[Page] [Page] THE Heresie and Hatred which was falsly Charged upon the INNOCENT Justly returned upon the GUILTY. Giving some brief and impartial Account of the most ma­terial Passages of a late Dispute in Writing, that hath passed at Philadelphia betwixt John Delavall and George Keith, With some intermixt Remarks and Observations on the whole.

Printed and Sold by William Bradford at Philadelphia, Anno Dom. 1693.

Heresie and Hatred justly returned on the GUILTY, &c.

NOtwithstanding the many tendious and vexatious Disputes and Controversies that have been among us of late concern­ing Doctrines and Principles of Religion, one Party affirm­ing, and the other denying, yet at other times in publick, Thomas Ll [...]yd and Party, have endeavoured to cast a Mist before the People to make them believe, That there is no difference in Doctrine betwixt them and George Keith. But on the 11th of the 10th Month, 1692. being the first Day of the Week, in the Publick Meeting at Philadelphia before several Hundred People, John Delavall silenced that pretence, by accusing me of being guilty of Works of the Flesh, in two particulars, viz. Heresie and Hatred; using this as an Argument why I should not be heard, but my Ministry stopt and denyed: The Heresie whereof he accused was, That I have been heard to affirm, That the Light within is not sufficient to Salvation without something else. This he undertook to prove to be a Heresie, but not from any one place of Scripture, but from Friends Books, and particularly from a passage in W. Penn's part of the Book called, The Christian Quaker, where he saith, The Talent is in it self sufficient.

Next, he undertook to prove me guilty of Hatred, because, as he said, I had revi [...]ed Friends, and falsly accused them in divers things. But did not prove his Charge in any one particular.

And the said John Delavall hath divers times accused me in publick Meeting, That he would prove me to be no Quaker, both from my own Books and the Books of Friends. To which I replyed, That to prove me to be guilty of Heresie, and to be no Quaker, he ought first to begin with the Scripture, and prove me guilty of Heresie from the Scripture, and then let him proceed to prove it from my own and Friends Books.

Sam. Jenings replyed in the publick Meeting, We are not to prove it from Scripture, but from Books Friends; for the Question betwixt us and G. K. is not, who is the best Christian, but who is the best Quaker.

[Page 4] G. K. answered, If I am a good Christian I am a good Quaker, see­ing the Quakers own themselves to be nothing else but true Christians. And also seeing, that we profess to own the Scriptures, and prefer them to all other Writings, ye ought to begin with the Scriptures, and from them prove me to be guilty of Heresie.

John Delavall did further accuse me, That my Heresie and Error was in a Fundamental Doctrine of the Quakers, in saying, The Light within is not sufficient without something else.

G. K. answered, I am glad to find the Controversie at last come to this plain issue, that ye and we differ in Doctrine, which ye would not acknowledge publickly before, but generally said, ye had nothing a­gainst my Doctrine, but against my Passion, &c. But now it plainly appeareth, that ye have against my Doctrine, and that ye and I differ Fundamentally. But however, John Delavall hath not proved it from any Friends Books, that I am guilty of Heresie; for tho' William Penn saith in the Coristian Quaker, That the Talent or Light within is sufficient in it self to Salvation, yet he doth not say, it is sufficient without the Man Christ Jesus, and what he did and suffered for us on Earth, and without his present Intercession and Mediation for us in Heaven, which is that something else that I have affirmed to be necessary to our Sal­vation, together with the Light within, as one entire cause of our Salvation; and I can and dare appeal to William Penn in the case, who I hope is a living man, Whether his words bear any such sence, as J. D. would impose upon them, to prove me guilty of Heresie in a Funda­mental Doctrine of the Quakers?

And for his Charge of Hatred, I told them, That it was no sin nor evil to hate mens Errors and Hypocrisie, and to bear a zealou. Testi­mony against them; nor is it any Reviling to use sharp words of Re­proof against the Guilty, unless ye will prove that I have falsly accus­ed you in any thing, which ye can never do, tho' they have falsly ac­cused me, as I can prove; and therefore both the Heresie and Hatred lyeth at your door. And ye have not been short in giving hard words against me, but have far exceeded me, as can well be proved.

It may be further observed, that several first Days one after another John Delavall brought to the publick Meeting his Pocket full of Books, interrupting me in my Testimony, and read passages out of the same, pretending he would prove by my own Books, that I contradicted my former Doctrine. To which I have answered, That it was an act of [Page 7] incivility that both J. Delavall and his Brethren were guilty of, (as well as a Breach of the chief Fundamental Law of this Province, that requireth, That no man be disturbed in the practice of his Religion, tho' of a differing Perswasion, if he profess to believe in Almighty God) for them first to leave us, and then again to come in upon us, and in such a rude manner to interrupt and oppose me in my peaceable Testimony (sometimes crying out, We have heard an old Priest handle such a subject better than thou does; other times, Who does not be­lieve this? what need thou preach this to us? And then again at other times, many of them at once calling out, This is airy Doctrine George, this is not according to antient Friends.) though I have in­terrupted none of them, nor intend to do; but on the contrary we sent a proposal to their Monthly Meeting, for them and us-to confer about it, and see if we could accomodate the matter so as to prevent so great Confusion; and all the answer we could get, was, That the Spirit of the Lord could not be limitted; thereby making the Spirit of God the Author of so great Confusion as hath happened amongst us, that a Person of Note, living in New-York Province coming into the Meeting, compared it to a Bull-baiting.

And I then told them further, That seeing John Delavall did proffer to prove me to contradict my former Doctrine, and to be no Quaker, I was most willing, and did desire that a day might be appointed for a Publick Dispute, wherein he might have opportunity to prove his Charge, if he could. To which John Delavall positively assented, without any reservation, restriction, or proviso; but sometime after being put in mind of it by me, in a Letter to him, he declined it, by making excuse, that he would dispute with me in publick, providing he had the consent of his Brethren. And on a First Day, some time after I pressing J. D. to perform his Promise, Thomas Lloyd said, He would not permit a publick Dispute, lest it should occasion a Tumult. But let the impartial Reader judge, whether this was not a meer Evasion, seeing they so constantly on a first day made Interruptions and Oppo­sitions to me and my Testimony, which caused greater Confusion than ever was like to happen at a Dispute.

Therefore seeing that they declined a Dispute, to prove their Charge, I writ a few lines to J. Delavall, That whereas he had charg­ed me to be guilty of Heresie and Hatred, desired him to make good his Charge against me. In answer to which he writes a Letter, dated [Page 6] the 16 of 10 Month, 1692. in which he doth acknowledge (but very mineingly) that he had charged me with Heresie and Hatred, and doth positively say, [This being a Difference in a Fundamental Doctrine] withal promising to send in writing, what he had to say on the first head, viz. That the Light within as not sufficient without something else, which he calls Heresie.

And in another Letter of his, bearing date the 3d of 11 Month, (referring to his Paper he sent me the 24th of 10 Month,) he saith, ‘Wherein I have fully proved thee to differ in a Fundamental Do­ctrine from thy former, and other Friends Writings.’ And further to prove me guilty of Heresie, in the said Letter, he giveth his sence of the word Heresie, as intended by him, when mentioned in the pub­lick Meeting. ‘It is the same (saith he) as the Fathers (so called) defined it: Heresie is a mis-belief of some points of Faith, contrary to the Doctrine universally received in the Church.’

To this his Definition of Heresie, out of the Fathers (so called) as he alledged, I replyed to him, in a Letter bearing date the 2d of 12th Month, That his Definition of Heresie seemeth rather to be taken out of some Popish Writer, than any approved antient Fathers (so called) further adding, That the best way to know what Heresie is, is to ex­amine it by the Spirit of Truth within, and the Testimony of the Scripture without, and to lay most weight on these two. But what hath been the universal Testimony of the Church in all Ages, or what it is at present, is far more hard and difficult in many things to deter­mine, and too tedious to enquire into. But however, I doubt not but I have more the Consent of the Universal Church for me, than against me, in this particular.

And in his said Paper, bearing date 24 of 10 Mo. 92. wherein he al­ledgeth, That he hath fully proved me to differ in a Fundamental Do­ctrine from my former and other Friends Writings, he spendeth most of his Paper, containing about a Sheet and a half in Writing, citing particular Testimonies out of mine and other Friends printed Books, and Particularly my Book of Universal Grace, pag. 7, 3, 4, 18, 56, 83, 94. and G. [...] 's Book, called, The Mystery of the great Whore, Epist to the Reader, by E. B. & p. 19, 20, 21. and W. Penn in his part of the Christian Quaker, p. 36, 85, 86. and G. Whitehead in his part of the Cor. Quaker, pag. 13, 31. and Rob. Barclay in his English Apology, printed 1678, pag. 101, 112, 115, & p. 96, 97.

[Page 7] To this I replyed in two Sheets of Writing, in a very Friendly way, in complyance with J. D's expectation, having said in his Paper, That he expected my Friendly Reply, wherein I tell him, that I have di­ligently read over again and again all these Testimonies collected by him, out of mine and other Friends Books, and have diligently weigh­bd and considered them, and find not the least inconsistency with them, and my late or present Doctrine, either in print or by word of mouth, nor with the Assertions he draweth from them, rightly understood; As 1st, That this Light wherewithal every man is enlightened with, is Christ Jesus; 2dly, That it is the very Grace of the Gospel, and Object of the Faith thereof (viz. chiefly, as with respect to the se­cond Ministration thereof, the which lyeth hid within the first) 3dly, That by Belief in the Light, and Obedience thereunto, Salvation is obtained. And I further said, As I can freely appeal to such of them as are alive in the Body, whether their sense of their words bear J. D's Construction, so I can sincerely say, it is a gross mistake of his, the Construction he puts upon my words, cited by him out of my said Book of Universal Grace.

And for a Proof that John Delavall had put a wrong Construction upon my words, as if my present Assertion, (viz. That the Light with­in is not sufficient without the Man Christ Jesus, and his Death and Suffer­ings, and Mediation, &c. which is that something else (as J. D. hath confessed) is understood by me) did contradict the Doctrine in that Book, I did refer for my Vindication to my said Book of Univers. Grace, 1st part stating the Controversie, N. 3, 4, 6. and ans. 10 25 Obj. To which J. D. hath not given any Reply. And because the said places to which I have referred for my Vindication, are so plain and evident. I earnestly recommend them to the Reader to weigh and consider at their full length, and only shall give a hint of things therein contained at present, for brevity's sake. In the 3d perticular of the first part, I treat largely of the Two inward Ministrations of the Light within, viz Law and Gospel, and that both in Jews and Gentiles universally, and how the Gospel lay hid within the Law, as within a Vail, even as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was within the outward Court But this Distinction given by me of the Two inward Ministrations of the Light, as laid down in my said Book that hath been in print about 22 Years past, J. D. accuseth as a Novelty, as also my other Distinction of Salvation begun and perfected, according to the first and succeeding [Page 6] measures of more Light and Grace, further to be given, sufficiently hinted at, N. 6. 1 part of said Book. And in the answer to Obje. 25. of said Book, I am so far from asserting the sufficiency of the Light within, so as to exclude the Man Christ, and the benefit of his out­ward Coming, Obedience, Death and Sufferings from having a part in our Salvation (together with the Light within) that I do expresly joyn them together, plainly affirming, That they are both sufficient and useful and necessary in their own kind and way, consummating, and being consummated in one another. It can hardly be construed to be inadvertency in J. D. but rather a winfull & deliberate Omission in him, thus to pass by what made so clearly to vidicate me, in my said Book, that so he might seem to have some Colour to pervert my words to a contrary sence from what was ever intended by me.

And whereas J. D. hath said in his Paper, That he doth friendly in­treat me, not to put a wrong Construction on his words, for accusing me of Heresie, as [...] he and his Brethren did exclude the Man Christ Jesus from having any part in our Salvation; and doth oft earnestly affirm, both in his first and second Paper, That neither he nor his Brethren exclude the Man-Christ from having a part in our Salvation.

To this I did answer, in my first Paper, That seeing he doth blame my Assertion, as being a Heresie, That the Light within is not suf­ficient to Salvation without something else, he must needs hold the Antithesis, or Contradictory, viz. That the Light within is suffici­ent without any thing else, that is to say, in other equivolent Terms, without any thing [beside] [more] or [other] as the English Particle [Else] doth signifie: but this Assertion excludes wholly the Person of Christ, both the body, and Fullness of Light, Grace and Truth that dwelleth in him, and his Death and Sufferings, &c. all which are som­what else, i. e some-what other, or beside, or more, than the measure of Light in us, tho' Christ within and without is still but one Christ. And I did inform or put him in mind, that Contradictory Propositions lie not betwixt two Particulars, as some and some, but betwixt one Particular and the other Universal, the one affirming and the other denying. And therefore for J. D. to say, The Light within is suffi­cient without some-what else, is no Contradiction, for the Light within is sufficient without Thousands of some things else, but yet not with­out any or every thing else, for then it would exclude the Man Christ, and his Death and Sufferings, from having any part in our Salvation. [Page 9] I further told him, That it could not be said, that the Man Christ was the Light in us, otherwise than by a figurative Speech of a Synecdoche or Netonyme or Allegory.

And whereas John Delavall did mainly blame my Assertion, That the Light within is not sufficient without something else, i. e. the Man Christ Jesus, 1st. Because I said in my Book of Universal Grate, That the Light (viz. within) is the immediate Object of the Christian Faith: 2dly, That I said, It is inseperable from God and Christ, as the Beams of the Sun are inseperable from the Sun.

To this I replyed, That I did not say, the Light within is the [Only] Object; and tho' the Light within, and the Man Christ without, and the Fullness of Light that dwelleth in him, be inseperable one from another, yet the one is not the other; for things may be inseperable, and yet the one not be the other, whereof I gave divers Instances, as Faith and Repentance are inseperable, yet Faith is not Repentance: Remission of Sin and Sanctification are inseperable, yet Sanctification is not Remission of Sin, but some-what else; and Christs glorified Soul and Body are inseperable, yet his Body is not his Soul: The Godhead and Manhood of Christ are inseperable, yet the Godhead of Christ is not his Manhood: The Measure and Fullness are inseperable, yet the Measure is not the Fullness: The River and Ocean are inseperable, yet the River is not the Ocean: The Beams and the great Body of the Sun are inseperable, and yet the Beams are not the great Body of the Sun: Also, the glorified Saints in Heaven and Christ are inseperable, yet they are not Christ, but Christ is some-what else. Moreover, I told him in my former Paper, that G. F. E. B. and W. P. do all di­stinguish betwixt the Measure and Fullness in the Testimonies men­tioned, withall citing a Passage in T. Ellwood's Book, called, The Foun­dation of Tythes shaken, pag. 238. saying, Nor do the Quakers ascribe Salvation to the following the Light within, but they ascribe Salvation to Christ Jesus, to whom the Light within leads those that truly follow it. And he hath another observable Passage, pag. 240. If any one expects Re­mission of Sins by any other way than the Death of Christ, he renders the Death of Christ useless. Thus T. Ellwood. And surely the Death of Christ is something else than the Light within. And W. Penn in ans. to Faldo, p. 192. saith, The Light within is not God, but of God. And neither R. Barclays words, cited by J. D. nor any others hold forth the sufficiency of the Light, without the Man Christ Jesus, that something [Page 10] eise that I always affirmed to be concerned in our Salvation, together with the Light within.

And whereas J. D. in the last Leaf his first Paper layeth down six Heads, which he saith, he is willing to controvert with me. To this I replyed, that the four first of these Heads I will not controvert with him, for they are a part of my Testimony, and always owned by me, rightly understood; and for the two last, I will readily controvert with him, after the Controversie about the Light is ended.

And in my first Paper I did further inform J. D. That my assertion, viz. That the Light within is not sufficient without something else; that something else being the Man Christ Jesus, and his Obedience, Death and Sufferings, Resurrection, Ascention and Mediation for us in Hea­ven, doth no wise infer the Light its being not sufficient; and for J. D. to think it doth so infer, proceedeth from either his great Weakness or Inadvertency, not considering the Signification of such or the like enunciative Propositions, giving divers full Examples, and particu­larly he that saith, Man is not sufficient without the Grace of God, to work out his Salvation, doth not deny man to be sufficient or able to do it, with and by the help of Gods Grace; and therefore, he who saith, the Grace of Christ or Light within is not sufficient to save us without the Man Christ, doth not deny the Grace and Light of Christ is sufficient, together with him. I further saying, That as God in­finitely wise hath ordained divers concurring Natural Causes to pro­duce one Natural Effect, all subordinate to him, the first and highest Cause; so to effect our Salvation he hath ordained divers concurring Causes, some without us and some within us, and every one sufficient and able in their manner and way of working, to answer to the end and effect, all in Harmony together.

And because J. D. in his former Papers had not stated aright the matter of Difference betwixt him and me, as concerning the sufficiency of the Light within to Salvation, therefore I did state my Perswasion concerning the sufficiency of the Light, and also concerning the Scrip­tures being sufficient to afford us words whereby to express our Faith in all matters of Christian Doctrine, in twelve several particulars. To which, as yet, J. D. hath sent no particular Reply; therefore as to that the matter rests at present. And this is a brief account of the most material Passages in the first Paper that J. D. sent to me, and in the Reply that I made unto his said first Paper.

[Page 11] In answer to my first Paper, which was writ in a very fair & friendly manner to John Delavall, he sendeth me a second Paper, by way of Reply, containing many bitter Expressions, unfriendly Reflections and false Accusations, too tedious here to relate, but which will sufficiently appear, if the Paper happen to be printed, most grosly mis-applying that place of Scripture to me, Ezek. 18. 24. as if I were turned a wicked man; And why? Because of my zealously opposing his and their Anti-christian Doctrine, and detecting their Hypocrisie, Igno­rance and Errors, even as Friends in England were called wicked men for their opposing and detecting the Ignorance, Errors and Hypocrisie of their Opposers.

To my former Reply, that I said, The Light, (viz. within) is not the [Only] Object of Faith, J. D. doth answer, in his second Paper, That little less is affirmed by me, pag. 6. where I blame our Adversaries, that they do not hold it (viz. the divine Illumination of Christ within) to be the immediate Object of the Christian Faith.

To this I answered, in my 2d Paper, That to say the Light within is the immediate Object of the Christian Faith, is not to say, it is the Only Object of the Christian Faith, excluding the Man Christ Jesus, and his Death and Sufferings, Resurrection, Ascention, and Mediation for us in Heaven, which are owned generally by Friends, yea, and by J. D. though in Contradiction to himself, to be also the Objects of our Christian Faith, seeing he expresly granteth, That he and his Brethren do believe in the Man Christ Jesus, and citeth R. Barclay, saying, It is damnable Unbelief not to believe these things where declared.Note, R. B. in his printed Letter to H. Paets, a Dutch-man, doth distinguish betwixt the material and formal Object of Faith, granting that Christs Death and Sufferings, Resurrection, Ascention and Intercession, &c. with other parts of Christs Doctrine, are the material Object of Faith, but affirming, that the divine Revelation of the Light within is the formal Object thereof: And therefore if J. D. were not blinded with Prejudice, he would see there is not the least Inconsistency here. And tho' the word Object is not a Scripture word, yet it is used not only by R. Barclay, but by J. Burnet, see his Collection, printed 1691. in his Answer to Ja. Barry, pag. 212. where he says expresly, Therefore we expect he should inform in what Gospel he hath to preach to them Christ dyed not for, and what Object of Faith he hath to lay down for them to believe in; for Faith must have an Object: Or whether they do not press it as a Duty [Page 12] upon all to believe? and then let us know their Method of Distinction, who preach not the Gospel to every one; for sure there can be no Gospel of Glad Tidings to them Christ dyed not for. Thus John Burnyeat: Where it is plain, that he understandeth Christs dying for all to be the Object of our Faith, and a Doctrine of the Gospel, as well as that he doth in­wardly enlighten all, as it was of that Gospel which Paul preached, as it doth plainly appear from 1 Cor. 15. 1, 23. Rom. 10. 8, 9. 1 Cor. 1. 23, 24, 25. and many other places. And I put J. D. in mind how at the School-house Meeting, about 12 Months past, he brought the fore-cited place, Rom. 10. 9, 8. in opposition to T. Lloyd, his Father-in-Law, to prove that it was not sufficient to Salvation, to believe only in the Light within, but to believe also that Christ dyed & rose again; And to this, as to other things, I expect his particular Answer.

And I say still, that Christs inwardly enlightening all, is a Doctrine of the Gospel, and the Object of our Faith, as well as that Christ dyed for all. But I was so far from denying Christs coming the Flesh, and his Death and Sufferings, to be any part of the Object of the Christian Faith, in that Treatise of Universal Grace, cited by J. D. that pag. 92. I particularly mention Christs Coming in the Flesh, his Miraculous Birth, his Doctrine, Miracles, Sufferings, Death, Resurrection, Ascention, &c. as being things of the Christian Faith and Religion, which the Light within brings us to own; and the same upon the matter is confessed by J. D. in both his Papers: How then am I guilty of Heresie, for saying the same that J. D. saith?

To my saying, that J. D. his blaming my Assertion, as being Heresie, (viz. That the Light within is not sufficient without something else) doth oblige him to hold the Antithesis or Contradictory Assertion, That the Light within is sufficient without any thing else. J. D. Replyeth, That is but my Consequence, and none of his words. To which I replyed, That some affirm, they heard him say so, in so many words; but suppose he did not say it, yet seeing he hath accused me of the former, the necessary & unavoidable Consequence of his words makes it to be his, and to deny this, is to be guilty of the greatest Trifflig and Non-sence that ever I knew in any pretending to common Reason. His scur­rilous Reflection upon me, as abusing my School-Craft, as he calls it, I pass over, not valuing it, being conscious of my sincerity, and which I freely leave to the Impartial to judge.

For a Proof that W. Penn layeth not our whole Salvation upon the [Page 13] Light within only, as sufficient without the Man Christ Jesus, I did cite W. P. in answer to J. Faldo, part 1. pag. 243. J. Faldo charging it upon the Quakers, That they expect to be saved by the Light within only. W. P. answers in behalf of the Quakers, This is a wicked Suggestion against us; see also his following words. And as I said to J. D. in my 2d Paper, Now let the Impartial Reader judge, who hath any thing of common Reason, Whether by these words W. Penn doth not plainly declare his Mind, That we are not saved by the Light within without some­thing else? For as the word Only is exclusive, so are the words With­out something else.

And here let it be noted, that John Delavall finding that he could not make good his Charge against me, viz. his accusing me of Heresie for saying, The Light within is not sufficient without something else, he goeth about (most sillily) to change the state of the Question; for whereas the state of the Question was, Whether the Light within was sufficient to Salvation without something else, viz. without the Man Christ Jesus, and his Death and Sufferings, and present Intercession for us in Hea­ven, he goeth about (not so slyly as sillily) quite to alter and change it to another Question, altogether different from the former, as Whether any can be perfectly saved & made perfectly happy without all know­ledge and faith of the Man Christ Jesus without us, and of his Death and Sufferings, &c?

To which I have answered him in my second Paper, That these two are quite differing Questions; for if this last should be granted, yet it still remaineth, that the Light within only, without the Man Christ Jesus, doth not save any; for even many who do not know him, nor believe in him (having some measure of sincerity under the first Mini­stration of the Light within them) receive the benefit of his Death, and Sufferings, and Mediation (by the general acknowledgment of all that ever I have formerly known of the People called Quakers) at least in some measure to begin a good work in them, as is clear in the case of Cornelius, before he received the Knowledge and Faith of Christ crucified and raised again; and therefore, as I have told J. D. he will sooner wash an Ethiopian until he be white, than he can prove me guilty of Heresie or Error, for affirming, The Light is not sufficient with­out something else, either according to Scripture or sound Friends. But to say, The Knowledge and Faith of Christ, both as he is God and Man, and as he dyed for our sins, and rose again for our Justification, and is our [Page 14] Mediator in Heaven, even the Man Christ Jesus, is necessary to finish and perfect the Salvation and Eternal Happiness of all that shall be Eternally saved, This doth no wayes derogate from the sufficiency of the Light within, for the Light within being God and Christ, is abundantly sufficient to reveal this Knowledge and Faith in all them who shall be saved, and that either without or with means, as God pleaseth, tho' in Gods ordinary way of working, he maketh use of outward means; and therefore if any have not the Knowledge and Faith of Christ cru­cified, as outwardly, this doth no more prove, that the Light is not sufficient in it self, than if any have not the Faith and Obedience of the Light inwardly, doth prove that the Light is not sufficient; for as J. D. hath confessed in his first Paper, Faith and Obedience are the blessed Effects produced by the sufficiency of this Light in all his true Fol­lowers; So that Faith and Obedience, with respect to the Light, are not the Cause of its Sufficiency, tho' it Then only comes to be sufficient to us, when we believe in it, and obey it. And thus, what J. D. affirms with respect to the Light within, I affirm also, with respect to the Man Christ without us, as he dyed and rose again, and is our Intercessor in Heaven; for, as not to believe in the Light within, is no argument of its Insufficiency, so not to believe in the Man Christ without us, is no argument that the Light within is not sufficient to mens Salvation uni­versally, because the Light within being a real measure of the eternal Word, Christ Jesus, can as easily reveal the Faith of the Man Christ without, and of his Death and Sufferings, &c. as it can reveal the Faith of Christ within, both which J. D. doth acknowledge to be necessary to all such to whom it is preached or declared, for their Eternal Salvation.

John Delavall's silly Taunt and Reflection, That I cause him not to staggar by my profound Logick, (as he terms it) I regard not, furd [...]r, (as I told him in my 2d Paper) but to take notice of his scoffing Spirit, more like Ishmael than a true Christian or true Minister of Christ: I used no profound Logick in the case, but one or two of the easiest and plainest Rules in that called Logick, belonging to the Rudiments of it, and as I told him, true Reason teacheth it, without all Art of Logick; but J. D. in meddling with that he calleth my Logick, hath shewed his profound Ignorance in common Reason.

His accusing me of Pride, Fury and Rage, I told him, is one of the Unclean Streams that flow from his Unclean Fountain; & so I pass it, [Page 13] with other his scurrilous Reflections and false Accusations.

I also told him, his positively charging me with that he calleth my late modelled Doctrine of the Revolutions, is a base and vile Forgery and Calumny, which I have sufficiently answered in my printed Treatise, called, Truth and Innocency, &c. I never made that (vulgarly) call'd the Revolutions, any matter of my Christian Faith, and no man living can justly say, that ever I did: I can defend my Christian Faith with­out the Doctrine of the Revolutions, as well as all other true Christians can, who are of the same Faith with me concerning the Necessity of the Knowledge and Faith of Christ crucified, to mens perfect Salvation. Nor hath the Doctrine of the two Ministrations, and of Salvation begun, and Salvation perfected, a dependance on the Revolutions, so called, whe­ther true or false; for what hath a dependance on another, is the Effect of that other; but the two Ministrations of the Light within, and the Work of our Salvation, both in its beginning and finishing, have no other Cause but God, and Christ, and the Spirit, and therefore wholly depend thereupon. And I freely at any time proffer to defend my Perswasion and Faith concerning the Two Ministrations, and Salvation begun and finished, without running either to the Papist's Purgatory, or the Hypothesis of the Revolutions; and let John Delavall or any of his Associates, try their strength, whether they can drive me, by the force of their Arguments to any such pinch or strait, as he doth basely in­finuate against me in his 2d Paper. And his Accusations in this par­ticular do not only strike against me, but G. F. E. B. W. P. all whom I can prove to hold the distinction of two inward Ministrations of the Light, and two states of Men, answering thereunto, the first of which G. F. calleth, The state of the first Adam, which he was in before he fell, which he calleth, A state of danger, where he may fall again, but to come to Christs stature, and to him before the World began, who is first and last, beginning and ending, such shall know a state that will never fall; see his printed Epistle, 1666. directed, To be read in all the Assemblies of the Righteous; and concerning this second state he saith further, Christ that never fell is a state beyond Adam, and he is to be heard and folowed that never fell, and in him are People to sit down, who is the Rest, and Peace, and Life, who destroyeth the Devil and his Works, and maketh an end of Sin; now this being manifest and known in all, then the Lamb is known to have the Victory. And a little after, speaking of this second state, he saith, And here, as you live in the Seed, Christ Jesus, your Election you [Page 16] know before the World began, and Reprobation since the World began. And these two states W. Penn plainly distinguisheth in his part of the Chr. Quaker, calling the one that of the Law, the other that of the Gospel, the one that of a Servant, the other that of a Son; and E. Burrough saith, pag. 56. of his Works in folio, The Law must have its thorow O­peration, before the Gospel be witnessed. It is therefore manifest that John Delavall is greatly Ignorant, as in the holy Scriptures, so in the Quakers Principles, so to fault my Testimony concerning the two Mi­nistrations, and Salvation begun and Salvatiom finished, which perfect Salvation (according to G. F.) belongeth only to the second State and Ministration.

And whereas J. D. in his 2d Paper maketh an Essay to show, That Propositions may be Inconsistent, that are not strictly Contradictory the one to the other, giving an Instance in four Examples. To this I have ans­wered, That all these are Contradictory, being either betwixt de­finite Particulars, or such as contain necessary matter of Truth and Falshood, and therefore are strictly Contradictory; but Propositions betwixt Indefinite Particulars, as some and some, are never Contradi­ctory nor Contrary, nor have the least Inconsistency, when the matter of them is not any necessary Truth and Falshood, but are both True, as is the present case in our Debate; for as it is true, That the Light within is [Not] sufficient without something else, that something else being the Man Christ Jesus, and his Death and Sufferings, and Inter­cession for us in Heaven, so is it also true, That the Light within [Is] sufficient without thousands of some other things else. And if Jo. Delavall think not himself obliged (by the Law of Dispute) to show the Anti­thesis or strict Contradictory Proposition held by him, (which is most proper) if he have not renounced all use of common Reason, he must show the Proposition that is (if not Contradictory) at least contrary or inconsistent therewith; but it hath none other than that I mention­ed to him in my first Paper, viz. That the Light [is] sufficient without [Any] thing else; and this he must needs hold, unless he resolveth wholly to unman himself; for it is the nature of all Indefinite particu­lar Propositions, that they have no contrary but what is strictly Con­tradictory, as is our present Case. And in my 2d Paper I put him in mind of the common Proverb, Let not the Shoe-maker go beyond his Last, not that I upbraid him with his Ignorance in the Art of Logick, but for his Pedantick Vanity, that he would seem to know what he is as ignorant of as a Child.

[Page 17] To his saying, We never differed about the meaning of the Particle [Else] I told him, he is grosly dis-ingenuous; for he knoweth the contrary in his Conscience; and he may remember, how that not long ago, when I was declaring in the publick Meeting, That the measure of Christs Light in us, was not sufficient without the Fullness, that dwells in the Man Christ Jesus, and the Fullness was something more than the Measure, Sam. Jenings, in the publick Meeting interrupted me, most uncivilly, as he hath at other times done, (tho' I have never interrupted him, nor any of them) and he cryed out, Thou sayest, George, the Fullness is something [more] but is it something [else?] To which I answered, Yea, it is something else; and therefore if J. Delavall had any thing of shame-facedness left in him, he might be asham'd of his Dis-ingenu­ity and dissimulation in this particular.

To his blaming me for saying, The Man Christ was the Light in us, was a figurative Speech of Synecdoche, Netonyme or Allegory. I answered him, That seeing he blames me for this, according to him, the Man Christ is within us, wholly, both Soul and Body, without all figure, with all his Fullness; which is as gross a Doctrine as the Papists is con­cerning the Man Christ being in the consecrated Cake. And I told him, that Christ, as God, was in us, without a figure, but not as Man, without some figure or figurative Speech of Synecdoche, Netonyme or Allegory. And as to his Citation out of one of my Books, That where it is said in Scripture, that Rock was Christ, I denyed it to be a Figure; my sence is plain, being in opposition to them who say, That Rock was not really Christ, but only a Type or Figure of him: Whereas I affirmed, That Christ was really with the Church in the Wilderness, and not only Typically & Symbolically or Figuratively; and so is Christ really now with and in his Church. And he blames me for giving some Ex­amples of the Figure Synecdoche, used in common Speech, as if I did apply them to Christ in us; but I made no Application, and yet if I had, the Scripture, I told him, useth the like; for what is to be understood in Scripture by the Revelation of the Lords Hand or Arm in us, but the measure of his Life? And as in Scriptare, Christ is compared to a Garment that the Saints put on, and is their Cloathing from Head to Feet, so he is said to put them on; and Shoes in Scripture have a spiritual signification, as in Cant. 7. 1. How Beautiful are thy Feet with Shoes! And the Prodigal at his Return to his Fathers House, had Shoes put upon him, Luke 15. 22. And it was the Life of Christ that cloathed [Page 18] the Prodigal at his Return to his Fathers House, from his Head to his Feet; and therefore the Scripture useth the Figure of Shoes in a very high sence, tho' this is as a strange Doctrine to John Delavall's pro­found Ignorance, who yet professeth himself to be a Master in the Israel of his Ignorant Associates and Hearers, who (belike) is the best and ablest they can find to controvert with G. K. to prove him a Heretick, for his sound Christian Doctrine, well warranted both by Scripture, and sound Quakers, yea, and all Christians every where; for let all Professions in Christendom be searched, and it will not be found that ever any of them (owned to be true Christians) condemned it as an Heresie or Error, to say, The Light within is not sufficient to Salvation without something else, to wit, the Man Christ Jesus; for as I told J. D. I never knew any hold Salvation by the Light within only, excluding the Man Christ Jesus, but Jeffery Bullock, whom G. VVhitehead has well refuted, see his book, call'd, Judgment fixed, pag. [...]. where he says, Thou who seest not the Consistency betwixt Salvation by the Light within, and the Man Christ Jesus, art gone from the Light into Imagina­tions; and so (by G. W's Judgment) are John Delavall and his Brethren that call it Heresie to say, The Light within is not sufficient to Salvation without the Man Christ Jesus; wherein John Delavall and his Apostate Brethren fall in with Jeff. Bullock, for proof of which see the Judgment of their Monthly Meeting at Philadelphia, that cleareth T. Fitzwater and condemneth me, for saying, The Light is not sufficient without some­thing else, which we have caused to he printed, with our Answer to it. Now I do boldly say, these men are fallen from the Fundamental Prin­ciple of the Quakers in this very particular, and are guilty of Heresie themselves, and yet would lay their Brat (Whore like) at my door, but I return it to him and them.

And notwithstanding that John Delavall hath made an absolute and positive Appeal to antient Friends in Old England, to determine in this case, I cannot easily be perfwaded, that after they have fully heard the Case truly stated betwixt J. D. and me, that ever they will approve his Doctrine, but on the contrary, if they hold to their former Prin­ciples, as I am charitable they do, they will condemn it, and blame his so medling, and all them that adhear to him, notwithstanding of his Fawning and Flattery, whereby he seeketh to have their favour for his professed Subjection to their Determination, which if it prove a Contradiction to what he at present thinketh is the dictate of the In­fallible [Page 19] Spirit in himself, it shall be seen what manner of Person he is, and how unfit to teach others, that is not truly taught himself in one of the first Principles of the Christian Doctrine. And notwithstanding his fawning to have favour with Friends in England, he could not do a worse thing to render Friends Odious, both in England, and every where else, to assert it as the Quakers Principle, To be a Heresie and Error in a Fundamental Doctrine, to say, The Light within is not sufficient without something else, that something else (as confessed by him) being the Man Christ Jesus without us, and his Death and Sufferings, and In­tercession; for if the generality of Professors in Christendom believe this to be the Quakers Doctrine, there cannot be a more mischievous Stumbling block laid in their way, to hinder People generally fróm joyning in Society with them. Therefore I hope God will put it into the hearts of faithful Friends in England, and else-where, zealously to withstand this most pernicious Anti-christian Doctrine of J. Delavall and his Associates, that say, It is a Heresie to assert (this sound Chri­stian Doctrine) That the Light within is not sufficient to save men, with­out the Man Christ without us; for if fo, then either there is no Man Christ without us, or he is no Saviour to us at all, and hath only the bare and empty Title of a Saviour, to wit, the Man Jesus of Nazareth.

And tho' J. D. hath again and again asserted, That by his so accusing me, he doth not exclude the Man Christ Jesus in the Outward, from having a part in our Salvation; yet who can believe him, but he that can be­lieve the greatest Contradiction, which no man ever can do, that has not lost his common Sense and Reason, and is not become a Brute in Understanding. Beside, if he doth not exclude him from having a part in our Salvation, as neither do I, but include him, then in what part of my Assertion lodgeth the Heresie, that he hath charged upon me, for saying, The Light is not sufficient without something else, I con­fessing, that by something else, I neither understand Humane Learn­ning, nor the Letter of the Scripture, nor outward Preaching, as absolutely and universally necessary, but the Man Christ Jesus? And as great a Contradiction is it in J. D. to blame me for charging him, That he holdeth the Measure to be sufficient without the Fullness; for if he holds not this, he must needs hold, That the Light within is not sufficient without the Fullness, that is something else than the measure of the Light within, or then he must hold two Contradictory Propositions to be false, as thus,

[Page 20] It is false to say, The Light is [Not] sufficient without the Fullness,


It is false to say, The Light [is] sufficient without the Fullness.

Which is an absolute Contradiction to all common Reason of Man­kind; and I do solemnly say, that of all the Adversaries I ever had to do with in Dispute, I never met with a more Ignorant or more Un­reasonable Adversary. And tho in a Letter to me (wherein he is con­cerned with some others) he falsly chargeth me, as being either Crased, &c. I appeal to all Impartial Readers of common Reason, Whether ever they heard or knew a man that seemeth more Crased than he. And to me it seemeth a Judgment of God upon him, to be so bewildered and confounded in his common Sense and Reason as a man, for daring to oppose so great a Christian Truth asserted by me, a poor Servant of the Lord, and to call it Heresie, he having signally, and more than ordinary appeared but of late to joyn with me in the same Testimony, as I told him in my former Paper, how by his charging me with He­resie, he had unministred himself. To which he returns not any thing of sollid Answer, but instead thereof a silly jest, not worth mention­ing And thus the Scripture is fullfilled in him, Because they received not the Truth in Love, God gave them up to strong Delusions, to believe Lyes.

To his saying, in his second Paper to me, My Answer, that things which are inseperable, yet are distinct, giveth me no Relief. I answered him, I need no Relief in the Case, my Examples were proper and pertinent, as that Faith and Repentance are inseperable, and yet we are not saved by Faith without Repentance, which he in his Ignorance la­boureth to render Ridiculous, by the Addition of his own words, making them a Tautology. But he altogether passeth by my Example how Christs Godhead and Manhood are inseperable; and yet it is most congruous and proper to say, The Man Christ cannot save us without his Godhead, which Christ taught himself, expresly saying, I can do no­thing of my self, i. e. without my Father. Also, it doth no more infer that I deny the sufficiency of the Light within because I say it is not sufficient without the Man Christ without us, than it inferreth, that he that saith, John Delavall is not a Man without his Soul, denyeth J. D. to be a Man; Or, J. D. is not sufficiently honest without honest dealing, denyeth J. D. to be sufficiently honest; Or, because Rich. [Page 21] Hubberthorn said, Christ is not Christ without God, that Christ is not Christ; see his Collection, pag. 29.

As for his other Collections of Testimonies out of mine and other Friends Books, in his second Paper, added to these in his former, as I said before, I find none of them inconsistent with my present Doctrine, and if he think they do, I shall freely consent to it, if he please, that he may expose them to the World in Print, or any other Papers he hath sent me, that so Impartial Readers may judge be­twixt us.

To his charging me, with Gratifying some ill affected to the Govern­ment, and my Contentious Behaviour in Church and State; I have ans­wered him, His Accusation i [...] grosly false and malitious, and I reject it as such; I have no way medled with the Government, but have born my faithful Testimony to Friends antient Principle, against the use of outward Weapons. It is no new thing for innocent men to be charg­ed with being Enemies to Government, by men of his and their Spirit and Stamp; so were Friends charged in old England, at their first appearance, and particularly G. F. and so were the Protestants in Ger­many, and else-where, by the Papists.

In a third Paper I sent John Delavall, in answer to his Letter, bearing date the 3d of the 11 Month, I did argue with him at great length, That if because Christ without and Christ within are inse­perably one Christ, therefore it may be said (according to him) that it is sufficient to preach Christ within; as he and many of his Brethren argue, and that it is a Heresie to say, The Light within is not sufficient without something else, viz. the Man Christ Jesus. By the same Argu­ment, It is sufficient to preach Christ without, and it is a Herefie to say, The Man Christ is not sufficient to Salvation without something else, viz. the Light within. And therefore by John Delavall and his Bre­threns way of Argument, all these who have only preached Christ without, have been in the right, and all Friends who have blamed them, for not preaching Christ within, are blame-worthy; Why? Because Christ within and Christ without are inseperably one Christ. But to this, and many other things in my three Papers, I have recei­ved no Return. And as I have told him, I desire not further to Dispute with him thus in private, that is to little purpose, but am willing to commit to publick View, partly what is already past betwixt us, or what may further pass, reserving some other weighty [Page 22] things, I sent him in my former Answer, to another occasion, as I may have Convenience.

In the mean time let it be remembred, that he hath not brought one place of Scripture, in all his Papers, whereby to convince me, that I am guilty of Heresie in the matter he accuseth me.

And seeing the matter is come to this plain Issue, that they have now publickly charged me and my Friends joyned with me, of being Guilty of Heresie, which formerly they did rather whisper and mutter in Corners, and that it now openly appeareth in the face of the World, that they accuse that to be Heresie, which is a Fundamental Doctrine of the Christian Faith, received, as we can prove, by Geo Fox, George Whitehead, William Penn, and the best of Friends, as well as by all Christians in the whole World, it evidently appeareth, and most necessarily followeth, that the Heresie is theirs, and they are Hereticks, and therefore our Seperation from them is just, and is a necessary Duty, we having oft admonished them before, in private Conferences and Meetings, the Scripture saying, An Heretick, after the first and second Admonition, Reject.

And thus having cleared my self of Heresie, the Hatred (no more than the Heresie (he sought to fix on me) doth not at all belong to me, and therefore I return both upon him, as his Due, until he Repent, which I can truly say, I sincerely wish and desire.

George Keith.

The Printer's Advertisement.

THat notwithstanding the various Reports spread concerning my refusing to Print for these that are George Keith's Opposers, These are to signifie. That I have never refused, but often prof­fe [...]ed to Print any thing for them, and do now again signifie, that if John Delavall or any other of his Brethren have any thing to print, I am most willing to do it for them; not that I want to beg their Work, I need it not, but to leave them without Excuse, that if they be any way wronged or falsly charged by what is published in Print to the World, they may have equal priviledge to Vindicate themselves as Publickly; though I have little cause to make this Offer to them, considering their many Abuses to me.

W. B.

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