An exact narrative of the proceedings at Turners-Hall, the 11th of the month called June, 1696 together with the disputes and speeches there, between G. Keith and other Quakers, differing from him in some religious principles / the whole published and revised by Goerge Keith ; with an appendix containing some new passages to prove his opponents guilty of gross errors and self-contradictions. Keith, George, 1639?-1716. 1696 Approx. 262 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 33 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2007-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A47140 Wing K161 ESTC R14328 12937458 ocm 12937458 95822

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online 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.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A47140) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 95822) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 717:11) An exact narrative of the proceedings at Turners-Hall, the 11th of the month called June, 1696 together with the disputes and speeches there, between G. Keith and other Quakers, differing from him in some religious principles / the whole published and revised by Goerge Keith ; with an appendix containing some new passages to prove his opponents guilty of gross errors and self-contradictions. Keith, George, 1639?-1716. Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723. Penn, William, 1644-1718. Ellwood, Thomas, 1639-1713. 62, [1] p. Printed for B. Aylmer ..., and J. Dunton ..., London : 1696. Errata: p. 62. Half title: G. Keith's narrative of the proceedings at Turners-Hall, the eleventh of the month called June, 1696. The appendix contains quotations from the works of George Whitehead, William Penn and Thomas Ellwood. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Society of Friends -- Controversial literature. 2005-05 Assigned for keying and markup 2005-10 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-11 Sampled and proofread 2006-11 Rekeyed and resubmitted 2007-01 Sampled and proofread 2007-01 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2007-02 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
〈1 page duplicate〉

G. KEITH's NARRATIVE OF THE PROCEEDINGS at TURNERS-HALL, THE Eleventh of the Month called June, 1696.

AN Exact Narrative OF THE PROCEEDINGS AT TURNERS-HALL, The 11th of the Month called June, 1696. Together with the DISPUTES and SPEECHES There, BETWEEN G. KEITH and other QƲAKERS, Differing from Him in Some Religious Principles.

The Whole Publiſhed and Reviſed, By GEORGE KEITH.

With an APPENDIX containing ſome New Paſſages to prove His Opponents guilty of Groſs Errors and Self-Contradictions.

LONDON, Printed for B. Aylmer at the Three Pigeons in Cornhill, and J. Dunton at the Raven in Jewen-ſtreet, 1696.

The PREFACE.

THE Preface to the Friendly Readers, throughout theſe Three Nations, and elſewhere, profeſſing the Chriſtian Faith in Sincerity. To a l you ſincere B lievers in the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and true lovers of him, and of that Holy Chriſtian Religion, whereof he is the Author, throughout theſe three Nations and other Countries, where the Chriſtian Religion is Profeſſed, I do humbly recommend this following Narrative to your ſerious Reading and Conſideration of what Station Rank or Quality ſoever ye be, the ſubject matter treated on in the ſaid Narrative being ſo great Fundamentals of the Chriſtian Religion and Faith, that the denyal of them is a downright denyal of the Chriſtian Religion and Faith it ſelf: Seeing therefore the Subject is ſo great, and ſo eſſential to the Chriſtian Faith, it worthily deſerveth and calleth for the due and ſerious Conſideration of all the ſincere Profeſſors of Chriſt, to whoſe hands th t may happen to come. And ſince the report of our late differences about Religious Matters, one with another, remaining under one common Name and Deſignation of Quakers, is ſpread far and near, not only through theſe Three Nations, but other Places abroad, as is apparent by the late GENERAL HISTORY of the QUAKERS, Written by Gerard Croeſe a Hollander, writ Originally in Latin, and lately Publiſhed in Engliſh here at London. And that the Report of the late Meeting and Conference held at Turners-Hall in London, the 11th of the Month called June, is much gone abroad through both City and Country, chiefly with reſpect to the ſubject matter there diſcourſed, and my undertaking againſt them of the oppoſite Party, to prove certain Perſons of greateſt Note among them, guilty of denying and oppoſing theſe great Fundamentals particularly ſpecified in the following Narrative out of their Printed Books, it may be judged that both the love of Chriſtian Verity, and the ſenſe of Chriſtian Duty, will oblige and induce you to read the ſaid Narrative, if it fall into your hands, and others to enquire after it that the truth of the matter may be ſearched into, whether theſe whom I have undertaken, to prove guilty of denying and oppoſing theſe great Fundamental Truths, be really ſo or I be guilty in accuſing them. I cannot ſuppoſe that any ſincere Profeſſor of the Chriſtian Faith, to whoſe Ears the Report of this great Controverſie hath come, will be a Gall o in the Caſe, ſo as to care for none of theſe things. If your outward Eſtates, Liberty and Property, lay at ſtake to be endangered, would ye not be awakened to provide the b ſt Remedy to ſecure them, how much more I hope will all ſincere Profeſſors of the Chriſtian Religion be concerned for that which is incomparably more valuable than all theſe outward things? Even the Redemption of your Souls, which is your true riches; according to that in Prov. 13.8. The Redemption of the Soul of a Man is h s Riches It is reckoned the greateſt Cheat and Imp ſture that can happen in a Nation to cor upt and adulterate the true Coyn, and falſifie it, ſo as to make Braſs or Iron paſs for true Silver; what ſhall then be judged of ſuch, who ſeek to adulterate and falſifie the true Chriſti n Religion as to put another thing in place of it, even plain Deiſm or Gentiliſm; to w t, a Profeſſion of Religion towards God, and Light in Men, excluding Chriſt God Man and the Faith of him, as he dyed for us and roſe again, and is ſat down in the Kingdom of the Father, and as he is to come again to judge the Quick and the Dead in the true intire glorified Nature of Man, having the true Soul and Body of Man, the ſame he had on Earth. The denyal of theſe great Fundamental Truths of the Chriſtian Religion, with ſome others neceſſarily related to them, and joyned with them inſeparably, I have undertaken to prove my Opponents guilty of; and not only I, but many Judicious Perſons that were preſent at that Meeting at Turners-Hall, the 11th of the Month called June of this inſtant 1696, of the ſeveral Profeſſions of Proteſtants in this great City, did judge that I have effectually done it. But if I have not done it, and cannot make it justly to appear that theſe particular Perſons are guilty of the things charged by me on them, I ſhall freely acknowledge that I deſerve great blame, and therefore I greatly deſire (if it were the Will of God) that I might have yet a more Publick Opportunity to be heard, as concerning theſe things, were it to be called before the greateſt Perſons of Authority in the Nation, either to make good my Charges againſt them, and if they be found guilty the blame to lye on them; or if I be found guilty, that I may have the blame laid on me. But let them be found ever ſo guilty, as I am moſt ſure they are, (let them cover and cloak as much as ever they can) I would not in the least have them perſecuted, or any Sufferings, either in Perſon or Eſtate, to come upon them My deſign in this undertaking is, that they may be ſhamed out of their groſs Errors if poſſible; or if they continue ſhameleſs in them, yet that all others who are not as yet tainted with them, may be preſerved from them, and cautioned and warned againſt them; for this Gangrene of their vile and groſs Errour and Hereſie, that is a complex of the worſt ſort of Errors and Hereſies that ever infeſted the Chriſtian Profeſſion, hath to my certain knowledge overſpread many parts and many perſons in theſe Three Nations, as well as elſewhere. Though I charge them not either upon the generality, far leſs the univerſality of all them called Quakers. But if they really diſown theſe groſs and vile Errors, which I have proved them guilty of in this following Narrative, and be cordial in the belief and acknowledgment of the great Fundamental Truths oppoſite to thoſe Errors, then it will be that which the ſincere Profeſſors of Chriſtianity in theſe Three Nations will expect from them, and may juſtly require of them, as publickly to retract and renounce theſe Errors, as they have publickly aſſerted them in their Printed Books in the face of the Chriſtian World, otherwiſe no ſincere Chriſtians will believe them to be in good earneſt, but that they reſemble many old Hereticks, and particularly the crafty Arrians, that pretended and made great Proteſtations that they owned the true Faith, according to all contained in the Scriptures, when they did nothing leſs. And whereas ſome have Objected to me, that ſince I have acknowledged divers paſſages in my own Books need correction, and have promiſed to do it, I ought to have done that in the firſt place, before I had charged Errors upon others, otherwiſe it would look like the Hyprocrites ſeeking to pull cut the Mote out of his Neighbours Eye, when the Beam is in his own Eye. I Anſwer, The things that need Correction in my Books, compared with the vile Errors in theirs, are but as my Motes to their Beams, which I had ſo far already pulled out of my own Eye, that I have freely acknowledged them to many viva voce, and have them in readineſs to Publiſh in Print with the firſt conveniency. Nor are they ſuch things as oppoſe any Chriſtian Principles of Faith, but of an inferiour nature. And it muſt be one of theſe two things that are their greateſt hinderances to publiſh any ſuch Corrections; that is, either that they are ſtill entangled in thoſe Errors, but are not willing it be known, fearing leſt the preſent publick avouching of them may bring ſome Perſecution on them, or great Infamy and Reproach; or if they be in their Conſciences convinced of thoſe Errors, and ſo are come to a better underſtanding of Chriſtian Doctrines and Principles, yet their Pride and high Authority that they have gained over their too credulous followers will not ſuffer them to make any ſuch free acknowledgment, but eſpecially becauſe any ſuch free acknowledgment, by their own argument and way of reaſoning againſt all other Miniſters in all Chriſtian Profeſſions, would as much unminiſter them, as others they have unminiſtred on that account; viz want of Infallibility, or being ſubject and lyable to Errors and Miſtakes in Articles of Chriſtian Faith. And this will alſo not a little ſtick in the way, to be ſo humbled that they muſt acknowledge G. Keith has not falſly accuſed them, (as they have ſeverely charged him to have done) if they confeſs their former Errors: But how much better were a ſincere Confeſſion in the caſe, taking ſhame as due to them, and humbling themſelves under the power and victory of Truth, than a haughty and arrogant ſtanding out to juſtifie themſelves, in theſe things that neither God nor good Men will ever juſtifie them in. And if they continue ſo bold, as to hold ſuch palpable Contradictions as are diſcovered in their former and latter Books, and ſometimes in the ſame Books, all ingenuous Perſons that know their Contradictions, will conclude them not only ſtill guilty of thoſe Errors, but great Hypocrites; for n ne but ſtark mad men, and craſed in their Ʋnderſtandings (as they have falſly and injuriouſly repreſented me to be) will hold perfect Contradictions, as ſuch but Hypocrites may ſo diſſemble and juggle with them that are weak ſo as to make them think theſe things, that are real Contradictions, are not ſo indeed, but well conſiſtent Truths It nothing (I thank God) moves me that they ſo ſeverely accuſe me, as they have d ne in their late Printed Pamphlets and Papers; that Envy and Malice hath influenced me thus to expoſe them, the Testimony of my Conſcience, and which is more, of that holy witneſs in my Conſcience, clearing me of all ſuch imputation, is as a Braſen Wall to me againſt their evil and injurious Aſperſions: As they cannot prove it to be ſo by any of my words or deeds, ſo the comfort I have in that inward Peace of Conſcience in that diſcharge of my Duty both to them, and to all in the Three Nations, to whom this my ſo publick Appearance, I hope will be of ſervice, is ſafeguard enough unto me againſt their uncharitable conſtructions. And I do freely leave it to all Impartial Judges, whether they or I be guilty of this ſevere Charge; and let the Tree be judged by the Fruits.

Their pretended Excuſes for not meeting me, as deſired, at the Place and Time mentioned in my Printed Advertiſement, are ſo frivolous and weak that they are ſcarce worth noticing: But however the chiefeſt of them I Anſwered on the Place, as the following Narrative will certifie. Their pretence of their not meeting me, for the ſake of Religion, the Liberty granted us, and the Civil Peace, is an empty ſhift, and poor evaſion. Is it contrary to their Religion to diſpute their Adverſary, viva voce? Why then did they diſpute with the Baptiſts, and mightily provoked them thereunto, and that viva voc ? And not only with them but with many others, both at London, and in many other Places in the Nation, and that before promiſcuous and mixt Auditories, as they commonly call the World, (excepting their own Party, whom they call, The Elect People of God). And why did W. Penn give ſuch a daring Challenge to Thomas Hicks, Reaſon againſt Railing, p. 184. and complain againſt him in theſe words? I muſt needs tell the World, the baſe Cowardice of this Adverſary in hand; for we have offered him a free Meeting, with his Books in our hands proffering to refute them, viva voce, before the World; but inſtead thereof, or any other way, (as ſeveral have been tendered) he diſingenuouſly ſlinks away, and puts us off by meer Shifts and Evaſions. And let the Reader judge if W. Penn has not ſhown great Cowardice, and his Party charged by not appearing at all; whereas T. Hicks, at leaſt, once appeared. But why ſhould ſuch a Diſpute viva voce be conſtrued to be againſt the Liberty granted us, and the Civil Peace, more now than then; when at that time thoſe in Civil Authority were more ſevere, whereas now they are very propitious? And why ſhould Diſputes viva voce be more offenſive to Civil Peace than Diſputes in Print? I believe they can give no Reaſon. And it is altogether incredible, that my undertaking the Vindication of the Fundamental Principles of the Chriſtian Faith, profeſſed by the preſent Authority, againſt ſuch manifeſt Oppoſers of it as I have proved my Opponents to be, can be conſtrued by the Authority to be any breach of the Civil Peace, eſpecially when I had procured the Leave of the Lord Mayor of London for ſuch an undertaking, whereof my Opponents were not ignorant. Their upbraiding me with vain ſpeculations, not telling what thoſe are, ſhoweth their great impertinency: But ſuch who are but a little acquainted with the Religious Differences betwixt them and me, may eaſily gueſs what they mean by my vain ſpeculations, even the Fundamental Truths of the Chriſtian Faith, and other ſolid and ſound Articles of Doctrine thereunto belonging: And if theſe be not they, I dare them to name what my vain Speculations are, whereof they accuſe me. But to be ſure, the plain and manifeſt Proofs I have brought out of their Books againſt the greateſt Truths of Chriſtianity, demonſtrate their Speculations not only to be Vain, but Pernicious and Peſtiferous. Their Hypocriſie is manifeſt, in making what they call my Paſſionate and Abuſive Behaviour, an Excuſe for not meeting me, when deſired. For if they thought that I would ſhow any ſuch Behaviour, it would be ſuch an advantage to them, that it would rather be an Argument to invite them to meet me, that I may diſcover my ſelf, than to diſſwade them. But bleſſed be God, that preſerved me at that Meeting, when I had great Provocation given me by ſome of their Party, in ſuch a Temper and Moderation of Spirit (as hundreds are ready to witneſs) as became a ſober Chriſtian, when ſome of them that appeared againſt me, ſhewed themſelves very outragious. 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 tryed without their conſent and agreement. Was it not more Fair, Juſt and Equal in me, and my Friends, to give them a fair Tryal, with open and free acceſs of all ſober Perſons, as many as the Place could contain without Croud, and leave it to the Conſciences of the Auditors how to judge, and intimate my Intenti n at a convenient time beforehand, than for them to condemn me in a clandeſtine Place without all Tryal, fair or unfair, and not to let me have acceſs to them, but when and how little time they pleaſed, and to ſuffer none of my Friends to be preſent to be Witneſſes of their unfair proceedings againſt me. Their upbraiding me by inſinuating my aſſuming a Spiritual Juriſdiction over them, and ſummoning them to appear before me, is idle and vain.

The Injurer is Debtor to the Injured, and accountable to him: But let them tell what Spiritual Juriſdiction they had over me, to call me ſeveral times to them at their Yearly Meetings 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; the contrary of which they have manifestly ſhowed; and never any Society of People profeſſing Chriſtianity hath given greater Inſtances of not only their Fallibility, but their being miſerably deceived, than theſe Men have done. And as idle is that other Excuſe of theirs, that they will not diſpute with me, viva voce, becauſe I am gone off from them (but they did thruſt me from them by their Ʋnjuſt Excommunication, when I would have ſtayed among them ſo long as I could have any hope to have reclaimed them from their Errors); but if my going off be a ſufficient Reaſon why they will not Anſwer me viva voce, it is as ſufficient a Reſon why they ſhould not Anſwer me in Print, which yet they boast they will do: For if I be not worthy nor fit to be Anſwered by Word, nor am I to be Anſwered by Writ: But all this ſheweth their confuſion and inconſiſtency. They think ſuch a Meeting at Turners-Hall, is but in a corner, and not in the face of the Nation; but they are like to find it hath been ſo much in the face of the Nation, that many in the Nation will notice it, poſſibly more than they would either wiſh or expect, and more than any thing that hath happened to them for many Years paſt, to give the Nation a diſcovery of them and of their vile Errors and irregular Practices.

If my Adverſaries happen to put out an Anſwer to this Narrative, filled (as their manner is) with the Falſhoods and Perverſions, and vain Shifts and Evaſions, I purpoſe, with Leave of the Civil Authority, which I hope to obtain as well as formerly, God willing to Print a New Advertiſement of a Méeting, and to give them timely Notice before-hand, to detect their Errors and Abuſes yet further, and to renew the like Practice, as oft as they abuſe the World and me with their Prints. For their unfair way of Diſputing in Print, is much eaſier diſcovered viva voce, than by Anſwering in Print, and is more acceptable to all Free and Impartial People, who in that way are more capable to judge.

G. KEITH.

It is thought proper in the firſt place to inſert the following Advertiſement, bearing date the 11th of the Third Moneth, called May, 1696, and ſent to thoſe Perſons called Quakers, chiefly concerned; it being the occaſion of the following Conference.

An ADVERTISEMENT. Of a Meeting (about ſome Controverſies in Religious Matters of Faith) to be held by George Keith and his Friends, at their uſual Meeting place in Turners-Hall in Philpot-Lane, London, the Eleventh Day of the Month called June, 1696. to begin about the Ninth Hour, and to be adjourned, if Occaſion requireth: To which Meeting William Penn, Thomas Elwood, George Whitehead, John Pennington, and theſe of the Second Days Weekly Meeting at Lombard-ſtreet, London, called Quakers, are juſtly deſired to be preſent, to hear themſelves charged, and proved guilty of the following things, and they ſhall be freely heard, to anſwer to their ſeveral Charges.

Firſt, WHereas William Penn hath accuſed me George Keith, in a Publick Meeting at Ratcliffe, of my being an Apoſtate, and Impoſtor, and endeavouring to pluck up the Teſtimony of Truth by the Roots; and that he hath not either then or ſince, after many months, proved his Charge to be true, tho' he promiſed to anſwer me (before many Witneſſes) when I told him, I thought to put him to prove his Charge in the Face of the Nation: And I being conſcious to my ſelf, that I am not guilty of his Charge, I charge him to be guilty of Falſe Accuſation, and Defamation, and offer to prove him to be ſo; as alſo I offer to prove him guilty out of his Printed Books, (which it doth not appear that he hath Retracted or Corrected) of moſt Erroneous and hurtful Principles, contrary to the Fundamental Doctrines of the Chriſtian Faith and Religion delivered to us in the Holy Scriptures: And alſo that he is guilty of groſs Contradiction to himſelf.

Secondly, Whereas Thomas Elwood hath Printed ſundry Defamatory Books againſt me, I charge him to be guilty of Falſe Accuſations, Perverſions, and Forgeries, contained in his ſaid books, as alſo of moſt Erroneous and Hurtful Principles, to the great ſhame of his Profeſſion, and Scandal of Chriſtian Religion, and I offer to prove him to be ſo.

Thirdly, Whereas George Whitehead did joyn with a prevailing Party, in that called The Yearly Meeting of the Quakers, in the Third Month, 1695. to paſs a moſt Unchriſtian Cenſure of Excommunication againſt me, (without any Proof or Charge of either Error in Doctrine, or Evil Converſation) I charge him to be guilty of Falſe Accuſation, and of a moſt falſe and unjuſt Cenſure, and offer to prove it againſt him. As alſo, I offer to prove the ſaid George Whitehead, out of ſome of his Printed Books (which it doth not appear that he hath Retracted or Corrected) guilty of moſt Erroneous and Hurtful Principles, contrary to the Fundamental Doctrine of the Chriſtian Faith and Religion.

Fourthly, Whereas John Pennington hath Printed Defamatory Books againſt me, and hath Accuſed me to be an Apoſtate, I charge him to be guilty of falſe Accuſation and Defamation, and I offer to prove it at the ſaid Meeting.

Fifthly, Whereas the Second Days Weekly Meeting of the People called Quakers, in Lombard-ſtreet, London, hath approved or Countenanced the above-mentioned Scandalous Books, and another late Book from Penſilvania, ſigned by Caleb Puſey, falſly called by him, A modeſt Account from Penſilvania of the Principal Differences in a Point of Doctrine, &c. I charge them to be guilty of great Injuſtice againſt me, as alſo of being guilty of the falſe Accuſations, Perverſions, Forgeries, and falſe Doctrines contained in the ſaid Books by their approving the ſame, and allowing them to be publickly ſold next Door to their Meeting-place, by one of their own Profeſſion.

If it happen that few or none of the above-mentioned Perſons ſhall be preſent at the ſaid Meeting, being conſcious to themſelves of the badneſs of their Cauſe, yet I do hereby declare and publiſh my full intention to be preſent, (God willing) with my Friends, at the ſaid Place and Time appointed, to make good the Charges againſt them. And any moderate and Friendly People of other Profeſſions, have freedom to be preſent, ſo far as there is room in the place to receive them, without Crowd or Throng, to hear what ſhall be ſaid and proved in theſe matters above-mentioned.

GEORGE KEITH. London, the 11th day of the Third Month, called May, 1696.
And here I think fit to give a true Account of the Juſt Cauſe I have to intimate ſuch a Meeting.

IN my book called, A Seasonable Information and Caveat, againſt a ſcandalous book of Th. Elwood, I made a profer to Th. Elwood, to meet him at any Place and Time that he would appoint, to prove him guilty of groſs Forgery in matters of Fact, &c. and alſo of falſe Doctrine: But he did no wiſe aſſent to any ſuch proffer, nor gave any rational Excuſe for his Rufuſal (pretending, he would not give G K. an Opportunity to gratifie the Rabble, and diſgrace his Profeſſion he yet made of Truth, by ſo publick a diſcovery of his ungoverned Paſſions). [What is this but great hypocriſie? And no doubt, if he or his Party thought to get any advantage againſt me, ſuch a Publick Appearance, either in regard of the Cauſe, or of what he and they call my ungoverned Paſſions, they would greedily embrace it: But the reality of the matter is, they are not willing their great injuſtice, as well as their inſolent carriage, and moſt unruly Paſſions in clandeſtine places, ſhould be diſcovered; ſhutting the doors upon all but themſelves, that none that were equal and impartial Hearers and Obſervers might be preſent, to be a check to their rude and inſolent carriage againſt me, many ſpeaking to me at once, which ſome among themſelves reproved at the firſt Yearly Meeting, I appeared among them. Thus they ſeek to murther the Reputation of the Innocent in ſecret places.] And inſtead of aſſenting to my juſt proffer, he prints another book againſt me, filled with more than double (to what was in his former book) of Forgeries, Perverſions, Falſe Accuſations and Miſrepreſentations. And I having neither time, nor ability of outward Eſtate, to print Anſwers to him and others, that heap book upon book againſt me, with no charge to them, (they having got a way without any charge or coſt to them, to Print what they pleaſe). And things being thus,

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 at Jeruſalem to our Salvation, Juſtification and Sanctification, by the Blood of Chriſt outwardly ſhed, the Reſurrection of the Body that dyeth, and Chriſts coming without us, in his Glorified Body, even the ſame that formerly ſuffered Death for our ſins, to Judge the Quick and the Dead: All which I offer to prove have been oppoſed and contradicted by ſome of them, being the common Faith generally and in common profeſſed by Chriſtians in all profeſſions, and for the defence of which, all ſincere Chriſtians are jointly concerned, and alſo in my juſt vindication, both as a man and a Chriſtian, be not juſtifiable and commendable, it being the beſt way I have at preſent to clear the Truth and my Innocency, and diſcover their great injuſtice towards me, and to Anſwer the proud and inſulting boaſtings of my Adverſaries.

And whereas in my late Book, called, A ſhort Liſt of ſome of the vile and groſs Errors of Geo. Whitehead, &c. I propoſed a juſt demand to William Penn, to give me an Opportunity for him to make good his Charge againſt me at any publick Meeting of the People called Quakers, in or about London; inſtead of his aſſenting to my juſt Demand, there comes forth a Third Book of Tho. Elwood, multiplying his groſs Forgeries, Defamations, and Miſrepreſentations againſt me, and alſo containing moſt falſe and Antichriſtian Doctrine, to the great diſhonour of the bleſſed Name of Chriſt, and the Chriſtian Religion. And as if G. W. and W. P. were not alive, or not able to Anſwer for themſelves, he will needs Anſwer for them; and the ſaid Tho. Elwood puts a moſt impudent and notorious perverſion upon my plain words, in my Propoſition to W. Penn, ſaying of me, as he has worded his Demand, he ſeems to have beſpoke a Publick Meeting that he might have done it himſelf; ſee page 159. and page 160. of his Truth defended. As if (ſaith he) he wanted ſuch an Opportunity to prove himſelf an Apoſtate. Let the Reader but read my words in my own Book, and at the firſt ſight he will ſee the Cheat and Forgery. Obſerve Reader my words, p. 32. And let him ſignifie to me the time and place where he will make it to appear. (I ſay not when I will) that his Charge againſt me is true.

May I not well ſay, that ever ſuch a groſs and impudent Forgerer, Wreſter and Perverter of a Mans words, ſhould be allowed or permitted to be an Agent, Patron, or Champion for what they call the Body of the People named Quakers, and their Miniſtry, is a ſign that they are at a low Ebb, when they make uſe of ſuch Tools as T. E. is, whom I can, and do offer to prove not only to be guilty of groſs Forgeries and Perverſions, and Antichriſtian Principles, but groſly ignorant (in that which he pretends to have knowledge) —of Humane Learning; and who is guilty of Pedantick trifling and quibbling, from meer Errors of the Preſs, not ſo duly corrected, yet obvious to any intelligent Reader.

And to my demanding the like Juſtice to be done me, as ſome Years ago we demanded of the Baptiſts, againſt Thomas Hicks, he anſwereth in his laſt book, falſly called, Truth defended, pag. 158. That betwixt that and this of mine, there is in parallel: For (ſaith he) in that there was a people concerned on each ſide, &c. Whereas W. P's calling G. K. Apoſtate, affects no body that I know of (ſaith T. E.) but himſelf and himſelf, but juſtly: neither is G. K. of any People now, ſo far as I can underſtand.

Now Reader conſider (and judge by this Taſte in the End of his Cask, what ſort of Liquor fills the whole), W. P's calling G. K. Apoſtate, affects no body that he knows of but himſelf. If this were true, as it is moſt falſe, is it not moſt unjuſt Reaſoning? G. K. is but one, and the charge of Apoſtate affects no body but himſelf; therefore he muſt not have Right done to him, nor muſt his complaint be heard of his being wronged. Hath not every ſingle perſon as real and true Right to Juſtice, as a great number? Otherwiſe he muſt Juſtify all the Perſecutions and Murthers that have been acted upon ſingle perſons, who have had none perhaps to own them but God alone. But T. E. knoweth that G. K. has Wife and Children that are affected with this unjuſt charge of W. P. tending to the expoſing of them to ruin and want. If ſo be either W. P. or T. E. could beget an univerſal perſwaſion in people, that his Charge is true, but that T. E. ſaith, the Charge affects me juſtly, is his begging the Queſtion, which neither he, nor any elſe can prove; for they cannot prove that I am declined in the leaſt, from any Principles or Practices of Chriſtianity that I formerly profeſſed: But that without any change of Principles, from what I formerly profeſſed, ever ſince I was owned by the people called Quakers, I underſtand better ſome places of Scripture; and that God has been pleaſed of late Years further to enlighten me, and enable me more clearly to conceive, and more diſtinctly and ſafely to hold forth the ſame Principles of my Faith formerly received by me, is no ſign of my Apoſtacy, but of my growth in the Truth, and in the knowledge of it.

And whereas there is one thing they mightily aggravate againſt me, and think they have catch'd me in a great Contradiction, that ſome time ago I had an Opinion of G. Whitehead and W. Penn, and ſome others, as being men of ſound Principles, and of late I have charged them to the contrary. But to this I Anſwer, This is no contradiction in Principle, or matter of Doctrine; the moſt it argueth, is, that I have been miſtaken in theſe men: but I never heard that a miſtake only in mens perſons; was ever made a Badge or Character of Apoſtacy. But they have no advantage againſt me in reſpect of the change of my Opinion of theſe men, but I have the ſame advantage againſt them; for they have as much changed their Opinion of me as I have of them. And what change of Opinion: I have had of them, is occaſioned by themſelves, in their late cloaking and excuſing vile Errors, which at laſt, by a more diligent ſearch into their books (than formerly I made) I found them guilty of. But whereas T. E. ſaith, G. K. is of no people now, ſo far as he can underſtand; I value not what he underſtands in the caſe; I was then, and now am a Member of Chriſts body, which is his Church, that is not limited to this or that particular Society; nor was I ever ſo ſtrait in my Charity, to think none the people of God but them called Quakers. And notwithſtanding their Bull of Excommunication againſt me, from a prevailing Party or Faction in the laſt Yearly Meeting, I have been ſince well owned, and my Teſtimony well received at a conſiderable number of Meetings within not many miles from London, and many of them owned to be Friends and members of the ſame body, whereof he profeſſeth himſelf a member. And if it were neceſſary, I could eaſily bring a proof, that ſome, owned as his fellow-members, do own me more than they own him. And it is well known, that theſe Abuſes I have met with from T. E. and W. P. and the prevailing Faction in the laſt Yearly Meeting, have affected many honeſt and Conſcientious People called Quakers, in divers places, and have been a great ſcandal and offence to them.

However, to take away all pretence of Excuſe from T. E. and ſtop his mouth in the Caſe, he may ſee where a Meeting of People have publickly owned me, and my Chriſtian Teſtimony, in their printed Treatiſe, called, A Seaſonable Teſtimony; (and theſe did own me then as now) and have diſowned the unchriſtian and falſe Excommunication given forth againſt me by that called; The Yearly Meeting, 1695. that gave themſelves no particular deſignation of people, nor mentioned any particular Meeting-Place where they met, only Signed by a Raw Young Man, that ſerveth for his Salary, and dared not but Sign what they enjoyned him, for fear of loſing his hire.

G. K.
THE Proceedings at TƲRNERS-HALL BETWEEN G. KEITH, and Other QƲAKERS.

AT the Opening of the Meeting, when G. K. ſtood up to make ſome Introductory Speech to give an Account of the Occaſion of the Meeting, Henry Goldney, with ſome other Quakers of W. Pens Party, came with a Printed Paper, giving ſome Reaſons why W. Pen and Geo. Whitehead did not appear, which he deſired might be read.

It was readily granted; and the Reaſons why W. Penn and G. Whitehead did not appear, were read by G. Keith.

G. Keith.

Now if ye think it has not been well read, let another read it, if you think fit; And I offer to Anſwer to every one of the Reaſons, if you deſire it.

The Auditory.

No, it is needleſs.

G. Keith.

This is their deſign, to divert us in our Buſineſs. The Reaſons are ſo ſlender, that I hope every Judicious Perſon here can anſwer them. 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 that they would be glad of any Advantage againſt me. And then for any Offence to Authority, as they ſuggeſt, I have the Lord Mayors leave; and he has ſent his Marſhal to preſerve the Peace, and therefore there can be nothing in that. Their Paper rather reflects upon Authority, the Authority of the Worthy Mayor of this Famous City; to whom I went, as I thought it was my Duty, to deſire leave for this Meeting; which he thought fit to conſent to, and has ſent his Marſhal to keep the Peace.

And I would have you to take Notice now, that they, viz. W. P. and G. W. own thoſe Books of Thomas Elwoods, &c. that are out againſt me, that I knew not before. I went to G. Whitehead, and desired to know whether he owned a former Book of Thomas Elwood writ againſt me: He ſaid, he would neither own it, nor diſown it. And this is enough at preſent to Anſwer this Paper.

I hope in God, the Lord ſhall preſerve me, which has been my Prayer on my Knees this Morning, and many other times, that I might give no occaſion of Reproach to his Name or Truth, and that Religion may not be ſcandalized by any thing I ſhall ſpeak or act; and I hope my Prayers ſhall be anſwered.

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 ſayes, W. Penn, and G. Whitehead, are juſtly deſired to be preſent. This is no Indictment nor Summons, as they falſly call it: And for the particulars I intend to prove againſt them, they were expreſly mentioned in my Printed Paper, called An Advertiſement, containing Four Fundamental Doctrines of Chriſtianity by them oppoſed. I deſired W. Penn to make good his Charge againſt me, in a former Printed Paper, which was, That I was an Apoſtate and Impoſtour, endeavouring to pluck up the Teſtimony of Truth by the roots. This he ſaid at a Meeting at Ratcliffe, above Fourteen Months ago, and while I was peaceably ſpeaking in that Meeting he interrupts me, and like a Clap of Thunder falls on me in the midſt of my Teſtimony, calls me, Apoſta e, &c. I deſired him alſo at the Yearly Meeting of the Quakers at London held 1695. to make good his Charge, and I told him, If he refuſed, I would put him to prove it in the face of the Nation. He juſtified his calling me Apoſtate, ſaying, He was in no Paſſion, but he was ſo tranſported by the Glorious Power of God, that he knew not whether he was Standing, Sitting or Kneeling. And ſince I have in Print deſired him to prove his Charge, and now at this Meeting; but he declines to appear. Ye know the ſaying, Affirmanti incumbit probatio, He ought to prove what he has affirmed.

Quaker. H. Goldnay.

If thoſe that thou didſt ſummon, had appeared, I do not ſee thou hadſt provided any convenient place for them.

G. Keith.

If your Friends had appeared, they might have had a place: There (pointing to a Table and a Bench ſ t on it, oppoſite to the place where he ſtood) is a place provided for them: If you will fetch them, they ſhall have a place; or they might have been here with me where I ſtand.

Strangers that ſtood on the Table.

If they come we will give place to them.

Quakers. N. M. and H. G.

We came here to give an account that our Friends think not fit to be here, and have given their Reaſons for it.

G. Keith.

It is a ſtrange thing that th y cannot print a Paper, but muſt have ſo many Falſities in it. They call my Paper, a Summons and an Indictment, but I meant it not ſo. But to leave that, and come to our buſineſs

The four things which I charge them to be guilty of, are theſe; and I appeal to all moderate perſons, whether my intimation of ſuch a Meeting can be blamed, when it is to defend ſuch Points as theſe: Faith in Chriſt as he outwardly ſuffered at Jeruſalem to our Salvation. That is the Firſt. Juſtification and Sanctification by the Blood of Chriſt outwardly ſhed. That is the Second. The Reſurrection of the Body that dyeth. The Third. And Chriſts coming without us in his glorified Body, to judge the Quick and Dead. That is the Fourth. All which have been contradicted by ſome of them, as W. Penn, G. Whitehead, &c. though theſe are Fundamental Principles belonging to the common Faith, and are generally owned by Chriſtians of all Profeſſions.

Now, if you pleaſe, I ſhall proceed to my Proofs Moſt of my buſineſs, whether they be here or not, is to read my Proofs out of their Books, that they are guilty of every one of theſe Four Errors oppoſing thereby Four Fundamental Truths.

The firſt is, The neceſſity of Faith in Chriſt, as he outwardly ſuffered for us at Jeruſalem. This is the firſt. But that this is oppoſed by them, I prove thus: The O ject of Faith is oppoſed by them, and therefore the Faith it ſelf muſt needs be oppoſed. I hope the conſequence is clear enough, it needs no Proof.

The Object of Chriſtian Faith is Chriſt, both God and Man, and yet but one Chriſt. But ſo it is that I offer to prove, that G. Whitehead, and W. Penn by approving of G. Whiteheads Books, has denyed Chriſt both to be God and Man. This is the thing, which if I make out, I make out my firſt Point.

And firſt I offer to prove that G. Whitehead in a Book of his has denyed Chriſt to be God, and W. Penn has owned this Book: The Book is called, Light and Life, recommended by William Penn in his Reaſon againſt Railing, p. 186. in Anſwer to W. Burnet, a Baptiſt Preacher, Printed, 1668. P. 47. Here he firſt brings in the Baptiſts words. Says the Baptiſt, Now 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 ſenſe came down from Heaven.

Now here is G. Whiteheads reply, What Nonſenſe and Ʋnſcriptural Language is this? To tell of God being Co-Creator wi h 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.

I ſhall read the Baptiſts words again, and ſee if there be any thing in them offenſive to Chriſtian Ears. I hope there are not many here but underſtand what Co ſignifieth, it is with. Now ſee if the words of the Baptiſt are offenſive to Chriſtian Ears; As he was God, he was Co-Creator with the Father. Ye know John ſaith, In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God, John 1.1, 2. See alſo Prov. 8. 22,3 . If theſe words offend any, let them ſpeak with all my Heart.

Quaker. N. Mark.

If I might, I deſire to have liberty to ſpeak, when was the date of the Book?

Auditors.

If you will undertake their cauſe, you may ſpeak, otherwiſe not.

Quaker.

Pray hear me. The Reaſon why I askt him the date of the Book, is becauſe I believe it was a book antiently written; and G. Keith did write in Vindication of our Principles, and now for him to appear in oppoſition to our Principles, it appears that he has apoſtatized from our Principles.

G. Kei h.

Now let me Anſwer him I do ſay, if it were my laſt words, I know not that I ever read a line of this book till I came laſt to England, which is about Two Years. And if G. Whitehead be wiſer ſince, it is very well: But then he ſhould have retracted this. For this book, and ſome other books of his, has leavened the minds of many in America; as well as here, with Poyſonous Errors.

Stranger A Quaker.

Then George Keith ought to make a candid and full Retractation of what he has ſaid contrary to Truth, before he appeared againſt them.

G. Keith.

I own I have been miſtaken in theſe Men: But I hope this Auditory are ſufficient Judges of that, that if they cannot prove me to hold any Doctrine contrary to my former Principles, nor any Unchriſtian Principle, and that they have nothing againſt me Conv rſation, they ought not to call me an Apoſtate. I never heard that a Man was judged an Apoſtate for changing his Opinion of ſome Men, eſpecially when he finds cauſe ſo to do.

Quaker.

You are fallen from your former Principles.

G. Keith.

If you prove me not to have changed in any Fundamental Principle, ye ought not to charge me to be an Apoſtate. I know not any Fundamental Principle, nor indeed any one Principle of the Chriſtian Faith, that I have varied from to this day, ever ſince I came among the Quakers, which is about Thirty Three Years ago; therefore I ought to be cleared of that Imputation.

Quaker.

H. G ldne , began to ſpeak.

G. Keith.

Art thou deputed to Anſwer to what I have Charged them with?

Stranger.

They have declined your Meeting, and yet ſeveral perſons (it ſeems) are deputed by them to ſpeak.

Auditors.

G. Keith, go on with your Charge.

G. Kei h.

There is another paſſage in G. Whiteheads book wherein he denies the Divinity of Chriſt; and he deceives the Nation and the 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, and no wonder he has deceived me. In his pag. 24. Light and Life, he ſaith, 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, implyes two. Ye ſee this is poſitive; and he puts this Cenſure on the Baptiſts words, Thus Nonſenſe, Confuſion and Blaſphemy is heapt up againſt the Light within.

Quaker.

We tell you, that whereas G. Keith hath Printed ſeveral Books, they have Anſwered them from time to time; and he has left two Books unanſwered; and whatever he will print to the contrary, we will defend our Principles.

G. Keith.

They have a Publick Stock, I have not; they are able to raiſe ſome Thouſands of Pounds ſooner than G. Keith can raiſe an Hundred.

[Here ſome Noiſe being raiſed in the Meeting by ſome diſcontented perſons.] Auditors.

Let there be a Moderator choſen.

G. Keith.

If there be any Offence, do not charge it on me. I deſire you for the Honour of the Nation, and of the City of London, to be ſtill. It is a Mob from Grace-church-ſtreet to make a diſturbance.

Then that paſſage in G. Whiteheads book was read again.

See here the Son of God, his Eternal Generation is denyed. If he had a Father, then there are two Gods. And here is as plain a denying Chriſt to be God, as any Socinian can be guilty of.

Quaker. Nat. Mark.

The caſual dropping of words is no proof.

G. Keith.

I have proved to you already he diſowns Chriſt to be God. Now I will prove he has denyed him to be Man: And then there is that great Article of our Faith loſt, and the Object of the Chriſtian Faith denyed. Here is G. Whiteheads Anſwer to T. Danſons Synopſis of Quakeriſm, as he calls it, p. 18. This is in the book called, The Divinity of Chriſt aſſerted, (recommended by W. Penn, Reaſon againſt Railing, p. 185.)

See how G. Whitehead takes him up, and how he banters him: If the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both created, doth not this render him a Fourth Perſon, &c. But the ſtreſs I lay is in the words following; But herein whether doth not his and their ignorance of the only begotten of the Father plainly appear: 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. Here ye ſee, he will not own that Chriſt had a Created Soul. Th. Danſon, being a Presbyterian Miniſter did plead, That Chriſt as Man had a created Soul. This G. W. makes an inconſiſtency, as if he could not be God alſo. This was the Errour of Apollinarius, who ſaid, Chriſt was without a Humane Soul, for he was the expreſs Image of his Father. But ſuppoſing the Soul of Chriſt were created with the Body, &c. That which I would have you take notice of, is this, Where does the Scripture ſay his Soul was created?

Quaker. Waite.

That was only a Queſtion.

G. Keith.

Well, it was his way of Diſputing, as is ordinary to him, and many others. An ſuch way of Queſtioning plainly imperteth a Denyal.

Next I prove, that G. Whitehead ſays He has not the Body of a Man. And then I hope I ſhall have performed what I promiſed. See his Nature of Chriſtianity, p. 29, 41. Here I undertake to prove, that G. Whitehead denies that Chriſt in Heaven has any Bodily Exiſtence without us. It he has ſaid otherwiſe in any of his late Printed Books, I am glad of it. But let him retract theſe, for theſe have done much miſchief. Now when I ſaid he was Orthodox, I mean not 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 George Whitehead; he is but one and the ſame perſon, (in this and ſome other things) Orthodox and not Orthodox, George Whitehead contradicting George Whitehead; he is accountable for theſe Contradictions and not I. I own it, that I have cited divers paſſages out of his later books that are Orthodox to prove him ſound; but I did not then know, when I ſo cited him, that he was guilty of ſuch groſs Errors, as ſince I have found by a further ſearch into his books. Let him retract his Errors, and well enjoy his Orthodoxy. Ye know contradictory Propoſitions cannot be both true.

I ſhall read to you, p. 29, 41. of his Nature of Chriſtianity. (This is poſteriour to his former book). In Page 29. 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, page 30. If thou doſt, thou mayſt look until thy E es drop out, before thou wilt ſee ſuch an appearance of him. This is but one place, that is, that Chriſt will not ſo appear. But why will he not ſo appear, but becauſe he has no Bodily Exiſtence without us. That I come now to prove; for which I ſhall read to you in his pag. 41. 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 viſibl 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 Days expreſs the Glory that he had with the Father before the World began, in which he is now glorified? And where doth the Scripture ſay? And here is the thing that rivets. Where doth the Scripture ſay, that 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?

Now G. Whitehead's way of writing, is to queſtion his Adverſaries, which is the Socratical way of diſputing and arguing againſt his Adverſary.

But let me go on. Again, ſee his Book called, Chriſt aſcended above the Clouds. All that I have yet cited out of G. Whitehead's Book, Light and Life, and that of the Divinity of Chriſt, and Nature of Chriſtianity, W. Penn has own'd them all in his Reaſons againſt Railing, pag. 185, 186. This Book was printed, (and alſo this called Chriſt aſcended above the Clouds) Anno 1669. Now for the Page and Matter, p. 21, 22. John 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. G. W. anſwereth, Theſe are not the Words of Scripture, but added, Altho to add or diminiſh be forbidden under a Penalty, Rev. 22.18, 19. yet this Man's Preſumption leads him to incur that;—And Chriſt in the Days of his Fleſh (when he viſibly appeared to the World) ſaid, Yet a little while and the World ſeeth me no more. Now again I ſhall read to you John Newman's Words which G. W. doth ſo much blame: From Rev. 1.7. Thoſe that pierced him in his Body of Fleſh, ſhall ſee that Body viſibly come again. Is there any thing here offenſive? Nothing but what is the declared Opinion of the Church of Rome, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, Independents, Baptiſts, and mine, all along, tho I have been a Quaker near about 34 Years.

Quaker.

Then it is much that in 34 Years thou ſhouldſt not correct them before.

G. Keith.

This Aſſertion that G. Whitehead charges with Hereſy, ſee how he anſwers it; Theſe are not the Words of Scripture, but added, altho to add or diminiſh be forbidden under a Penalty. Why, John Newman here only uſes the word Body to his coming again, and G. Whitehead finds fault with that; and G. W. brings a Proof from John 14.19. Yet a little while and the World ſeeth me no more: that thoſe that pierced Chriſt in his Body ſhall not ſee that Body viſibly come again. Here is a Proof that Chriſt was evaniſhed: The World ſhall ſee me no more. The Tranſlation will not prove G. Whitehead's Poſition even as it is. But it may be better tranſlated as yet, Yet a little while and the World ſhall not ſee me: As yet, the Greek being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yet, i. e. nondum, or not as yet. Does this prove that Chriſt has no Body at all? This is very bad Reaſoning.

Quaker.

If the Tranſlation be not good, why do you make uſe of it?

Note, There is an additional Poſtſcript by me G. K. put to this Book of G. W. Nature of Chriſtianity, the which Poſtſcript I left in a Manuſcript at London, and with the Quakers, printed with this of G. W. I acknowledg my want of due Conſideration that I did not better conſider G. W. his Words in that Book, having many Years ago read it, but too overly, and not having ſeen it ſince, for many Years, till of late: 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 above-mentioned, p. 73. where at n. 11. I blame R. G. 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. I confeſs I happened to find divers Paſſages in G. W.'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, until that of late I had found them to juſtify the ſame, and the like unſound Words, in my Adverſaries in Penſilvania, and to hate and excommunicate me for telling them of them. G. Keith.

I own it a good Tranſlation, and Thanks be to God we have ſuch a Tranſlation; et that in ſome Places it may be better tranſlated, the Quakers themſelves, as well as all 〈◊〉 Profeſſions, do acknowledg, (ſuch as have a little Hebrew or Greek) that is one 〈◊〉 there are two or three Places more. I will give you only a few of my Proofs, and 〈◊〉 reſt to a further Opportunity. P. 24. ſays J. Newman, By denying any perſo 〈◊〉 •• ing of Chriſt, without all Men, at the right Hand of God, but only a feigned 〈◊〉 within, then Remiſſion of Sins muſt die, and Faith alſo, for want of the Object 〈◊〉 . This I look on to be good Doctrine. And if you deny that, (G. K. turning 〈◊〉 to his Opponents, Henry Goldney and Nathaniel Marke, who ſpoke by turns, ſometimes one, and ſometimes another, and ſtood cloſe by him in the Gallery, a Favour his Adverſaries would ſcarce have allowed to him, in any ſuch Diſpute, at Grace-Church-ſtreet- Meeting-place, or elſewhere) ye may ſpeak; to which they not replying, G. K. further ſaid, I think this is a good Deduction. Now to this G. Whitehead anſwers, p. 29. (I defend not J. Newman in all he owns, but ſo far as he holds the Truth: And if a Papiſt ſay the Truth againſt a Jew, I am ingaged to defend him in it) 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. And again, pag. 69. he ſaith: And theſe Words, Chriſt in Perſon remote in his Body of Fleſh, &c. and not in any Man, are not Scripture, but added. What ſtrange Conceits would J. N. put upon the unlimited God, like the old heretical Monks of Egypt, called Anthropomorphites. By theſe Words of G. W. 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. So you ſee all of you are Muggletonians as well as I.

But mark the Words of John Newman above-mentioned, which are ſound; and I ſay, whoever under a Chriſtian Profeſſion deny Chriſt to have any perſonal or bodily Exiſtence without us in Heaven, whatever Notion they may have of Chriſt within, it is but a feigned Chriſt within; but who have the true Knowledg and Faith of Chriſt within, to wit, of his Spirit, Light and Grace within, that leads them to own and confeſs to the Man Chriſt without, as well as to his Spirit within. There is no Church-of-England-man, Presbyterian or Baptiſt, &c. that holds that Notion, that the Godhead has the Shape of a Man; but the Manhood of Chriſt has the true Nature of Man. And what Shape Chriſt's Body has now, that I leave, but I believe he has the ſelf-ſame Body in Heaven that he had on Earth; the ſame I ſay for Subſtance and Eſſence of Body, tho wonderfully changed in Manner and Condition.

Another Quaker.

Then you reflect on an Act of Parliament which allows the Tranſlation of the Scriptures, if they be not truly tranſlated, [Note, This Man's Impertinency and Prejudice, as if to ſay a Place of Scripture may be better tranſlated, which all the Learned of all Profeſſions of Engliſh Proteſtants do allow, were a Reflection on the Parliament: how earneſt is this Man with other of his Brethren, to make the Innocent an Offender? Is this your Chriſtianity?]

G. Keith.

Here is a Book of G. Whitehead's, called, The He-goats Horn broken. I hope this Meeting will give Satisfaction to many; and therefore that it may be profitable, I deſire you to keep Silence.

Quaker N. Mark.

I have a Propoſition to make. I would not interrupt, but I deſire to be heard, if I may have leave.

G. Keith.

Will you (ſpeaking to them all four that ſpoke ſometimes one and ſometimes another) take upon you to vindicate your Friends? then you may ſay what you will.

Quaker.

George, I deſire thy Leave to be heard.

G. Keith.

If you will but ſpeak briefly.

Quaker N. Mark.

The Propoſition is this: 1. I tell you I am here accidentally. 2. I obſerve that G. Keith takes the Liberty of putting his own Interpretation on the Paſſages of ſeveral Books; and ſince G. K. has departed from the Quakers, he has taken on him to write ſeveral Books, which are extant; and over and over he makes his Appeal to this Aſſembly; which I deſire you to conſider how improper and impracticable it is to decide it here. Therefore what he purpoſed to urge here, if he will print it, and proceed no further in this Meeting, I will be at the Charge of whatever he ſhall print.

G. Keith.

I ſay, If he would lay me down five hundred Pounds, I would not break up this Meeting till it is over.

Stranger.

He will pay for it, i. e. N. Marks.

G. Keith.

But it is upon Terms.

Quaker,

Began to ſpeak, [thus they oft ſought to interrupt him to divert the Proofs.]

G. Keith.

Thou knoweſt thou art not ſo qualified to ſpeak in this Auditory. Let me go on with my Proofs. I prove further, that G. Whitehead writing againſt one Jo. Horn, reflects on him ſcornfully, he calls his Book the He-goats Horn broken. Now ſee whether G. Whitehead has not broken his own Horn rather. It is a Shame, the Reflections they have made on Men ſounder than themſelves. Let me read the Words; The He-goats Horn broken, or Innocency, &c. in anſwer to two Books againſt the Quakers, Printed, London, 1660. Now if I underſtand any thing of true Divinity or Theology, the Paſſage this Man or Men (for there are two of them) lays down here, is a ſound Paſſage, which G. Whitehead contradicts. Now here is the Paſſage, and do you judg of it. And where we lay down this as Tho. Moor's Principle, That their Nature is reſtored in Chriſt, and that their Nature is a filthy Nature. This they ſay is falſly expreſſed and perverted, and yet J. H. and T. M. a little after ſay thus, 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. And they ſay, That we might as well have taxed the Apoſtle of Confuſion, for ſaying, Men by Nature do the things contained in the Law; p. 11, 12. Now here is G. Whitehead's Anſwer, We may juſtly tax theſe Men for 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. Obſerve, Chriſt did not take upon him Jo. Horn's Nature. No, ſays he. As I have oft told G. Whitehead, that he and W. Penn will needs imbrace falſe Notions in Philoſophy, they will needs ſeem to be Philoſophers by Divine Inſpiration, as well as Miniſters and Preachers by it. But it is a ſad thing, that their falſe Philoſophy ſhould deſtroy their Faith. Now here is a falſe Notion, that Chriſt could not take on him Man's Nature, except he took on him the Pollution of it. As if the Pollution of Sin were an eſſential Attribute of Man's Nature. Now Sin, if it be like Scarlet, is no more eſſential to the Nature of Man, than Filth to a Garment: for a Garment is the ſame Garment ſtill, whether it be filthy or clean. Therefore I ſay, our bleſſed Lord might well take on him our Nature, and the Nature in us be ſinful, and in him pure and holy. And Jo. Horn diſtinguiſhes ſo. Now judg ye whether G. Whitehead has broken Jo. Horn's Horn, yea or no; or rather whether has he not broken his own Horn?

Thus I have done as to the Object of Faith, at preſent at leaſt. Now I come to the Act of Faith, or the Vertue of Faith. See for the Proofs, William Penn his Quakeriſm, a new Nick-name for old Chriſtianity, p. 12. Printed Anno 1672. This Book is without the Printer's Name, and moſt of W. Penn's Books are without it, tho they perſecuted William Bradford in Philadelphia for printing ſome of my Books without putting his Name. Here is the Point, Jo. Faldo makes this Charge againſt the Quakers, p. 12. Chriſtianity was introduced by preaching the promiſed Meſſiah, and pointing at his humane Perſon, but Quakeriſm by preaching a Light within. Now if I had this to anſwer, I would have ſaid, Any Quakeriſm 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) but inſtead of that he anſwers thus: I anſwer, That this is nothing injurious to the Quakers at all, but highly on their ſide, for had they preach'd a Chriſt now coming in the Fleſh, they had dented his true and only great viſible Appearance at Jeruſalem, which all true Quak rs own. Since t en they believe that Appearance, but therefore need not preach wh t is not to be again: And that the whole Chriſtian World beſides have ſo long a d lazily depended on it, without their thirſting after his inward holy Appearance in the Conſcience, &c.

This is the thing I come to; Since then they believe that Appearance, but therefore need not preach what is not to be again; if every one of them believe there was ſuch a Man that was born of a Virgin, and died for our Sins ſixteen hundred Years ago, they therefore need not preach that he was ſo born, or that he died for our Sins, &c. Chriſt is not to be born again, is not to die again, &c. We need not preach it, but throw it over the Shoulder, and give it up and bury it in Oblivion from Poſterity. Judg if this e not the true Conſequence. Let them retract theſe Errors, and not ſay I am an Apoſtate for telling them of them: As I told G. Whitehead, there are Errors in thy Books as well as others, and either thou or I muſt correct them, and he was very angry with me. L t them retract them, and not count me a Liar for telling them of them. But let me again r ad out the entire Paragraph. Since then they believe that Appearance, but therefore need not preach what is not to be again. There it clinches, they need not preach what is not to be again And by this ſame Argument they need not preach his Example of holy Life, nor the Example of the holy Lives of the Patriarchs, Prophets and Apoſtles, nor the Creation of the World, nor any of God's gracious Providences towards his Church and People in former Ages, they all being paſt, and Perſons not to live again in Mortal Bodies. But why do the Quakers labour to keep up the the Remembrance of their deceaſed Friends, and their Works and Sayings, and collect them in Print for Poſterity? Is not the keeping in Memory the Birth, Life, Death and Reſurrection, &c. of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt infinitely of more Value to be remembred? and what is the way to have it remembred (according to God's ordinary manner of working) if not by preaching? O what great Blindneſs and Ignorance is this of W. Penns! . Take notice alſo of his uncharitable dealing here; if he had ſaid many, it might have paſt. But he ſays the whole Chriſtian World has lazily depended on it. Is there none in the Chriſtian World but the Quakers, that thirſt after the Power of God in their Souls? I was never ſo uncharitable to think ſo. There is more yet, p. 6. The Diſtinction between Moral and Chriſtian. The making holy Life legal, (I know none that do ſo of any that are ſincere in all the Profeſſions in Chriſtendon) and Fa th in the Hiſtory of Chriſt's outward Manifeſtation, has been a deadly Poiſon theſe latter Ages have been infected with, to the Deſtruction of God y Living, and apoſtatizing of thoſe Churches, &c. Another Proof I bring againſt W. Penn is out of his Addreſs to Proteſtants, p. 119. printed 1692. the ſecond Edition corrected and enlarged: But this Paſſage remains in it however. I will begin a little before the main thing: For it ſeems, p. 118. a moſt unreaſonable thing, that Faith in God, and in keeping his Commands 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 nd ſince Chriſt's time who never had the external Law, and 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, and came to fulfil and not deſtroy the Law, and that not only in his own Perſon, but that the Righteouſneſs of the Law might alſo be fulfilled in us. Now comes the main thing. Let us but ſoberly conſider what Chriſt is, and we ſhall the better know, whether Moral Men are to be reckon'd Chriſtians. What is Chriſt but Meekneſs, Juſtice, Mercy, Patience Charity, and Vertue in Perfection? Can we then deny a meek Man to be a Chriſtian, a juſt, a merciful, a patient, a charitable and vertuous Man to be like Chriſt? But in this way of arguing there is a Fallacy; theſe Moral Vertues are a Part of a Chriſtian, as Animal is a part of the Definition of a Man, 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, but not the Differentia; therefore it is true to ſay, every Man is an Animal; but it is not true nor good Logick to ſay, every Animal is a Man. Let us but ſoberly conſider (ſaith William Penn) what Chriſt is, what is Chriſt but Meekneſs, and Juſtice, and Mercy, and Patience? And now take notice, (I would not miſconſtrue what I have read) by William Penn's Argument, a Man may be own'd to be a Chriſtian, and yet disbelieve that Chriſt is either God or Man; if he own or practiſe a Habit or Quality of Moral Vertue, as that of Juſtice, and Meekneſs, &c. and practiſe accordingly, tho he believe not in Chriſt, if he have but ſome Moral Habits: So that here the Jew is the Chriſtian, the Mahometan is the Chriſtian, the Pagan is the Chriſtian, and the profeſſed Pelagian is the Chriſtian, tho they deny any inward ſupernatural Principle, and call the Light within only natural, as many ſober and moral Men do; why then have they ſo fiercely contended againſt ſuch Men, denying them to be Chriſtians, in whom as much of Mora ity has appeared as in many of t em? But it is ſtrange to heatheniſe all Chriſtendom through, calling them the World, and chriſtianiſe Heathens for their Morality. See again the Chriſtian Quaker, p. 125, 126, 127. let me but recommend it to you to read the Book. This Chriſtian Quaker it is a Folio Book, he beſtows about three Pages to define what a Chriſtian Quaker is. In all this large De •• nition, 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: it is too large to reci e, but I recommend it to you to read it, and ſhall go to the next.

Again, ſee the Preface to R. Barclay's great Volume, p. 36. where he makes the Work of Regeneration greater than the Manifeſtation of the Son of God in the Fleſh. R. Barclay is my Country-man, I will not be partial to him on that account; but I do not now blame any thing in his Book, I know he is the ſoundeſt Writer among them. But the thing I blame, is a Preface ſuppoſed to be writ by W. Penn, and, however, commended by G. Whitehead and ſome others: By the Stile it is thought to be W. Penn's, and it commonly goes under his Name. Theſe are the Words: O Reader! great is the Myſtery of Godlineſs! And if the Apoſtle ſaid it of the Manifeſtation of the Son of God in t e 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 is the Work of Regeneration a Myſtery, that is wholly inward and ſpiritual in its Operation? Who is ſufficient for theſe things? Now pray take notice, that I tell you, I caſt no Reflection on R. Barclay, I blame nothing at preſent in his Books, tho there may be things both in his Books and mine that may need Correction. If there be any Reflection on him, it is chiefly this, that ſuch an unſound Preface ſhould be put to his Book, for I can ſufficiently prove, that R. Barclay's Doctrine is plainly Antipodes to this Doctrine

See his and my Anſwer to the Students in Aberdeer, called Quakeriſm confirmed, in the Collection of his Works, called, Truth triumphant, pag. 627. Prop. 3. we ſay, That the ſame Seed and Life is in us which was in him, (viz. the Man Chriſt) and is in him in the Fulneſs, as Water in the Spring, and in us as the Stream.—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.

Again, p. 628. Prop. 10. As for the Satisfaction of Chritſt without us, we own it againſt the Socinians, &c. And pag. 629. The Doctrines of the Incarnation, Sufferings, Death and Reſurrection of Chriſt, &c. are neceſſary every where to be preached: See the Places at more length, than which nothing can be more contradictory than W. Penn's Doctrine, as will appear in divers Places in this Treatiſe, from his own Words faithfully quoted out of his Books.

. O Reader, great is the Myſtery of Godlineſs; for which is cited 1 Tim. 3.16. Great is the M ſtery of Godlineſs, God manifeſt in the Fleſh, &c. which all Chriſtendom judg to be God manifeſt in Chriſt's outward Body of Fleſh, and but conſequentially of his Spirit and Grace in Men and I think it's the greateſt Myſtery next to that of the Holy Three in One, and One in Three; the Manifeſtation of the Son of God in that Body of Fleſh is next to that. Now you ſee how he makes Regeneration in a Believer a greater Myſtery than the Manifeſtation of the Son of God in his Body of Fleſh; How much more, ſaith he, is the Work of Regeneration a Myſtery? For the other here, 1 Tim. 3. 6. he does not ſay it is a Myſtery, but he puts three ifs to it, If a M ſtery, &c. Pray was our bleſſed Lord a mere Shell? Was he like the Shell of an Egg without the Meat of an Egg? or was he like the Shell of any Fruit, and no Kernel in it? Was there any Holineſs ever in any Prophet or Apoſtle, but it is like a Drop to the Ocean to what was in ur bleſſed Lord? Therefore to compare the Work of Regeneration to the Incarnation of our Lord, ſo as to equal it, (he prefers it, and does not equal it only) I appeal to you, 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 we truly value any Man as more holy, according as the Manifeſtation of God is more in one Man than in another. It is not enough, to ſay, he has unadviſedly dropt this Doctrine, but it is his main Aim in divers of his Books: See W. Penn's Rejoinder, p. 330, 337, 340. where he makes Chriſt in the Gentiles a greater Myſtery than Chriſt incarnate, p. 335. J. Faldo is now in his Grave; and I confeſs I never thought I ſhould be raiſed up to vindicate J. Faldo. I cannot ſay I ever read the fourth Part of this Book of W. Penn's called his Rejoinder, till within this two Twelve months. But if J. Faldo ſpeak Truth againſt my Father, I muſt defend him againſt my Father. Hear what J. Faldo ſays, p. 100, 101. For Chriſt to be in the Gentiles, rightly underſtood, would be no hard Matter for the Gentiles to believe, as to believe ſuch a Glory to be attain'd by Faith in, and Obedience to the Laws of a Man, who died as a Malefactor, and that this Death of his ſhould reconcile God to Man, with the Addition of ſuch a Purchaſe To this W. Penn anſwereth, This ſort of Doctrine will becometh John Faldo, I perceive I have not miſtaken him. What Carnaliſt in the World could have let drop a more perricious Sentence to the Doctrine and Kingdom of Chriſt, than to render it more difficult to believe, and lay a greater ſtreſs upon the external than the internal Work of Chriſt? we muſt read the moſt weighty Scriptures backwards upon this Man's Principles, he hath helped us to a new way of rendring the Text; not this Myſtery among the Gentiles is Chriſt in you the Hope of Glory, but this Myſtery among the G n il s is a Man who died as a Malefactor, by his Death reconciled to God, &c. Behold your Expoſitor! I dare warrant this Man's Comment will never trouble the next Collection of Criticks. At this rate the Lord, Lord Criar is highly privileged, and the Galatians had paſſed the moſt difficult Birth before they had known Chriſt to be formed in them. Regeneration is a ſlight thing in compariſon of the Knowledg of Chriſt after the Fleſh. This Doctrine brings not Men to Chriſt in them the Hope of Glory, but inticeth them into the vain Hope of the Hypocriſy which periſheth: the Hiſtory is made the greateſt Myſtery; and to believe the one, matter of greater Difficulty than to experience the other.—'Tis ſtrange that ſhould be reputed moſt myſterious which was the Introduction to the Myſtery, and thoſe Tranſactions counted moſt difficult that were by the Divine Wiſdom of God ordained as ſo many facile Repreſentations of what was to be accompliſhed in Man.

In ſhort, it is to leſſen if not totally to exclude the true Myſtery of Godlineſs which is Chriſt manifeſted in his Children, their Hope of Glory.

We had wont to ſay, All other Profeſſions denied Chriſt within but here J. Faldo owns Chriſt to be in the Gentiles rightly underſtood. But to me Chriſt crucified, in whom the Fulneſs dwell th, is a greater Myſtery, and a greater Matter to be believed. I can ſhew many of the Philoſophers that owned the Light within, under the Denomination of the Word, Light, Spirit, &c. yet it was ſo hard for them to believe that a Man that was crucified as a Malefactor ſhould die for their Sins. Yea Julian the Apoſtate, and Porphirius, profeſſed and owned a Divine Principle within, [as generally the Platoniſt Philoſophers did, and Ariſtotle alſo] but Chriſt crucified they could not away with. And now it is a Stumbling-block to theſe Quakers. This ſort of Doctrine well becomes J. Faldo. See how he hanters him. W. Penn thinks it is a Matter of little or no Difficulty to believe God ſent Chriſt to die for Sinners, and to reconcile God to Men by his Death. But Chriſt told the Jews, This is the Work of God, John 6.29. that ye believe on him whom he hath ſent And ſurely that was the Man Chriſt Jeſus. And he ſaid alſo, No Man can come unto me, ex ept the Father which hath ſent me draw him, John 6.44. And every one that has heard and learned f the Father comes to me, ver. 45. Now to come to him is the ſame as to believe in him with a true ſaving Faith. So that it is plain, he teaches the Jews that they cannot believe in Chriſt (that appear d outwardly among them) whom God has ſent, but as they are taught of God and drawn of him. And yet W. Penn makes it inſeriour to Reg neration, as you may ſee by his Words: [Whereas true ſaving Faith in Chriſt crucified, who died as a Malefactor, to reconcile us to God, is a great and principal Part of Regeneration, and is as great a Work of God, as to make us believe Chriſt's inward Appearance in us]. But ſays William Penn, "Behold your Expoſitor! I dare warrant this Man's Comment will never trouble the next "Collection of Criticks, &c. A rare way to refute him, to banter him at this rate. Now I will give you my Senſe. I do not reckon J. Faldo was ſo ignorant a Man, that he believed a Man could be a Chriſtian only with a traditional Knowledg or Faith of Chriſt without him. But tho Regeneration is no ſlight thing, yet I ſay, comparing Chriſt's Incarnation, that is a Complex of Myſteries, (a certain Writer This Writer is J. Reuclinus de verbo mirifico, lib. 3. cap. 2. ſhews a Complex of twenty and more Myſteries in that one Myſtery of Chriſt's Incarnation) I ſay, comparing that with the Work of Regeneration, I do affirm the Work of Regeneration is a light thing, tho not light in it ſelf. Therefore this of W. Penn is but a mere Banter. There is none of all the Church-of-England-men, or Independents, or Presbyterians, ſay the mere hiſtorical, literal, traditional Faith of Chriſt will ſave any. But the Matter is, there is a ſaving Faith of Chriſt without us; 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. I deſire you well to mark and conſider the ſeveral Paſſages in this whole Paragraph of William Penn's Rejoinder, what groſs and abſurd things it contains. He ſaith, This Doctrine brings not Men to Chriſt in them the Hope of Glory, but inticeth them into the vain Hope of the Hypocrite which periſheth. Yea ſee how he makes it the vain Hope of the Hypocrite to believe that Chriſt without is a greater Myſtery than Chriſt within; that's Hiſtory, this is Myſtery, according to him.

Now I have ſome other principal Proofs yet remaining about this groſs Error of W. Penn. I ſhall read to you in his Chriſtian Quaker, a Paſſage, p 97, 98. printed Anno 1674. but the Printer's Name is not to it. To conclude, as Abraham outward and natural, was the great Father of the Jews, whoſe Seed God promiſed to bleſs with Earthly Bleſſings, as Canaan, &c. and that they were figurative of the one Seed Chriſt, and ſuch as he ſhould beget unto a lively Hope through the Power of his Spiritual Reſurrection; 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. As God attended the one with many ſingu ar outward Mercies (to ſay no more) above other Nations; ſo the Jew in Spirit doth he benefit above all other People.

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, if the Seed which ſo begets, and brings forth that Birth, muſt be the ſame in nature with that which is begotten, therefore ſpiritual; then Chriſt's 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 Spirit: Now nothing can bruiſe the Head of the Serpent, but ſomething that is ſo internal and ſpiritual as the Serpent is. But if that Body of Chriſt were the Seed, then could he not bruiſe the Serpent's 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, Gal. 3.16. 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. W. Penn will needs have this to be not Chriſt without but Chriſt within. And you ſee his Arguments.

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. 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 Jews: the Jews may plead the Meſſiah is not yet come. [The Light within is owned by the Jews, and their Rabbies ſpeak highly of it, yea, they call it a Ray or Beam of the Heavenly Adam; and by way of Allegory, his Fleſh and Blood, as I can plainly prove out of their Writings. And if the Types and Prophecies of the Old Teſtament mean only the Light within, by the one Seed that was promiſed, and held forth under theſe Types, how ſhall we convince them that the Meſſiah is come? and that becauſe he is come, theſe Types, Figures and Shadows of the Law are aboliſhed.]

W. Penn ſaith, Then Chriſt's Body he had from the Virgin, ſtrictly conſidered as ſuch, was not the Seed. This is rare Logick. Here is a Fallacy, but I believe it proceeds not from any Deſign, but from his Weakneſs in Logick. 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. 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. Therefore he fights againſt a Man of Straw. But the Senſe of his Argument is, that his B dy was no Part of him. The one Seed cannot be an outward thing, this ye ſee is univerſal and excluſive of any outward thing; for ſays W. Penn, one outward Thing cannot be the proper Figure or Repreſentation of another.—Again, Nothing (ſaith he) can bruiſe the Head of the Serpent but ſomething that is alſo internal and ſpiritual,But is not the Serpent or Devil without Men as well as within many Men? as the Serpent is. And whereas W. Penn ſaith, The Body of Chriſt is not ſo much as in any one; this contradicts his Brother John Whitehead, that ſays, He denieth that Chriſt hath a Body out of every Man on Earth. Here is their Contradiction, and yet they both pretend to be infallible.

But ſee what a Sorites is here, ſaith W. Penn: 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. Thus you ſee he makes the promiſed Seed to be nothing but an inward Principle, God over all, &c.

But I think it is not true, to ſay, The Seed of God in Men is God; I judg it is unſound Doctrine, and contradicts R. B. who calleth that inward Seed, Vehiculum Dei, the Vehicle of God. But to ſay, Chriſt is only God, and not Man without us, as W. Penn's way of arguing imports, is moſt falſe Doctrine, and is as great and dangerous an Extream as to ſay, Chriſt is only Man and not God. But the true Chriſtian Doctrine is, that Chriſt is both God and Man, and yet one Chriſt. I have done at preſent with my firſt Head.

Quaker N. M.

Then you will admit of a ſhort Appeal. I appeal to the Perſons here met, preſuming upon their Generosity and Temper, how unfair it is for him to make his Illuſtrations and Aggravations of theſe Matters, and to how great Difficulty he expoſes thoſe Perſons he treats of. I think what he ſays to you is inconſiſtent with Chriſtian Principles, ſhould be read by another Perſon: for many things are explanatory of one another, &c.

Qua.

Henry Goldney alſo blamed his reading, that what made againſt him he read low, but what he thought made for him he read high.

G. Keith.

If any of you ſcruple my reading, if you deſire it, another ſhall read: Only there is this Inconvenience, I have not the Places ſo well marked on the Margin that another can ſo readily find them as my ſelf. But if I wrong the Quotations, it will appear in Print, for we intend that the Quotations ſhall be printed.

Stranger.

Let him overlook you, if he thinks you do not read right.

Quaker N. M.

I think he does not read falſe.

G. Keith.

The ſecond Head is Juſtification and Sanctification by the Blood of Chriſt outwardly ſhed, which is oppoſed by William Penn, G. Whitehead, and others. For this I ſhall bring my Proofs. Reaſon againſt Railing, by W. Penn, pag. 91. And forgive us our D bts, 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. I confeſs I was ſurprized with this word, Totally excluded. Satisfaction is not the ſtrict Solution of a Debt in all Reſpects and Circumſtance. When 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. An Hundred Years ago the Church of England has very well anſwered this fallacious Argument of W. Penn's, that is, the ſame with the Socinians, in her Homily on Salvation, the Firſt Part.

And here he gives Nine Arguments to prove that the Notion of Chriſt's Satisfaction for Sin brings with it Nine irrational Conſequences and Irreligious: But they are ſo weak and inſignificant, that it were but loſs of time, to mention them here, or anſwer them. Only give me leave to add, Theſe very Perſons, G. Whitehead and W. Penn, after they have thruſt out of Doors by their falſe Logick, Chriſt's Satisfaction without us; they own that Chriſt in us See W. Penn's Rejoynder, pag. 284. And G. W. Light and Life, p. 44. offereth up himſelf a Sacrifice, to appeaſe the wrath of God. Now, if free forgiveneſs exclude the Satisfaction of Chriſt without us, by W. Penn's Argument, by the ſame it does as much exclude his Satisfaction within us; pray mark that.

Now you have heard a Proof from W. Penn, let me come to Geo. Whitehead again. You ſhall have here a rare Diſh of Divinity, not that I would provoke any to Lightneſs. But 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, G. Whitehead's Light and Life, pag. 8. He blames here W. Burnet, for ſaying, The Blood ſhed upon the Croſs ſprinkles the Conſcience, Sanctifies, Juſtifies, Redeems us. Now here is G. Whitehead's Cenſure of him. Obſerve here a two-fold ſtreſs is laid upon that Blood; 1. Merit, to Salvation; 2. Work, to Sanctification: And ſo he hath ſet it up above God, for God could not ſave, he ſaith.

Obſerv. To ſay, That Chriſt's Blood merits Salvation, is to ſet it up above God; for God could not ſave, he ſaith.

Now, he wrongs W. Burnet: I know not the Man, his words are theſe, which ſome where or other I have noted. W. Burnet ſays, Chriſt as God, without being Man, he could not ſave. See his Book, pag. 35. called, The Capital Principles. But I wholly wave that Diſpute; I think it is above man's Capacity, whether Antecedently to God's purpoſe, he could have ſaved us without the Death of his own dear Son. But God having ſo ordained it, conſequentially to his purpoſe, it may be as ſafely and truly ſaid, as when the Scripture ſaith, God cannot lye. Is it any Reflection to ſay, God cannot lye, and that he cannot contradict his purpoſe? And the Scripture ſays, God has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain Salvation by our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; I hope then he cannot ſave us without the Man Chriſt, becauſe he has ſaid, he will not; and the Man Chriſt is a Joynt-Saviour with God the Father. Again, pag. 38. G. W. brings the words of W. Burnet thus.

Bapt.

Now the Quakers would be ſo far from directing Men to go to the Material Temple at Jeruſalem, that they make it but a vain thing to look to Jeruſalem, 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, p. 24. Now ſee the Anſwer, The Quakers ſee no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype, neither to the outward Temple, nor yet to Jeruſalem, 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 Jeruſalem, the Type for the Antitype? What It is no more Nonſenſe than many good Chriſtian Teachers have uſed, to expound and open the Types of the Old Teſtament, and to ſhew how they directed to Chriſt, the Antitype; yea, divers Quakers Preach the Types as directing to Chriſt and his Spirit within: And G. Fox uſed much to Preach upon the Types of the Old Teſtament, as the Booths they made at the Feaſt of Tabernacles, and the Lamps in the Temple, and the Snuffers, how they had a Spiritual ſignification. And ſhall any Chriſtian ſay, that none of theſe Types ſignified Chriſt without, but only Chriſt within? 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 Jeruſalem to it?

It may be queſtioned whether there may not be ſome need to expound the Types, as directing to Chriſt, though not to pract ce them. But let that paſs. Now he ſays, it is contrary to Rom. 10. to direct People to Jeſus Chriſt as he was crucified at Jeruſalem. But let the Bible be Judge. He has not cited the Verſe, but the Verſes he aims at I ſhall read; Ver. 5, 6, 7, 8. For Moſes deſcribeth the Righteouſneſs which is of the Law, that the man which doeth thoſe things, ſhall live by them, &c. See Verſes 6, 7.8.

Now, in their Preachments they have uſed to ſtop there, and go no further. But read the 9th. Verſe, If thou ſhalt confeſs with thy mouth the Lord Jeſus, and ſhalt believe in thine heart, that God hath raiſed him from the dead, thou ſhalt be ſaved. And where was it that God raiſed Chriſt from the Dead? Was it not at Jeruſalem? And there he died, where he roſe. And Chriſt, when he took the Cup, ſaid, Drink ye all of it, this is the New Teſtament in my Blood, ſhed for many for the remiſſion of ſins. And I believe he meant his Blood ſhed, was the outward Blood of his Body.

Stranger.

Read the words again. Which G. Keith did.

G. Keith.

You ſee G. Whitehead has falſified the Scriptures, and made them to ſay what they ſay not; as if to direct to Jeſus Chriſt as he was crucified at Jeruſalem, and to his Blood that was there ſhed, were contrary to Rom. 10. whereas it is plainly according to Rom. 10. 9,10.

Quaker.

It may be, ſomething following may explain it; read on. Which G. Keith did.

Light and Life, pag. 39. (Whereas that Blood ſhed is not in being pag. 40) But the true Apoſtle directed them to the Light (which is ſo much oppoſed by the Baptiſts) to walk in the Light, for the Blood of Jeſus to cleanſe them from all ſin, 1 John 1. And he died for our ſins, but roſe again for our juſtification; which Reſurrection ſurely was after the ſhedding the blood outwardly.

G. Keith.

Neither W. Burnet, nor no Baptiſt, place the all and whole of our Juſtification on Chriſt's outward Sufferings, and ſhedding his blood. For I ſay with them, and all Chriſtendom, That if Chriſt had died, and not riſen again, he could not have been an Atonement for our ſins: Therefore both his Death and Reſurrection are concerned in our Juſtification. Give me leave to tell you one Paſſage. The. Ellwood thinks to put a trick on the Reader, and ſays, it is wrong Printed, and that it ſhould have been for, inſtead of to; and he charges ſome Typographical Errors in my Books on me. He ſays, it was corrected in his Copy with a Pen; bu he does not ſay, G. Whitehead mended it. He ſays, it ſhould be thus read, Either for Jeſus Chriſ , or his Blood. He thinks that will ſo turn it, that it mends the matter, but it mends it nothing at all. And G. Whitehead has it, to, to, to, ſeveral times, (See pag. 38, 39. Where do the Scriptures ſay, ſaith G. W.) the blood was there ſhed for Juſtification, and that Men muſt be directed to Jeruſalem to it? Again, in pag. 61. Light and Life, he ſaith, 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 Jeruſalem for Juſtification to the blood that was there ſhed, contrary to Deut. 30.13, 14. and Rom. 10. Is not this abominab e Perverſion of Scripture, to confirm his Antichriſtian Doctrine?

Light and Life, pag. 61. What Confuſion what a Labyrinth and Uncertainty is he in, and does he bring his Hearers into (ſaith G. Whitehead of Will. Burnet) becauſe, according to Scripture, he aſſerts, that Men muſt be directed to Chriſt for Juſtification and Salvation, both as he ſuffered at Jeruſalem, and as he roſe again, and is aſcended into Heaven, above the Clouds and Firmament.

Next, you ſhall hear Solomon Eccles's Letter, That the blood of Chriſt is no more than the blood of another Saint.

Quaker N. M.

I beg a Favour. Here are ſeveral things urged as falſe Doctrine, which refer to ſeveral places of Scripture, which Scriptures ought alſo to be read.

G. Keith.

They have been read, except Deut. 30. Rom. 10. is a repetition of Deut. 30. This is only to prolong time, and hinder me to proceed in my Proofs. But if the Auditory pleaſe, I will read both Deut. 30. and Rom. 10.

Auditory.

There is no need, go on and read Solomon Eccles's Letter.

G. Keith.

Before I read the Letter, let me read theſe Lines, in G. Whitehead his Light and Life, pag. 8. W. B. (ſaith he) tells of looking to Jeruſalem, to Jeſus Chriſt, as he was there crucified, or to that blood that was there ſhed for Juſtification, Contradiction. That Chriſt, that reſtoreth man's loſs, is both to be ſought and found in Heaven, &c. but in contradiction to both, the Reception of the Spirit the only means, the gift of Chriſt to us, and his being revealed in us by his Spirit. Here you ſee G. Whitehead makes it a Contradiction, that we muſt look to Chriſt as he died at Jeruſalem, and as he is now in Heaven. Judge ye if this be a Contradiction; but in Contradiction to both, he ſaith, it is a Contradiction to direct to Chriſt our Saviour, as he died at Jeruſalem; and that Chriſt that ſaveth us, is revealed within us by his Spirit. Now the Letter, which G. Whitehead does own, it is a Letter of Solomon Eccles, it is this: Robert Porter.

TAKE heed of belying the Innocent; for I hear that thou hast reported to a Friend of mine, that I ſhould ſay, That the Blood of Christ is no more than the Blood of another Man. I never ſpake it, but do very highly eſteem of the Blood of Chriſt, to be more Excellent, and Living, and Holy, and Precious than is able to be uttered by the Tongues of Men and Angels: I mean the Blood which was offered up in the Eternal Spirit, Heb. 9.14. But the Blood that was forced out of him by the Soldiers, after he was dead, who before that, bowed his Head to the Father, and gave up the Ghost; but thou ſayest, that was the Blood of the New-Covenant, which was ſhed after he was dead, which I do deny; yet I did ſay, That was no more than the Blood of another Saint. Theſe were my Words, which thou art wreſting to thy own Deſtruction. And for the other Lye that thou chargest me withal, that I ſhould ſay, That the Blood of Christ ſhould fall to the Ground within a twelfth Month, it is falſe, and never was ſpoke by me: But I did ſay, That the Baptiſts, and Independants, and Presbyterians, and Pope, are all of one Ground, and none of you underſtand the Blood of Jesus Christ no more than a brute Beast; therefore repent, for God will ſuddenly overthrow your Faith, and your imputative Righteouſneſs too, for the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs which he did at Jerusalem, and without the Gates, the Pope, the Epiſcopal, the Presbyterian, Independants and Baptiſts, ſhall fare all alike, and ſhall ſit down in Sorrow, ſhort of the Eternal Rest: But the true imputative Righteouſneſs of Christ we own; but it is hid from you all, till the Lord do open an Eye within you.

Stranger.

Who Printed that Letter?

G. Keith.

W. Burnet, the Baptiſt Preacher.

Have you any Teſtimony of their owning that Letter?

T. Slaughter.

I can anſwer to the Letter.

G. Keith.

It may be thou art the Man.

T. Slaughter.

I am not the Man, but I have had a Copy of the Letter. It was writ to one Porter at Whe ſtone, and the Letter is true.

Auditors.

Pray, Sir, where do you live, and what is your Name?

T. Slaughter.

My Name is Thomas Slaughter, I live at Darking, I have a Son that is a Tallow Chandler that lives in Bow-Lane, where you may have an Account of me.

G. Keith.

George Whitehead doth not queſtion the Letter to be true, but defends it, and as much oppoſeth Juſtification by the outward or material Blood of Chriſt, as Solomon Eccles doth. Here is a weighty Paſſage, George Whitehead ſays in his Book, Light and Life, which T. Ellwood tranſcribes and vindicates, T. Ellwood repreſents G. Whitehead. And this is one of the Books, they ſay (in their printed Paper they have ſent and read at this Meeting) I have not anſwered. And this is G. Whitehead in Effigie. I had charged G. Whitehead for ſaying, That Chriſt's material Blood, ſhed at Jeruſalem, was but a Type of the Blood we were juſtified by. T. Ellwood finds fault with me for this. And you ſhall ſee T. Ellwood's Vindication, and how far G. VVhitehead has owned or diſowned S. Eccles's Letter. All things under the Law, (ſays VV. Burner) 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 needs be viſible and material Blood.

Theſe are VV. Burnet's Words. Now G. VVhitehead ſays,

Baptiſt. 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 needs be material and viſible Blood.

Answ. Do but mark here what ſad Conſequence 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) or like as if one ſhould ſay, one Type was a Type of another. 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 Spiritual, 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 Veil of his Fleſh, Heb. 10. Let them receive this who can.

Note, By G. Whitehead'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; 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. That Chriſt's Fleſh is called the Veil, is not to be underſtood like the Typical Veils, Figures, and Shadows, but hath a far greater and profound ſenſe and conſideration.

But mark, W. Burnet does not expreſs it univerſally, but in this particular Caſe: And G. Whitehead extends it to an Univerſal; as if all the Types of the Old Teſtament ſignified nothing Internally and Spiritually. But VV. Burnet ſaith no ſuch thing, though he juſtly contends that the material Blood of the Beaſts that were offered, was a Type of the material Blood of Chriſt that was outwardly ſhed; yet many of the Types ſignified the internal and ſpiritual Gifts and Graces that true Believers have by Chriſt.

Now here I clinch the matter: G. Whitehead ſays, But to ſay material Blood was a Type of that which was material; this is to give the Subſtance no preeminence above the Type (eſpecially if neither of them be myſtical, nor in being) or like as if one ſhould ſay, one Type was a Type of another. Now the Argument lies here; If the Sacriffces under the Law were Types of Chriſt's Blood then that Blood muſt not be outward Blood, but inward, to wit, the Light and Life in Men; but this is a falſe Conſequence of G. Whitehead, and ſheweth, that he denieth Remiſſion of Sin, and Juſtification by the Blood of Chriſt outwardly ſhed. And this whole Paſſage of G. Whitehead, his Advocate T. Ellwood doth defend in his Book called Truth Defended, which is one of the two they ſay I have not anſwered.

Now as to the Letter, we go on to what T. Elwood ſays. He is ſo unfair, he will have it, that G. Whitehead owns, that the material B ood of Chriſt is that by which we are juſtified. But here is the Trick, G. Whitehead makes a typical Offering of Chriſt, and an anti-typical; the typical was the Offering of Chriſt at Jeruſalem, the anti-typical is the Offering of Chriſt within. See here then their Anſwer: It was queried, whether they owned that we 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 they have ſought to blind all the World; Chriſt, as he outwardly ſuffered was a Sacrifice, but a typical Sacrifice. Therefore the next Queſtion to be put, muſt be, Whether he was the anti-typical Sacr fice?

Now ſee what G. Whitehead hath ſaid to the Letter of Solomon Eccles, to blame or cenſure it. I can find nothing at all. He does not own that Solomon Eccles's Expreſſion was an Article of their Faith, but does he diſown it? Nay, a man may not own a thing to be an Article of his Faith, and yet not diſown it. If G. Whitehead had had the true Faith in Chriſt crucified, and had the true Value of Chriſt's Blood, outwardly ſhed, he would have very ſeverely and ſharply blamed and cenſured Solomon Eccles's Letter as blaſphemous, but I find not that he cenſured it all. He tells you in what Sence he owns it, viz. That Blood had a peculiar Significat on; I told him, ſo had the Blood of Beaſts a peculiar Signification, for their Blood ſignified Remiſſion of Sin, but was no ſatisfactory Offering for Sin: And if Chriſt's Blood outwardly ſhed was a Type, as G. Whitehead affirms it was, then he confirms Solomon Eccles's falſe Doctrine, and makes it no more than the Blood of the Beaſts that were offered.

But ſaith T. Ellwood, He does own that the Blood of Chriſt is more than the Blood of another Saint; but what B ood? the Blood of Chriſt within, there is the Trick. Is not this enough to cheat all the World? They have a double Meaning as See for this in the Church-Hiſtory of Socrates Scholaſticus, lib. 2. c. 7. and c. 25. Arius had. They ſay they own the Blood of Chriſt, and every other thing ſaid of him according to the Scripture; ſo ſaid the Arians and Macedonians, when at other times they diſcovered their Meaning to be quite contrary to Scripture.

Quaker. N. M.

I offer a Word in Vindication, which is this: I am here an accidental Man, as you are. What I would offer is this. 1. I acknowledge the Favour you give me leave to ſpeak. Next, this little Tumult gives me Occasion to let you know that the principal Reaſon of the Perſons not being here, that were challenged, was that Confuſion and Diſorder that would be the Conſequence.

G. Keith.

Who makes it?

Quaker. N. M.

There are not fifteen of us here, Note, The Meeting was for moſt part orderly and attentive; if any little Diſorder happened, it was by occaſion of W. Pen's Party, and particularly by Henry Goldney that threw printed Papers among the People, in the Meeting, on purpoſe to make a Diſturbance; but what Diſturbance happened, it was ſoon ended by the Care and Diligence of the Marſhal, ſent by the Lord Mayor, to prevent any Diſorders. therefore we take care not to be parties to it. The Perſons challenged I do reſpect; I know their own Ability, I think my ſelf not capable to ſpeak in their behalf. What I wou d ſay, is to the Letter. The Letter you are to underſtand, is the Effect of a Diſpute between two Perſons. Though this Letter was writ by one that had Converſation with us, yet I think we are not intitled to what is in it. But if G. Whitehead hath writ in Vindication of it, it affects us as a People: And whatever we publiſh as a People, we are ſo far affected with it. But this Letter was writ by the Hand of a particular Man, whoſe Converſation among us I think not fit to anſwer for.

G. Keith.

He was an Eminent Preacher among them.

Quaker.

He ſays, G. Whitehead has vindicated this Letter; now I obſerve G. Whitehead finds fault with the Letter.

G. K ith.

Here he makes G. Whitehead the Repreſentative and Metropolitan of the Quakers, ſaying, what G. W. writes, affects them as a People. I am a Quaker ſtill, though I glory not in any Name, but that I may be accounted a true Chriſtian. But he ſays, if G. Whitehead has juſtified the Letter, it is imputable to the Body. What is this, but to make G. Whitehead the Metropo itan? And I proteſt againſt it. I have ſo much Charity and Knowledge of many of the Quakers, that I believe there are Thouſands will not own that Letter, though G. Whitehead does. He ſays, if G. Whitehead juſtifies that Lett r, the whole Body is underſtood to juſtifie it. Now, I ſee not one Syllable wherein G. Whitehead blames it: And he that does not teſtifie againſt a thing, when he has juſt occaſion for it, juſtifies it. But hear what G. Whitehead ſaith, pag. 58. Light and Life. Now, to theſe words, viz. No more than the Blood of another Saint, his intent was, ſaith G. Whitehead, as to Papiſts and you, whoſe minds are carnal, &c. This never was my Quakeriſm. For my belief all along, was, that Papiſts, and Baptiſts, and all, have a Benefit by Chriſt's Death. Now it is come to this, That the Blood of Chriſt is no more to Papiſts and Baptiſts, than the Blood of another Saint.

His next Defence of S. Eccles's Letter is, That it was no more ſimply as to the matter of Blood. Then they may [with Reverence be it ſpoken] as it was reported ſome have ſaid, ſay, it is no more than the Blood of a Thief, ſimply as to the matter of Blood; but it may be affirmed, that ſimply conſidered, it was more than the Blood of any Saint; for as it was never defiled with ſin, ſo his Body of Fleſh and Blood had a Miraculous Conception above all other Men, though it had the true Nature of our Fleſh and Blood, yet it had an Excellency above that of all other Men.

But let us conſider theſe words of S. E. which G. W. ſaith, might ſatisfie any Spiritual or unbyaſſed Mind, I do very highly eſteem of the Blood of Chriſt, to be more Excellent, &c. Here is Solomon Eccles's Fallacy, and George Whitehead's Fallacy alſo.

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. It is confeſſed, ſaith G. W. Light and Life, pag. 56. That God by his own Blood purchaſed to himſelf a Church, Acts. 20.28. Now the Blood of God (ſaith he) or that Blood that relates to God, muſt needs be Spiritual, he being a Spirit; and the Covenant of God is Inward and Spiritual, and ſo is the Blood of it. 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. Is not this a plain Juſtification of Solomon Eccles's Letter, That that Blood is no more than that of another Saint? judge ye, who are Intelligent.

Again, He judges none of them guilty of Blaſphemy therein, as he ſaith pag. 58. Light and Life. viz. Neither Solomon Eccles, nor W. Burnet. But wherein does he charge him? I find not in any thing.

I cannot produce and read to you many of my Proofs for want of time, but two or three to every following Head.

You have had an Account of them as to Juſtification. Now it is worth your while to ſee how theſe [pretended] Infallible Men contradict one another. W. Penn, (Reaſon against Railing) falls in with T. Danſon, and Argues like a Chriſtian, though in Contradiction to himſelf elſewhere, That no Obedience that Man can perform to God, by the help of the Spirit is ſtrictly Meritorious, according to the Law of God. This is good Doctrine, and ſo is the Reaſon too, becauſe it is but finite; and I would make uſe of the ſame Argument. But G. Whitehead, in Anſwering this Argument, Anſwers T. Danſon thus: Whereas T. Danſon Argues, That the Obedience and Righteouſneſs, wrought in the Saints by the Spirit, is but finite, and therefore not Meritorious, G. Whitehead denies this, that it is finite, and ſaith, it is infinite. So that by his Argumen , our Obedience and Righteouſneſs that God works in us, is equal to God himſelf. Now I will read the Paſſage. W. Penn's Reaſon againſt Railing, Pag. 82. 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 finite and temporary, and the Reward which is infinite and eternal, in which ſenſe both the Creature obeys the Commands of God, and does not merit, but obtain only; and God rewards the Creature, and yet ſo, that he freely gives too. A good Proteſtant Argument, and good Proteſtant Doctrine, ſo far; but that he contradicts it again, by oppoſing the neceſſity of Faith in Chriſt crucified for Juſtification, and totally excluding Chriſt's Satisfaction, in order to Juſtification and Remiſſion of ſin.

You ſee W. Penn ſays, the Work is finite and temporary, and therefore does not ſtrictly Merit. But hear G. Whitehead, in his Book, called, The Voice of Wiſdom against Antichriſt, &c. pag. 36. Printed at London, Anno 1659. Note here two Gods of one Kind and Nature, by his abſurd Logick and falſe Philoſophy; one that worketh, another that is wrought. Oh groſs Darkneſs and Ignorance in G. Whitehead! 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 The Saints are partakers of the Divine Nature, and ſo are they of the Holy Ghoſt; is therefore the Holy Ghoſt a Work or Effect wrought in us? This is to comfound the Creator with the Creature, and is a Divinity more fit for Bedlam than any ſober Society of People. Divine Nature, 2 Pet. 1.4. Now, if you think I have read wrong, read it your ſelves.

Quaker.

I do not think ſo, only I think the whole Paragraph ſhould be read. I hope you have all ſo much Chriſtianity, as rather to hope, that what G. Keith has pretended to be a Proof, that he cannot prove it, than that he can: For it were well, if there were no Party of People that there could be any Proof againſt.

G. Keith.

I wiſh I had no occaſion to produce any Proofs of this kind.

Quaker.

To pick here and there a piece, out of two or three Books, it is impracticable.

G. Keith.

They ſhould have been here then to have defended it. I will read the whole Paragraph to you.

Now I would haſte to a Concluſion. I have proved to you, that they have excluded the Blood of Chriſt, that we are not juſtified by the Blood outwardly ſhed. I come to prove that they ſay, we are not ſanctified by that Blood. I ſhall read to you, G. Whitehead, pag. 49, 50, 51. Here is one Proof, if ye think this is not enough, I will bring more. Neither did I ever read, ſays the Baptiſt, that it was the Blood or Life of Chriſt in his People that we are juſtified by.

Now here is G. Whitehead's Anſwer, Light and Life, pag. 59. The Spirit of Chriſt (which is Life) doth both Quicken, Sanctifie, and Juſtifie the true Believers, John 6.63. 1 Cor. 6. And that Blood and Water that's ſaid to cleanſe, is not of another kind, but agrees in one with the Spirit, all which is known within, and the Effects thereof.

So you ſee he takes it away from the outward Blood, and gives it to the inward Blood.

Auditors.

Go to the next Head.

G. Keith.

That is but G. Whitehead's Proof, I ſhall give you W. Penn's Proof.

Auditors.

Let us hear it.

G. Keith.

I would be loath to mention this Man, Iſ. Pennington. However this Queſtion is in his Book, and I charitably think this Paſſage dropt from him unawares: I wiſh I could have that ground of Charity to others of them. But Truth ought to be more Precious to me, than any Man. I only mention his Name as to the Subject we are on. Jo. Faldo thinks that he has made Iſ. Pennington his own. Can outward Blood waſh the Conſcience? p. 29. A plain Denial, ſays Jo. Faldo. Here is Jo. Faldo's Commentary on Iſ. Pennington's words. Now ſee how W. Penn explains Iſ. Pennington's words, pag. 149. Is he ſo impiouſly Ʋnjuſt, 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 Iſaac Pennington denies any Efficacy to be in that outward Offering and Blood towards Juſtification, as it reſpects meer Remiſſion of former Sins and Iniquities. So in ſhort, I take it thus: W. Penn Anſwers, That Iſ. Pennington's words are to be underſtood with reference to Sanctification, but not Juſtification. Says he, Outward Blood cannot be brought into the Conſcience to perform that work: But 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; and that Blood is not a Phyſical, but a Moral once of our cleanſing. 1 Chriſt Jeſus, 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. Therefore I agree with all true Chriſtians herein.

I find none ſay, there muſt be a material application of that Blood, but a Spiritual and Moral; and we can give Inſtances that Moral Cauſes are many times more effectual Cauſes than Phyſical are: As the Money wherewithal 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; and yet it is ſo great a cauſe, that without Money, neither Bread nor Medicine can be readily obtained, and not at all without ſomewhat equivalent.

Now I have done with the two firſt Heads, ſhall I go on to prove the other two, or ſhall we adjourn to another day?

Auditors.

If half an hour will do, go on.

G. Keith.

I know not but it will, but that they oft interrupt us with Digreſſions.

The Third Head to be prove, i , That the Body that dieth, riſeth not again. Firſt, from W. Penn's holding the Reſurrection immediately after Death, in his Rejoynder, pag. 138. I think this will be enough for W. Penn, if I give no more. T. Hi ks Argues thus for the Reſurrection of the Body; That if there be no Reſurrection of the Body, the Joys of Heaven ſhould elſe be imperfect. Now here is VV. Penn's Anſwer to it. I Anſwer, Is the Joy of the Ancients 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) or 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. G. VVhitehead Argues the ſame way: 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. But this contradicts many Scriptures, that eſpecially in Acts 26. That Chriſt ſhould ſuffer, and ſhould be the firſt that ſhould riſe from the dead. Now, according to this Doctrine of VV. Penn, and G. VVhitehead, Chriſt's Reſurrection was later than that of many Millions.

Now, if you will hear a Proof from G. VVhitehead, you may.

Auditors.

Yes, let us hear it.

G. Keith.

Here is the place, pag. 353. G. Whitehead's Chriſtian Quaker. Says T. Danſon, 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 Calv.

And here is G. VVhitehead's Anſwer, pag. 353. Both Calvin, T. Danſon, the 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. You ſee I hope here is Proof enough, that G. VV. holds, that the deceaſed Saints look for no Reſurrection of the Body.

Quaker.

Elementary Body, G. VVhitehead ſaith.

Quaker H. Goldney.

He reads that word faintly.

G. Keith.

What other Body could it be? The Matter is, there is the ſame Argument of G. VVhitehead, and VV. Penn. A little Philoſophy I hope will not offend you; I hope if they make uſe of falſe Philoſophy to defend their falſe Faith, I may make uſe of true Philoſophy to defend the true Faith. And the Objection they make is the ſame againſt Chriſt's Body. Pray, 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. And G. VVhitehead owns in his later Writings, that Chriſt's Body that roſe, is the ſame with his Body that ſuffered; but his Pride will not ſuffer him to own his former Error, either in that, or in other things. And ſeeing VV. Penn thinks it abſurd that a Body can be transformed from an Earthly and Animal Body to an Heavenly Body, as he Argueth, Reaſ. againſt Rail. p. 134. He makes it not only as groſs as Tranſubſtantiation, but worſe. But this is his groſs Ignorance in true Philoſophy, and his falſe Philoſophy deſtroys his Faith. 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 Faeces, or droſſy part of it behind. But if he ſay, Chriſt hath not the ſame ſubſtance of Body that he had on the Earth, this is plain Tranſubſtantiation. For have not many that Underſtanding, that a groſs body of Herbs, or other Subſtance, can by Chymical Operation be made ſo Subtil, Volatile, and Spiritual (without any Tranſubſtantiation, or change of the Subſtance) that a Glaſs can ſcarce confine it, or hold it. Now, VV. Penn holds, that groſsneſs is ſo Eſſential to a Body, that a Body muſt ceaſe to be a bodily Subſtance, if it put off Groſsneſs or Carniety, and that Carniety is Eſſential to a Carnal Body. But ſee how contrary this is to common Senſe and Underſtanding. There is no Woman that ſets a Hen to breed Chickens, but knows the contrary; you know the Subſtance of the Egg (the White and Yolk) by the force and heat of the Hen ſitting on the Egg, is changed into a Chicken And in Egypt we hear that Chickens are bred of Eggs ſimply by heat, without the Hen.. Is here any Tranſubſtantiation? So that W. Penn and G. Whitehead are guilty of the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, and not we, and abuſe the World with falſe Philosophy. They warn People againſt G. Keith, and his falſe Philoſophy; and I appeal to you to Judge, whether they have not abuſed the People with falſe and vain Philoſophy.

Auditors.

If you will anſwer one of theſe two things, you that are a Friend of W. Penn, do; you have excommunicated G. Keith, either anſwer, or juſtifie it.

G. Keith.

If they will appoint a Meeting of Friends, to prove me guilty of Error, I will never refuſe to meet them; and here are many Perſons of diſcretion. I thank God, that has given me that humble Heart, that if they bring any Paſſage out of my Books that is not to be justified, I will own my Error and ſhortneſs. Now, if they would do the like, it would be well. But the matter is here, T. Danſon ſays, Our want of Infallibility is no Argument againſt our Miniſtry. G. Whitehead ſays, it is; they that want Infallibility are not true Miniſters. Now, I hope I have proved they want Infallibility, and therefore by their own Doctrine, they are no true Miniſters of Chriſt. Therefore I think it neceſſary to have the Paſſage read. G. Whitehead's Voice of Wiſdom, pag. 33. Says T. Danſon, As for our want of Infallibility, 'tis no valid Plea againſt our Miniſtry, &c. Now here is the Anſwer. His falſhood here appears plainly, for they that want Infallibility (ſaith G.W.) 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, when they want Infallibility.

Quaker, N. Marks.

I do make my further Appeal to you, and if I am either impertinent or defective, I beg your Excuſe.

G. Kieth.

Then thou art not Infallible.

Quaker.

You may be aſhamed to mention that. N. Marks doth not profeſs himſelf to be Infallible, being not of the Ministry: But whence is it, that the Laicks ſhould own themſelves Fallible, and the Min ſtry Infallible? But at laſt it is come to this, that ſome of the Miniſtry are Fallible alſo, but ſuch Principal Miniſters as G. W. are not.

Quaker N. Marks.

What I have to offer, I ſubmit to you. The Perſon that has denoted me to be W. Penn's Friend, has hit right; and I own I am not capable to repreſent him. And as you are Profeſſors of Chriſtianity, I hope you will not conclude that Philoſophy or Logick are any Eſſentials to Chriſtianity.

G. Keith.

Who ſays it is? But is it not ſad, that their falſe Philoſophy ſhould deſtroy their Faith, and deceive ſo many People, and deſtroy their Faith?

Quaker N. Marks.

I hope you will obſerve too, that the Method taken to make the Proofs, has been principally by the Rules of Philoſophy and Logick. Next, I beg the Charity of you to conſider, how much it is the Right of every Man to give his own Interpretation of all he ſays and writes. Therefore I hope you will not believe all you hear, having the Illuſtrations of an Antagoniſt. Next, I would Apologize for the Perſons, they are not here; it may be you are not all of you capable of knowing the Reaſon of things. G. Keith has had his Converſation among us many Years, between Twenty and Thirty Years.

G. Keith.

Between Thirty and Forty Years.

Quaker N. Marks.

Now for as much as theſe Writings were then extant long ago, and he was then intirely paſſive, ſtill, and quiet, under all; theſe Objections he now makes, I hope, as we know, ſo you will believe, it does not ariſe altogether from the matter of Fact: For I do not think this a good way of proving, to take a bit here and a bit there. Next I ſay, I hope you will reaſonably conclude, that we who knew the Circumſtances of his Life and his Temper, knew his Converſation has been ſuch that we could not own him. He ſtands not charg'd with us on the Account of his Principles. I do not know but you will find, when you have an Anſwer to what he has offered, that thoſe he charges and paraphraſes on, will agree with him in Principles; nor have we any thing againſt his Converſation among Men in the World. It was his Diſcontents with particular Perſons, becauſe he was a little troubleſome petulant Man and we could not pacifie him; and it was for that Reaſon chiefly that we did diſown him.

G. Keith.

A little petulant Man.

Quaker.

I would have you note, I do not pretend to perſonate any of the Perſons challenged.

Auditors.

What is this Diſcourſe for, then? They are aſhamed to come.

Quaker.

I am coming to give you a further Reaſon why they do not meet him. We have had ſeveral Meetings with him before he was put from us. And the Reaſons why they did not think fit to meet him now, you have heard, the Paper gives you an Account of it. Now ſince he is diſowned by us, and alſo by them where he lives, we do not think our ſelves obliged to ſubmit to ſuch a peremptory Challenge.

G. Keith.

I ſuppoſe you cannot think I can anſwer to every particular becauſe my Memory does not ſerve me. He charges me to take a bit here and a bit there out of their Books, I have quoted full Periods at length, as all Authors do, the Quakers when they refute Books of Adverſaries, do not uſe to recite the whole Author they write againſt.

Stranger.

About what you ſay as to Philoſphy, Dr. Sherlock ſays, the Salvation of the Soul Depends not on ſuch niceties; but for you to charge G. Keith as an Apoſtate, is one of the greateſt Charges under Heaven; and now for you to ſay that he differs not from you in Principles, is to clear him from that Charge.

Upon which the People made ſome Shout.

G. Keith.

Pray be quiet, and regard the Honour of your Nation. Let me put you in mind of one very great falſhood. He ſays—Here one Wyat, or Wait a Quaker interrupted G. K. as they did oft, on purpoſe to divert him from his matter.

Quaker Wait.

There is an Apoſtacy from the Spirit of Chriſtianity, as well as from the Principles: Friends have excommunicated him, not for his Principles, but for going from the Spirit of Meekneſs, Charity, &c.

G. Keith.

The Tree is known by the Fruits. I was like a Lamb among I know not what, where there were Two or Three Hundred. I had ſcarce One that ſympathized with me, at their Yearly Meeting, when clandeſtinely with their Doors ſhut, ſuffering none that were my Friends, to be preſent, they paſſed falſe Judgment againſt me, without any Trial: A Notorious Falſhood he chargeth againſt me, and nothing elſe: only he calls me a little petulant man; and he is not a Story above my height. He ſays, I am —

Quaker.

I obſerve a Contradiction in G. Keith; he ſaid, he was not diſowned by half the Yearly Meeting; and now he ſays by all.

G. Keith.

Let me anſwer that. I ſay, Divers in the Meeting were favourable— but W. P. and G. W. over-ruled them, and influenced them againſt me with Prejudice; and ſome they over-awed and frighted. There was a Perſon that came to me, and told me, he would rather ſuffer his Life to be taken from him, or his Right Hand to be cut off before he would ſign a ſentence againſt me. And ſome others that were not free to conſent to them, did purpoſely abſent and this I told them in their yearly Meeting; that there was ſuch a perſon that had ſo ſpoke to me that day, they asked me who it was, I told them, I deſired to be excuſed, in not telling his Name, that was not convenient.

After I was gone, they called over the Roll one by one; and the poor man ſeeing it coming to him, ſays, You need go no further, I am the Man; now what is this, but to ſet up ſomething like the Spaniſh Inquiſition? And there is one (viz. T. E.) hath applyed that paſſage in Scripture, Maſter, is it I? but the queſtion there was, Is it thou? And tho I had cauſe to think that divers then preſent did not in Conſcience conſent to their falſe Judgment, but thought it too ſevere, as ſome has ſince acknowledged, yet I did not know, as to the laſt Meeting, that of all them that were preſent, that I had one that Sympathized with me; they were all ſilent, and were-over awed by G. Whitehead and W. Penn's Party. And this poor man, above-mentioned, has come to me ſince, and diſowned that falſe Judgment, and declared to me before two Witneſſes, he did not joyn with them in it. He ſays I am diſowned by them, where I live, I ſuppoſe he means the Tho ſome in Scotland, being influenced with their falſe reports, have ſeemed to diſown me, yet others have not, and ſome of them have writ kindly to me, and owned me. Scots, do I Live among them? this is a notorious falſhood.

Stranger.

All this is very impertinent to the buſineſs in hand.

G. Keith.

I happened to drop an Expreſſion in Penſilvania, finding the ſame Errors there I have now mentioned in their Books here, that no Proteſtant Society would ſuffer ſuch Errors as theſe, no not the Church of Rome it ſelf; my words were, that no Proteſtant Society would Tolerate them. They began with me. There was an univerſal neglect among them of Preaching Chriſt Crucified, and concerning Faith in him; Preaching only the Light within, and Chriſt within. Whereupon, a little while after, I began to Preach this; and they ſtood up againſt me, and charged me with new Doctrine; and one Arthur Cook a Preacher and Justice of Peace in Penſilvania. appealed to the Monthly Meeting, whether they ever heard of ſuch Doctrine Preached in the Quakers Meetings, directing them to Faith in Chriſt without us: I anſwered, The more ſhame, and it was now, full time to begin, if it was never Preached in the Quakers Meetings before. But that to witneſs againſt Error, and ſharply to reprove it, is no Argument of Apoſtazy. I have moſt effectual Proofs from the Quakers themſelves, Ed. Burrough's ſays, It is no breach of the Peace to witneſs againſt Error, Truths Princip. G. Fox ſays, He was moved by the Lord to teſtifie againſt Falſe Teachers, that deceive the People with falſe Doctrine. Now if they be guilty of theſe things, I ſay I am not to be blamed to withſtand their falſe Doctrine. They ſay I began firſt to Print, which is true; but they ſent out their defaming manuſcripts againſt me to England, Barbadoes, Maryland, before I Printed a line againſt them. What is the laſt Remedy againſt oppreſſion? Why, Printing. Therefore I began.

G. Fox.

p. 15. Some of the Principles of the Too high a Title for ſuch who are quilty of ſuch groſs Errors. Elect People of God, called Quakers. I hope this one Teſtimony of G. Fox will clear me, that I am not guilty of the breach of the Peace in the Church for oppoſing their Doctrines. Some Principles of the Elect People of God, ſigned by G. Fox. Says G. Fox, Moved of the Lord, written from the Spirit of the Lord, for the cleanſing of the Land of all falſe Teachers, Seducers and Deceivers and witches, who beguile the People, and Inchanters and Diviners, and Forgerers and Hirelings, and which is for the good of the People.

Now was this man of a Turbulent Spirit? What work did G. Fox and G. Whitehead make? What breach upon breach did they make on all other Profeſſions whereof they had been formerly, as Church of England, Presbyterian, Baptiſts? Do not miſtake me, I Reverence Divine Providence that I became a Quaker. But if I had known they had had ſuch Errors among them, I would as ſoon have put my Head in the fire, as have owned ſuch among them: But I am of the ſame Faith as I have been above this thirty years.

Quaker.

It has been here aſſerted, that he has been a Quaker above thirty years, and he has Vindicated their Doctrine; he is a Studious man, and our Books have been publick always; now for him to come now and call over all Books, that he has, by not oppoſing, conſented to, it looks as if he had Apoſtatized from what he formerly held.

Auditor.

Did he ever write againſt theſe Principles he now holds?

Quaker.

He has conſtantly Vindicated our Principles.

G. Keith.

Whereas they ſay I have not taken notice of their Errors, I ſay I can appeal to W. Penn and G. Whitehead, that in the year 1678. three Miniſters of London roſe up againſt me, and I oppoſed their Errors at that very time.

Auditor.

What Miniſters were they?

G. Keith.

They were Quakers. They accuſed me of three Principles in my Book, called, The way cast up. The firſt was, That Chriſts body roſe out of the Grave. They ſaid it never did. 2. That I ſaid It was Lawful to Pray to Jeſus Chriſt Crucified. They denied it, and dared me to give an Inſtance of one Engliſh Quaker that I ever heard Pray to Chriſt. Whereupon 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 they anſwered, He is not an Antient Friend of the Miniſtery; and G. Whitehead, a man Antient in the Miniſtery, told them (there were forty or fifty preſent) It is neither what W. Penn, nor what G. Keith ſays, but let Scripture decide it; and he took the Bible, and oponed it, and Read, 1 Cor. 1.2 To all that call upon the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, both their Lord and Ours. Their anſwer was Paul was dark and ignorant, as G. Keith is; For our part we know better The third was, 〈◊〉 they blamed me, for ſaying the beſt Saints had need to come alwa s to God by the 〈◊〉 or the Man Christ Jeſus, they ſaid, They could come to God with ut him, and this 〈◊〉 of Doctrine is to be found in W. Shewen's Book, a Quaker greatly owned by them. Treatiſe of Thoughts, ſee pag. 37.38.

Quaker.

Will you ſay this, and not mention their Names.

G. Keith.

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.

Auditor.

Go on to the laſt head.

Quaker.

H. Goldney, you ought to name his name particularly, if thou doſt not, thou art an Impoſtor.

Auditor.

He has done enough.

G. Keith.

I think it not convenient, we muſt uſe a little Policy as well as you. Jo. Delawall Publiſhed a Manuſcript againſt me, wherein he charges me with Hereſy, for ſaying, The Light within was not ſufficient without ſomething elſe, and that ſomething elſe was Chriſt without us. Now they ſay there is no diference between them and me. I will cite a paſſage or two out of a Manuſcript from Penſilvania, it is a thing that will ſatisfy your Conſciences as much as any thing. I brought the Manuſcripts, they were read at the yearly Meeting at London, 1694. and ſomething was objected to the hand; and it was asked at Samuel Jennings, my Adverſary, whether it was the hand of that man, and he ſaid, he believed it was; and you will find it is matter of Doctrine at the bottom, for which they have Excommunicated me, however they would cloak it: Let them retract their Errors, and I will forgive them my Excommunication.

See the Book called, Light and Life, pag. 41. See what is here ſaid by G. Whitehead, That there is not an outward coming of Chriſt to Judg the Quick and Dead. What I prove from G. Whitehead, is proved from W. Penn; for W. Penn has Authorized his Book, therefore it is the proof of them both. Here is the place. Moreover Chriſt ſaid, The Son of Man ſhall come in the Glory of his Father with his Angels, &c. Matt. 16.27, 28. Luke 9.26, 27 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 acknowledg 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 Jeruſalem 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.

And as concerning that noted place, 1 Theſ. 4.17. brougt by W. B. to prove Chriſts coming without us to judgment G. W. denyeth it to be meant of his Perſonal coming, and uſeth a Sophiſm to contradict it, and wrest it, to his inward coming: whereas all the ſtreſs of his Sophiſm lies in that, We, We, that remain; but the true Senſe of theſe words is, thoſe Saints, thoſe Believers, that ſhall be living at that day, ſhall not prevent them that dyed in Chriſt before. It is an enallage perſonae frequent in Scripture, putting we for they, live that or James, therewith bleſs we God and Curſe men.

Now all theſe proofs he has Allegorized to Chriſt within, he has allegorized away his Birth, his Death, Reſurrection, and Aſcenſion, and coming to Judgment; and ſo we have nothing from Scripture to prove Chriſt's Death to be of any benefit to us, and we have no Argument to prove he came in the Fleſh: And ſo all the proofs againſt Jews and Philoſophers he has Allegorized away.

Thus you have had a proof from G. Whitehead and W. Penn. Now if you will adjourn the Meeting to ſome other time, or continue it a while longer, I am content. And I hope I have proved that I am not Petulant, and that I have had juſt cauſe to accuſe them of theſe Errors. I was preſented by a Grand jury at Philadelgpia; 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, tho I was innocent: And when I objected againſt the Jury, they would not ſuffer one of the Jury to be caſt. Now it I had been guilty of any Treſpaſs and, Offence againſt K. William and Q. Mary, (the King is alive, and God bleſs him) do you think that Governour Fletcher, (put into the Government by King William and Queen Mary) that was the Governor there, if he had found me guilty of High Treaſon, he would have paſſed me; but he ordered them to let fall the Indictment. And I was cleared by a publick Writ, ſigned by the Deputy Governor, C. Markham, and the Counſel, in Philadelphia, which I have to ſhow.

Then the Company deſired G. Keith to proceed, if he had any more proofs againſt G. Whitehead.

G. Keith.

Yes, I have.

See the Nature of Ch. pag. 29.Says G. Whitehead to R. Gordon, Doſt thou look for Chriſt's coming again to appear outwardly in a bodily Exiſtence? If thou doſt thou mayeſt look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt ſee ſuch an Appearance of him.

Now ſee how G. Whitehead has excuſed this, The real Quaker. A real Proteſtant. he ſays, He did not mean it of Chriſt's coming to Judgment; but he meant it thus, becauſe R. Gordon would needs have it, that Salvation was delayed till Chriſt's outward coming. I am apt to think he abuſes R. Gordon (not that I would vindicate R. Gordon in every thing, for I think he did overcharge the Quakers in ſome things at that time, but now I do not accuſe or acquit him.) But I ſay, he ſays, he only oppoſed that falſe Notion of R. Gordon, as if the Saints remained under their Pollution till the Reſurrection from the Dead. Can you think ſo? He was a Proteſtant, and no Proteſtant will ſay any ſuch thing. We ſay, we are ſaved by hope. I ſay, in a Scripture ſenſe we may expect that great Salvation then even from all charge of Sin, tho not from any ſtain of Sin. Not that the ſenſe of Pardon is not made manifeſt before that day; but that in that day, all that have Repented and Believed, he will clear them, before God. Angels and Men. The Devil will be ready to accuſe them in that day, but Chriſt will then clear them. It will be a great ſolemn Aſſize, and there will be a ſolemn Acquitment to all that have ſincere Repented of their ſins, and believed in the Lord Jeſus Chriſt.

Quaker.

Let the paſſage be read out.

G.Keith.

If we had not had theſe oppoſitions, we might have ſaved an Hour. I will read the paſſage. Doſt thou look for Chriſt, as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Exiſtence to ſave thee,Nature of Chriſtian. p. 29 according to thy words p. 30. If thou doeſt, thou mayeſt look until thy Eyes drop out, befor thou will ſee ſuch an appearance of him. Ye ſee theſe are plain and expreſs words agianſt Chriſt's outward coming. The Scripture ſaith we are ſaved by hope, and hope that is ſeen is not hope, our great Salvation in the full accompliſhment of it, is at the Reſurrection and Chriſts laſt coming, then will be the great Diſcharge and Acquitment, according to 2 Tim. 1.18. and 2 Tim. 4.16. The Lord grant that we may find mercy in that day, and that our ſins may not be laid to our charge. And Acts 3.19. it is ſaid, Repent, and be Converted, that your ſins may be blotted out, when the times of refreſhment ſhall come, &c. The word is very well Tranſlated, when the times of Reanimation ſhall come, the Greek is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Quaker.

I deſire to be heard a word.

G. Keith.

I have not done yet. I beg of you, I ſhall be but ſhort. I had ſaid I had upward of ſix Manuſcripts. What ſays T. Elwood (in his way of quibling) ſix and an half? All theſe Manuſcripts were read at the Meeting two years ago, and for the Cenſure they gave of them; I ſaid I thought they had (tho I confeſs I judg very mincingly) cenſured theſe unſound expreſſions, Yet Tho. Elwood tells me that I am guilty of Forgery, that I ſaid the Yearly Meeting ſaid any thing like it. Here is the Paper of the Yearly Meeting, this Paper ſhews whom it came from; does it find no fault with theſe Expreſſions in theſe Penſilvanian Papers. Here is ſeven or eight, I will read a few lines. I have brought an Original here, it is ſomewhat worn, but it may be read well enough; I am glad that my Neighbour has ſuch Charity for me, that he thinks I will not read wrong; I can read every word of it, tho it be ſomewhat worn. I ſhall forfeit the Name of an honeſt man, it I read one word different from the Original.

The words in John Humphrey's firſt Letter.

Who is he that dares to make a Diſtinction between Chriſt's Body and his Spirit, and to put aſunder what God hath joyned together? Is not this to divide Chriſt to uſe that Terms, viz. Chriſt within, and Chriſt without? when he himſelf, in that very Body that ſuffered, ſaid, he that eateth my Fleſh, and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, and in that day we ſhall know that it is the very ſame that liveth in us, that hath died for us, which before we could not come to know, altho any ſhould tell us of it; for Chriſt in us, is the hope of Glory, and they that draw, us to look for Chriſt without, we are not to go forth after them, to divide Chriſt's Body from his Spirit. I perceive by G. Keith's Ten Articles of Faith, that they reliſh too much of Carnality, a Carnal Body of Chriſt in Heaven, a Carnal Election and Reprobation, a Carnal Juſtification and Adoption, a Carnal Day of Judgment and Reſurrection, beyond the Grave. I am grieved to hear ſome ſay, they did expect to be Juſtified by that Blood that was ſhed at Jeruſalem. Is't not to be carnally minded.

I have not read the whole Letter, but an intire Paragraph of it. So farewel Chriſt without. You divide Chriſt, if you mention Chriſt without.

Now mark, theſe Ten Articles of mine, that he calls Carnal, they are ſhort, will you hear them? They are in Print. My Adverſaries ſent them over from America to England, and that before I came to England, as an Inditement againſt me; Frances Bugg met with them, and Printed them; my Adverſaries here ſent them about as a great Crime againſt me.

Some of the Principles of G. Keith and his Friends.

1. That Bodily Sickneſs and Death came in by the Fall. 2. That Chriſt has now in Heaven a Soul and a Body, that is not the Godhead, but the Temple of it, and moſt gloriouſly united therewith. 3. That Chriſt's Body that was Crucified and Buried without us, roſe again without us; and is now in Heaven without us 4. That the Man Chriſt Jeſus will come again in that Body without us, to judg the Quick and the Dead. 5. That there ſhall be a general day of Judgment, that all the deceaſed Saints are in expectation of. 6. That we get not the Reſurrection of the Body, either in this mortal Life, or immediately after Death. 7. That Faith in the Man Christ without us, as he Died for us, roſe again, and is gone into Heaven, wrought in us by thy Spirit of Chriſt, is univerſally neceſſary to make Men true Chriſtians, and Children of God, born of the Free Woman, who have the Spirit of Adoption, crying, Abba Father. 8. That Chriſt's Obedience and Righteouſneſs, which he performed in, himſelf, without us, is imputed to us by Faith for the Remiſſion of Sins. 9. That Chriſt is not only God's Elect, but all that ſhall be ſaved from the beginning to the end of the World, are God's Elect, being choſen in him (not only before they Believe and Repent, but) before the Foundation of the World. 10. That all and every one of the Members of the Church of Chriſt (who are at age can ſpeak) ought to confeſs with their Mouths, in the hearing of ſome of their fellow Members, the Fundamental Principles of their Chriſtian Faith, before they can be owned to be Members of the Church, that by the ſame, as well as by a good Life and Converſation, it may be known who are qualified to be Members of our Church, which is a boundary Term and Bond of our Union, the Spirit being the Principal, which may be eaſily done by Anſwering to ſome plain Queſtions.

G. Keith his Ten Articles read all condemned to be Carnal by the Penſilvania Letter of J. H. a Preacher among the Quakers there, theſe Ten Articles were read at the Yearly Meeting at London, 1694. and the Letter that Condemned them, alſo read at the ſaid Yearly Meeting, and that Letter Juſtified by Th. Elwood, the Patron and Advocate for that Yearly Meeting; and therefore we ought, if we give Credit to Th. Elwood, to conclude that the Yearly Meeting at London, 1694. hath concluded all theſe Ten Articles to be Carnal, which yet expreſs the Common Faith of all Chriſtendom.

The Second Letter Read.

The Words of John Humphery's Second Letter.

I craved no favour to my Paper from thee, nor them, but that word (only) which was the omiſſion of my Pen, and never intended to be put under a Buſhel, if occaſion did require. 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, which that ſaying of our Saviour himſelf, when he Expounded his meaning unto them (who in theſe days had offended at his own words) will clear me of your Aſperſion, John 6.63. 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 Jeruſalem, but unto the Fleſh and Blood that is Spiritual, which the Saints was to feed upon, and their Robes was made white by and it doth appear, that theſe that are otherwiſe minded, do not rightly diſcern the Lord's Body.

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 he thinks it was againſt his Conſcience, and ſo bids put it out again.

Quaker.

Whether do ye own ſanctification to the blood outwardly ſhed, or to the Spirit inwardly given.

G. Keith.

I ſay to both, to the blood of Chriſt that was outwardly ſhed at Jeruſalem, and to the Spirit of Chriſt inwardly given, to believers.

Now they ſay that I have belied them, they never knew any that ſaid they were not ſanctified by that blood. You ſee what proofs I have brought, and therefore I muſt be an Apoſtate for accuſing them of errours. Who would have thought, but that the yearly Meeting, if they had any regard to the honour of Chriſt's blood, would have ſhown greater zeal againſt theſe Men, than to excommunicate me, for oppoſing their vile errors in Penſilvania, and for rendring that precious blood ſhed for us as an unprofitable thing, ſo trampling it under foot: But ye ſee, they have little at all cenſured them, and if you will believe their Patron, (as ye have cauſe, they owning his Books) nothing at all. Th. Ellwood affirms, I am guilty of Forgery, for ſaying that the yearly Meeting paſſed any reproof on thoſe paſſages, and whereas I was accuſed for ſaying, the light within was not ſufficient to ſalvation without ſomething elſe. I have a Letter from B. Chambers, one of the principal Evidences, that were againſt me, he owns that I mean, by that, ſomething elſe, not humane Learning, not the Letter of the Scripture, not outward preaching, but I mean only the Man Chriſt Jeſus, and his death and ſufferings and reſurrection, &c. Now here is a new book of Caleb Puſey come out, he calls it a modeſt account of the difference in Principles between G. Keith and his Adverſaries; and he would father it on me, tho it was not in my thoughts, that Jeſus of Nazareth cannot be ſomething elſe than the light within. I tell you, he would father it on me, becauſe I ſay there is but one only Chriſt. Now I ſay, Chriſt without does not admit of another Chriſt within, and Chriſt within does not admit of another Chriſt without us. But Chriſt without us admits of ſomething elſe within us, and that is his Spirit and Grace: And Chriſt within us, admits of ſomething elſe without, and that is his man-hood. This is not another Chriſt, than what the Scripture ſpeaks of; but the Light within is one thing, the body of Chriſt is another thing. Now they of Penſilvania and Th. Elwood give out that I differ from them in Doctrine, theſe men ſay I do not: What Confuſion is here among them that ſay they are in Unity? I ſay the Light within is not ſufficient, without the Light without, Chriſt without us, yet the Sufficiency of the Light and Grace of God within, in a true ſenſe, I deny not, but own. And whereas they ſay the moſt of my Proofs I have brought, have been from Philoſophy; but it has been only, that I may, by true Philoſophy, overthrow their falſe Phyloſophy, which deſtroys their Faith. I need not bring Scripture to prove theſe Points, becauſe they now profeſs to own them; but the thing is, the Honour of Infallibility, and that they have accuſed G. Keith; that G. Keith has not charged them truly. And here are the two things, their own infallibility, and that I have unjuſtly accuſed them. Now whether I have or no, ſee by the Articles: But if they grant or yeild, that they have any Errors in any of their Books, or unſound paſſages, that they need retract, and correct, then they are found the falſe Accuſers againſt G. Keith, and G. Keith's found Innocent. But this will be hard for them to own; Firſt, That they have Erred: And Secondly, That they have falſely accuſed G. Keith, for ſaying they did Err. I have here a Teſtimony from W. Penn, to prove that Bodily Death did not come in by Man's Sin; and then it followeth that the Reſurrection of the Body doth not come by Chriſt's Reſurrection.

W. Penn's words are, in Anſwer to Muggleton and Reeve, p. 55. 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.

You ſee this is almoſt expreſly in terms. And whereas J. H. calleth one of my Articles, a Carnal Reprobation.

There is nothing about Reprobation in my Articles, and the word Carnal is not in-any of the Ten.

Auditor.

Now let him that Anſwers for W. Penn and Geo. Whitehead tell us what he ſays to them Articles. But they ſaid nothing to them good or bad, rare Defendents!

G. Keith.

I happened to charge W. Penn with ſelf contradiction, will you hear that proved? It was in my Printed Paper.

G. Keith

has contradicted himſelf. How? Not as to Principles or Practices, but as to his Opinion of W. Penn and G. Whitehead, but I diſtinguiſh betwixt G. Whitehead and VV. Penn Orthodox, and G. VVhitehead and VV. Penn Hetrodox, ſo far as I quoted them, as Orthodox, I ſtand to theſe quotations; but when in other Books and places they have contradicted them, they are accountable for their Contradictions, and not I. So not the G. VVhitehead Hetrodox, and guilty of theſe vile Errors I have commended, but the G. VVhitehead Orthodox, and the like of W. Penn.

Now I beg your Patience for one or two Quotations more, before I have done. It is out of Tho. Elwood, to ſhew you that Tho. Elwood charges me with forgery, becauſe I ſaid the Yearly Meeting did cenſure ſome of theſe unſound Papers. Here is the paſſage, it is but ſhort, p. 84. T. Ellwoods further Diſcovery. Here ye ſee Friends (ſaith T. Elwood) 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. K. here Expreſly ſaith, it doth) that it doth not undertake to determine, whether the Offence (ſaid to be given by ſome perſons) was throuhg Erronious Doctrines, and unſound Expreſſions, or through weakneſs, frowardneſs, want of VViſdom, and right underſtanding. And yet this man hath the confidence and falſeneſs (meaning G. K.) to ſay poſitively, that paper doth own them guilty of holding unſound and erronious Doctrines. This was my Charity to them, that I thought they cenſured them, in ſome part or degree at leaſt.

Now theſe are their words in their Yearly Meeting Paper, 1694. London, from which I gathered, that they cenſured the words of thoſe in Penſilvania: 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, I conſtrued, or to be equivalent to and, as ſometimes it is: Now ſee if I was not more charitable to the Yearly Meeting, than he is to them. Here you ſee that that Paper of the Yearly Meeting, is ſo far from owning them guilty of unſound Doctrines, which G. Keith ſays it does &c. By all which it is plain, that not only Th. Elwood, but all that approve his Books, approve and juſtify all theſe Vile Errors, I have proved them in Penſilvania, guilty of, and if he may be credited, the Yearly Meeting at London, 1694. is equally guilty with them.

Quaker.

This is only thy different apprehenſion.

G. Keith.

He ſays the Yearly Meeting has not found fault with any of theſe Expreſſions.

Now let me read one Paſſage more, it is but about ſix Lines, and I have done with the Printed quotations at preſent. pag. 99. He blames me for comparing the Books of Friends, to the Books of the Greek and Latin Fathers, p. 99. For further Diſcovery.

In comparing (ſays Tho. Ellwood) 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.

You ſee how modeſt they are here.

Auditors.

They gave a ſhout, 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.

Quaker, N. M.

It is very well that the whole Paragraph be read, that it may give the more ſatisfaction to the Auditory: which was accordingly done. T. Ellwood ſaith, He (viz. G. K.) turns off, and ſays, I reflect not only on him, but on the late Chriſtian Teachers and Writers, who have corrected the Errors and unſound Expreſſions contain'd in the Books of them called the Greek and Latin Fathers.

Now hear what he further ſays, In comparing the Books of Friends to the Books of them called Greek and Latin Fathers, ut ſupra.

Quaker, J. Waite.

I have made few Obſervations on the whole, one or two particular, the other are general. The firſt is, that he charges G. Whitehead and W. Penn to deſtroy the Object of Faith. Now, when he ſpeaks of ſome Doctrines, that were preached by him in 1678, and that he was reproved for ſaying it was lawful to pray to Jeſus Chriſt, he has vindicated W. Penn as to this Point, who ſaid he did ſo. —Alſo he has vindicated G. Whitehead, ſaying that — He directed not to what either of them could ſay, but what Scripture ſays, and he cites them a clear paſſage, that was then believed by him, and, I believed by all Quakers. The other particular Obſervation I did note, is, that the Quakers have not uſed recite the whole Author they write againſt; and I appeal to you, whether G. Keith, in the oppoſition he has made, has ever repeated a whole Author. Theſe are my particular Obſervations. The general is, that what has been caſually dropt, and I believe there are none concerned on this occaſion, but (I ſay) they may ſometimes be apt to drop ſome Expreſſions, that they will not ſtand by. But to urge theſe againſt the whole Party, is too hard, and is very G. Keith doth not charge it on the whole, but only on the Guilty, and ſuch as cloak and excuſe them. uncharitable; and therefore, I hope, you will not conclude the whole body concerned in it. And G. Keith hath been converſant among us eight and twenty years, or more, and has preached the Doctrines owned by us, and writ many Books that related to fundamental Articles of Faith; I believe him that they were owned by the People he was joyned with. And at the yearly meeting, the charge againſt him, and his expulſion, was not matter of Doctrine, but Practice, which was turbulent: And therefore he has apoſtatized from what he was before, from the meekneſs and integrity that is agreeable to the Doctrine of Chriſtianity.

Stranger.

G. Keith. I ſee you are almoſt ſpent, I will anſwer for you. He ſays, it was the whole body that was againſt you; it was the worſe, that the Excommunication ſhould be from the whole yearly Meeting, without mentioning any thing in particular. 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.

G. Keith.

The words of the Excommunication run thus "I am a man of no Chriſtian "Spirit, I have diſmember'd myſelf from the Church of Chriſt. If they had ſaid from this particular Society, it might have paſſed; but they ſay, from the Church of Chriſt. And why? Becauſe there is no Church of Chriſt on Earth, but the Quakers; and no Repreſentative of them, but the Yearly Meeting in Gracechurch-ſtreet. You ſee how weak that man's Objections are. The Auditory ſhouted.

Quaker, H. Goldney.

This man aſſerts a Lye, and then the People are taken with it, as if it were a Truth

G. Keith.

If I have ſpoken amiſs, I am willing to be brought to a tryal. He ſays I have anſwer'd many Books, wherein I have not recited all the Books I have anſwer'd. It is true, and I blame not them for not doing ſo. But they ſay, I only take bits and ſcraps here and there. I ſay, what cauſe have I to recite G. Whitehead and W. Penn's whole Books to you, when they have not done ſo? I think it ſufficient to give an account of their ſenſe from full Periods and Paragraphs. He ſays I have already cleared George Whitehead and William Penn, from that charge that they have not deſtroyed the Object of Faith. And I ſay I have proved that they have deſtroyed the Object of Faith; if they have at other times Owned it, let them diſown and retract their Errors; I am not to account for their Contradictions. They have Contradicted themſelves; they have diſowned the Object of Faith; and if I have charged them with it, this is no Contradiction in me, but in them.

Quaker.

H. Goldney made an interruption, while G. K. was ſpeaking, as he oft did, and gave great offence to the Auditory with his impertinencies and reflections, calling G. K. Lyer, Impoſtor, Apoſtate.

G. Keith.

The reading of this Paper, if ye pleaſe, ſhall conclude this Meeting. After T. Ellwood came out with his further diſcovery, I made my Complaint to the Monthly Meeting at Bull and Mouth, againſt the Forgeries and falſe Accuſations that his Book was filled with, and I begged of them, that they would hear my Charge againſt him; but they would not ſuffer me, they ſaid I might print, as T. Ellwood did; but I ſaid I could not, they have a Stock, I have not. Whereupon I went to ſome of the Church-Party that favour'd me, and told them, if I could not get a meeting to hear me, my deſign was to give forth a printed Advertiſement of a Meeting to clear myſelf of theſe things, and they might be preſent if they would. Some of their Party ſaid to me, George, do not they, or ſome of them would give me a meeting. Accordingly they gave me a meeting. They took notice of ſome of Ellwood's Forgeries and Abuſes; ſome of them have, I hope, that Courage, that I believe they would not be offended nor afraid if I named them: They have ſaid in their Paper, T. Ellwood has done me wrong.

Quaker, H. Goldney.

Let us know their names, who they are.

G. Keith.

We muſt uſe ſome little Policy, as well as ye. Some of them are eminent among you. Here is a Copy of a Paper containing an account of the matter. There were, I think, nine or ten of them, H. Goldney, if I ſhould name them, would not deny them to be his Brethren.

Quaker, H. Goldney.

I dare thee to name their names, or elſe thou art a Lyar, an Impoſtor, a Cheat; I dare ſay it is a Cheat. And turning to G. K. he ſaid, O thou Lyer, thou contentious Creature!

G. Keith.

See this little man's paſſion now, what is he but a Creature, and a contentious Creature? I contend for Truth, he and they againſt it. I will not name them without their conſent; only bid this angry man, Henry Goldney, be ſilent, and I will read their Paper, containing their Cenſure againſt T. Ellwood in divers Note, They told me, It was ſufficient to name a Few of Many, to prove T. E. guilty of wronging me in his Books. particulars.

The true Copy of a Paper containing a Cenſure and Judgment of a Meeting of Friends, (owned by Tho. Ellwood's Brethren, to be in Ʋnity with them, and generally in good Repute among them) held at London the 12th Month, 1694, in divers weighty particulars.

IN Thomas Ellwood's Book, entituled, A further Diſcovery, &c. pag. 31 Thomas Ellwood blames G. K. for miſtating the Controverſie, and cunningly ſliding in the word Within, when he knew it was not in the words charged, nor in the words proved.

A true Copy of the three Judgments, p. 6. are theſe words: All which are ſomething elſe than the People called Quakers underſtand by the Light, to wit, the light in every man's Conſcience, which G. K. alledgeth, is Proof that G. K. intended the Light within.

In Benjamin Chambers Letter, dated Philadelphia the 24th of the fourth Month, 1693. one of the four credible Evidences againſt G. K. are theſe words following. The ſubſtance of what Tho. F tzw ters had ſaid, to wit, that according to his own Apprehenſion of thee, thou didſt not believe the Light of Chriſt within Man is ſufficient for Salvation without ſomething elſe: To which words thee didſt then in the audience of the Meeting forthwith reply, No more I do not, without ſomething elſe

In John Delaval's Letter, dated the 24th of the 10th Month, 1692. are theſe words, cited out of G. W.'s Book: That the Light which is ſufficient to convince of Sin, and leads out of it, is ſufficient to guide unto Salvation, but ſuch is the Light of Chriſt in every man.

John Humphry's Two Letters read, and both to the ſame purpoſe.

T. E. Further Diſcovery, &c. pag. 101. are theſe words: And this makes a Verbal Confeſſion; yea, a bare Verbal Confeſſion, ſufficient to yoke them, as he phraſes it, together in Church-Fellowſhip.

Reaſons and Cauſes of the Separation, pag. 22. ad finem; Tho. Elwood 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 Jeſus Chriſt. Pag. 36. That the Church of Chriſt is the multitude of ſincere Believers in Chriſt, who ought to manifeſt their Faith to one another, by the living confeſſion of the Mouth, flowing from the living Faith in the Heart, accompanied with the ſeal and confirmation of a Holy and Chriſtian life and converſation.

Pag. 103. Tho. Ellwood accuſeth G. K. for giving of falſe Quotation, or forging Quotation out of Robert Barkly's Book.Let the Quotations be read out of R. B's Anarc. G. K's Quotation compared with Robert Barkly's agrees, as quoted; Reaſons and Cauſes, &c. pag. 16. for Subſtance of Doctrine, pag. 24, 25, 26. in expreſs words, pag. 106. T. E. admits of Subſtance.

Further Diſcovery, p. 19. Tho. Ellwood accuſeth G. K. that he blames Friends that they were gone too much from the outward to the inward. But G. K. p. 20. which Tho. Ellwood brings for Proof, ſaith, That he blames ſome perſons for not rightly and fully preaching Chriſt without; ſo that Tho. Ellwood's conſequences ſeems not fair, but ſtrain'd.

Pag. 22. Tho. Ellwood accuſeth George Keith of a Fallacy, in declaring, he refuſed not to go forth at the Yearly Meeting: which Fallacy alledged, was, That G. K. 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. And further; whereas Tho. Elwood alledges, tha he was led into this Miſtake by G. K's obſcure way of writing; for altho' in pag. 14. nor 18. of the Book Reaſons and Cauſes, as Tho. Ellwood unduly argueth There is not mentioned, any Day, Month or Year wherein the yearly Meeting at Philad. was held., yet in pag. 3. Plea of the Innocent, quoted by himſelf, pag 19 of his firſt Book called an Epiſtle, &c. we find G. K. gives account the Yearly Meeting at Philadelphia was in the firſt week of the 7th month 1691.

Further Diſcovery, p. 26 Tho. Ellwood ſaith, G. K. asks why they contradicted the ſound Judgment of a Monthly Meeting at Philadelphia, paſſing due Cenſure upon W. S. ſixth month thereafter, and ſaith. It doth not ſound as if it came from a ſound Judgment; as if a Judgment now were capable of contradicting a Judgment that ſhould be given ſix months after; whereas it appears by the date of the Judgment given by the publick Friends, to be nine months after the Yearly Meeting, the first being as above, the 1ſt of the ſeventh month, 91; the other bearing date the 4th of the fourth month, 92: The which Book, Tho. Ellwood being ſo converſant in, looks as if he could not be ignorant of the adjourned Meeting, being ſix months after the Yearly Meeting, to wit, the 27th of the twelfth month, as appears in pag. 10. Reaſons and Cauſes; and that wherein the ſuppoſed Judgment of the Yearly Meeting is, is dated nine months after the Yearly Meeting.

In the ſame Book, pag. 35. Tho. Ellwood alledgeth, That he no where gave that as the only, or any Reaſon, why the Meeting could not adjourn, to wit, becauſe the Book and Clark was gone. Pag. 36, & 37. he adds, Let G. K. clear himſelf fairly of this if he can, till then I ſhall take it for certain, that that Monthly Meeting was ended and broken up, part of the Friends gone away, the Clerk gone, the Book in which the Proceedings of the Meeting ſhould be recorded gone, before the adjournment was made, and conſequently that Adjournment not good, but invalid. Ditto, pag. 42, & 43. Whereas Tho. Ellwood ſhould have brought matter of Fact, to prove G. K. guilty of the Separation, inſtead thereof, he argues, as we think, unfairly by logical Nicety.

Pag. 42. he blameth G. K. greatly, for not putting the Printer's name to ſome of his Books. But it's well known this hath been the frequent practice of the People called Quakers, not to put the Printer's name to their Books, in times of ſuffering.

Pag. 91. Tho. Ellwood alledges, 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. K. 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, pag. 8, & 21, 22. with many others.

G. Keith.

The Paper is read, the Queſtion was not concerning the Light indefinitely, but whether the Light within was ſufficient to Salvation, without the Man Chriſt and his Death, &c. Thomas Ellwood accuſeth me unjuſtly. That I cunningly ſlid in the word Light within; as if that were not the ſtate of the Queſtion, but Light indefinitely comprehending Chriſt both Light without and within. But ye ſee how the citations they bring in their Paper clear me, and ſhew T. Ellwood his injuſtice againſt me.— You ſee there is the Light within, not the Light without, in the Citations they have brought to clear me, and to blame T. Ellwood.

And here is another thing they find fault with, as to T. Ellwood's wronging me, as if I had made a meer Verbal Confeſſion, a ſufficient qualification to a Member of the Church of Chriſt.

See here they cite my Book, Reasons and Cauſes, p. 22. — Take notice how they notifie his Forgery, that he leaves out my words, — T. Ellwood ſays, I make a meer Verbal Confeſſion a Qualification for being a Member of the Church. But I ſay not ſo, as if a Verbal Confeſſion were enough, but as well a Converſation, ſuch as becomes the Goſpel, is neceſſary to qualifie a Member.

So my Book is, Such a Converſation as becomes the Goſpel, p. 36. Reaſons and Cauſes, &c. — I appeal to you, is not this more than a Verbal Confeſſion? T. Ellwood charges me to ſay, That a meer Verbal Confeſſion is enough to make a man a Member of the Church of Chriſt.

Now, p. 103 T. Ellwood accuſeth me unjuſtly (as his own Brethren do obſerve) for giving a falſe Quotation out of R. Barclay's Book called the Anarchy, &c. but they clea me, and declare it to be true, as it is.

T. Ellwood quibbles about Subſtance, finding fault with my Saying. Somewhere it agrees in Subſtance with R. B. as elſewhere in expreſs words. — Now theſe men take notice that T. Ellwood is unfair in taking that liberty to himſelf he will not allow to me: They obſerve, he admits of Subſtance of Doctrine in his own Citations, but will not allow it to me.

Another thing T. Ellwood accuſes G. Keith (as they obſerve in their Cenſure) that he blames them for going too much from the outward to the inward: But theſe are not my words, nor ſence. And they cenſure T. Ellwood for making a ſtrained Conſequence on my words; for, tho' I blamed them for not rightly preaching Chriſt withou , yet not for going to the inward Light: for if they did go rightly to God's Light and Gift in their Hearts, they would not hold ſuch groſs Errors. But he ſays, I blame them for going from the outward to the inward, which is not ſo. See p. 22.

Again, they cenſure him in his blaming me for not naming the Day, Month, or Year wherein that Yearly meeting at Philadelphia was held, which he makes the ground of his perverſion, and would excuſe it.

You ſee he argues like a rare Logician. He ſays, I do not name the Year, nor Day; nor is it in p. 14, nor p. 18. But what then? I do it in another page. This is rare Logick. Now, I ſay, you have both in p. 3. quoted from The Plea of the Innocent. Which p. 3. T. Ellwood has quoted for another purpoſe, but could not ſee it for that.

And all this Proof is, that I did not tell it in p. 14, nor p. 18 but I did it in p. 3. His Argument is a Sophiſm, and is faulty in not making a ſufficient enumeration.

Again they cenſure him for charging me with Nonſence. Pray, may not a meeting held ſix months after contradict a meeting going before? Very well. But he has given out that I am ſo weak a man, that I cannot write ſence. This morning one came to me with Henry Goldney, and ſaid, People would hoot at me in the Meeting, (but it is fulfilled on themſelves) thinking me craz'd: And ſo here is a Paper againſt me, that I cannot ſpeak ſence: And why? Becauſe he feigns, that I ſaid a meeting ſix months before contradicts a meeting held ſix months after it; when there is no ſuch thing; but that a meeting ſix months after, contradicts a meeting ſix months before.

When Tho. Ellwood could not prove, that I began the Separation at Philadelphia, by any Evidence of Matter of Fact, he eſſays to do it by falſe Logick, arguing, That the Cauſe muſt be before the Effect. Therefore becauſe, I ſay, Th. Loid and they that were Magiſtrates went away, this was the beginning of the Separation, and a cauſe of it. And ſo when he cannot bring a reaſon in Matter of Fact, he will go to falſe Logick for it: So I anſwer'd his Argument, ſaying, All learned men, that write of cauſes and effects, acknowledge that a priority of time is not neceſſary to the cauſe; but it is enough that there be a priority of nature; the firſt moment the Sun was created, there was light. And then beſides, the cauſe cannot be the effect, ſays he; if their going away from that meeting were the cauſe of the ſeparation, it was not the effect. But I ſaid to him, formal and material cauſes may be both cauſe and effect. As for example; The formal and material cauſes of a man, are his Soul and Body, and they are the man. The material and formal cauſes of this Houſe, are the Stones, the Bricks, the Timber, and the Faſhion. Now here theſe cauſes are the effect. Now Th. Loid's going away was a cauſe of the Separation, and yet was a beginning of the Separation: And is it not ſhameful? They accuſe me of Separation, but they run to a perverſion of Philoſophy to prove it by, that the cauſe is before the effect; when they have no other Arguments againſt me, but falſe Logick and vain Philoſophy and Deceit, and his own Brethren here in this Paper do cenſure him, for his arguing unfairly by Logical nicety.

Here is another Obſervation of theſe honeſt men: they cenſure him for ſaying, he did not underſtand that the Doctrine of the Faith of Chriſt, as he died, &c. being neceſſary to our Salvation, was reputed a Doctrine in Controverſie betwixt us.— Whereas the principal Doctrine in Controverſie between them and me, was about the Faith of Chriſt, as he died, &c. whether neceſſary to our Note, W. Penn (as is proved) hath ſaid, We need not preach it, the neceſſary conſequence whereof is, They need not believe it. Salvation.

Here is ſomething alſo to take notice of, that he blames me as not fair, for not putting my Name to my Book, nor the Name of the Printer. Now the Quakers have done ſo in England, in Suffering Times; and yet the Printer in America was proſecuted by an Act of Parliament, for not printing his Name to ſome of my Books, and they took away his Letters and Frame: But, I find, that which is Perſecution in England, is eſteem'd good Juſtice in Philadelphia.

Quaker, N. Marks.

I have ſomething to propoſe to you, if you pleaſe. We are all in general very apt, and too apt, to have a good Opinion of ourſelves, it is very near to Mankind to do ſo. You have very well anſwer'd the Deſign of this meeting in this; you have heard him with a great deal of temper. I deſire you further to conſider, that all conſiderate men, when they hear one part, hear but with one Ear. So far as G. Keith thinks fit to make this publick, you may expect an Anſwer, and I hope you will reſerve one Ear to hear that. I have a Paper that ſome perſons concerned in this Challenge have ſent, that they desire may be read. Which was conſented to.

G. Keith.

The truth is, I could be almoſt content to go away, and ſay nothing to it, there is ſo little of value in it. They ſay I began with them, but they began with me in Penſylvania. I was doing my duty, in preaching Chriſt without, and Chriſt within; they charged me with preaching two Chriſts. I went to ſome of them about it, but they took their part againſt me. I laid it before the Miniſtry at the Yearly meeting, they alſo took their part. Now, you know, he that affirms, on him lies the buſineſs of proving. W. Pen, when I was opening a place of Scripture, he charges me with being an Apoſtate and Impoſtor. Here he charges me with being an Apoſtate; I ſay, to him it belongs to make his charge good, but he goes away. — At the Yearly meeting, I put it to him to make it good. I do not doubt but this meeting will ſound through the Nation. They urge me to Printing; I ſay again, I have not either Eſtate or Time to print Book upon Book. And tho' I have not anſwer'd the ſaid two So nor have they anſwer'd my Book, Groſs Error and Hypocriſie detected; nor my Book againſt Samuel Jennings. So here are Two for Two: But I think I have effectually anſwer'd them here, as to the main, and ſo, I hope, will many others judge. Books, why may not I ſay as they do, They are not worth anſwering? As for example, There is a Book called, The Snake in the Graſs, (I would not vindicate all things in it) but they have been urged to anſwer it; their Anſwer is, it is not worth anſwering: This man that prints this half-ſheet ſays, it cannot be ſuppoſed that G. Keith can anſwer eighteen ſheets of Paper in a Meeting. Why can it be uppoſed? But G. Fox can anſwer an hundred ſheets of Paper in a few Pages. He has anſwer'd Books of ten or twelve ſheets in a few lines. And as for their upbraiding my Friends for not bearing the charge of Printing my Books, they that own me here, are not many of them rich, and I would not put them to it. But now there is the thing, the Controverſie is, whether the rich Church, or the poorer Church, be the Ch. of Chriſt. G. Keith's is the I call it not G. Keith's Church, otherwiſe than as related to them as one of them; as I call the other their Church, N. Mark's Church, i. e. to which he is related; but he did well to own his Fallibility, ſeeing he gave ſo great a Proof of it not long ago, by ſeverely accuſing a poor innocent Maid-ſervant of his of Theft, whoſe Innocency ſoon after was manifeſt to him. poor Church, and theirs is the rich Church, and I am not aſham'd of my Poverty, ſeeing I have not done any diſhoneſt thing. I have weaken'd my Eſtate by printing what I have printed already; there is a Printer here, that can own I have paid near forty pounds to him for Printing. Now they upbraid me for my Poverty. Their Church is the true Church, becauſe the rich Church; and ours the falſe Church, becauſe the poor Church.

Quaker, N. Marks.

You ſhould hear one ſide but with one Ear, and leave the other free for the other ſide.

G. Keith.

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 Juſtice without my conſent? If a man rob me, I may complain of him as a Robber, and 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. I was adviſed to go before the Lord Mayor of London, and I did, and told him, I hoped it would give no offence to Authority: for the things I was concerned in were the common Doctrines of Chriſtianity; if there be any Tumult, ſays I it ſhall not be on my ſide: And the Lord Mayor was pleaſed to conſent to it. Now their printed Paper ſeems to reflect on the publick Authority, and not what I have done.

And thus the Meeting peaceably ended, between the ſecond and third hour in the Afternoon.

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. W. call'd, A ſhort Liſt of the vile and groſs Errors which T. Ellwood hath replied to in his printed Book called Truth defended; I anſwer, I know not any one of them that he has ſufficiently anſwer'd unto, to give the leaſt Sati faction to any ſound Chriſtian, his Anſwers being meerly Evaſions and Perverſions; as I ſhould have ſhown, if he had appear'd. But beſide, there are many new Proofs here brought, beſide the former, which I am well ſatisfied they can never truly anſwer, but by a ſincere and free Confeſſion of their groſs Errors, and a hearty retracting and relinquiſhing them, And if any that were preſent at that Meeting, or may happen to read this printed Account, with the proofs brought out of their Books in full Periods and Paragraphs, as often as there was any occaſion, are deſirous to ſee the Books, and to read the Proofs in the ſaid Books, that were then brought, or any others that may be brought, I freely offer them that are ſober and impartial perſons, to let them have the free ſight and view of them, leiſurely to read and conſider them, if they pleaſe to call at my Houſe. And I the rather make this Offer, becauſe divers of theſe Books are not eaſily to be had, not being in the hands of many. And becauſe I had not time enough to read divers other great Proofs that I had, being hinder'd with the impertinent Digreſſions of thoſe that interpoſed, (whom we had no juſt Cauſe to hear, pretending no Deputation from the perſons they ſpoke for, and therefore only were permitted, by Favour, to ſhew their Impertinencies). I therefore think fit to add ſome other few very conſiderable Proofs out of theſe mens Books, and perhaps one or two out of Books approved and commended by them, and ſome few more of W. Penn's and George Whitehead's Self-Contradictions.

AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING Some other Conſiderable Paſſages for Proofs, out of theſe Mens Books, relating to the foregoing Heads; and ſome few more of W. Penn's and G. Whitehead's Self-Contradictions, which were deſign'd to have been read at the Meeting at Turners-Hall, 11th of the Month call'd June, 1696. but for the Diverſions made, could not then be read.

IN George Whitehead's Book called The Divinity of Chriſt, he hath this moſt unſound and ſcandalous paſſage concerning Chriſt, how a Sacrifice, and his Blood.

In his Anſwer to T. Danſon's Synopſis of Quakeriſm, p. 70. firſt he ſets down the words of John Owen thus: The Sacrifice denotes his Human Nature, whence God is ſaid to purchaſe his Church with His own Blood, Acts 20.28. for He offer'd Himſelf through the eternal Spirit; there was the Matter of the Sacrifice, which was the Human Nature of Chriſt, Soul and Body; His Soul was made an Offering for Sin, Iſa. 53.10. His Death had the Nature of a Sacrifice.

Againſt theſe ſound words of John Owen he quarrels, and contradicts thus:

Anſw. Theſe paſſages are but darkly and confuſedly expreſs d; as alſo we do not read in Scripture, that the Blood of God, by which he purchas'd his Church, is ever call'd the Blood of the Human Nature: nor that the Soul of Chriſt was the Human Nature, or was put to death with the Body, (for the Wicked could not kill the Soul) though his Soul was made an Offering for Sin, and he poured it out to Death, (he bore the Sin of many, and made interceſſion for Tranſgreſſors) but what Death (and in what manner) was it, is a Myſtery truly to know; for his Soul in his own being was immortal, and and the Nature of God is divine, and therefore that the Blood of God ſhould be of human (or earthly) nature, appears inconſiſtent; and where doth the Scripture call the Blood of God Human, or Human Nature? Neither do we read, that the Blood which beareth Record in the Earth, and agrees in one with the Spirit, (and which purgeth the Conſcience, waſheth and cleanſeth the Believer in the Light from all Sin) was ever called by the Apoſtles the Blood of the Human Nature. Nor do we read, that the Saints did eat and drink Fleſh and Blood that was of a human nature, to receive Divine Life in them thereby: for the Water of Life and Blood of Chriſt, which are ſaid to waſh, ſanctifie, and juſtifie; which agrees with the Spirit in thoſe Works and Effects We never read, that they are called in Scripture by the name of Human Nature, for the Spirit that quickens is divine, and it is the Spirit that gives Life, the Fleſh profiteth nothing, John 6. Now this unſound Doctrine of G. W. doth ſo well agree with that in John Humphrey's two Letters abovementioned, that John Humphrey ſeems to have been his Diſciple in the Caſe: and it is certain this ſort of Doctrine of G. Whitehead hath corrupted the Minds of many. We ſee he will not own either the Fleſh, or Blood of Chriſt, or Soul of Chriſt, to belong to the human nature.

Annotat. Before I underſtood the Myſtery of Iniquity and Antichriſtianiſm that lay hid, under the finding fault with this name or term Human Nature of Chriſt, and his Humanity, obſerving that divers found fault with it, I was ready to excuſe them, thinking, that tho' they diſowned the term Human, yet they owned that ſignified by it, to wit, the real Manhood of Chriſt, having a real Soul and Body, that is not the Godhead, but moſt gloriouſly united therewith. And accordingly I did in part excuſe them, as in my Book The True Chriſt owned, pag. 20 and pag. 105 I cited ſome words of Hilarius, Lib. 10. de Trinitate; Quid per Naturam Humani corporis concepta ex Spiritu S. caro judicatur. i. e. Why is the Fleſh conceived of the Holy Ghoſt, judged by the nature of an Human Body? But neither Hilarius nor I judged that the Body, though conceived of the Holy Ghoſt, was any part of the Subſtance of the Holy Ghoſt, the Particle of in that place denoting the Holy Ghoſt to be the Efficient Cauſe of that Conception, but not the Material. But that my Mind and Senſe, that Chriſt had the true Nature of Man, of Soul and Body, neither of which were the Godhead, was ſound then as now, and the ſame as now, plainly appears from Page 20. of my Book above cited, where I ſay, Human Soul may ſignify the true Soul of Man, having all the eſſential properties of man's Soul, and its whole Perfection. And if in this ſenſe any will ſay, That Chriſt hath a Human Soul, and call the Manhood of Chriſt his Humanity, there needeth no contention about it: For in the Latin Tongue we have not a word ſo proper as Humanitas, to ſignify the Manhood; and if we may ſay Humanitas in Latin, we may ſay in Engliſh, Humanity. G Whithead his Objection againſt the word Human, as ſignifying Earthly, hath the ſame force againſt calling Chriſt Adam, coming from the Hebrew word Adamah, that ſignifieth Earth. And the Scripture calleth the Man Chriſt the ſecond Adam; and certainly the Man Chriſt had not only that which was Heavenly, but had even our Earthly part, but without ſin; his Body being nouriſhed with Earthly Food, which Body now glorified is Heavenly. But that I differed as much in Doctrine from G. Whithead then as now, as concerning the Blood of Chriſt, and the ſenſe of that place of Scripture, Acts 20.28. (what that Blood of God was, wherewith he purchaſed his Church, he affirming it was the Blood, not of the Human Nature or Humanity, but of the Divine Nature, as may be ſeen above) appears in my Book above-mentioned, The true Chriſt owned, pag. 94. I expreſly ſay, I grant that there is ſuch a figurative ſpeech of the Communication of Names and Properties, whereby the Man Chriſt is called God, and alſo God is called Man; and God is ſaid to have ſhed his Blood, although Chriſt as God hath not Blood to ſhed, but only as Man; yet by reaſon of that moſt rare and wonderful Union betwixt the Godhead and Manhood, the Blood of the Man Chriſt is called the Blood of God, Acts 20.28. This may ſerve as one great Inſtance, to ſhew, That as I am not changed in this Doctrine from what I was many years ago (that Book of mine being printed Anno 1679.), ſo I did then as widely differ from G. W. in that great Article of Faith, as I do now. But I confeſs I knew not that any ſuch abſurd Doctrine was in his Books, till of late that I made a more narrow ſearch, occaſioned by his defending the ſame Errors in his Penſilvanian Brethren.

Again; In the ſame Anſwer to T. Danſon's Synopſis, T. D having affirmed that there is a continual need of Faith and Repentance in this life, G. Whithead 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.

Annot. G. Whithead's Ignorance greatly appeareth in this, that he thinks Repentance and Perfection inconſiſtent; but it is a ſtrange Perfection that deſtroyeth an Evangelical Virtue and a Fruit of the Spirit, ſuch as Repentance is; and what is Repentance? A change of the mind, or a transformation of the mind, as the Greek word, Engliſhed Repentance, implieth; or more particularly, true Evangelical Repentance is a great averſion and perfect hatred of the ſoul to all ſin, and a deep humiliation before God, with godly ſorrow and contrition of ſoul for ſins paſt, which is very conſiſtent with, and very becoming the moſt perfect and holy men that ever lived, ſince all have ſinned It ſeems it is from this great Error that he and many others of his Brethren ſeldom, if ever, pray for Forgiveneſs of ſin, at leaſt for themſelves; for if there be no need of Repentance, it will follow that there is no need of praying for Forgiveneſs: But all ſound Chriſtians of true ſpiritual experience do know, that both Repentance for ſin, and praying for Forgiveneſs of ſin, are well conſiſtent with the greateſt degree of Holineſs attainable in this life: Nor doth the praying for Forgiveneſs imply univerſally the want of it, more than the praying for the Spirit implieth the want of it.

Again; Whereas it was ſaid in the above Narrative, That G. Whithead hath allegorized away the Birth, Death, Reſurrection, and coming again of Chriſt without us to Judgment; take theſe plain Proofs.

1. His allegorizing away his Birth, propheſied of by Iſaiah, 9 6. Unto us a child is born, a Son is given: This he expoundeth of Chriſt born within. He-Goats Horn, Page 51.

2. He allegorizeth away his Reſurrection, expreſly denying that Chriſt was bodily ſeen of Paul, and perverting that place in 1 Cor. 15.8. to Chriſt within. Page 51.

3. He allegorizeth away his coming without us to Judgment, in theſe Scriptures, Matth. 16.27, 28 1 Theſ. 4 15, 16, 17 Light and Life, Page 40, 41.

4. Both he and Richard Hubberthorne allegorize away his Burial, Light and Life, Page 52. and He-Goats Horn, Page 62 perverting that Scripture, Iſa. 53. He made his grave with the wicked; he adulterates the true Tranſlation, and turns it, in the wicked, which the Hebrew doth not bear: Where ſee a moſt abſurd account of the Reſurrection, turning it wholly to the Resurrection of two Seeds in two Bodies within men.

5. He allegorizeth away the Reſurrection of the Saints Bodies, by his perverſion of that place of Scripture, —Who ſhall change our vile body, and faſhion it like to his glorious body, Phil. 3.21. to a change of the Body that the Apoſtles and Saints witneſſed before death; and yet in contradiction to that, in his Real Quaker a Real Proteſtant, Page 105. he 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.

Some other of Geo. Whithead's Contradictions.

1. GEO. Whithead in his Light and Life, page 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. W. in malice of the Independant Agent, pag. 17. (recited and approved by John Pennington, Apoſtat. expos'd, p. 16.) owns that Chriſt's Body now in Heaven is the ſame in ſubſtance he had on earth: So by his own words he hath declared himſelf to be a blind and ignorant man, and yet Infallible, otherwiſe by his own word no true Miniſter.

2. In a late Called the Chriſtian Faith. printed Half ſheet, ſigned by him and ſeventeen more, he owneth Chriſt to be both God and Man, and owneth the Humanity of Chriſt, making it ſynonimous with Manhood; and yet it is proved in the above Narrative, that he neither owneth him to be God or Man; finding fault with W. Burnet for ſaying that Chriſt as God had a Father, and had Glory with God before the world began; arguing as the Socinians do, that this would imply two Gods; ſ e Light and Life, page 47. Again; He finds fault with T. Danſon for ſaying that the Man Chriſt had a Created Soul: Anſwer to T D.'s Synopſis, p. 18. And he blames R. G. for ſaying Chriſt hath a Bodily Exiſtence without us, in Heaven; Nat. of Chriſtianity, page 41.

3. In his late Anſwer to the Queries ſent to the Yearly Meeting of the people called Quakers, at London, ſigned by Dr. Lancaſter, Chaplain to the Biſhop of London, he owns the Blood of Chriſt that was outwardly ſhed, to be a part of the Sacrifice, even Chriſt's Blood that was ſhed without the gates of Jerusalem, together with the whole Sacrifice of himſelf, both of Soul and Body, was a true Propitiation and Atonement for man's Reconciliation and Peace with God, for Remiſſion of ſin, through a living Faith, and true Repentance, &c. But in his Light and Life, he denieth that the outward Blood was that by which we are either ſanctified or juſtified, and calleth it a Type, and ſaith the shedding of it was a wicked man's act; from whence he inferreth that we are not juſtified by the outward Blood, but pleadeth, that the Offering Paſſover Blood, by which we are cleanſed, is within, as the New Covenant is, and not without; See in the Narrative above. And this ſort of Unchriſtian Doctrine G. Whithead (as many others) did receive neither from the Spirit of Chriſt within, nor from the Holy Scriptures, but, as it ſeems, from G. Fox, who in a printed Paper of his, having this Title, To all People in Chriſtendom, concerning Perfect Love, &c. alſo concerning Chriſt's Fleſh which was offered, (which printed Paper I have; it is joined with ſome other printed Papers under this general Title, Several Papers given forth for the ſpreading of Truth; See Page 55, 57, 59.) hath very unſound and unchriſtian Doctrine concerning Chriſt's Fleſh, that is, the Offering, in which is the belief; by Chriſt's Fleſh meaning not his outward Fleſh. Some of his words I ſhall faithfully recite as followeth, (that to me are very unſound, and I believe in general to all ſound in the Faith):— And Chriſt according to the fleſh crucified, the Lamb ſlain; that fleſh of his which is a Myſtery, when the firſt Adam's and Eve's fleſh was defiled, and ſo death reigned from Adam to Moses, pag 55. —And Pag. 57. So Adam's, Eve's fleſh was defiled, but the fleſh of Chriſt, the Lamb ſlain from the foundation of the world, yet his fleſh never corrupted, which fleſh is the offering; for as he was God he did not dye; and this fleſh is a Mystery; and in this fl ſh (Note) is the belief that takes away the ſin, that never corrupted, that is the Offering for ſin, and the Blood of this fleſh cleanſeth from ſin, p. 58. — Now they that are in the belief of this fl ſh, and offering, ſees over all offerings, to the beginning into the Glory which was with the Father before the world began; for all outward Offerings and Sacrifices was given to man after he fell, and the Lamb ſlain; which Offering is a Figure of Chriſt, the Seed to be brought forth and offered up, and he the Top ſtone over all laid, to end and finiſh all the outward Offerings, and Types, and Shadows, and in him there is none, Page 59. So through this Offering is the Reconciliation, through the offering of his fleſh, that never corrupted, but takes away corruptions, and his Blood cleanſeth from Corruptions the Life real. And ſo this pure Fleſh, this Offering, is ſet over all, which never corrupted, which muſt be your meat if you live: Though there is more in all theſe things, which is hard to be uttered, and cannot be uttered Yet.

Annot. It ſeems what G. Fox did not ſo fully utter as to this Myſtery, George Whithead had a mind to utter in his Book called Light and Life, that may be as a proper Key to theſe dark Sayings of George Fox. If any object to me, as Th Elwood hath done in his Book falſly called Truth defended, That I have in ſome of my Books owned Chriſt's fleſh and Blood within; I anſwer, I confeſs it; but no otherwiſe but in the Scripture ſenſe, and by way of Allegory, and in Metaphor; as when the Divine Life inwardly enjoyed in the Saints, is alſo called by way of Metaphor and Allegory, Bread, Wine, Oyl, Milk, Honey, M rrow, and Fatneſs: But I no where remember that I ever ſaid or writ, That the Life or Fleſh of Chriſt within men is the Offering, the Atonement for ſin. And if any can ſhew me any ſuch Paſſage or Saying in any of my Books, I am moſt willing and ready to diſown and retract it, and blame my Raſhneſs in ſo ſaying; but I know no ſuch Paſſage in any of my Books.

4. In a Treatiſe of Oaths preſented to the King and Parliament, 1675. recommended in a Preface to it, and the Reaſons given in it, which Preface is ſigned by George Whithead, and William Penn, and Eleven more, and which Preface obligeth G. Whithead to confeſs that he owned the Contents of that Book at that time, otherwiſe he might be conſtrued to put a Trick upon the whole Nation, it is expreſſly ſaid, Page 17. N 7. We look upon it (ſaith he and they) to be no leſs than a preſumptuous tempting of God, to ſummon him as a Witneſs, not only to our terrene but trivial buſineſs, ſuch as we ſhould doubtleſs account it an high Indignity always to ſollicite an Earthly Prince to give his attendance about. What! make God, the Great God of Heaven and Earth our Caution in worldly Controverſies; as if we would bind him to obtain our ends, that is to make too bold with him, and to carry an undue diſtance in our minds towards him that made us; an Irreverence we can by no means away with. But in flat Contradiction to this, there is an Epiſtle printed to the Friends called Quakers, within theſe few Weeks, in this preſent Year, 1696. that comes from the Meeting of Sufferings, ſigned by Benjamin Bealing, their Clerk to their Yearly Meeting. In which Epiſtle they ſay they give the Senſe of Ancient Friends, George Fox, Edw. Burrough, Francis Hougel, W. Penn, and divers more, That Friends may uſe ſuch ſolemn words, when called to declare the Truth, even in worldly matters, as, I do in the Preſence of God declare, or calling God to record, or God is Witneſs. But if it be ſaid that G. Whithead hath not ſigned that Epiſtle, ſo is not chargeable with that Contradiction; I anſwer, So nor hath any other of the Miniſtry, not indeed any one but their Hireling Clerk: But it is well known that G. W. is a frequent Member of that Meeting of Sufferings, and hath been a main Inſtrument to perſuade his Friends to give theſe Solemn Atteſtations, which he and many others (I ſay not all) judged unlawful, and forbidden by Chriſt, to uſe in caſes of worldly affairs, as Recovery of juſt Debts, and the like. Nor will G. Whithead's hiding himſelf by not ſigning to this Epiſtle, and others concerned, but getting their Hireling Clerk to ſign for them (who for his Yearly Salary muſt do their Drudgery-Work; and if fault be found afterwards with what is done, have this hole to creep out at, They did not ſign it), be any Excuſe for him or them, to clear them of ſuch palpable Contradiction, or not varying from their former Principle. The only uſe I make of it, is to prove, That George Whitheaed (as well as others of the Ancient Friends of the Miniſtry, have palpably contradicted their former Teſtimony, delivered in Print to King and Parliament, Anno 1675. and that in a very weighty matter; and therefore they are not ſuch infallible men as they have made their too credulous Followers think them to be, and have given out themſelves for, charging all others to be no Miniſters of Chriſt, if not infallible, as the above Narrative ſheweth. But let none from this infer, that I blame them who in ſome weighty Caſes, eſpecially in declaring their Fidelity and faithful Subjection to the Government they are under, do uſe ſuch ſolemn Atteſtations, or judge and condemn their liberty in ſo doing. But the Contradiction of George Whithead and ſome others to what they have formerly aſſerted very publickly, is that which I would have notified, and their great Hypocriſy ſtill to pretend to Infallibility, and as if ſtill they had never varied in their Principle in any thing; and alſo charging G. K. with Apoſtacy, becauſe I have declared. That in divers places and paſſages of my former Writings, I have found cauſe to make ſome Correction and Retractation; God having been pleaſed of late years further to enlighten me, yet without any change of my Faith as to any one Article of the Chriſtian Faith, ſo far as I know.

Having done with G. Whithead at preſent, I ſhall next bring ſome two or three more unſound and ſcandalous Paſſ ges for Proofs, out of William Penn's printed Books, to ſhew the unſoundneſs of his Doctrine in relation to Chriſt, his Fleſh and his Bodily Exiſtence without us in Heaven: And then take notice of ſome of his palpaple Contradictions to himſelf, though he would ſtill make his credulous Followers (that are much fewer than ſometime ago they were) believe he is the ſame infallible W. Penn.

1. In his Rejoinder to John Faldo, page 179, 180. he greatly blames Sydrach Sympſon, an Independent Preacher, for excommunicating Robert Norwood for his Opinion, which he, to wit, W. Penn himſelf, ſaith, Is not very offenſive; and he tells us what that Opinion is; 1. For denying the Locality of Heaven and Hell, that is void of outward place, as looking upon them to have a more Spiritual ſignification; and that the other was too Carnal, indeed Mahometan. 2. That he believed the Soul to have been breathed from God, thereby aſſigning to it more of Divinity than the uſual Opinion doth. — Now that he ſaith this Ro. Norwood's Opinion is not very offenſive, and ſo not to deſerve Excommunication, it's plain he thinks 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; which yet (as I appeal to all ſincere Chriſtians) is really ſo offenſive, that the denying of that one Truth, 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. And next, his excuſing the ſaid Robert Norwood, for aſſigning to the Soul ſomething more of Divinity than the uſual Opinion doth, is offenſive and ſcandalous to Chriſtian Ears: For though it ſhould be owned, That the Divine Power that made the Soul of man, is in it, and operateth in it more manifeſtly than in the inferior Creatures; yet the Soul of man is a created Being, and hath nothing of Divinity eſſential to it; for that were to make it God himſelf. And whoever ſhall compare the Excommunication given out againſt Rob. Norwood by Sydrac Sympſon, with the Excommunication given out againſt me by William Penn and Geo. Whithead at their Yearly Meeting, will ſay, if they be impartial men, William Penn has blamed that in another unjuſtly, which moſt unjuſtly he juſtifies in himſelf, and in his Tyrannical Brethren of his Party, who for no other cauſe did excommunicate me, but for not obeying their moſt unjuſt and unreaſonable demand, which was, To clear the Body of the People called Quakers, and their Miniſtry, from ſome of the Errors charged upon them in Penſilvania; which as I at that very Meeting told them, I could prove ſome of them were guilty of, and which I have ſince effectually done. And that William Penn thinks it was ſuch a notable Argumentum ad hominem, that Rob. Norwood uſed to them who did excommunicate him, Are none the People of God but your ſelves? Have not I the ſame Argumentum ad hominem, against them that excommunicated me; who in their Nameleſs Bull of Excommunication, given out againſt me at the Yearly Meeting at London, 1695. call themſelves the Church of Christ, from which (they ſay) I have ſeparated my ſelf? And becauſe I could not obey their moſt unjuſt and unreaſonable Demand, they paſs this Judgment againſt me, as if they were the only Church of Chriſt; and in their Yearly Epiſtle this very year 1696. directed to the Quarterly and Monthly Meetings in England, Wales, and elſewhere, they call themſelves (to wit, thoſe that generally go under the Name Quakors, profeſſing Unity with them) God's whole Heritage and People; this agreeth with Solomon Eccles Paper, called, The Quakers Challenge, p. 2, 3. 1668. The Quakers are in Truth, and none but they. The Tabernacle of God is with you, and his Dwelling Place is among you, and only among you is God known, ſaid Edw. Burrough to the Quakers; ſee his Works, page 64.

2. In the ſame Rejoinder, page 310. he hath a Paſſage that is either perfect Nonſenſe, or Antichriſtian Doctrine, or rather indeed both. I ſhall cite it verbatim. Seventhly, Becauſe that Fleſh of Chriſt is called a Vail, but he himſelf is within the Vail, which is the Holy of Holieſt, whereinto Chriſt Jeſus our High-Prieſt hath entred, Heb. 10.20, 21. 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 Holieſt (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.

Annot. I ſhall make no large Commentary on theſe words, only in ſhort note, 1. His ſaying Chriſt has 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? Was not Chriſt always in himſelf? 2. 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 he had on earth, and is ſeparated from it; as one Robert Young, a Preacher among the Quakers in Penſilvania, at a Meeting affirmed, and brought theſe very words of W. Penn's to confirm it, That Chriſt hath entred within the Vail, and Chriſt's fleſh is that Vail; whereas it is plain, and generally underſtood by all Chriſtians, That the Vail within which Chriſt is entred, according to Heb. 6.19. is not his fleſh; though elſewhere, but in another reſpect, his fleſh is called a Vail, the word Vail having divers ſignifications in Scripture. 3. That he ſaith, That all muſt know a death to their knowledge of Chriſt after the fleſh; 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 that fleſh ſignifieth the fleſh of Chriſt, as he came in the fleſh. But this is a perverſion of Paul's words, as if Paul had rejected the knowledge of Chriſt as he came and ſuffered in the fleſh, as inconſiſtent with the revelation of Chriſt in himſelf; which are ſo conſiſtent, that as none have the ſaving knowledge of Chriſt as he came and ſuffered in the fleſh, without the inward revelation of him in their hearts, ſo none have that inward revelation of him, ſufficient to Eternal Salvation, but who by that inward revelation know and believe that he came and ſuffered in the fleſh, and that he is now in Heaven, in the ſame Body that ſuffered, the ſame, I ſay, as to Subſtance, though wonderfully changed in Mann r and Condition.

3. W P. in a Book he calleth Truth exalted, preſented to Princes, Priests, and People, reprinted Anno 1671. he giveth a large deſcription of the Quakers Chriſt, as he calleth him, pag. 13, 14. without mentioning in the leaſt his Birth in the fleſh, Death, Reſurrection, Ascenſion, as the Son of Man, or the Son of Abraham and David; and wholly applying that, Isaiah 9.6, 7. Unto us a child is born; and Deut. 1.18 A Prophet ſhall the Lord your God raiſe up, to the Inward Principle of the Light in all men; and thus he deſcribeth the Quakers Chriſt, pag. 14.

This is the ſecond Adam, the quickening Spirit, the Lord from Heaven, the new and ſpiritual man, the Heavenly Bread, the true Vine, the Fleſh and Blood that was given for the Life of the World, the ſecond Covenant, the Law writ in the Heart and Spirit put in the inward parts, the way in which the fool cannot err, the Truth before Deceit was, the Life that's hid in God, eternal in the Heavens, glorified before the world began, the Power, the Wisdom, the Righteouſneſs of God, the Plant of Renown, the Royal Seed that bruiſeth the Serpent's head; in ſhort, that Grace which hath appeared unto all men, teaching them to deny Ungodliness, &c.

Annot. By this it is plain he makes nothing of Chriſt, but an inward Principle in all men, which yet falſly he calls the ſecond Covenant, the Law written in the heart; for the Law writ in the heart, that is, the ſecond Covenant, is not in any Unbelievers, but only in the hearts of True Believers. Again, in his large deſcription of the Chriſtian Quaker, filling Three Pages of his Folio called the Chriſtian Quaker, he mentions not one word of Chriſt, as he was born of the Virgin, ſuffered death for our ſins, roſe again, &c. as the Object of Faith, Hope, or Love, or Chriſtian Devotion; ſee his Pages, 125, 126, 127. By which it plainly appears that he, and G Whithead, and many other Teachers among the Quakers, have no other Notion of Chriſt, but an Inward Principle; which is manifeſtly contrary to the Goſpel preached by the Holy Prophets, Evangeliſts, and Apoſtles, who preached Chriſt chiefly without men, as both God and Man, and conſequentially his Light, and Grace, and Spirit within men.

I ſhall now point at ſome of W. Penn's moſt groſs and palpable Contradictions.

1. His first Contradiction. In the Treatiſe of Oaths above-mentioned, ſigned particularly by William Penn, he is earneſt againſt all Oaths under the Goſpel; and yet in his Reaſon againſt Railing he uſeth the greateſt Oath that ever was uſed among the Jews, to wit, As God liveth, or The Lord liveth; which was the form of their Oath, as is clear from many places of Scripture, but particularly Jerem 4.2.5.2. Now let us hear how he himſelf hath practically uſed this Oath againſt Thomas Hicks, pag. 180. O that theſe heavy things might not be laid to thy charge, for ſo ſure as God liveth great will be the 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; and by this ſhalt thou know that not a Lying or Deluſive, but a True and Infallible Spirit hath ſpoken by me.

Annot. Theſe words imply ſome Prophecy that W. Penn thought he had from the Infallible Spirit of God, againſt Tho. Hicks, importing he ſhould be made an Example of his Fury: But they that ſaw Tho. Hicks dye, and knew him living, ſay, nothing of this was fulfilled, nor did any thing extraordinary, as any Example of Divine Fury happen to Tho. Hicks either before he died, or at his death.

2. His ſecond Contradiction is this; In the Book called Judas and the Jews, pag 13. owned and ſigned by W. Penn, he thus gloſſeth on Matth 18.17. Go tell the Church, That Chriſt as well gave his Church Power to reject, as to try Spirits, is not hard to prove; that Notable Paſſage, Go tell the Church, does it to our hand; for if in caſe of private Offence betwixt Brethren, the Church is made Abſolute Judge, from whom there is no Appeal in this world, how much more in any the leaſt caſe that concerns the Nature, Being, Faith, and Worſhip of the Church her ſelf?

Annot. This he ſpoke with reſpect to the Quakers Church, whoſe Power he ſo mightily extols, that ſhe is made Abſolute Judge, from whom there is no Appeal in this world. But having to do with the Church of England, or any other Church of them called Proteſtants, we ſhall ſee how he makes a contradictory Gloſs on the ſame Text, Matth. 18.17. Go tell the Church. In his Addreſs to Proteſtants, ſecond Edition, p. 152. he ſaith, But what then can be the meaning of Chriſt's words, Go tell the Church? Very well, I anſwer, It's not about Faith, but Injury, that Chriſt ſpeaks; and the place explains it ſelf; Moreover, If thy brother ſhall treſpaſs againſt thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; here is Wrong, not Religion; Injustice, not Faith or Conſcience concerned, as ſome would have it, to maintain their Church-Power.

Annot. Here you ſee he makes the Church-Power very low as by Church he means the Church of England, or any other Church beſides the Church of the Quakers. But when he means the Church of the Quakers from the ſame Text, he magnifies her Power as great as ever Bellarmine or any other Jeſuit magnified the Church of Rome. She (to wit, the Quakers Church, otherwiſe tell us what other Church he means) is made Abſolute Judge, from whom there is no Appeal in this world. Then be ſure, if W. Penn can prevail to keep up this Authority in the Quakers Church, neither G Keith, nor any other againſt whom that he calleth the Church, to wit, the Yearly Meeting at London, hath paſſed any Sentence, however unjuſt, muſt expect to have any Relief or Redreſs in this world. Well, It is a great Comfort that we may expect it in the world to come. If this be not to play the Ambidexter (a Crime T. Elwood unjuſtly caſteth on me in another caſe) I know not what is.

3. His Third Contradiction is this. In his Addreſs to Protestants, ſecond Edition, pag. 246. he ſaith, Men that are angry for God, paſſionate for Chriſt that can call Names for Religion, and ſling Stones 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 Chriſt's making.

Annot. One would think this man would be far from giving hard Names to any that differ from him in Religious Matters, and that he would be one of the civileſt men on earth, for ſoftly and gently treating his Opponents. But inſtead thereof, I know not if ever I read or heard more angry and paſſionate words, and more und cent and unbecoming any man, either Chriſtian or ſober Heathen, than William Penn hath given to his Opponents, and ſuch as he hath differed from in Religious Matters; witneſs what he ſaith in his Guide miſtaken, p. 18. 1668 The old Gormandizing Prieſts of England. —No ſort of people have been ſo univerſally through Ages the Bane of Soul and Body of the Univerſe, as that abominable Tribe, for whom the Theatre of God's moſt dreadful Vengeance is reſerved to act their eternal Tragedy upon Again, in his Quakeriſm a new Nickname, &c. p. 165. he ſaith, But in the earth there is not any thing ſo phant ſtical, conceited, proud, railing, buſy-body, and ſometimes ignorant, as a ſort of Prieſts, to us not unknown, among whom our Adverſary (viz. John Faldo, an Independent Preacher) is not the leaſt, who think their Coat will bear out their worſt Expreſſions for Religion; and practiſe an haughty Reviling for Chriſt, as one of the greateſt demonſtrations of their Zeal; an Ill bred and Pedentick Crew, the Bane of Reaſon, and Peſt of the World, the old Incendi ries to miſchief, and the beſt to be ſpared of Mankind; againſt whom the boiling Vengeance of an irritated God is rea ly to be poured out, to the deſtruction of ſuch if they repent not, and turn from their abominable Deceits.

Annot. Seeing the only Reaſon that was given at the Meeting at Turner's Hall the 11th of this Inſtant, 1696. by one of William Penn's Party, why they excommunicated George Keith, having nothing either againſt his Doctrine or Converſation among men, but that he was (as he was pleaſed to call me) a little petulant, and turbulent Man; and that they have aggravated ſome few words I gave to ſome profeſſed Infidels among us in Penſilvania, to that height, as deſerving Excommunication: Let the Impartial Reader judge, whether W. Penn has not far exceeded me, and that incomparably, (for I thank God I have not the faculty to invent ſuch words) as well as George Whithead hath alſo done, in calling ſome that but differed from him about Womens Meetings, and Church Orders of G. Fox Incarnate Devils, Wolves, Dogs, in his Preface to Judgment Fixed, 1682. Behold therefore their Injuſtice and Partiality, for when did they ever ſo much as cenſure either of them for ſuch ſcurrilous, abuſive Language, or any others that have uſed the like? Nay, of all people on the face of the Earth, many of the Preachers and Writers among the Quakers, that I know of, have been moſt guilty in this thing, and doubled this guiltineſs in fathering theſe ſinful Words, and their ſinful Paſſion on the Spirit of God, as W. Penn did, when he called me Apoſtate, and Impoſtor, for defending Chriſtian Doctrine common to all Chriſtendom, ſaying, He was tranſported by the Glorious Power of God. For my own part, wherein I have at any time either in word or Writ exceeded in giving any uncharitable Names to any, or in any uncharitable practiſe or behaviour, I declare I am ſorry for it, and have begged, and do beg God's forgiveneſs for it, for his dear Son's ſake, and alſo the forgiveneſs of any whom I have at any time juſtly offended in Words or behaviour; and I bleſs God, who has taught me more patience by the late Exerciſes I have gone through of the ſtrife of Tongues; and I hope I can in meaſure ſay, that I witneſs that place of Scripture fulfilled, That tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience; and this I have divers times acknowledged to my late Adverſaries, who have made ill uſe of it againſt me, but I never knew they made any ſuch acknowledgment to any, I am ſure never to me, whom they have moſt unworthily abuſed both by Word and Pen.

And now before I have quite done with William 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; and let him not put off this Work that belongs to himſelf, to any Deputy, or buſy Intruder, as Th. Elwood, or John Pennington, who have already ſufficiently ſhewn their folly in print; but let him perform his Promiſe by himſelf, and alſo remind his words in his Chriſtian Quaker, pag. 1. who ſaith, I was not willing that any ſhould anſwer for my faults, if any there were; and if innocent, I oſteemed my ſelf both ſufficient and obliged to my own relief.

Some of Tho. Elwood his Vile and Groſs Errors; truly collected out of his Book, falſly called, Truth Defended.

I Shall paſs by at preſent his many Forgeries, and Perverſions, and Abuſes againſt me in this his laſt Book, and his two former Books; to the firſt of which I have anſwered in print, having collected out of his two laſt Abuſive Books above an hundred manifeſt Perverſions, Forgeries, and Falſities he hath heaped up againſt me, which I have in readineſs to ſhew, and which I keep by me for a reſerve, until I find an occaſion to publiſh them, either by print, or otherwiſe; therefore I ſhall only now make an Index of ſome of his Vile and Groſs Errors contained in his laſt Book, called Truth Defended.

1. 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, this is as much againſt his Death, for before his Death he ſaid, it is finiſhed.

2. He juſtifies George Whithead's Doctrine and Words, denying that the material Blood of the Beaſts were Types of Chriſt's material Blood, and yet fallaciouſly ſeems to own it, p. 106.

3. He juſtifies 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 thing; p. 113.

4. He denieth 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. This is contrary to Rom. 5.15. Eph. 1.14. and 4.7, 8 compared with Pſal. 68.18.

5. He blames me for ſaying Chriſt's Body is the ſame in ſubſtance it was on Earth, p. 129. now if not the ſame in ſubſtance, then that Body he had on Earth is not in being, or he muſt hold the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation in that caſe.

6. He denieth that Chriſt came by Generation of, and from the Properties of Man in Mary, p. 136. and in ſo doing, he muſt deny him to be the Son of David and Abraham.

7. He perverteth the Apoſtle's Creed, in that Clauſe; Conceived of the Holy Ghoſt, p. 138. by which he infers, that Chriſt came not by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary; and in ſo doing, he makes the Holy Ghoſt to be the material 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.

8. His falſe way of reaſoning againſt the Man Chriſt's being created, from my reaſoning, if not created, therefore not Man; by retorting, if created, therefore not God; and in this he chargeth me to be deeply drenched into Socinianiſm, but this is his ignorance. This is as fooliſh as to argue, A. B. is no Engliſh Man, therefore is no Man; whereas it is good arguing, A. B. is no Man, therefore no Engliſh Man; 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, p. 139.

9. His blaming me, to make light of the work of Generation in compariſon of Chriſt's Incarnation; therefore according to him, Regeneration is greater than Chriſt's Incarnation. Oh great Blaſphemy! pag. 155.

10. His ſaying, That the Author of Regeneration is Chriſt chiefly, as he is manifeſted inwardly in the heart, p. 152. This is as abſurd, as to ſay, The Beams of the Sun that deſcend on the Earth, are the chief cauſe of the Earth's fruitfulneſs, and not the Sun it ſelf that is in the Firmament.

My anſwer to John Pennington's Book, falſly called, An Apoſtate Expoſed: In his ſaid Book he brings no matter againſt me, either as to Doctrine or Life; but ſets down ſome Citations out of my Books, and the Doctrine in all theſe Citations I own. But that I thought it had been the Doctrine of the Quakers in general, and of George Whithead and William Penn in particular; in that I own my miſtake; but this is no contradiction, or proof of my Apoſtacy; for I did not poſitively ſay, they had no Errors, but according to the beſt of my knowledge they had no Errors; this is no contradiction; for Contradictions (according to that true Maxim) are ſecundum idem, ad idem eodem loco, tempore & ratione. But he hath not ſo much either Logick or common Senſe to underſtand, that this is no contradiction, or what a true Contradiction is, as neither his quondam Tutor Tho. Elwood hath.

As concerning Caleb Puſey his Book, falſly called, His Modeſt Account; I have a full Anſwer to it in readineſs, but there is no preſent need of its publication. But let it be noticed, that my Adverſaries have owned it, as having unity with it; and no doubt it was approved by the 2d Days meeting.

I only at preſent note theſe few groſs things in it.

First, He miſ-ſtates the Queſtion, which was not, That the Light within is ſufficient for Salvation, without ſomething elſe; for the Light within, or Grace within Paul and Peter, &c. is ſufficient to Salvation, without thouſands of ſome things elſe, as without thouſands of Caleb Puſeys, and all of us; but not without the Man Chriſt without us. But the true ſtate of the Queſtion was, and is, That whereas they blamed my Aſſertion, viz. The Light within is not ſufficient to Salvation, without ſomething elſe. They are obliged to hold the Contradictory, which is, The Light within is ſufficient to Salvation, without any, or every thing elſe; true Contradictions being betwixt the one Particular, the other Univerſal; but it hath been my Lot to have to do generally with ſuch ignorant Men of late in diſpute, that know not either by true Logick or common Senſe, what a true Contradiction is.

2. Page 8. His falſe quotation of my words, citing my Book called A Refutation, pag 38, 39. where he brings me in ſaying, It is a real degree of Blaſphemy to ſay, This Light cannot make Satisfaction, &c. But I uſe no ſuch words, therefore this is a groſs Forgery, which I charge upon the Second day's Meeting; for in all that Treatiſe I neither ſaid nor intented any thing of the Light within making Satisfaction; for the Queſtion there treated of by me, was not about Satisfaction, but Revelation, what the Light within could reveal. And I was ſo far from affirming, the Light within, as we give Obedience to it, to make any Satisfaction for our ſins, that I plainly ſaid, pag. 41. ad finem, That man's moſt exact Obedience to the Light in him, cannot be an Atonement or Propitiation unto God for ſins paſt or preſent.

3. His Fallacy or Forgery, pag. 12. in feigning a Contradiction on me, concerning the expreſs Knowledge of Chriſt, neceſſary, and not neceſſary; whereas I never ſaid it was univerſally neceſſary, but only to ſuch who have the occaſion to hear it preach'd; therefore I diſtinguiſhed betwixt the Expreſs and Implicit, ſaying this laſt was univerſally neceſſary, the former only to Particulars.

4. Pag. 15. His moſt groſs Aſſertion, which is juſtly charged on the Second day's Meeting (who have approved his Antichriſtian Book), That ſurely Jeſus of Nazareth cannot be ſomething elſe than the Light, Spirit, and Power within: For at this rate the Jews who own and confeſs to the Light within, and Pagan Philoſophers who blaſphemed againſt the Man Jeſus of Nazareth, yet confeſſing to the Light within, may be ſaid to confeſs Jeſus of Nazareth; and if Jesus of Nazareth be not ſomething elſe than the Light within, then it is in vain to preach any Chriſt without, that was born at Bethlehem, and converſed at Nazareth. But he is guilty of groſs Forgery, to infer it from my words: He ſays, pag. 14. The Word only is alone, and admits of nothing elſe; but I anſwer, It admits not of another Chriſt, but it admits of ſomething of Chriſt without us, that is not within us; as Chriſt that died for us is the only Saviour; this only admits not of another Saviour, or Chriſt, within us, yet it admits of ſomething of Chriſt within us, that was not outwardly crucified, viz. His Grace and Spirit.

As concerning the pretended Confeſſion of Faith, called, Our Ancient Teſtimony renewed, of our Adverſaries from Penſilvania, ſubſcribed by Caleb Puſey, and above Thirty ſix more, though the Scripture-Words as therein recited, we own, yet ſeeing they (and particularly he) who have differed from us in Penſilvania, have declared a contrary ſenſe to all theſe Places of Scripture touching the things in Controverſy betwixt us, and have neither in that Confeſſion, nor elſewhere, renounced their former Errors, whereof they have been proved guilty, their Confeſſion is but a mere Sham, and Mock-Confeſſion.

G. K.
ERRATA.

Page 17. line 7. for Days read Words. Page 48. line 44. read clear me.

A Sermon preached at the Meeting of Proteſtant Diſſenters, called Quakers, in Turners-Hall, London; on the 16th. of the Second Month, 1696. Being the Publick Day of Thankſgiving for the Deliverance of the King and Kingdom. By George Keith. To which is added, A Teſtimony of Fidelity and Subjection to King William the Third, from the aforeſaid People, on behalf of themſelves, and others of the ſame Perſuaſion with them.

Printed for B. Aylmer at the Three Pigeons in Cornhill.

THE General Hiſtory of the Quakers; containing the Lives, Tenents, Sufferings, Tryals, Speeches, Letters, and Travels, of all the moſt Eminent Quakers, both Men and Women, from the firſt Riſe of that Sect, down to this preſent time. Collected from Manuſcripts, &c. A Work never attempted before in Engliſh; being written originally in Latin by Gerard Croeſe, and now made publick againſt their preſent Yearly Meeting in London. To which is added, Fox's Conference with Oliver Cromwell. The Tryals and dying Speeches of the Quakers executed in New-England. An Account of their Marriages and Burials. A Quaker's Letter to King Charles II. charging him with ſeveral vile Practices. Keith's Learned Speech at his Tryal in Penſilvania. The Tryals of Mead and Pen. Pen's Speech to the Judges. His Conference with the Princeſs Palatine. His Sermon before Her. The Princeſs's Letter to Geo. Fox. Margaret Fox's Letter to a General Meeting of Women, held at London in the year 1692. A very particular Account of the Women Preachers. Heſter Bidly's Speech to the late Queen Mary. Her Entertainment at Verſailles by King James. Her Letter to the French King. Her Diſcourſes with him. The great Sufferings of two Quaker Women in the Iſland Malta. The Rarity of Mary Fiſher's Voyage to Adrianople. The Audience given this Maiden Quaker by the Grand Signior. The Preſent State of the Quakers. As alſo a Letter writ by George Keith, and ſent by him to the Reverend Author of this Book; containing a Vindication of himſelf, and ſeveral Remarks upon this curious Hiſtory. Price Bound 5 s.

Printed for John Dunton at the Raven in Jewen-Street.