in the VVords proved. And this both he, and his pretended Advocates, might have seen in my Further Discovery, p. 62. Yet further in his Book, called, Reasons and Causes, p. 8. where he gives this Matter as the first Cause of the Separation, he sets down T. Fitzwater's Charge against him thus. T— having openly in the Face of the Meeting accused G. Keith, for denying the sufficiency of the Light. Here is not the VVord VVithin. And lower [Page 186] in the same Page, telling what others witnessed for him, he says they said, ‘They heard him both then and at all occasions, that he delivered his Mind on that subject, always bear Testimony to the sufficiency of the Light to Salvation. Here's not the VVord VVithin. And this I noted formerly, in my Further Discovery, p. 63. whom would G. Keith have me to believe, if not him­self? Yet G. Keith has the Face, in his Comment up­on this Head, Nar. p. 48. to say, The Question was not concerning the Light indefinitely; but the Light within: And that I accuse him unjustly.

The Second Head of that Paper is, That, in my Fur­ther Discovery, p. 101. are these Words, And this makes a Verbal Confession; yea, a bare verbal Confession, suffici­ent to Yoak them, as he phrases it, together in Church-Fel­lowship. To this they oppose, Reasons and Causes of the Separation, p. 22. ad finem; Tho. Ellwood leaves this out, viz. Touching these necessary and Fundamental Prin­ciples of Christian Doctrine, as well as that their Conversa­tion is such as becomes the Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ. They add also another Sentence out of Reasons and Cau­ses, p. 36. But as this last Sentence relates not to those Words of mine, which were expresly restrained to the Quotation there given out of Reasons and Causes, p. 22. So they (or he for them, for that it is his Work, whoe­ver he got to Patronize it, I don't doubt) leave out the former part of my Words, which explain the lat­ter. The Dispute between him and me there, was not about Conversation, or how far, he either admitted, or required, that, as a Term of Communion with him; but it was about a verbal Confession of Faith or Princi­ples, as a Door of Admittance into Society or Fellow­ship, or Terms of Communion therein; See my Epistle, p. 59, 60, and 61. In his Answer to which (called A Seasonable Information) p. 34. Sect. 37, 38. He menti­oned not a Word of Conversation; but excepted against [Page 187] the Words Door of Admittance, and said, he made not a verbal Confession, the Terms at all of Church-Communion, when the Profession is but barely verbal; but when the Con­fession or Profession, floweth from the living Faith of Christ, &c. To this I replying, in my Further Discovery, p. 101. shewed, that he had not guarded his Expression, about a verbal Confession, so before, in the Place I had quoted of his, which was that in Reasons and Causes, p. 22. Then reciting the Words again, viz. We are con­vinced and perswaded in our Consciences, that God calleth us to separate from such Vnbelievers, and not to be yoaked to­gether in Church-Fellowship and Discipline with any that we have not proof of by Confession of the Mouth, that they are sound in Faith; I thereupon made this twofold Infe­rence, ‘So that he makes a verbal Confession, a Proof of their being sound in the Faith, and this makes a Verbal Confession, yea, a bare verbal Confession, sufficient to yoak them (as he phrases it) together in Church-Fellowship.’ Now the leaving out the first Part of my Words, is in­jurious to the Sense of the Latter: For it makes as if the latter Part (viz. That he makes abare verbal Con­fession sufficient to Yoak them together in Church-Fel­lowship) had been an Assertion of mine; whereas it is but an Inference from the former, and that former an In­ference from his Words there quoted. For I did not af­firm he makes a bare verbal Confession sufficient to Yoak them, &c. But from his saying, we are convinced, &c. that God calleth us to separate, &c. and not to be yoaked in Church-Fellowship, &c. with any that we have not proof of by Confession of the Mouth, that they are sound in Faith; I inferr'd, 1. That he made a verbal Confession, a proof of their being sound in the Faith: And, 2. That his doing so (his making a Verbal Confession a Proof of their being sound in the Faith) makes a verbal Confession, yea, a bare verbal Confession, sufficient to yoak in Church-Fellowship. Now in this I do not apprehend, I [Page 188] did him any wrong at all, either in the Inferences, or in end­ing the Quotation where I did, and not giving the Words now added in the Paper [Touching these necessary and fundamental Principles (it should have been, Parts) of Christian Doctrine, as well as that their Conversa­tion is such as becomes the Gospel, &c.] For the ne­cessary Parts of Christian Doctrine are comprehended in the Words, sound in Faith; and Conversation was not in the Terms of the Debate, and therefore not proper to have been there put in▪ G. Keith's Clamour therefore, in Nar. p. 48. is groundless, where he says, Take notice how they (the supposed Authors of his Paper) notifie his Forgery, that he leaves out my Words. This may be ra­ther c [...]lled his Forgery; For the Paper he read, says nothing of Forgery; but only mentions what Words I left out, without passing any Censure, or making any Ob­servation upon it.

The Third Head of that Paper is, That in Page 103. T. Ellwood accuseth G. Keith for giving of false Quota­tion, or forging Quotation (this is the Scotch Dialect, by which I guess who framed it) out of R. Barclay's Book. Then it sa [...]s, G. Keith's Quotation compared with R. Barclay's agrees, as quoted, Reasons and Causes, &c. p. 16. For Substance of Doctrine, p. 24, 25, 26. in express VVords, and adds, p. 106. T. Ellwood admits of Substance. In the Margin is set, Let the Quotations be read out of R. Barclay's Anar, Now whereas G. Keith's pretended Advocates, or Compurgators, say here, that G. Keith's Quotation compared with R. Barclay's ag [...]ees as quoted, Reasons and Causes, p. 16. for Sub­stance of Doctrine; I deny it, and that upon good ground, having now again examined the one with the other. And I put both G. Keith and all his Advocates upon it, to make it appear, if they can. The menti­oning the Quotations G. Keith gave in p. 24, 25, 26. of Reasons and Causes, out of R. Barclay is nothing to [Page 189] the purpose (if they do agree) because it was not in those Pages that I charged him with false quoting. But in my Epistle First, I taxed him with wronging R. Bar­clay in the Words he gave; in his Causeless Ground, p. 8. as the express Doctrine and Testimony of R. Bar­clay in his Anarchy, p▪ 48. and I shewed it, and plainly proved it by comparing the places together: And in p. 61, 62. of that Epistle, I shewed a like abuse he had put upon R. Barclay and his Reader, in his Reasons and Causes, p. 16. in giving that Passage as R. Barclay's Do­ctrine in Anarchy, p. 32, 33, 48, 49. which was neither his Words nor his Doctrine: And though he would have shuffled this off, in his Seasonable Information, p. 34, 35. Yet I would not suffer him so to do; but in my Further Discovery, p. 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106. drove him out of all his Holes and Subterfuges about it, and fixed it as a false Quotation on him; which neither he has cleared himself, nor his Advo­cates have acqui [...]ted him of, nor can. Whereas they say T. Ellwood admits of Substance; they speak not plain­ly. If they mean, that in p. 106. (which they menti­on) I admit G. Keith to have given the Substance of R. Barclay's Doctrine, in that Quotation, Reasons and Causes, p. 16. which I taxed him for, I deny it. I on­ly say there, ‘He hath not attempted to prove, that this is the Doctrine, or Substance of the Doctrine of R. Bar­clay in that Book, by producing now R. Barclay's own Words to manifest it.’ This is not admitting G. Keith's Quotation to be the Substance of R. Barclay's Doctrine there. But to remove this conceit wholly, I said in the Page but just before, viz. p. 105. ‘Ye see now, G. Keith not only confesses they are not his VVords, but dares not adventure to say, they are plainly and di­rectly his Doctrine; but the Substance of his Doctrine. And yet (said I) even that I deny. I say they are neither R. Barclay's VVords, nor Doctrine, nor the Sub­stance [Page 190] of his Doctrine.’ What now may we suppose to be meant by those Words in the Paper, T. Ellwood admits of Substance? Why, if we may Credit G. Keith in his Commentary upon it, Nar. p. 48. He says, These Men take notice that T. Ellwood is unfair in taking that Liberty to himself, he will not allow to me: They (adds he) observe, he admits of Substance of Doctrine in his own Citations, but will not allow it to me. Whence will he pretend to have this? The Paper he read, and has Printed, says nothing of it, nothing towards it, nothing like it. This therefore I charge upon him, as a plain downright Falshood and Forgery.

The fourth Head of that Paper is, That in Further Discovery, p. 19. T. Ellwood accuses G. Keith, that he blames Friends, that they were gone too much from the Outward to the Inward. But G. Keith, p. 20. (it should be p. 10.) which T. Ellwood brings for Proof, says, That he blames some Persons, for not rightly and fully preaching Christ without. So that T. Ellwood's Consequences seems not fair, but strain'd. This is weakness, at least. I shewed in that page, that the word [too much] there, related to their going from the Outward, which I proved he blamed Friends for, by his own saying Seas. Inform. p. 10. I have blamed some Persons for not rightly and fully Preaching Christ without. Now if, according to him, they did not Preach Christ without, righ [...]ly nor fully, then, according to him they were gone too much from the Outward: And so my Consequence was not Strain'd, but fair.

The fifth Head, says p. 22. T. Ellwood accuseth G. Keith, of a Fallacy, in declaring, he refused not to go forth at the Yearly Meeting: which Fallacy alledged, was, that G. Keith should refuse to go out some one Day of the Yearly Meeting. But that not appearing to us, by any Quotation, the supposed Fallacy appears not. Well, What then! Whether it appear'd to them or not, the Fallacy is ne­vertheless [Page 191] certain; And though I could not give a Quo­tation to prove it (having only his Books to quote out of) Yet I writ it not upon surmise, but upon Sufficient [...]ound, and G. Keith so well knows it to be true, that he has not had the boldness to deny it. There is another part of this Head, which says, And further, Whereas T. Ellwood alledges that he was led into this mistake by G. Keith's obscure way of writing; for altho' in p. 14. nor 18. of the Book, Reasons and Causes, as T. Ellwood unduly Argueth, yet in p. 3. Plea of the Innocent, quoted by himself, p. 19. of his first Book called An Epistle, &c. We find G. Keith gives account, the Yearly Meeting at Philadelphia, was in the first week of the 7th Month, 1691. This looks like G. Keith's work, both by the Imperfectness of the Sense, and the disposing of the words so, that the Fallacy I had charged him with, might pass for a Mistake of mine. Whereas the Fallacy I charged him with, was, His saying he did go out at the Yearly Meeting (to contradict my saying, he refused to go out at the Yearly Meeting) whereas (there being several Meetings in that time of the Yearly Meeting, he did go out at some, or one, of them, but refused to go out at the rest. But the Mistake that I was led into, by his obscure way of writing, was, that the place of his Book which I then quoted, to prove he refused to go out of the Yearly Meeting (which was p. 14. Of Reasons and Causes) spake not of the Yearly Meeting, but another, (as I remember, the Quarterly) Meeting (For that he did refuse to go out at two several Meetings, that Book of his confesses, p. 14. and p. 18) I complained, that I was led into that Mistake, by his obscure way of writ­ing, in not setting down the times wherein those Meet­ings were held, and shewed that in those pages of that Book of his, wherein those Meetings were spoken of, there is neither Day, Month, nor Year set, wherein either the Quartely or Yearly Meeting was held. They [Page 192] blame me, for blaming him for his obscurity, and say, though it was not in p▪ 14. nor 18. (nor indeed any where) of that Book, yet it was in p. 3. of another Book; and so it may be in p. 13. of another Book beside that, for ought I know: But it was not at all, in that Book which I mentioned, where the Matter was treated of, and where it ought to have been. G. Keith upon this, Rants at an high rate, Nar. p. 49. and says, You see, he argues like a rare Logician. He says, I don't name the Year nor Day, nor is it in p. 14. nor p. 18. But what then? I do it in another page, says he. Ay, so he did indeed: But that other page, was in ano­ther Book. This is rare Logick, says he. And this is rarer Iuggling, say I; to set down his Matter in one Book, and the time of it in another Book, that he might hide himself, puzzle his Reader, and trepan his Oppo­nent. How could he, or his Advocates either, expect that I should have recourse to his Plea of the Innocent, to find the date of a Meeting treated of in his Reasons and Causes? Oh, says G. Keith, he has quoted that for another purpose. True, but as it was for another pur­pose, so it was in another Book, written at another time, not in that wherein I complained of his Omissions; but in the Epistle written three Months before.

The sixth Head is almost such another Cavil, depend­ing upon the uncertain Dates of some of their Meetings in Pensilvania, wherein their Controversies had been handled. G. Keith had complained, that the Yearly Meeting there, had not given a right Judgment against W. Stockdale; I shewed that they had. He thereupon asks, Why did they contradict the Sound Iudgment of a Monthly Meeting at Philadelphia, passing due Censure up­on W. S. six Months thereafter? I took (and yet take) the Monthly Meeting he speaks of, to have been held six Months after that Yearly Meeting▪ and there­upon askt him, how the Judgment of the First could be [Page 193] said to contradict that of the Latter, seeing the Latter was not in being, when the First was given? To this he says, Nar. p. 49. Pray, May not a Meeting held six Months after, Contradict a Meeting going before? I am charged (say he) that I cannot Speak Sense: And why? Because he (T. Ellwood) feigns that I said, a Meeting six Months before Contradicted a Meeting held six Months after it; when there is no such thing (says he;) But that a Meeting six Months after, Contradicts a Meeting six Months before. Thus G. Keith. But how falsly shall quick­ly be made appear, and that both by G. Keith himself, and his Advocates. I ask therefore, Which of the two Meetings, the Yearly or the Monthly, did Contra­dict the other? Which of them was it, that was Contra­dicted by the other? G. Keith resolves this plainly, in his Seasonable Information p. 11. by saying, Why did they, (viz. the Yearly Meeting) Contradict the sound Judgment of a Monthly Meeting at Philadelphia, passing due Censure upon W. Stockdale six Months thereafter? This is enough to shew that, according to G. Keith, it was the Yearly Meeting that did Contradict, the Monthly that was Contradicted, and yet both he here acknowledges that that Monthly Meeting, was six Months after that Yearly Meeting, and his Advocates undertake to De­monstrate it, by giving the dates of Each, viz. That of the Yearly Meeting, the 1st of the seventh Month 1691. That of the adjourned Meeting (w [...]ich is the same that he calls the Monthly Meeting) the 27th of the 12th Mo. 1691. And expresly say it was six Months after the Yearly Meeting. Now if it was the Yearly Meeting that did Contradict, and the Monthly Meeting that was Contradicted, and that Yearly Meeting was six Months before that Monthly Meeting, (as from G. Keith's and his Advocates own words before cited, I have proved that it was) then that which was six Months before, did (according to G. Keith) contradict that which came [Page 194] six Months after. Which how great Nonsense it is, G. Keith has already resolved: But he cannot acquit himself of it; nor of a down right Falshood, with too great Boldness delivered, to have excused himself from being too apt, as Learned as he is, to write Nonsense. Of this I expect he should clear himself, or Confess himself Guilty of both Nonsense, and (which is worse) Falshood.

In the seventh Head, p. 48. Having quoted several pages (and recited some words) out of my Further Discovery, as p. 35, 36, 37, and 42, and 43. Where I treated about the Separation made by G. Keith in America; they say, Whereas T. Ellwood should have brought Matter of Fact, to prove G. Keith guilty of the Se­paration, instead thereof, he argues, as we think, unfairly by Logical Nicety. Thought, the Proverb says, is free; and I cannot help it, if they would think so? But I think (and I have found others think) that I have in that Book sufficiently fix'd the Guilt of the Separation upon G. Keith, and that by fair Reasoning, drawn from Matter of Fact, throughout twenty pages and more, from p. 36. to p. 59. And I am content to stand to the Readers Judg­ment in it. But if the Persons whom G. Keith pretends to have had this Paper from, did draw it up themselves, I wonder not at their thinking, as they say they do: For in the Close of the former Head, the Judgment of the Yearly Meeting, is called the Supposed Judgment of the Yearly Meeting; which word doth so exactly resemble G. Keith's Style, that if any others brought it sorth [...]or him, I cannot think but he begot it in them. Upon this Head, G. Keith makes a large Comment. But it is little else than a Repetition of the 10th Section in p. 13, 14. of his Seasonable Information, already answered in my Fur­ther Discovery, p. 42, 43, 44. Only I observe he here makes it a perversion of Philosophy to put the Cause before the Effect. Which perhaps may be as true, as it would be a Perversion in Husbandry, to set the Oxen before the Plow, which is their proper place.

[Page 195]The Eighth Head being only about setting the Prin­t [...]r's Name to Books, I think too trivial to take notice of here; further than to observe, That it shews G. Keith, and they that he says favoured him, were hard put to it to pick up Matter out of my Book to Cavil at, when they were fain to stoop for such silly stuff as this.

The Ninth and Last Head is, That T. Ellwood alledges, p. 91. He did not understand that the Doctrine of the Faith of Christ, as he died, being necessary to our Christianity and Salvation, &c. Was by him reputed a Doctrine in Contro­versie between G. Keith and others in America; when in several Places of his Books it plainly appears it was the principal Doctrine in Controversie. See Reasons and Cau­ses, p. 8, and 21, 22. with many others: They must ex­cuse me in that. What appears very plain to some, does not always appear so to others. And I do assure them, that which they say appeared so plain to them, neither then did, nor yet does, appear plain to me. For I do not believe (whatever he may pretend) that there was any real Controversie between Friends there, and him, whether the Faith of Christ, as he died, is necessary to our Christianity and Salvation. But that the Qu [...]stion controverted was, Whether that Faith is absolutely and indispensibly necessary to all Mankind, through­out the Vniverse, so that none could be saved without it, though they had not the means, Opportunity, or Capacity to know or receive it. And that this was indeed, the state of the Controversy there, I have since Read in the state of the Case, p. 11. written by Samuel Iennings, while here in England.

It was not that I thought there was any thing of worth or moment in this Paper, that made me bestow this little pains in answering it; nor that the particular Passages therein (though G. Keith, to set them off, calls them Weig [...]ty Particulārs) ha [...]e any other weight in them, than what is likely to fall upon his Head, who [Page 196] brought them forth, whatever it may upon any others that assisted him therein. But the chief reason which induced me, at this time, to take any notice of them at all, was, that I might wholly take from him all pretence of having answered that Book of mine, out of which these Cavils were taken; so that that Book called A Further Discovery, as well as my last, called Truth De­fended, may still lie with their full weight on him, un­answered in any part.

In p. 51. The Meeting being over, and Narrative ended, he adds this Note; If any of my Adversaries ob­ject, That divers of these Proofs, here brought, were brought formerly in my Book against W. Penn and G. Whitehead, called A Short List of the Vile and Gross Errors, which T. Ellwood hath replied to in his Book, called Truth De [...]end­ed: I Answer (says he) I know not any one of them that he has sufficiently answered unto, to give the least satisfacti­on to any sound Christian; his Answers being meerly Eva­sions and Perversions, as I should have shewn, if he had ap­peared. Alas, poor man, he might with the more ease have shewed it I not appearing to his Imperious Summons, if he could have shewed it at all. Why should he ex­cuse himself by my not appearing? Neither G. White­head nor W. Penn appeared any more than I (they not owning his Vsurped Iurisdiction, any more than I) and yet that hindred him not from repeating those broken Charges against them, which I had answered before in Print. If he would needs be doing, he should have pro­ceeded methodically and fairly, and have first given his Auditors an account that he had formerly exhibited those Charges in Print; and that I in Print had answered them. Then he should have read my Answers, and re­ [...]u [...]ed them, if he could; and when he had done that, it had been time enough then for him to have renewed and reinforced his Charge. But he had rather answer my Book by repeating the Charge which my Book was [Page 197] an Answer to; that he thought would be the easiest way. As for my former Answer, whether it is sufficient and satisfactory, or no, he must give me leave, or I will take it, to tell him (notwithstanding he has set himself on the Bench, and called me and others to the Bar, to hear our selves charged and proved guilty) that he and I are both too near a kin to the Cause, to be proper and competent Judges of the sufficiency of my Answer. His Book and mine are both abroad, the World has them, and the World will judge of them as they see cause, whether we will or no, and so let them with my good will. But withall let me tell him, that until he has an­swered them, they stand, and will stand, as sufficient against him. And, as such, I still leave them upon his Head, and expect his Answer to both them and this. And whereas he saith there are many new Proofs here brought, besides the former, it is not unlikely but some there may be (though I think not many;) for that's the way of Shuffling Writers, to add some New Scraps to an Old Book, and then set it out with a New Title, for a New Book. Yet very little, I think, there is, if any thing, in his Narrative, which was not pub­lished before, either in his former List of Vile and Gross Errors (which I answered before) or in his Book of Gross Error and Hypocrisie detected, now an­swered in this. And therefore, I think, I may justly call this Answer to his Narrative, an Answer to them all; and as such I intend it.

G. Keith's Appendix to his Narrative, and the several Charges contained therein, considered.

TO his Narrative he tacks an Appendix, containing (he says) some considerable Proofs out of these Men [...] Books relating to the foregoing Heads, The first Passage be [Page 198] carps at, is in G. Whitehead's Book called The Divinity of Christ, p. 70. Where in Answer to I. Owen, who had [...]aid ‘The Sacrifice de [...]otes his (Christ's Humane Nature, whence God i [...] said to purchase his Church with his own Blood, Acts 20.28. For he offered him­self through the eternal Spirit, there was the Matter of the Sacrifice, which was the Humane Nature of Christ's Soul and Body, &c. G. Whitehead answered, These Passages are but darkly and confusedly expres­sed; As also we do not read in Scrip [...]ure, that the Blood of God, by which he purchased his [...]hurch, is ever called the Blood of the Humane Nature: Nor that the Soul of Christ was the Humane Nature, or was put to death with the Body (for the wicked could not kill the Soul, — for his Soul in his own being was im­mortal, and the Nature of God is Divine, and there­fore that the Blood of God should be of Humane (or Earthly) Nature, appears intonsistent; And where doth the Scripture call the Blood of God Humane, or Human Nature? &c. It is plain enough from hence, That G. Whitehead's Exception lay against the word Human, which he explains by Earthly, to shew he took it in that signification wherein it is derived, ab [...]Humo, from the Ground or Earth; in which sence it is not a fit or proper Term to express the Blood of God, or the Soul of Christ, nay, nor his outward Man by: For his out­ward Body, which was nailed to the Cross, was not of a Meer Earthly Extraction; there was more of Divinity even in that Body than in the Bodies of other men, which rendred it too Heavenly to be called Humane or Earthly. But though G. Whitehead rejected the word Humane or Earthly, with respect to Christ's Manhood and Holy Na­ture, and to the Blood of God, wherewith he purchased his Church, and could not admit that his Soul was put to death (though it, with the Body, was made an Of­fering for Sin, and so it is, in a figurative manner of [Page 199] speaking, said, that he poured it out to death) yet he never denied the Manhood of Christ, nor the sufferings thereof, both inwardly and outwardly, nor the virtue, merit and efficacy of those sufferings; Nor is there any thing in those words of his which G. Keith hath quoted, that imports he did. But in the progress of his An­swer to I. Owen in the next page, mentioning both the Travel and Sufferings of Christ's Soul under the Bur­den of Man's Transgression, and the suffering of his Body, under the violence of the wicked hands, to death, and the shedding of his Blood, &c. he adds, We desire all may have as good an esteem of Christ, in his suffer­ings, as may be. Therefore G. Keith doth very unjustly, and like himself, in insinuating as if G. Whitehead had denied the Manhood of Christ.

He takes some pains to excuse himself, for having for­merly (as he pretended to excuse others) cited those words of Hilarius, Quid per Naturam Humani corpori [...] conceptu ex Spiritu Sancto Caro judicatur, i.e. Why is the Flesh conceived by the Holy Ghost, judged by the Nature of an Human Body. But, says he, neither Hilarius nor I judged that the Body, though conceived of the Holy Ghost, was any part of the substance of the Holy Ghost. No more, say I, do we: Yet being conceived by the Holy Ghost, through the overshadowing of the Power of the Most High, that Body was more Pure and Hea­venly, than the Bodies of other Men, and above the Epithet Humane or Earthly. The Book he mentions, in which, he says, he cited those words of Hilarius, which he calls, The True Christ owned, I do not remem­ber I have ever seen. But in another Book of his, called The Rector Corrected, Printed the next year after that, viz. in 1680. he gives the same sentence out of Hilari­us, and tells us. p. 29. Hilarius saith, concerning the Body of Christ, that was born of the Virgin, Iesus Christ was not formed by the Nature of Humane Conception, [Page 200] and that the Original of his Body, is not of an Humane Conception. And as there he spake for Hilarius, so in p. 27. speaking for himself, he says, even the outward and visible Flesh, which he took of the Virgin, seeing it was not produced or formed by Humane Generation, but by a Divine Conception, through the Overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, and did far excel the Flesh of all other Men that ever were since; inasmuch also, that after death, it was not subject to Corruption; the name Humane [Mark] is but too mean a Title, whereby to express it; far less should it be so called now, when it is glorified, and it is altogether Heavenly and Spiritual. Nor doth the Scripture any where give unto his Body such a name as Humane, said he then.’ And who would then have thought, that he would have come to plead for the word Humane, with respect to Christ's both Flesh and Soul, and condemn us for Hereticks for not using it?

But concerning the Excellency of Christ's Body, hear what he said, in the year 1678. in his Book called The way to the City of God, which now, poor man, he is quite beside, p. 131. ‘Even according to that Birth he [Christ] was the Son of God, no les [...] than the Son of Man, as having God for his Father, as he had the Virgin Mary for his Mother. Now the Child, (says he) we know, doth partake an Image or Nature from both Parents; And thus did Christ, who did partake of the Nature and Image of Man, from the Seed of Mary, but did partake of a Nature and Image much more excellent, than that of Man, in its greatest Glo­ry, from God and his Seed, who did really sow a most divine and heavenly Seed in the Virgins Womb, which as it supplied the Males Seed, so it had much more in it, and brought forth a Birth, which as it had the true and whole Nature of Man, so, I say, it had a Perfection above it, and that not only in accidental [Page 201] qualities (as men will readily confess) but even in substance and Essence. And yet we must be now ana­thematized, and that by him, for denying that Body to be Humane or Earthly.

He says, p. 53, G. Whitehead's Objection against the word Humane, as signifying Earthly, hath the same force against calling Christ Adam, coming from the Hebrew word Adamah, that signifieth Earth. From hence, first I must desire the Reader to observe, that G. Keith saw well enough where the ground of G. Whitehead's Ob­jection lay, viz. (as I have expressed it before) upon the word Humane, as signifying Earthly. This shews that he is a meer Caviller, and seeks occasions to quarrel, and defame without cause. Next I must tell him, That Christ is not called Adam in a strict and proper sense, but in a figurative, with allusion to the First Man, who was of the Earth, Earthy, (as being made of the dust of the ground) and therefore was in a proper sense called Adam. But whereas he says, the Scripture calleth the Man Christ the Second Adam; and that the Man Christ had not only that which was heavenly, but had even our earthly part, but without sin; I must put him in mind, that in his Appendix to his Immediate Revela­tion (for I shall be ever now and then trumping up some or other of his Old Doctrines in his way, till he will be so honest and plain, as openly to retract them) he said, p. 226. ‘This same Jesus, or Heavenly Man, or Second Adam, was before that Body of Flesh which he took upon him, yea from the very beginning. Look there now; He was, it seems, the Second Adam before he took on him that Body of Flesh, yea, even from the beginning: But had he our Earthly part? or any thing that might be called Earthly, or Humane, from the be­ginning?

Another of his Cavils against G. Whitehead is about Repentance; that T. Danson having affi [...]med that there [Page 202] is a continual need of Faith and Repentance in this Life; G. Whitehead answereth, That there is a continual need of Repentance, this I deny: for true Repentance, where it is wrought, and the fruits of it brought forth, this is unto Sal­vation never to be repented of, and is attended with a real forsaking of sin and transgression. These words of G. Whitehead's he says are in the same Answer to T. Dan­son's Synopsis. But [...]e names no page: and there are about 100 pages, in that part of the Book. It was un­fairly done of him (if it was by design, and not through oversight that the Page was omitted,) to give me the trouble, and waste of time, to turn over the Book to seek the place, which at length I have found in page 33, 34. and find the words cited are an Answer to an Argument T. Danson brought to prove the necessity of a Continuance in Sin, or the imp [...]ssibility of being freed from Sin in this Life. And that G. Keith wrangles upon the Grammatical sense of the word Repentance, which he gives diversly. Whereas the place he quotes shews G. Whitehead's meaning was only, That there is no con­tinual need of Repentance, from a necessity of continual sinning. For he says, where true Repentance is wrought, and the fruits of it brought forth, it is attended with a real forsaking of Sin and Transgression, and this is un­to Salvation never to be repented of.

In p. 54. Referring to his having said in the Nar­rative, That G. Whitehead hath allegorized away the Birth, Death, Resurrection and Coming again of Christ without us, to Judgment; he offers some instances out of G. Whitehead's Books, which he calls Plain Proofs; and so they are indeed, but not at all of those things for which he brings them, but of his own both Envy and Folly.

First, He says, G. Whitehead allegorizes away his Birth, spoken of by Isaiah 9.6. Vnto us a Child is born, a Son is given. This, he says, he expoundeth of Christ, [Page 203] born within; He-Goats Horn, p. 51. To this I need but give him his own Answer, which he formerly gave to the Rector of Arrow in his Book called The Rector Cor­rected, p. 30. viz. But why may it not speak of both (to wit, his being born outwardly, and his being born with­in) the one without prejudice of the other? Dost thou not know that Maxim, Subordinata non Pugnant? Subordinates are not contrary. And although G. Whitehead in the place cited, from Rom. 8.29. said, Christ was the First-born in many Brethren, [...]; And thereupon ask­ed, Was not Isaiah one of these Brethren? who had been as with Child, Isa. 26.17. (which place G. Keith may see how he rendred in his Immediate Revelation, Appen­dix p. 249.) Yet G. Whitehead did not deny Christ's out­ward Birth; but mentions his coming in the Flesh, and tells his Opponent he had belyed R. H. and him, in charging them with counting Christ's Coming in the Flesh to be but a Figure: for, says he, It was never so af­firmed by us.

His Second Instance is, That G. Whitehead allegorizes away Christ's Resurrection, expresly denying that Christ was bodily seen of Paul, and perverting that place in 1 Cor. 15.8. to Christ within. For proof of this he cites only page 51. but names no Book; which made me suppose (and I think reasonably) he refer­red to the Book he had quoted last before, which was the He-Goats Horn. But in that Book and Page, there is nothing of the matter, not so much as the name Paul, nor any Text out of his Epistle to the Corinthians. Neither know I where to seek the place. All therefore that I think fit to say to this Cavil at this time is, That if G. Whitehead had denied that Christ was bodily seen of Paul, that had not allegorized away Christ's Re­surrection. I wish G. Keith don't allegorize away his own wits.

[Page 204] Thirdly, He says, G. Whitehead allegorizeth away his Coming without us to Judgment, in these Scriptures, Mat. 16.27, 28. 1 Thes. 4.15, 16, 17, 18. for which he cites Light and Life, p. 40, 41. But besides that these very places are already instanced, and discussed in the Narrative. G. Keith in urging that Text, Mat. 16.28. for Christ's Coming without us to Judgment, doth as flatly contradict himself, as ever man did. For in his Way Cast up (which he is now Casting down) p. 143, 144. he said, Christ himself hath taught us, that his Spiritual Coming in his Saints, is as the Son of Man; (and quotes this very Text for it) Mat. 16.28. Ve­rily, I say unto you, there are some standing here, that shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man com­ing in his Kingdom.’ Now mark, This (says he) can­not be meant of his last Coming at the Day of Iudgment, else it would infer that some that heard him speak these words, have not as yet tasted of death, nor shall unto the last day, which is absurd! Therefore this Coming of the Son of Man must be his Inward and Spi­ritual Coming into his Saints. Can one think it any thing but judicial Blindness from God upon this Man, that makes him thus break his own Head!

Fourthly, He says, Both he and R. H. allegorize away his Burial, for which he cites, Light and Life, p. 52. and He-Goat's Horn, p. 62. perverting that Scripture, Isa. 53. He made his Grave with the wicked: He adulterates (says G. Keith) the True Translation, and turns it, in the wicked, &c. In p 52. of Light and Life, there is no mention of Christ's Burial; but only he is said to be a Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World, and made his Grave with the Wicked, and with the Rich in his Death: So here the Text is rendred with the Wicked not in the wick­ed. The other place, in He-Goats Horn, p. 62. is R. Hubberthorn's, distinct from G. Whitehead, and it neither mentions Isa. 53. nor treats of the General Resurrecti­on, [Page 205] or the Resurrection of the Body; but only answers some Cavilling Queries, put by I. Horn, about the two Seeds, and therefore is perversly applyed by G. Keith to the Resurrection of the Body.

Lastly, He says, G. Whitehead allegorizeth away the Resurrection of the Saints Bodies by his perversion of Phil. 3.21. to a Change of the Body that the Apostles and Saints witnessed before death. But he quotes no place, neither Page nor Book, for this. But he tells us that G. Whitehead in his Real Quaker a Real Protestant, p. 105. understands that very Place of a Change of the vile, or low and humble Body, like unto the glorious Body of Christ, as a thing to come. And by this I understand that G. Keith hath sufficiently disproved the proofless Proof he brought before against G. Whitehead, by bringing this for him; so that I need say no more to it. That which I would observe to the Reader is, that G. Keith of all men is most unjust in charging G. Whitehead with allego­rizing, who has indulged himself so far in that way of Writing, that scarce Origen himself has abounded more in Allegories.

From Allegories he proceeds to give some of G. White­head's Contradictions, as he would have them to be taken; of which he gives two or three Instances, how idle and improper, will easily be seen. The First he assigns is, That G. Whitehead in his Light and Life. p. 69. thinks him a very Blind and Ignorant Man, that reckons Bodies Ce­lestial and Terrestrial to be all one in Matter and Substance; and yet the same G. Whitehead in Malice of the Inde­pendent Agent, p. 17. owns that Christ's Body now in Heaven is the same in substance he had on Earth: So by his own words (says G. Keith) he hath declared himself to be a Blind and Ignorant Man, and yet Infallible, other­wise by his own word No True Minister. But hold a little: Did G. Whitehead ever call or own Christ's Body now in Heaven, or while it was on Earth, to be Terrestrial, [Page 206] or of the Earth? If he did not, G. Keith is clearly out with his idle pretence of Contradiction. Hath he for­gotten what he told Cotton Mather in his Serious Ap­peal, p. 23. That Contradictions lie not betwixt two Par­ticulars, nor two Vniversals; but one Particular, and ano­ther Vniversal: And that a Contradiction is not betwixt two Positives; but the One Positive, the Other Negative. And that is not enough neither; for in his Truth's De­fence, p. 191. he puts his Opponent I. A. in mind of a Rule in his School Logick, That Propositions are not contradictory, although the one be Affirmative, and the other Negative, unless they be in ordine ad idem, in order to the same, and in regard of the same Circumstances of Time, Place, Condition, &c. Now let him make out his Con­tradictions, if he can, according to these Maxims, who hath already blamed G. Whitehead (and that but just now) for denying Christ's Body to be Terrestrial, or Earthly, and therefore refusing to call it Humane.

Another Contradiction he pretends to find in G. Whitehead is, that in a late Printed half Sheet, called, The Christian Faith, he owns Christ to be both God and Man, &c. and yet, says he, it is proved in the above Narrative, that he neither owneth him to be God or Man. Here G. Keith brings his own Narrative to prove that wha that Narrative says is true; Is not that p [...]etty? Whereas what he has charged G. Whitehead with in that Narra­tive, is denyed, and rejected as false; and the Proofs he has pretended to bring out of G. Whitehead's Books, upon a due Examination, prove to be but G. Keith's Perversions and Misconstructions of G. VVhitehead's Words, as from the former Part of this Discourse, will I believe appear. The like Method he takes in the following Instance of Contradiction, referring to his Narrative for Proof. And in his Fourth and Last Instance, p. 55. (which is of G. VVhitehead's signing among others) a Treatise against Oaths, wherein it is [Page 207] said, We look upon it to be no less than a presumptu­ous tempting of God, to summon him as a Witness, not only to our Terrene, but Trivial business; &c. and his now admitting it lawful to declare the Truth in the presence of God, &c. He seems to put no diffe­rence between summoning God as a VVitness, and speak­ing the Truth in the Presence of God, who is VVitness of the Truth spoken; and yet he might have seen, in the place he cites, what was meant by summoning God as a VVitness, viz. That it is vain and insolent to think that a Man, when he pleaseth, can make the great God of Heaven a Witness, or a Judge, in any Matter, to ap­pear by some signal Approbation or Judgment, to help or forsake him, as the Truth or Falseness of his Oath re­quires, when he saith, So help me God. If G. Keith will not see a difference betwixt speaking with Impre [...]a­tion, and without, others do; and that that difference destroys his pretended Contradiction.

In p. 55. He has an envious Fling at G. Fox, from whom he suggests G. Whitehead (and many others) did receive unchristian Doctrine, and he mentions a Pa­per of G. Fox's, directed to all People in Christendom, &c. Which, he says, hath very unsound and unchristian Doctrine concerning Christ's Flesh. This Paper I have not seen, nor heard of before, that I remember. How faithfully he recites out of it, I know not. But this I observe from what he cites, that whereas he says, by Christs Flesh G. Fox meaneth not his outward Flesh, the very first Words, he cites, are, Christ, according to the Flesh crucified: Was not that his outward Flesh that was Crucified? 'Tis true, G. Fox says there (as G. Keith cites him) It was never corrupted. But that doth not prove he did not mean the outward Flesh: For I hope G. Keith will not say; That, that ever corrupted. But surely, G. Keith might have forborn falling thus foully on G. Fox, for unsound and unchristian Do­ctrine, [Page 208] now that he is gone to Rest, considering how highly he writ of him, while he was living. For in his Rector corrected, p. 211. he said, not only that the Lord had made G. Fox a worthy Instrument unto us, and among us, (and he hoped, yet should, unto many more) but, that he was safe in the hand of him that holdeth the seven Stars, and the seven golden Candlesticks in his right Hand; And (said he to the Rector) All thy malicious Reviling and slanderous Defamation of him, cannot diminish any thing from that true Honour, wherewith the Lord hath honoured him, and other faithful Labourers with him, whom the Lord hath raised up in this Day of the Appearance of his great and mighty Power. Can G. Keith read this with­out Blushing, to see how he is repeating the Rector's malicious Reviling, and slanderous Defamation of G. Fox, and other faithful Labourers with him, that he might try if he could diminish that true Honour wherewith the Lord hath honoured G. Fox, which he told the Re­ctor he could not? I gather from G. Keith's Words, that this Paper of G. Fox's, which he charges with ve­ry unsound and unchristian Doctrine, is of older Date than his Book in Answer to the Rector. Is he not asha­med, so openly to contradict himself, as to charge a Man, that he was guilty of very unsound and unchristian Doctrine, at the same time that he had proclaimed him such a worthy Instrument of the Lord's making, and had affirmed he was then safe in the Hand of him, that hold­eth the seven Stars, and the seven golden Candlesticks in his right Hand?

In p. 56. Having done with G. Whitehead, he falls upon W. Penn again, first, For some Passages which he calls unsound and scandalous, and then for some Con­tradictions, as he would make them.

The First Passage he brings against him is out of his Rejoynder to J. Faldo, p. 179, 180. about the Excom­munication of Robert Norwood by Sidrach Sympson, an [Page 209] eminent Preacher among the Independents. Where W. Penn (not to defend Norwood, but to shew Fald [...] that he had dealt by the Quakers, somewhat like as Sympson had done by Norwood) sets down Norwood's Opinion, and Sympsons Charge against him upon it. Norwood it seems denied the Locality of Heaven and Hell; and believed the Soul to have been breathed from God, and therefore assigned to it, something more of Divinity than the usual opinion doth. Sympson stretch­ed this, to be a denial of any Heaven and Hell at all; and a rendring the Soul, God it self. W. Penn shewing how severely Norwood was dealt with only for Opini­on, added (in a Parenthesis) and that not very offen­sive. This Expression G. Keith catches hold of, and deals by W. Penn, as Sympson did by Norwood, that is, he stretches it to the worst Construction he could make, and far beyond what it could bear. For, whereas by the Word Locality of Heaven and Hell, it is probable no more was intended than that Heaven and Hell were not certain particular Places, or parts of the World set out, bounded and limited to any certain and de­terminate Dimensions (as the Heathen Poets descri­bed their Elysium to be) G. Keith would represent W. Penn, as thinking it not very offensive to deny, that Christ's Body that was raised from the Dead, is in any Heaven, that is, an outward place, or without us. And then stretches out his Throat, with a loud Appeal to all sincere Christians, that this is really so offensive, that the denying of that one Truth (of such a Locality I sup­pose he does not mean, but of Christ's Body not being in any Heaven without us) is a plain denial of one of the greatest Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith, and so makes void the whole, to any that holds such a damnable Opinion; which I am perswaded Rob. Norwood did not hold, and I am con [...]ident W. Penn never dreamt of. For though he said of Norwood's Opinion, it is not very of­fensive, as he understood it, and compared with what [Page 210] Sympson represented it: Yet his calling it not very of­fensive, shews he held it to be offensive, and was offend­ed at it. His Cavil upon the other part of Norwood's Opinion, by which he would reflect upon W. Penn is, that the Soul of Man is a created Being, and hath nothing of Divinity essential to it, p. 57. Norwood's Opinion, as W. Penn mentioned it, has no such Word as essential in it: He only said, he believed the Soul to have been breath­ed from God, thereby assigning to it something more of Divinity than the usual Opinion doth. And G. Keith here acknowledges, That the Divine Power that made the Soul of Man, is in it, and operateth in it more mani­festly, than in the inferiour Creatures. Therefore he might have spared all this Cavil.

But he has not yet done with Norwood, because he is not yet willing to have done with VV. Penn, Norwood, in his Answer to Sympson's Excommunication, (who had charged him with withdrawing himself from the Peo­ple of God) said, Are none the People of God, but your selves? This VV. Penn said was Argumentum ad homi­nem to I. Faldo, who had represented the Quakers as worse than the Heathens and Mahometans. G. Keith catches at this too, and reckons (though without his Host) this is as good an Argument for him against VV. Penn, and the Yearly Meeting that denied him, because they call themselves the Church of Christ; as if, says he, they were the only Church of Christ. He once thought them so, no doubt; and if he does not think them so now, he must think some other Body of People to be it: For as Christ has a Church, so he has but one Church in the World. I speak not of particular Gatherings with respect to Place, but of all that are of one and the same Fellowship in all Places, throughout the whole World. Neither speak I with respect to particular Persons, but with respect to a gathered People, (which is both the com­mon, and the true Notion of a Church.) That we, the People called Quakers, are the Church of Christ, is [Page 211] no Presumption in us to affirm, nor ought to be of­fensive to others to hear, since we therein claim no more to our selves, than every other Body of professed Christians challenge to themselves; namely, that they and they only (as a gathered People) are the true Church of Christ. But for this, Protestantism had ne­ver been, neither Name nor Thing. Had the Prote­stants believed the Church of Rome to be the true Church of Christ, they would not have withdrawn from her Communion; as neither would the several sorts of Pro­testants have successively separated from one another, had they believed those they separated from, to be the true Church of Christ. For who (but G. Keith) would be so Mad, to disjoyn himself from that People, which he believed to be the true Church of Christ? Yet I do not think, that of the several sorts of Pro­fessors of Christianity, who have left those Religious Societies or Fellowships they were once of, any were so devoid of Charity, as to think there were no good Persons, none that feared God, none that sought and breathed after him, and sincerely desired the Know­ledge of his Will, that they might do it, among those People whom they parted from. But that honesty, and those good desires, in such particular Persons, though it had and hath acceptance with the Lord, and was, and is answered by him with sweet and comfortable Disco­veries of himself unto them; yet it makes not those Gatherings, or Bodies of People, amongst which such particular Persons are, to be the Church of Christ. So we (whom the World calls Quakers) whom the Lord God hath raised up in this Age, and gathered by the invisible Arm of his Divine Power, to be a peculiar Peo­ple to himself, though we dare not but own, and de­clare our selves to be the Church of Christ; yet we have always acknowledged, and do, that as of old, in eve­ry Nation, He that feared God, and wrought Righteous­ness, was accepted with him, Acts 10.35. So now, in e­very [Page 212] Profession of the Christian Religion, he or she that fears God and worketh Righteousness, that hun­gers and thirsts after the Lord, with desire to know more of his Will, that they may do it, and who walk faithfully with him, according to what they already know of him; such are accepted with him, according to the Sincerity he finds in them, though clouded in their Understandings, through Education or Traditi­on. Such as these we do not deny to belong to Christ, and to be dear unto him, and taken care of by him: Yet that makes not any of those intire Bodies of People, amongst any of whom these are, to be the true Church of Christ G. Keith mentions also these Words, as out of a Paper of Solomon Eccles, The Quakers are in Truth, and none but they. I have not seen that Paper, that I remember, nor know how fairly he hath cited the Words; but before G. Keith out of a pettish Spleen, forsook the Quakers, he (I suppose) would have said the same, The Quakers, so called, are in the Truth, no Body of People that we know of are so inwardly gather­ed to the Truth, as the People called Quakers are. He also flings at us a saying of E. Burrough's to the People called Quakers, thus, The Tabernacle of God is with you, and his dwelling Place is among you, and only among you is God known, p. 64. of his Works. E. Burrough's Words are, ‘You who are called Quakers, who are so, not only in Word, nor in shew, but in Life and in Power, whom God hath called and chosen to Place his Name in, and to take up his Habitation among, above all the Families of the Earth; the Tabernacle of God is with you, &c. This also is very true, if it be truly understood: For though the Lord is good and gracious to all, and doth answer the Breathings and good Desires of the honest heart­ed, and doth visit them in loving Kindness, and extend of his Mercies and Goodness unto them, in every Profes­sion, and amongst every gathered People; yet his Ta­bernacle and Dwelling Place is with and among his pecu­liar [Page 213] People, and he is not so known among any other Peo­ple, as an imbodied People, in that full, inward, spiritu­al, living, sensible, experimental Manner and Degree, as he is known among us his Poor despised People called Quakers, whom G. Keith has taken all this Pains to wreak his Revenge and Malice upon, and to stir up and engage all other People against, if he could. But the Lord, who sees the Wickedness of his Heart, knows how [...]oth to reward him, and to preserve us, in whom alone we trust.

Out of the same Book of W. Penn, G. Keith picks ano­ther Passage, which he says, is either perfect Nonsense, or Antichristian Doctrine; and because he cannot tell which, he concludes, or rather indeed both. It is a question whe­ther perfect Nonsense may be properly called Doctrine ei­ther Christian, or Antichristian. But upon due Conside­ration, I think, he will find neither Nonsense, nor An­tichristian Doctrine in it. It is in p. 310. of W. Penn's Rejoynder, to I. Faldo, and it is given as a Reason (a­mong many others) why the Body of Christ, which was nailed to the Cross, simply considered by it self, and ab­stractly from that Divine Life and Power which dwelt in it, should not be called the Christ, viz. ‘Because, that Flesh of Christ is called a Vail, but he himself is within the Vail, which is the Holy of Holies, whereinto Christ Jesus our High Priest hath entred, Heb. 10.20, 21. And as he descended into, and passed through a Suffering State in his Fleshly Appearance, and returned into that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glo­ry, from whence he humbled himself, which was and is the Holy of Holies (then obscured or hid by his Flesh or Body, the Vail, while in the World:) So must all know a Death to their Fleshly Ways and Religions, yea their Knowledge of Christ himself after the Flesh, or they stick in the Vail, and never enter into the Holy of Holies, nor come to know him in any spiritual Relati­on, as their High and Holy Priest that abides therein.’ [Page 214] First, Where's the Nonsense here, the perfect Nonsense, this great Iudge of Sense complains of? Why, if he can­not find it, he'l make it, rather than not Cavil. For says he, His saying Christ hath entred into the Holy of Holies within the Vail, and that Vail is his Flesh, and that Holy of Holies is himself. What Nonsense is this? says he, VVas not Christ always in himself? But where did W. Penn say, That Holy of Holies is Christ himself? Find me those Words in the whole Paragraph. Nay does he not plain­ly say otherwise. Does he not expresly call that State of Immortality. and Eternal Life and Glory, from whence Christ humbled himself, and into which he returned, the Holy of Holies? Read the Words again. And as he de­scended into, and past through a Suffering State in his fleshly Appearance, and returned into that State of Im­mortality, and Eternal Life and Glory, from whence he humbled himself, which was and is the Holy of Holies: So, &c. Pray, what is the Antecedent here to the Relative VVhich, but the Word State, going before? G. Keith is too well versed in Grammar, not to know and see this; I would he were but half so well versed in Honesty: For this is a plain dishonest Perversion, for which he deserves, at least, the Contempt and Censure of every honest Rea­der, who by this Instance may see the ways G. Keith takes to make his Opponent speak Nonsense or Antichristian Doctrine.

He goes on with the like Honesty in his second Note upon these Words of VV. Penn thus, His entring in within the Vail of his Flesh, is either perfect Nonsense, or it hath this Sense, That he hath put off his Body be had on Earth, and is s [...]parated from it. This is a plain Perversion also: For his entring in within the Va [...]l is clearly explained, by those Words of his returning into that State of Immortality, and Eternal Life and Glory (called the Holy of Holies) which he was in before he humbled himself to take on him that Flesh, which was called a Vail, because it vailed or hid from Men the Glory of his Godhead that dwelt in it. Both [Page 215] Vail and Holy of Holies, are Metaphorical Expressions, borrowed from the Legal Tabernacle: And as there, in the Type, they were used to set forth a difference of Pla­ces, wih respect to Degrees of Holiness: So here, in the Antitype, they are used to set forth a difference of States, with respect to Degrees of Glory. The State of Christ's Humiliation; when he appeared in the form of a Servant, in that Body of Flesh which was called The Vail, was ve­ry glorious: But the State of his Exaltation into that Im­mortality, Eternal Life and Glory, which he had with his Father before the World began, which is called, The Holy of Holies, is a far more glorious State. Yet doth not his entring into this State imply, that he has put off his Body he had on Earth, and is separated from it: For that Body, being glorified, is in Heavenly Glo­ry with him. But it is probable he raised this Cavil, as to defame VV. Penn, so also to introduce a Story, which hereupon he tells, of one R. Young in Pensilvania, who he says affirmed this. But that he did so, G. Keith gives no Proof, but his own Word, which is justly, in things of this kind, of no Credit with me, who have so often found and proved him false.

He makes a Third note upon those words of W. Penn before cited, and that with as little Honesty as before. For from W. Penn's saying; All must know a Death to their Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh, G. Keith says, It is plain from his words, that he hath this unsound sense of it, that they must know a Death to the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh, as the Flesh signifieth the Flesh of Christ, as he came in the Flesh. But as this Comment is not very perfect sense (and yet I will not call it perfect Nonsense) so it is plain that he perverts W. Penn's words to a wrong sense, and therein Abuses him. For W. Penn's words are. All must know a Death to their Fleshly ways and Religions (which word, [Fleshly ways and Religions] G. Keith left out, see his Abominable Falshood and Treachery) Yea, their knowledge of Christ himself after the [Page 216] Flesh, &c. Which words, Fleshly ways and Religions, shew what sort of Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh, he meant all must know a Death to, viz. Their Flesh­ly Knowledge (as Fleshly is opposed to Spiritual) or that Knowledge which they in their Carnal Minds have com­prehended, or gathered in, and in which too many rest, without pressing after the Divine and Spiritual Knowledg of the End of Christ's coming in the Flesh, and the Blessed effects thereof, and manifold Benefits that accrue thereby, to them that receive him in his Spiri­tual Appearance. But how malicious a mind must he have, who from those words would infer, that W. Penn would have all to Die to the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh, so as not to know that he ever came in the Flesh.

In p. 58. G. Keith cites a Passage out of a Book of W. Penn's, called Truth Exalted, and with all rents a Quotation he gave before in his Narrative, p. 21. out of a Book called The Christian Quaker, (which the Reader may find answered before) From both which he infers, that he and G. Whitehead, and many other Teachers among the Quakers, have no other Notion of Christ, but an Inward Principle. This is such a known Falshood, and Apparent Slander, Contradicted by almost all our Books, and so fully disproved in many places of this Book, that it neither deserves nor n [...]eds any other Answer here, than a bare Denyal.

To his unjust Charge of unsound Passages, he adds two or three seeming Contradictions, which he would fasten upon W. Penn. The First is, That in A Treatise of Oaths (mentioned before) he is earnest against all Oaths under the Gospel, and yet in his Reason against Railing, p. 180. he useth (saith G. Keith) the greatest Oath that ever was used among the Jews. The Instance he gives is in these words, directed to T. Hicks. O that these heavy things might not be laid to thy Charge, for so sure as God liveth (there's his Catch) great will be the [Page 217] wrath that shall follow; Yea, God will visit for these unrigh­teous Dealings; And I testify to thee from God's living Spi­rit, if thou desist not, and come not to deep Repentance, the Lord will make thee an example of his Fury, and thy Head shall not go down to the Grave in Peace, &c. This I take to be a meer Cavil, and a very weak one too. For first, That form of Speech [as the Lord liveth] though it was sometim [...] used among the Jews of Old, as an Oath, yet it was not always so; nor do I think G. Keith will take it to be intended for an Oath, in all those places where he Reads it in the Bible; as particularly in 1 Sam. 25, 26. Where Abigail used it to David Concerning his Enemies. See also Chap. 26.10. and Chap. 29.6. 1 Ki. 17.12. and 18.10. 2 Ki. 22.4.6. and Chap. 4.30. Iob. 27.2. with many other places in the Books of Samuel and the Kings, where it is used sometimes singly [as the Lord liveth,] sometimes with this Addi­tion, [and as thy Soul liveth;] Yea, and sometimes, this latter Expression [as thy Soul liveth] is used with­out the former, as in 1 Sam. 1.26. and 17.55. 2 Sam. 11.11, 14, 19. Yet neither with it, nor without it, was intended for an Oath. Secondly, There is a dif­ference between those two forms of Speech [As the Lord liveth] and [so sure as God liveth] for though the former was formerly used as an Oath, yet the latter never was so used or taken; but is only a Persuasive Form of Speech, used to set forth the unquestionable Cer­tainty of the thing delivered, from the acknowledged Certainty that God lives. In which sense, and no o­ther, it is evident W. Penn there used it; to express the Assurance he had of the Truth, and Certainty of the Testimony he then gave against, and to Tho. Hicks. But none, I think (besides G. Keith) would be so ex­travagant as to think, that in these words W. Penn intended to take his Oath, that the wrath of God, which should follow those unrighteous dealings of T. Hicks would be great. So to think were great Folly. How [Page 218] mean a Cavil then is this? And how meer a Caviller hath G. Keith shewn himself therein?

The latter part of W. Penn's words before cited, G. Keith says, imply some Prophecy against T. Hicks, which he suggests was not fulfilled. But he should have obser­ved that what was there spoken of T. Hicks was Con­ditional, if he desisted not, and came no [...] to Repentance. That he desisted is certain; that he did not [...]ome to Repentance, I suppose G. Keith will not adventure to say, that he did come to Repentance, I have heard, which that G. Keith also may do, I wish.

His second Instance of Contradiction, he gives in p. 59. out of two Books of W. Penn's, One called Iudas and the Iews, p. 13. the other, An Address to Protestants, p. 152. in the second Edition (p. 151. in the first Edition) the Passage is concerning the Power of the Church, from those words of Christ, Mat. 18.17. Go, tell the Church. This place in both those Books, W. Penn expounded of Private Offences, or Personal Injuries, be­tween Brethren, which has no shew of Contradiction in it. 'Tis true that in the former, he inferr'd from those words of Christ, That Christ gave his Church Power both to try and reject Spirits. In the other he denies that those words of Christ do Impower the Church to define and Impose upon all People, under Temporal and Eter­nal Punishment, Articles of Faith, &c. What Contra­diction is in this? He knows Propositions are not Contra­dictory, unless they be ad idem. But is it the same thing to try and reject Spirits, and to define and impose Articles of Faith under Temporal and Eternal Punish­ment? His note upon this, shews his Falshood, his Ma­lice and his Weakness. He says, Here you see he (W. Penn) makes the Church Power very low, as by Church he means the Church of England, or any other Church beside the Church of the Quakers. But, says he, When he means the Church of the Quakers, from the same Text, he Magni­fies her Power as great as ever Bellarmine, or any other Ie­suit, [Page 219] Magnified the Church of Rome. His Malice in the Comparison is obvious of it self, and his Weakness in the Cavil. His Falsness appears by this, That W. Penn in neither of those places named, either the Church of England, the Quakers Church (as he calls it) or the Church of any other sort of People: But the Church of Christ indefinitely, leaving the Application to the Rea­der. And the moderation that Book pleads for, is a sufficient Confutation of this Cavil.

He adds a 3d Instance of Contradiction, as lame as the former. He takes the first part of it out of the Ad­dress to Protestants, p 246. of the second Edition (p. 242. of the first Edition) where W. Penn said, them that are angry for God, passionate for Christ, that call names for Religion, and fling S [...]ones, and persecute for Faith, may tell us they are Christians, if they will, but no Body would know them to be such by their Fruits; to be sure they are no Chri­stians of Christs making. To this G. Keith opposes some expressions he has pickt up out of two of W. Penn's Books, which he thinks proceeded from Anger and Pas­sion. But what if they did not, but from a Iust and Godly Zeal against Deceivers and Deceit, as it appears they did? Does he think to prove Contradictions upon precarious Propositions? Such weak Attempts need no Refutation.

I am come at length to his Charge against me in par­ticular, which in p. 60. he brings in under this Title, Some of Tho. Ellwood's vile and gross Errors, truly collected out of his Book, fasly called, Truth Defended. How truly collected we shall see anon.

He premises that he shall pass by at present, my many Forg [...]ries, and Perversions, and Abuses against him, in that last Book of mine, and my two Former; to the first, of which he says he has answered in Print. From hence I hope, he will give me leave to Infer, that he does not pretend to have answered my two last yet; so that I may live in hopes of hearing from him once again, at [Page 220] least, if not oftner; And the rather for that he has Collected, he says, out of my two last Abusive Books (as he calls them) above a hundred manifest Perversions, Forge­ries and Falsities that I have heaped up against him which, (says he) I have in readiness to shew, and which I keep by me for a reserve, untill I find an Occasion to Publish them, either by Print, or otherwise. He's a wary Warriour, one may see by this: He won't hazard all at [...]e Battel; but keeps a reserve to Recruit his Forces, if he should hap­pen to come by the worst, as it is more than ten to one he will. He mustered up fifty out of my First Book (cal­led An Epistle) and sent them forth against me, in his Seasonable Information; Them I beat back upon himself, in my second Book called A further Discovery (which is the first of those two he has not replied to) so that he had need re-inforce them, if he can, and make good his Old Charge, before he exhibites a New one. And when that is done with, then let us have the t'other hundred, and by that time perhaps he'll have pickt some more out of this.

The Errors he now charges me with, are in number Ten, and all pretended to be taken out of my last Book, called Truth Defended.

The first he gives thus, The Blood that came out of Christ's side, its shedding, was not done to compleat the Offering, because before that, Christ said, Consummatum est, it is finished, p. 99. Note, says G. Keith, This is as much against his Death, for before his Death, he said, It is Finished. Now Reader, take my words: For these he has given are not mine, but his own; by which I sup­pose, he would insinuate, that I hold the Offering or Sacrifice to have been compleated, before Christ's Death? My words were these, ‘This offering up himself (and giving himself a Ransom for all) included all his suffer­ings, both inward and outward, and made it a com­pleat and perfect Sacrifice; in which his Blood was Comprehended, and concerned, as well as his Flesh, be­fore [Page 221] his side was Pierced by the Spear. For he had pro­nounced that great word (Consummatum est) It is Fin­ished, had bowed his Head, and given up the Ghost, be­fore his side was Pierced by the Spear.’ Observe here now, I not only said he had pronounced that great word, It is Finished, but also expresly, that he had bowed his Head, and given up the Ghost, before his Side was Pierced. G. Keith pretending to repeat my words, leaves out that Clause [he had bowed his Head and given up the Ghost] and then infers that my making the offering to be compleated, upon his saying It is Finished, before his Side was pier­ced (which was no done, and which I say was not done, till after he was Dead) is a making the offering to be com­pleated before he was Dead. What shall I call this Deal­ing of his, a Forgery, Falsity, or Perversion? A manifest Perversion to be sure it is, and that a gross and vile one. This is the way he takes to prove me guilty of vile and gross Errors. And at this rate, what Man living, can escape the lash of his false Tongue! Is this man fit to charge me with Perversions, Forgeries and Falsities (not by the Dozen, nor yet by the Score, but) by the Half Hundred, and Hundred!

The second gross Error he charges on me, P. 61. is, That I Iustify G. Whitehead's Doctrine and words, denying that the Material Blood of the Beasts, were Types of Christ's Material Blood, and yet Fallaciously seem to own it, p. 106. How does this Charge hang together, that I deny it, and yet seem to own it? If I own it, how am I guil­ty of a vile and gross Error? If I seem to own it, so that he could not tell whether I own it or deny it, why would he be so forward to Charge me with vile and gross Error in denying it, before he was come to a cer­tainty that I did deny it? Does not this shew his Injustice, as well as his Folly? But besides, both this and the Third (viz. That I justify W. Penn's Doctrine, saying, the one Seed cannot be an outward thing; for one out­ward thing cannot be the proper sign of another out­ward [Page 222] thing) are already discussed in this Answer to his Narrative, where he hath repeated these Charges against W. Penn and G. Whitehead, and I (as before) have endea­voured to free them from his Perversions and Abuses.

The Fourth Error he bestows on me is, That I deny that the Gift of the Divine Grace or Power within, is the re­al Purchase of Christ's Obedience unto Death; arguing, that if so, that would not be the Free Gift of God, p. 121. Here are two notable Pieces of Art, he has shewed in the fra­ming of this Error. First, He has changed my VVords from [The Gift of the promised Seed] to [The Gift of the Divine Grace or Power within:] Which quite alters the Sence of the Place. For whereas I inferred, from his Words, that the Gift of the promised Seed was not a free Gift, or did not proceed from the free Love of God to Man (contrary to Iohn 3.16.) but was the re­al purchase of Christ's most holy and perfect Obedience unto Death, when he came (which was the Error and Absurdity I drew upon him from his own Words) He, to slip from under that, changes the Words, as I shew­ed before, from the Gift of the promised Seed, to the Gift of the Divine Grace and Power within, refer­ring to Rom. 5.15. Eph. 4.7, 8. and Psalm 68.18. which latter Places mention Christ's giving Gifts unto Men, when he ascended up on High, after his Death and Resurrection: So turning the Free Gift of God, in pro­mising the Seed, and giving his only begotten Sun; to the Gift of Divine Grace and Power within, which Christ the promised Seed gave, when he ascended up on high, and then charges me with Error, in denying this Gift, given by Christ, to be the real purchase of his Obedi­ence unto Death; whereas it was the Gift of Christ him­self, as the promised Seed, that I spake of, which was the Effect of God's free Love, not the purchase of Christ's Death. The other piece of his Art is, in turning this upon me, saving, He denies: Whereas I neither de­nyed, nor affirmed, but shewed him the Absurdity and Error of his own Words.

[Page 223]The Fifth Error he assigns me is, That I blame him for saying Christ's Body is the same in substance it was on Earth, p. 129. I desire the Reader to examine that Place in my Book, and he will see that I do not blame G. Keith for saying Christ's Body is the same in sub­stance it was on Earth. But I expose his Confusion and Folly, in saying, it is the same in substance that it was on Earth, and yet saying, It is no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, but a pure, ethereal, or Heavenly Body, as if Christ's Body, when on Earth, had not been a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, but an Ethereal or Airy Body: Or, as if Flesh, Blood and Bones were not of the substance of an outward, visible, tangible Body, such as was that which was nailed to the Cross at Ierusalem.

The Sixth Error he allots me is, That I deny that Christ came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary, p. 136. In this, as in the rest, he is ex­treamly unjust. In this place also we treated of Christ, as he was the promised Seed. And he undertaking to prove (in p. 22. of his Book called The True Copy, &c.) from Mat. 1.1. That the Seed of Promise came by Gene­ration of and from the Properties of Man in Mary, I pinched him up close with his own words in that same Book of his, p. 20. where he had said, ‘It is neither the Body of Christ, strictly considered, nor the Soul of Christ, strictly considered, without the Godhead, nor the Godhead strictly considered, without the Soul and Body of the Manhood of Christ, that is the Seed of the Woman, or Seed of Abraham, but the Godhead and Manhood jointly considered, and most gloriously united.’ Hereupon I shewed him, that in urging Mat. 1.1. to prove the Seed of Promise (as he had defined it) came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary, he shewed himself to be of a corrupt Judg­ment, and contradicted his former Saying. I was so fa­vourable before, as only to say, ‘Should I not serve [Page 224] him right, if from hence I should conclude against him, that he holds the Seed of Promise, as consisting of Godhead and Manhood united, to have come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary, since he blamed S. C. for denying it?’ But I think I have just cause now to set it harder on him, and charge it home upon him, as a vile and gross Error, That he holds, that Christ (who he says (in the same place) was the Son of God by an eternal Generation before the World began) the promised Seed (which, he says, is neither the Body of Christ, strictly considered, nor the Soul of Christ, strictly considered, without the Godhead, nor the Godhead strictly considered, without the Soul and Bo­dy of the Manhood of Christ, but the Godhead and Manhood join [...]ly considered, and most gloriously united) that Christ, the promised Seed, or Seed of the Woman thus defined, did come by Generation of and from the Pro­perties of Man in Mary. And I hope he will think him­self, or that others however will think him obliged, to clear himself of this Error, which is vile and gross enough, before he take upon him to arraign others.

The Seventh Error he abuses me with is, That I per­vert the Apostle's Creed, in that Clause, Conceived of the Holy Ghost, p. 138. by which I infer, that Christ came not by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary; and in so doing, he says, I make the Holy Ghost to be the ma [...]erial Cause of that Generation; as if that Holy Thing conceived, were of the substance of the Holy Ghost; whereas the Holy Ghost was the Efficient Cause thereof, but not the Material Cause. Perversion is so natural to him, that he can do nothing (at this sort of work) without it. That he might fasten an Error upon me, he per­verts, yea al [...]ers the words of that Creed. For the words of that Creed (in that Clause) are, Conceived by the Holy Ghost, (and so I gave them in my Book) he has changed the word by to of, and renders it, Concei­ved of the Holy Ghost. Whereas the word by imports [Page 225] the Holy Ghost to have been the Efficient Cause, that by vertue of which Mary conceived: But the word of, imports him to have been the Material Cause, as if the thing conceived had been taken of the Matter or sub­stance of the Holy Ghost. To avoid which I, follow­ing the express words of that Creed, said, the common Creed, called, The Apostles, says, Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, though born of the Virgin Mary. Now how shameless is this Man, to charge me with vile and gross Error in perverting the Apostle's Creed in that Clause, Conceived of the Holy Ghost: When it plainly appears from his own Book, that it is he himself that has altered, and thereby perverted, the words of that Creed; and not I! Besides, he is altogether unjust in raising this Cavil: for he knows that (in this Place, as well as in the other, upon which he grounded his last pretended Error, where I defended S. Crisp against R. Cobbet and him) I expresly spake of Christ, not only with respect to his Body, which was born of the Vir­gin, but as he was the Son of God by an Eternal Genera­tion, as he was conceived by the Overshadowing of the Power of the Highest, as he was the Promised Seed, which G. Keith had confessed was not the Manhood only, but the Godhead and Manhood united: And in these respects it was that I argued, he was not produced by Coagulati­on (which was one of Cobbet's Terms) nor came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary (which was another of Cobbet's Terms.) But before I part with G. Keith on this Head, let us see whether He, who is so forward to brand me with this Error, has not himself trod too near that, which he charges me with. For in his Book called, The way to the City of God, p. 131. He says, ‘Even according to that Birth He (Christ) was the Son of God, no less than the Son of Man, having God for his Father, as he had the Virgin Mary fo [...] his Mother.’ (But as he was the Son of God, having God for his Father, was he produce [...] [Page 226] by Coagulation. or did he come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary?) ‘Now the Child, says he, we know, doth partake an Image or Nature from both Parents; and thus did Christ, who did partake of the Nature and Image of Man, from the Seed of Mary, but did partake of a Nature and Image much more excellent, than that of Man, in its greatest glory, from God and his Seed, who did re­ally sow a most divine and heavenly Seed (is not that a Substance?) in the Virgins Womb, which as it sup­plied the Males Seed, so it had much more in it, and brought forth a Birth, which as it had the true and whole Nature of Man, so, I say, it had a Perfection above it, and that not only in accidental Qualities (as men will readily confess) but even in Substance and Essence.

The Eighth Error he slanders me with, he calls, my false way of reasoning against the Man Christ's being crea­ted; from his reasoning, if not created, therefore not Man; by retorting, if created, therefore not God, p. 139. This is as meer a Cavil, as the former; and both the one and the other arose from hence, that he would make the Manhood only to be Christ, without the Godhead, or else subject the Godhead to the same Condition of Genera­tion, or Creation, with the Manhood; either of which is an Error. This made me give him that retorting Answer, which has so much displeased him. Thus it was in my former Book. ‘His Third Observation is That S. Crisp's denying that Jesus the Saviour was created, or calling for Scripture to prove it, doth sufficiently prove, that he understands Christ only to be God, and wholly excludes the Manhood of Christ, from being Christ, or any part of him. Doth it so, said I? Then let G. Keith look to himself. For by re­tortion, I return upon him, That his holding that Ie­sus the Saviour was created (which he doth by con­demning S. C. for denying it) doth sufficiently prove, [Page 227] that he understands Christ to be only Man, and wholly excludes the Godhead of Christ, from being Christ, or any part of him; which to hold, is a gross and vile Error.’ Let him acquit himself as he can. He cannot acquit himself: therefore he is angry, and wrangles with me for retorting this on him. He says, I charge him to be deeply drenched into Socinianism. My words are, I confess, I did not think him so deeply drencht into Socinianism. He says, This is my Ignorance, — The So­cinian Error is not, That Christ is a Creature, but that he is a meer Creature, viz. only Man, and not both God and Man. I was not ignorant of this (nor am, of the fol­ly of his Arguing,) neither can he be ignorant, that my Answer, by retortion, implied him to hold, that Christ is not only a Creature, but a meer Creature; only Man, wholly excluding the Godhead; which is full Socinianism. And until he will leave Cavilling, and come down in his Stomach, and distinguish (as he ought to do) betwixt Christ, as he was the Son of God by Eternal Generation, the divine Word which was in the beginning with God, and which was God; and that which he took of the Virgin; he shall never be able to free himself from the Imputation of this Error: For so far as he makes Christ to be created, so far he makes him a meer Creature.

The Ninth Error he ascribes to me, he calls, my bla­ming him, to make light (so he expresses it) of the work of Generation (I take him to mean, Regeneration) in comparison of Christ's Incarnation; therefore according to him, says he, Regeneration is greater than Christ's Incar­nation. Upon which he crys out, O great Blasphemy! p. 155. In this he mistook me (whether ignorantly, or designedly, I know not:) for I did not intend (nor now do) to draw a Comparison between those two Appearances, or Manifestations of Christ, Outwardly in the Flesh at Ierusalem, and Inwardly in the Hearts of his People, so as to prefer the One to the Other [Page 228] (for I have all along told him, I do not like to divide Christ.) But the drift and scope of my words, which here he carps at, was to shew him that he had done so. As for the Charge it self, of making Regeneration greater than Christ's Incarnation, he had charged it be­fore (but falsly) on W. Penn in his Narrative, p. 22. And I have Answered it already in p. 82. of his Book, to which I refer the Reader for satisfaction concern­ing it.

His Tenth and Last Error he flings at me is, my say­ing that the Author of Regeneration is Christ, chiefly, as he is manifested inwardly in the heart, p. 152. My words (which best shew my meaning) were these. ‘And ve­ry idle is he, in saying, Seeing the Work of Regenerati­on and Sanctification in the Saints, is a great Mystery, must we not own him who is the Author, and great Cause of it, to be greater? For who ever questioned that? We all own the Workman to be greater than the Work; the Author and great Cause of Regeneration and San­ctification, to be greater than the Regeneration and Sanctification wrought. And this Author and great Cause of Regeneration and Sanctification, we say is Christ; and that chiefly as he is manifested inwardly in the Heart: For he worketh it not in any, but those in whom he is so inwardly manifested.’ These words shew, that when I said Christ is the great Cause of Re­generation and Sanctification, chiefly as he is manifest­ed inwardly in the Heart, it was with respect to him, as he is the nearest and most immediate Cause thereof, and as he actually works the work of Regeneration and Sancti­fication in the Heart, and brings it forth. And though G. Keith says, This is as absurd, as to say, The Beams of the Sun that descend on the Earth, are the chief Cause of the Earths Fruitfulness, and not the Sun it self that is in the Firmament; yet both the Absurdity and Error will prove his own, in his comparing the Inward Appea­rance of Christ in the Heart (whereby the work of Re­generation [Page 229] and Sanctification is wrought) to the Beams of the Sun that is in the Firmament, by which the Earth is fructified; as if Christ were no otherwise in the Saints, than the Sun is on the Earth, viz. by its Beams. Whereas the Travail of the Apostle was, That Christ might be formed in them he writ to, Gal. 4.19. That he might dwell in their hearts by faith, Ephes. 3.17. And G. Keith saith expresly, Way cast up, p. 134. ‘The word Incarnate, or made Flesh, and called by Iames the In­grafted Word, we do really see, for it dwelleth in us. And p. 124, 125. ‘It is impossible (says G. Keith) that he could hear us, and be sensible of our Prayers, and especially of our Thoughts, if he were not imme­diately present in us, and with us.’ And in p. 123. He says, ‘The Man Christ Jesus is really present in, and among us. — I do not mean, says he, by his external or outward Person (for that is ascended into Heaven) but in vertue of his divine Life and Spirit, or Soul ex­tended into us in his divine Seed and Body, which is his heavenly Flesh and Blood, wherewith he feedeth the Souls of them that believe in him.’ In p. 107. He brings many Scriptures, (as Ioh. 6.56. and 17.23. Rom. 8.10. Eph. 3.17. Col. 1.27. 1 Cor. 13.3, and 5.) to prove Christs Being and Dwelling in the Saints, and that as the Word made Flesh, according to Iohn 1.14. And in p. 111. Speaking of Christ's dwelling in the hearts of the Saints by Faith, he says, He is formed in them. Gal. 4.19. so that they are his Mother who bring him forth by a spiritual and divine Birth, Mat. 12.49. Is this to be compared to the Beams of the Sun that de­scend on the Earth? Or did it hold forth a more imme­diate, and substantial Indwelling of Christ in his People? How unsuitable then is G. Keith's Comparison (besides the Error it discovers in his Judgment) of the Beams of the Sun descending on the Earth, and there causing Fruitfulness in it, to Christ's working Regeneration and Sanctification in his People? As if Christ in his Spiri­tual [Page 230] Appearance and Working, were no nearer to his People, than the Sun in the Firmament is to the Earth.

What remains of his Appendix to his Narrative, at the bottom of p. 61, and 62. being little, and to as little pur­pose, I designedly wave, as supposing he may probably re­ceive an Account of it from another hand. But I shall here fetch in a Passage in p. 60. which I purposely stept over there, with intention to bring it in here. It is this.

In p. 60. He says, Now before I have quite done with W. Penn, let me put him in mind of his Promise, That he would answer me in the face of the Nation: For I think I have made good my Word, that I have put him to prove his Charge against me (that I am an Apostate) in the face of the Nation. What need W. Penn do that, and he too. Did W. Penn so oblige himself to do it, that he must needs do it over again, after G. Keith hath been so kind to him to save him that labour, by having done it him­ [...]elf again and again, and that indeed in the face of the Nation, in every Book he has published since? It is probable W. Penn might have done it before now, if G. Keith had not taken the work out of his hand, and shewed himself so officious and forward to do it, that he has thereby rather confirmed the apprehension I formerly had of his Meaning, when in p. 32. of his Book called The True Copy, he said, I propose this just de­mand to W. Penn, that — he give me an Opportunity — to make good his Charge against me, &c. namely, That he wanted but opportunity to do it himself, and thereby free W. Penn from that small undertaking. I know not how▪ I may speed for reminding him of this. For I remember he was very angry with me before, for but gently touching it (and I think pretty modestly) with a [He seems to have bespoke a publick Meeting, that [...]e might have done it himself there.] Yet this soft touch put him into such a Heat, that I doubt whether he be Cool yet. For no longer ago than the Third Month last, when he publish [...] his intention of Holding his Court at Turner's Hall, he was in such a Fret about it, that (in the Postscript to his Advertisement in p. 11. of his Narrative) he calls it, a most impulent and notorious Perversion, a Cheat and Forgery; Me, a gross and impudent Forgerer, [Page 231] Wres [...]er and Perverter; offers to prove me to be not only guilty [...] Gross Forgeries, and Perversions, and Antichristian Principles (o [...] which the Reader hath just now heard a long List, in Ten Heads) and not only so, but (says he) grosly ignorant (in that which he pre­tends to have knowledge) of Humane Learning (and of that I can assure him I never pretended to much; and though I love Learning well, yet I had rather be as Ignorant as he takes me to be, than as Arrogant as I take him to be.) Neither is this all, but I am also, he says, guilty of Pedantick Trifling and Quibling, from meer Errors of the Press, not so duly corrected, yet obvious to any intelligent Rea­der. I confess, I think, both his Book and Himself (under correcti­on be it spoken) have need enough to be duly corrected; and that I suppose is obvious to any intelligent Reader. Now if I did happen to mistake his Meaning, in that hobling Expression of his lame ▪ De­mand, of an Opportunity for him (as his words seemed to import) to make good the Charge against himself, I think he has sufficient­ly paid me off, with his Billingsgate Rhetorick, and Scottish Comple­ments. Yet were it not that I am loath to offend him again so soon, I could tell him, that the Explanation he gives doth not sufficiently clear the sense of that Cloudy Sentence, neither hath he shewed that it was the Error of the Press, but added another, viz. when I will, for where I will. But I have done with that, le [...]t he tax me with Quibling. I return to p. 60. of the Narrative, where G. Keith (ha­ving put W. Penn in mind of his Promise to prove him an Apostate, &c. which G. Keith himself hath sufficiently done) says, And let him not put off this Work, that belongs to himself, to any Deputy, or Bu­sie Intruder, as T. Ellwood, or I. Penington, who have already sufficient­ly shewed their Folly in Print. But how if T. E. and I. P. should not think they have sufficiently shewed their Folly in Print? Will he not give them leave to satisfie themselves in that Case a little fur­ther? He might a little consider us by himself, who hath over-suffi­ciently shewed his Folly in Print long since, and yet cannot refra [...] Scribling, though at each time he discovers more Folly than befor [...]: And, but that I am doubtful it would put him into a new Fret be­fore the old one is gone off, I could shew him there is something (even in this last sentence) which, if it had not come from su [...] a wise man as he, might have been taken for a little piece of Folly; As where he bids W. Penn not put off this Work (which belongs to himself) to any Deputy, or busie Intruder. Does he take the [...]ords, [Deputy, and Intruder] to be Synonimons Terms, I wonder? Is it proper to call him an Intruder, that is Deputed? Or him a Deputy, that is but an Intruder; and that a busie one too? If not, what means he by bidding W. Penn not put off this Work to a busie Intrud [...]r Does not putting off a Work from ones self to another imply a D [...]putation? But enough of this; if not too much, for my store hereaf [...]er, when he shall let fly at me again. He also reminds W. Penn. of [...]me word [...] [Page] [...] his Christian Quaker. p. 1. which, he says, were, I was not [...] any should answer for my Faults, if any there were; and innocent, I esteemed my self both sufficient and obliged to my own Re­ [...]ief. To answer for faults, I confess, I think is most proper for him that commits them. And if W. Penn had Faults to answer for, (though it were but before Judge Keith) I know not whether, as well as I love him, I should be contented to take his place, or rather even wish him to answer for his Faults himself. But it is one thing to answer for Faults; another, to answer to Faults objected, and shew that they are not Faults, but Cavils. That W. Penn is suffici­ent, now, as well as he was heretofore, to his own relief, is not to be questioned. But it does not follow, that he is always, and always alike, obliged to appear in his own defence; or at all, when he sees no need of it, the Blow being not so strongly given, but that a weaker Arm may both bear it off, and beat it back. When an Abler Adversary rises, (which G. Keith has petitioned the Clergy for) it may be time enough for Abler Defendants to come forth. In the mean time, since he has accused many (and me among the rest) in his False Charge; (and that, according to the Maxim, Frustra sit per pl [...]ra, quod fieri po [...]est per pauciora, It is in vain to set many hands to that work, which few, or one, can do;) Since also it looks like an Effect of his Pride and Self-conceit, that like that Vncircumcised Champion of old (to whom he is not more disproportionable in Per­son, than in haughtiness of Mind, and Stomach agreeable,) despising me as too low a Match for him, he does, in effect, call for some choice Man to come out against him, as thinking me, (if made his Captive) too mean alas! to adorn his Triumph: It is but a just [...]e­tribution to him, for his (perhaps not altogether deserved) contempt of me, as well as it may serve to abate his Pride and Insolence; that he is fain to receive an Answer to his (in his own Opinion Unanswer­ [...]ble) Narrative, from the hand of one, whom he has represent­ed so grosly ignorant, as he has done me.

Tho. Ellwood.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.