A TRUE RELATION OF A CONFERENCE Had Betwixt G. Keith and T. Ʋpsher, at Colchester,
The 6th of the Fifth Month, 1699, The truth of which is attested by Three Witnesses, who took it from their Mouths in Short-hand, and afterwards by joint consent writ it out at length.
The Question stated at the said Conference, was, Whether Thomas Ʋpsher's Preaching in the Forenoon, That Faith in Christ, as he was born of the Virgin Mary, and dyed for our Sins, &c. was absolutely necessary to Salvation (as some affirmed he said, or as others affirmed, was necessary) and in the Afternoon, his Preaching, That the Light within (universally, for which he quoted many Scriptures) is sufficient to Salvation, IS A CONTRADICTION.
AND A Brief Account of the uncivil and illegal Treatment used by some principal Quakers at Colchester and Bristol towards G. Keith; and some other material Passages in his Travelling through several places in the Country, this and the former Summer. And a POSTSCRIPT, containing some Notes and Observations on the Assertions of T. Vpsher and his Brethren, detecting their Self-contradictions. And a Certificate from Parson Shelton of Colchester, to the truth of the Case in debate (which is also attested by Nine other credible Witnesses) and to the truth of the Conference.
By GEORGE KEITH.
LONDON: Printed for Brab. Aylmer, at the Three Pigeons, over-against the Royal-Exchange, in Cornhil. MDCXCIX.
A TRUE RELATION OF A CONFERENCE BETWIXT G. Keith and T. Vpsher, at Colchester, &c.
THEY that heard me on the first Day, may remember, that I said, That, to the best of my remembrance, Tho Vpsher in the Afternoon contradicted what he declared in the Forenoon; if it happens to be proved that he did not, all the damage that will happen to me, is, that I am mistaken, or I misunderstood him.
Now I offer to prove it, to the best of my understanding and remembrance. Tho. said in the Forenoon, That Faith in Christ, both as he was born of a Virgin without us, and dyed for our sins without us, as his Blood was shed without us, and as he arose again without us, and as he ascended into Heaven without us, and as he sits at the right Hand of God, as our Mediator, without us, and as he will come again and judge us, and as he is spiritually revealed in us, is absolutely necessary to Salvation. To prove it, Tho. brought 1 John 1. 7. That we are cleansed from Sin by the Blood of Christ, even by the same Blood that was [Page 2] shed without the Gates of Jerusalem; and said, That his Friends and he differed not in Faith, and that the whole drift of Friends Testimony tended to the same Doctrine.
It is not worded as I worded it; for I did not say absolutely necessary to Salvation. And observe, Friends, I am not come to give an account of my Faith, nor to be Chatechised by George Keith; but I am come to stand on the defensive part: I said necessary.
Thou saidst absolutely necessary: For this I offer Witness.
Thou saidst absolutely necessary.
To the best of my remembrance, he did say, absolutely necessary.
You said, absolutely necessary.
He did say, absolutely.
He did say it.
I say, that I am sure, that I did not say absolutely necessary. I have Witness as well as thee.
There can be no Witness to prove a Negative.
My Witness may be heard as well as thine. Call Will Drewit.
I do really believe he did not say absolutely necessary.
I don't remember he said absolutely necessary.
I do believe he did not say absolutely necessary.
I can't tell whether he said it or not.
I remember nothing of the word absolutely.
To the best of my Memory, he said, necessary.
Well, then you all remember, that he said necessary; but you don't remember he said absolutely necessary.
This is but a Negative Testimony (said Parson Shelton) that will not hold in Law. They answered, The difference was not a matter in Law. G. Keith said, Nor will it hold before any reasonable Judicatory; however, necessary here is equivalent to absolutely necessary.
Now I offer to prove the Contradiction, that is, to the best of my remembrance and understanding, he Preach'd in a contrary strain, and brought several Scriptures to prove the Light within sufficient to Salvation; John 1. 4, 9. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. He was the true light, which lighteth [Page 3] every Man that cometh into the World. John 3. 16. God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, a light into the world, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, &c.
Thou sayest wrong; I said not that the Light within is sufficient for Salvation; I never used the Expression in any Meeting in my Life.
Thou broughtest Eleven or Twelve Scriptures to prove it.
Thou art not against my using Scriptures.
No, but against a perversion of the Scripture, and a misapplication of them. How didst thou word that Scripture? God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, &c.
I worded it only thus, That God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son into the world, that in him they might have Light.
These Scriptures thou madest use of, were to prove, That the Light within was sufficient to Salvation, John 3. 16.And some Verses thou spoke to after; He that doth evil, hateth the light. And every one that doth Truth cometh to the Light.49 Isa. 6. I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation to the ends of the Earth. 27 Psal. The Lord is my light and my salvation. 26 Acts 17, 18. Delivering thee from these people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified. 2 Tit. 21. The grace of God that bringeth salvation, hath appeared to all men.
I spake of them; but thou art gone from the word Light.
You know it hath been common, what-ever denomination the principle goes under, to say the Light, or the principle of the Spirit of God, or the Grace of God, or the Manifestation of the Spirit; you make them all one.
When I say the Grace of God, or Light, or inward Manifestation of the Spirit, I mean Christ's inward Manifestation to the Soul.
Thou quoted that Scripture 2 Cor. 4. 6. God, who commanded light to shine out of darkness, hath shined into our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of God in the face of his Son.
I don't remember that I used that Scripture.
There is Witness thou didst use it.
I think he did.
He did use it.
5 Eph. 13. For all things that are reproved, are made manifest by the light; for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. 2 Cor. 12. 9. My grace is sufficient for thee. There is the sufficiency; and by Grace he means Light. 20 Acts 32. Now brethren, I commend you to God, and the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among them that are sanctified.
O! George, thou art wrong: I did not make use of that Scripture on the first Day; it was on the fourth Day.
Then thou contradicts thy self two or three Days after; it's no great difference; but thou didst use it in part on the first Day.
To the best of my remembrance, on the first Day I committed them to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to the word of his Grace; and so drew towards a Conclusion after that manner.
Those in the Revelations who have washed their Robes, and made them white in the Blood of the Lamb. This Blood, to the best of my understanding, he meant to be the Light: I think he did expound it so.
I did use those words; but I deny I meant the Light.
If I can't prove it, all the damage will be, that I was mistaken. In the Afternoon he brings 1 John 4. 9. In him was life, &c. And that Scripture, My grace is sufficient for thee. These we shall go through with: That I shall insist on, that Tho. brings these Scriptures to prove, that every Man that cometh into the World is so lighted, and so taught, that if he obey the teachings and discoveries of that inward Principle, it is sufficient for Salvation, or he shall be saved. All these Scriptures he brought to prove it, And I will give thee for a covenant to the people, a light to lighten the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation to the ends of the earth. Thus he paraphrased upon them; and, to the best of my understanding, said, That whosoever was obedient to the dictates and discoveries of this Light, the Grace of God, or inward appearance of Light, it shall be his Salvation: This he said in the Afternoon, which contradicts what he said in the [Page 5] Forenoon. Now the Contradiction lies here; whereas Tho. in the Forenoon, said, it was his belief, and the drift and tendency of all the Friends and their Books and Writings, and that his Faith and Friends did not differ in this point, That Faith in Christ, as he was born of the Virgin without us, suffered without us, arose and ascended without us, and as he is spiritually revealed in us, is necessary for Salvation; I say, he said, That he and his Friends did not differ in this; but that it was the drift of all their Friends, though they did not express it as he did.
I did not mention the Faith of the Friends; I did not mention their Books, as I remember; but I said, It was necessary to Salvation to believe these things; and that it was the drift and tendency of my Testimony.
Call Rob. Hannay. Who prov'd he was speaking before of some that falsly charg'd Friends about this doctrine; but, says he, they misrepresent us, and falsly accuse us; it hath been, and is the drift and tendency of all our Friends, to preach this Doctrine. Tho. Cook, I call thee for a Witness, Whether Tho. Vpsher said so or not? He answered, Yea. One ask'd Tho. Cook, What Vpsher said? He answer'd, That Tho. Vpsher said, it was the drift and tendency of our Friends to Preach such Doctrine. Tho. Lawrence offers himself a Witness; he saith, That Tho. Vpsher mentioning some opposing the Quakers, that charg'd them, that they not did hold Faith in Christ outwardly as necessary to Salvation; saith he, I do verily believe, and it is my Faith, and I have Faith in Christ Jesus, as he suffered without the Gates of Jerusalem, and it is the drift and tendency of our Declarations which we Preach to the People.
I did say Friends, but not a word of Books and Writings.
Now, two ways, I prove, that he contradicts himself. If I prove, that his Faith differs from the Faith of some, or most of his Friends, as Will. Penn, Geo. Whitehead, and the most eminent, is not here a Contradiction to himself? Is not their Faith his Faith?
George, this is from the matter; we are not come here to meddle or dispute what others hold, but thou art to show, I contradicted in the Afternoon what I said in the Forenoon.
It is my Sense, that whereas he said in the Forenoon, that his and his Friends Faith was one and the same, if he differs from his Friends, he differs from himself; and then, I say, what he said in the Afternoon, contradicts both himself and his Friends.
I said, it is the drift and tendency of our Friends.
He meant the Friends there present; What have we to do with W. Penn and G. Whitehead, they are not here?
If any say, What have we to do with our Friends W. Penn and G. Whitehead, that are not here? Then, I say, thou shouldst have been more wary than to have mention'd such a thing in an Auditory. If I have any understanding in what he said, I never heard a greater Contradiction in my life. The places he brought especially 49. Isa. 6. 2. Titus. 11. 26 Acts 18. He did not barely quote these places, but paraphrased on them, and applyed them to Christ's inward appearance; call it what you will, Light or Grace, as it is in every Man; for he numbers these places with John 1. 4, and 9th Verses: this is a Contradiction; these places he brings to prove the Light in every Man; 2 Cor. 12. 9. My grace is sufficient for thee. It hath no reference to that inward appearance or Principle of Christ in the Heathens that the Gospel is not Preached to. This in Isa. I will give thee for a covenant to the people, for a light to lighten the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation to the ends of the earth. This hath no reference to the Light of the Gentile World, that hath not the Gospel Preached: I say it is a Prophecy which was not then fulfilled to the Gentile World, nor is not now fulfill'd to the Heathen Gentiles; but it is fulfill'd to us Christian Gentils; 2 Titus 11. The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men; teaching them, &c. I say, this Text hath no relation to the common discovery or inlightening that the Gentile World hath, that never had the Gospel preached.
This is what I spoke in the Afternoon; compare it with what I said in the Forenoon, and shew the Contradiction.
There is no illumination or discovery in the Heathen World, that hath not the Gospel outwardly preached, that gives them and teacheth them what to believe concerning Christ [Page 7] as he was born of a Virgin, &c. I say, what is ordinary and usual according to the Methods of divine Providence, I do affirm the Heathen World hath no Principle in them, that doth teach or discover what they ought to believe concerning Christ outwardly.
Where is the Contradiction? I never medled with Gentile or Heathen; but that which was the tendency of my Testimony, was, That People should take heed to the inward appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ to their Souls, in order to their Sanctification.
Thou didst speak it universally; and thou laidest great Importance on these two Scriptures, In him was life, and the life was the LIGHT OF MEN; and the grace of God that bringeth salvation, hath appeared TO ALL MEN. Now, I believe, thou meant all Men without distinction, Christians, Turks, Jews, or Heathens; all Men. Now if there be no Principle in the Heathen universally (what knowledge the Sybils had concerning Christ's coming in the Flesh, was not by that ordinary Illumination, but by such extraordinary Revelation, as the Prophets among the Jews had) that teacheth them to believe in Christ, as he was born of a Virgin, then he contradicts himself, to say, that Faith is necessary to Salvation, when there is nothing in those Heathens to teach them it.
Had I said in the Forenoon, that Faith in Christ's outward appearance was absolutely necessary to Salvation, even to the Gentile Heathens, that are depriv'd of the historical Means, and said, in the Afternoon, that there is a Light within that is able to teach all Men to Salvation, it had been a Contradiction, if it be proved, that the Light is insufficient: But I did not paraphrase, or treat of the universality of this Light; though I came to the Scripture that spoke of the Light, yet I did not paraphrase on that which lightened all Men in the World; I did not speak of the Heathens, my great Work was to shew, that those that were priviledged with the historical Account of these things, have reason to be thankful for it, and their Work is to walk answerable to it.
Observe, he grants, that if he had said, that Faith in Christ's outward appearance was absolutely necessary to Salvation to the Gentile Heathens, he had contradicted himself, on this condition, that I will prove, that the Light given to the Heathens is insufficient to Salvation.
I say, that the Gentiles, that have not the priviledge of the outward means, by which we come to understand and instrumentally, they being deprived of this, if they walk answerable to those discoveries the Lord hath given them, doubtless the Lord will accept of them; and if they have not this means, doubtless, it's probable, the Lord will save them, seeing they walk answerable to what they know.
Tho. says, That if he have affirmed, that Faith in Christ's outward Manifestation is absolutely necessary to Salvation of those Heathens that have not the outward Means, and if he said, that there was a Light in all Men that was sufficient, and I prove this Light is not sufficient, then it is a Contradiction.
I say it is, upon that condition thou provest the insufficiency of the Light within, and proves the universality of that Faith necessary to Salvation, then it is a Contradiction.
Tho. Vpsher saith, That Faith, in the outward Manifestation, is absolutely necessary to those that have the outward Means, and if there be not that Light in them that have not the History, he contradicts himself; if he affirmed, that there was a Manifestation in all Men that was able to give them that Discovery and that Faith; and that I can prove, that there is no such Manifestation, that was able to give them Salvation, he contradicts himself. But Tho. said, That there was a Manifestation in Men universally, that was able to give this Discovery; he brought places of Scripture to prove it, as the 1 John 4th and 9th Verses: He argued for it, that there was that that would give a Discovery to all Men of that that was necessary to Salvation.
I deny it, I did not say absolute.
He did not say absolute.
the same.
He did affirm, That there was that Manifestation, or Light, or inward appearance; he paraphrased upon those places of Scripture, He was the true light, that lighteth every man that cometh into the World. I have given him for a covenant to the people, a light to the Gentiles, and the grace of God hath appeared to all men. Now if he did not mean universally, let him deny it.
I did mean universally then.
I offer to prove, that there is no Manifestation in the Heathen World, where the Gospel hath not been Preached, that gives to that Heathen part of Mankind, or can give that which is necessary to Salvation: Now necessary is a Scripture Word, and if by necessary we mean not really necessary, we may deny, that Obedience to the Light within is absolutely necessary. I say, necessary, in Scripture Sense, is absolutely necessary, with respect to Christ without as well as Christ within; for otherwise you cannot shew a Scripture that will prove, that Obedience to the Light within is absolutely necessary. I offer to prove, that there is no Manifestation in the Heathen World, that hath not the Gospel preached to them in God's ordinary way, that either does, or can give them to believe all that is necessary to Salvation. But first, I distinguish between Light within, as it signifies the great inlightener, that is God; and the Manifestation and Discovery that comes from this great God. I know this great God is in all Men, he gives some Manifestation of himself in all; but, I say, he gives no Discovery or Manifestation of himself to all Men, that does or can give that Knowledge or Faith in Christ that is necessary to Salvation.
Prove this, that there is no such Manifestation in Man.
I say, I distinguish between the Light, as it signifies God the great Illuminator, and the Manifestation, or Illumination that comes from God. When I say the Manifestation is not sufficient, I do not say, that God is not sufficient; but, I say, that there is no Manifestation or Discovery in the Heathen World, that God gives them ordinarily, that is sufficient to Salvation: This I offer to prove, 10. Acts 43. To him give all the Prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him, shall receive the remission of sins. 26. Acts 18. I send thee to the Gentiles, to turn them from darkness to light, &c. that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified through FAITH THAT IS IN ME. [This Me, is Jesus of Nazareth, as without them.] And Rom. 10. 8, 9. The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is the word of faith which we preach, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou [Page 10] shalt be saved. Now, I say, this is the absolutely necessary terms of Salvation; and if there be no such thing in the Heathen to teach them this, and seeing th [...]re is no such Manifestation in the Gentile Heathen World that discovers or teacheth this, then there is no Manifestation in them sufficient to Salvation.
He hath not proved, that the Manifestation of God and Christ, in his Light to all Men, doth not give, nor can give to Man, that which is necessary to Salvation; because he cannot bring one word of absolute necessity, or that saith after this manner, that without this, and this kind of knowledge they cannot be saved.
The Light within teache them and all Men, even the Heathens, that I must not commit Murther, Adultery, nor be Drunk, &c. I find in Scripture as positively Faith in Christ without us, required to remission of Sin and eternal Salvation, as obedience to the Light within us; 1 Cor. 1. 21.
I should be loath to be so uncharitable to the poor Heathens, which live up to their Light, as G. Keith is.
I am no more uncharitable to the Heathen, than you or any Man; I dare not conclude, that any of the Heathens that live vertuously are damned: What is wanting to Heathens in respect to the outward, God may make up to them in an inward extraordinary Manifestation. What do we know what God may reveal to them in a dying Hour?
I never did declare, that the Light within, without the outward Manifestation of Christ, is sufficient for Salvation.
Whither Tho. did not speak to this purpose, That the Light within, without Faith in Christ, is sufficient for Salvation, I apprehend I have proved by his Paraphrases on those Scriptures that he brought; from those Scriptures, say I, Tho. did say, That this Light, or this inward Manifestation, is enough for the Salvation of Man; then, say I, if one thing be enough, there needs not two: If this be enough, then there is no need of that Faith in Christ that he mention'd in the Morning; which is a Contradiction.
In the Conclusion, divers of T. Upsher's Friends gave this Consession, and so did he, viz.
It is necessary to Salvation, to believe in Jesus Christ, that was born of the Virgin Mary, and was Crucified without the Gates of Jerasalem, and is ascended into Heaven, and is there in Glory, and from thence will come without us at the end of the World; this we acknowledge to be our absolute Belief, and that he is ourwardly to come in a glorified Body.
This they owned as necessary to believe, to those that live in the Christian World.
Parson Shelton told them, This plainly did contradict the Doctrine in their Friends Books; however, he was glad of this their Confession now.
This 6th of July was the 5th Day of the Week, next to that 1st Day wherein G. Keith had charged T. Vpsher with Contradiction.
A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Uncivil TREATMENT
Vused by some principal Quakers at Colchester and Bristol towards G. Keith; and some other material Passages in his Travelling through several places in the Country, this and the former Summer.
THE occasion of the above mentioned Conference (the true Relation whereof is above given) was, That whereas G. Keith, at the publick Meeting-House of the People called Quakers, at Colchester, the Second of the First Month, 1699, in the Afternoon, had affirmed, That T. Vpsher had contradicted in the Afternoon what he had Preached in the Forenoon, the which T. Vpsher denied, and put G. Keith to prove it; whereupon it was mutually agreed by them both, to debate it before Witnesses on both sides, on the 6th of that Instant following, as was accordingly done. The Moderators chosen to regulate the Debate, were William Shelton, a Minister of the Church of England, in Colchester, and Samuel Rider, a Presbyterian there. [Page 13] But it is sit the Readers should be further informed of some other Particulars relating to the Difference betwixt T. Vpsher and his Friends at Colchester, and G. Keith and some of his Friends there; one of which is, That whereas T. Vpsher did offer a Conference with G. Keith, in order to defend his Doctrine from being a Contradiction, G. Keith did readily accept it, on the Condition that he would agree to debate it with him before Witnesses, whether T. Vpsher had done justly and Christianly at a Meeting in Great Staten in Huntingtonshire, in the Month called August, 1698. to pronounce Woes and Curses in the Name of the Lord against G. Keith, and all that adhered to him, that were there present, and came to hear him (which were many, reckoned in the U [...]ity with T. Vpsher and his Friends) saying, God would confound, destroy, and dash to pieces both him and them, which, he said, he was moved by the Lord so to affirm (as many are ready to witness if he deny it) but this Condition T. Vpsher would by no means agree unto. Another is, that whereas G. Keith had been accused at the said Meeting at Great Staten in Huntingtonshire, by T. Vpsher, that he was an Apostate, and had wronged and perverted Friends Books in his printed Narratives, and that he offered to prove it against him, providing G. Keith would begin to dispute with him the next day; G. Keith replied, He was very desirous to hold the Debate with him, but it was well known to divers there present, he could not begin any such Meeting for Debate next Day, being under an Engagement to be at a Meeting at Bedford next First Day, which was the Day following; but he was ready to engage with him the Third Day following, which T. Vpsher by no means would yield unto; alledging for his Excuse, the great need he had to be at home; which to many appeared fallacious, because he had before proffered to hold the Dispute with G. Keith for two Weeks together, if he would begin next Day. R. Bridgeman, a Friend at Huntington, did propose to have the Meeting for the Debate begin next Day, and he would undertake, in defence of G. Keith, that he had not wronged the Friends Books in his said Narratives, and proffered to hold a Dispute with T. Vpsher on that account, until G. Keith should have time to return to manage the Dispute by himself; but this T. Vpsher would not agree unto. Some few Days after, in the 6th [Page 14] Month called August, 1698. G. Keith came to Colchester, and in the publick Meeting of the Friends there, put T. Vpsher in mind of his former promise to ingage in Dispute with G. Keith, in order to prove him an Apostate, and a perverter of Friends Books in his said Narratives, telling him, He hoped he had time now to do it, being at home; but T. Vpsher replied, Since his former offer was not accepted, he found himself clear of any such Engagement. And now again in the beginning of the 5th Month called July, 1699. T. Vpsher refused to ingage in any such Debate with G. Keith, though earnestly desired by him. And the like proffer he made to the principal Friends, called Quakers, at Colchester, That whereas they had the last Summer sent out a Paper against him, signed by many Hands, charging him to be an Apostate, and an Enemy to Truth and Friends, they would now make that one of the Matters of debate, as well as this, viz. Whether T. Vpsher had contradicted himself? But by no means would either he or they assent to any such Debate, save only, that it might be debated before sufficient Witnesses, Whether G. Keith could prove a Contradiction in T. Vpsher's Doctrine to himself, expecting that they might have some advantage against G. Keith, if the Subject of the Debate should be confined to that alone Particular? But why they were not as willing to debate other Matters with him as well as that, which yet were of greater moment than that, as whether T. Vpsher had contradicted himself (it being very common both to him and his Brethren to Preach Inconsistencies and Contradictions in great plenty) is easie to be understood, even because they knew they were never able to prove against G. Keith, that he was an Apostate, or Enemy to Truth, or guilty of any of the hard Names they had given him. And therefore the further to detect them, and to leave them without Excuse, G. Keith did yield to have a Debate with T. Vpsher only upon that single Head, viz. Whether T. Vpsher was guilty of Self-contradiction? The which is now left to the Judgment of the Impartial Reader, after he has viewed and considered the foregoing Contents.
And here let it be noted, that on the said First Day, at Colchester Meeting, the 2d of the Fifth Month called July, 1699, [Page 15] in the Forenoon, after G. Keith had peaceably sat and heard T. Vpsher, and their other Preachers, and stood up to Speak, he was, most uncivilly, and contrary to the Act for Tolleration, interrupted by many of their principal Men, called Friends, who cried out against him, Thou Apostate, hold thy peace, this House is ours, thou hast no right to speak in it without our consent. G. Keith replied, He was no Apostate, and if they thought him to be such, they ought to prove it; and their Proof he desir'd to have. They told him, Friends at London had judged him to be such, and they stood to their Judgment. G. Keith replied, That was downright Popery, to believe as the Church believed, by an implicit Faith; and as for their right to the House, his Right was as good as theirs, until they did prove, that he had forefeited his Right which he formerly had, all being Tenants in common, and that place being no Man's proper Right, but free to all travelling Friends of the Ministry among that People, and to him as well as to any of them, until they did prove, that he was no Friend of Truth; which he believed they could never do, he retaining all the common Marks of a Friend, and that he had better Principles than they, that was no bad sign of his being a Friend of Truth. But they continuing in their uncivil and illegal manner of interrupting him, which many friendly People that were present who were desirous to hear G. Keith, both of the Church of England, and Dissenters, did blame them for, (being illegal as well as uncivil and unchristian) some Constables seeing the Peace broke, being called upon by several to keep the Peace, took away one, called a Quaker, before the Mayor, for his illegal Behaviour, who threaten'd to bind him over to the Peace, though divers others were as rude and uncivil as he, especially they of the richer sort. In the Afternoon the Mayor sent several Constables to keep the Peace, which they broke as much in the Afternoon as in the Forenoon, crying out at G. Keith, while he was speaking, and calling him Apostate, and Enemy of Truth; the which great disorder and interruption the Constables, who in the Afternoon were sent to keep the Peace, soon did quiet, by telling them who made the greatest Interruption (who generally were the richest Men among the People called Quakers in that place) that they would [Page 16] take them away to the Mayor, in order to have them bound over, if they would not forbear; whereupon, they generally, in great haste, went away, and as fast as they thronged to go out, as fast did many more throng to get in, who were not Quakers, but sober and friendly People of the Church of England, and of the Dissenters of several sorts, who had a desire to hear G. Keith, and did hear him after the Friends did generally withdraw, some few remaining that were his Friends in that place, and some others that were friendly affected towards him. On the 4th Day following, G. Keith did again go to their publick Meeting place, which they suspecting that he would do, and speak again in their Meeting as he did the foregoing First Day, which gave great content to many, and was a great trouble to his Adversaries, to find them so exposed, and their great and vile Errors so detected by G. Keith, they set Men at the Door to keep him out; so that when he essayed to get in, they hindred him: This gave occasion to G. Keith to go to the Mayor and complain of their uncivil and illegal treatment, who forthwith commanded two Constables to go to their Meeting to make free entrance for him, as accordingly was done, (whose Generosity, as well as Justice in that Affair, is greatly commendable and worthy of imitation by Persons of his Quality and Station) but after he came in and waited patiently till their Ministers had done, and then stood up to speak, they bid the Friends withdraw, the Meeting, they said, was ended; and as many of them were going out, and others coming in, desirous to hear G. Keith, that were not of their Profession, they shut the great Door, bolted and barr'd it, and knocked in the Barrs, that the People that were got in might not open them (leaving only a little private Door open, that few but themselves knew) and indeed they made such disorder, and especially the richer sort of them, that it was a shame to see it, to behold their rude actions, and hear their outcries against G. Keith, many crying to him at once, and pulling him by the Sleeve to be gone, insomuch that a Friend there present, said, It seemed like Bedlam let loose.
The like Incivility and illegal Proceedings, the People called Quakers at Bristol used against G. Keith, the 23d of the Month [Page 17] called July, 1699. who offering peaceably to come into their Meeting-House, was stopt by a great Guard of them they had set at the Door to keep him out by Violence; he did very softly expostulate with them (and so did some other of his Friends that came from London to countenance him, and to be Witnesses of their treatment towards him) that it was contrary to their former Profession, to use any carnal Resistance; let them not henceforth say, their Weapons are not carnal, for he saw no other Weapons they had to fight with him, but their Arms, Shoulders, and Breasts, wherewith they opposed him as he essayed to come in. He also and his Friends told them, They would have formerly re [...]koned it Persecution, and did so, when some of their Preachers came in to oppose the Ministers, both of the Church of England and Presbyterians, in their publick Meeting-places, and met with some resistance on that account. But that whi [...] the more aggravates the matter against them, is, that G. Keith told them that stood a Guard to keep him out, he came [...]ith [...] Intention not to speak at that time in their Meeting, but only to hear, having a real desire to hear how their Ministers did Preach, he being inform'd, that they did preach better Doctrine than formerly; some of them replied, Our Ministers are not chang'd in their Doctrine. Charles [...]ones, Father-in law to Will. Penn Junior, said concerning G. Keith, He is a false Fellow, we will not trust him. To whom G. Keith modestly replied, That is not enough to call me so, but he ought to prove it. I [...] I (said G. Keith) should call thee Thief or Adulterer, thou wouldst p [...]t me to prove it. Some of them that were the Guard at the Door asked G. Keith, What he was? he said, He was a Christian. They asked again, Was he a Quaker? he replied, He was never proud of the Name Quaker, that Name being given to that People is a Na [...] of Reproach, which now they seem to [...] and asked them, What [...] of a Friend of Truth, which he had [...] to his Question. One [...], who [...] by G. Keith, at the Door, If he was [...] which they took for some great [...] his [Page 18] Friend. G. Keith bid them ask him, If he did not own himself a Friend of Truth? he said, Yea, he was a Friend of Truth; but the Name Quaker he disowned, as well as the Errors that were among them. G. Keith did further Expostulate with them, saying, If the Power of God be among you, as ye say it is, what know ye, if ye let me come in, but that Power may reach me, and bring me out of what ye call my Apostacy, and join me again to you? Some of them replied, Thou dost not believe it thy self. G. Keith answered, Though I do not believe it, yet that Power might make me believe it. How many have come into a Christian Assembly Unbelievers, and have gone forth Believers? am I past all possibility of Conversion? But as uncivil as the Quakers, his old Friends, at Bristol were to him, the People called Baptists were as civil; who freely, at his request, granted him liberty at their publick Meeting-place, near to the Quaker's Meeting-place (and about as capacious) to have a Meeting that Day, the Meeting-place being called, Andrew Gifford's Meeting-place; who freely consented, and his Son and Friends also, that he should have the use of it. The Meeting began about the 6th Hour in the Afternoon, which was very full of People, both of the Church of England and other Dissenters; who generally shewed their great satisfaction with what they heard him speak at the said Meeting. In the close of the said Meeting, he did intimate to the People, his purpose of having another Meeting the next Day, to begin at the same time, in order to detect the great and vile Errors of the most approved Authors among the Quakers, particularly of G. W. and W. P. and in order to the clearer detecting them, to read large and full Quotations out of their Books, as accordingly he did; and did intimate his purpose to write to W. P. and other noted Ministers of the People called Quakers at Bristol, to desire them to come; and if they did think they were able to defend their Cause, they should be freely allowed, and have a fair Hearing. The next Morning, being the 24th of that Instant, he writ to them to that effect; they sent no direct Answer to him, but writ a severe Letter to Andrew Gifford, and his Son, and another Baptist Teacher, called Found, greatly blaming them for letting [Page 19] him have the use of the House, comparing what was to be done there to a Stage-play, and G. Keith to be the Actor: And among other frivolous and empty Reasons they give why they will not meet him, one was, that it was offensive to Authority; and yet, in the same Letter, they pro [...]er to meet with those Baptists if they will Imbark on his Bottom; as if to meet with G. Keith were offensive to Authority, but to meet with the Baptists were not; whereas neither is offensive to them if discretely managed; and if any behave themselves indiscretely, they are justly obnoxious to Censure. At the time appointed, a great Meeting of People assembled (both Towns-people, and others, it being at the beginning of the Fair time) where he laid open the Errors, particularly of G. Whithead, W. Penn, and Edw. Burroughs, in many Quotations, which he did publickly read out of their Books, and which another did read the second time, standing on a Table in the Peoples audience, that the People might be satisfied, that the Quotations were all truly read; the Quotations were the same as are noted in a late printed Sheet, called, An Account from Colchester, of the Quakers Errors against the very Foundation of the Christian Religion; Signed by Nine credible Persons of Colchester, two of which are Ministers of the Church of England, and two others, Non conformist Ministers; and some other Quotations were read out of their Books, that are mentioned in G. Keith his said Narrative; to which, as to divers other his Books against his Adversaries, they have made no Reply, though they most falsly alledge, they have replied to all he hath published in Print against them, whereas there are at least Six of his late Books in Print, to which they have made not one Line of Reply; as his 2d and 3d Narratives, his Book answering their Arguments against Baptism and the Supper, the Deism of W. Penn and his Brethren, in answer to his Discourse of the general Rule of Faith and Practice; and his late Book, called, Some of the many Fallacies of W. Penn, &c. In his Paper called, Gospel Truths, &c. and his larger and shorter Chatechisms; all which do plainly detect and refute their vile and gross Errors and Heresies, prejudic [...] and destructive to Christianity. And here I give the Reader to understand, how [Page 20] as I was civilly treated and respected by sober People, both of the Church of England [...], at Colchester, and at Bristol, so I found the [...]ke [...] Respect generally in all other places where I travelled, [...] Summer and this, as at Bedford, Huntington [...] bridge, and divers other places, [...] this present Summer, having travelled through the same places again, and had considerable Meetings at them all, either in Licensed Houses, or such, as by the favour of the Magistrates of the place, were allowed; and in divers other places where I had not had Meetings before, as at Cogshel, in Essex; at Chippenham, in Wilishire; at the Devises, at Caln, at Malebury, at Lambourn Woodlands, at Wantage, at Oxford, at Reading; in all which places where I had Meetings, many of which were very considerable for number of sober, discreet, and well affected People, I met with great Civility, Kindness, and Respect, for my Testimony to the great Truths of the Gospel, and against the great and vile Errors that abound among the People called Quakers, which their Leaders have drawn them into; though in divers places above mentioned, few of the People called Quakers came to hear me; and in some of them not one, so far as I could hear. I generally sent to them, to come and shew before the People what they had against me; but they generally fled before me, and would not so much as appear to reason the Case with me. One at Caln, in Wiltshire, in a great Meeting which was in a large Barn on a First Day (the last of the Month called July) called John Savage, a Quaker, while I was speaking, said, I spoke by the Spirit of the Devil; because I was proving, That the Light that is common to all Mankind, and is in Heathens, was not the Gospel that Paul preached, but another. I desired him not to interrupt me, but let me alone till I had done, and then I would answer to what he would object; but he said nothing to me after I had done. At Huntington and Ives also I met with some Interruption, but none of them would come to any fair Debate with me; some of their Ministry at Ives calling me Judas and Demas, but when I put them to prove it, and offered to shew, that Character did not belong [Page 21] to me, but to some of them, they would not reason the case with me. One of the chief Men among the Quakers in that Town, saying, That place was for Preaching, but not for Dispute; and as by his means I had got liberty to speak there (for which I thanked him) but he would not suffer me to dispute; I did expostulate the case with him, Why he would be less fair than the Jews, who not only suffered Paul to Preach, but to Dispute in their Synagogues. But the greatest openn [...]e [...] [...] reception, among any of my former Friends called Quakers I found, was in divers Country places in Huntingtonshire, and thereabouts; who met in divers places on purpose to hear me, and appointed several Meetings for me, at several places, both this and the former Summer, whither they came to hear me, and declared their satisfaction with my Testimony, and my opposition to the great Errors among the Quakers; and they have declared, that it is their Sense, That there is great need of a Reformation in Doctrine among the said People, and that the great Errors contained in the Books of their great Authors ought to be disowned and retracted, otherwise a separation will necessarily follow; whereof Margaret Everard, a Speaker among them, has given a plain and Christian acknowledgment in her printed Epistle to them; and particularly to the Ministers among them.
A POSTSCRIPT TO THE Impartial READERS,
Containing some Notes and Observations on the Assertions of T. Upsher and his Brethren, discovering their Self-Contradictions.
THE Impartial Readers are desired to compare the several Assertions of T. Vpsher here, one with another; and also with the many Assertions of G. Whithead, W. Penn, and others of the most approved Writers among the People called Quakers, contained in their Books, as most faithfully quoted in G. Keith's three printed Narratives, and in the late printed Sheet, called, Some Account from Colchester of the Quakers Errors against the very foundation of the Christian Religion, &c. and I doubt not but it will evidently appear to them, that T. Vpsher hath both foully contradicted himself, and also his said Brethren. And especially I desire the Readers to take notice of this one Instance of T. V's Self-contradiction, in p. 8. of the printed Copy, ad finem, he grants, that there is universally in Men (both Heathens and Christians) such a Grace or Manifestation of Christ, as can give them a discovery of that that is necessary to Salvation; for which he grants, he quoted [Page 23] Titus 2. 10, 11. Isa. 49. 6. John 1. 9. and divers other Scriptures; and this is the known Principle of G. Whithead, W. Penn, and most of the greatest Authors among the Quakers; and yet, in contradiction both to himself and them, he hath told us (see pag. 10. of the printed Relation) he never did declare, That the Light within, without the outward Manifestation of Christ, is sufficient for Salvation. And yet (as in the same pag. 10.) he did plead, that Heathens are saved (who live up to their Light) and yet have no K [...]owledge or Faith of Christ's outward Manifestation. Again, pray let the Reader well consider this Assertion of T. V. That he never declared that [...] Light within, without the outward Manifestation, was sufficient to Salvation; and his and his Brethren of Colchester their Assertion (as in pag. 11.) that i [...] is their absolute Belief, That Faith in Christ, as he did outwardly come, &c. and was Crucified, and as he is outwardly to come in a glorified Body, is necessary to their Salvation, and compare it with G. Whithead his Assertion, in his late Antidote against the Venom of the Snake, p. 28. where he plainly affirmeth, That the Quakers are offended with G. K. for undervaluing the Light within, and saying, it is not sufficient to Salvation, or not sufficient without something else. That something else he confesseth, is (according to G. K.) Christ's outward Manifestation, and coming in the Flesh, and the Doctrine and Faith of it, without which, G. K. hath affirmed, the Light within either Heathen or Christian is not sufficient to Salvation; for which Assertion of his, not only G. Whithead, W. Penn, and generally the most approved Writers and Preachers among the Quakers, but also T. Vpsher, and most of his Brethren at Colchester (John Rallet, and a few more at Colchester excepted, who own G. K's Doctrine to be sound) have judged him to be an Apostate, and do still so judge him; this being the chief Controversie betwixt them and him, viz. Whether the Light within be sufficient to Salvation without Christ's outward Manifestation and coming in the Flesh, his Death and Sufferings, and the Doctrine and Faith of it, which are that something else, without which, no Light in Men is sufficient to Salvation? And yet now T. V. and these his Colchester Brethren, by their late solemn Confession, have declared themselves [Page 24] to be of the same Faith in the case with G. K. so that by undeniable consequence, either G. K. is no Apostate for his saying, The light within is not sufficient to Salvation without something else, or if they think he is for his so affirming, they are as great Apostates as he, and guilty of the same Apostacy with him. Again, is it not a palpable Contradiction betwixt these Colchester Quakers, who say it is their absolute Belief, That Faith in Christ without them, is necessary to their Salvation; and G. Whithead, who hath positively and expresly affirmed, That it is contrary to Scripture to confide in Christ without Men; and to tell of a Christ whose person is above the Clouds, and of a Christ within, is to make two Christs. See his Book, Truth defending the Quakers, p. 65. and p. 23. And in his Book called The Light and Life, p. 61. he saith, It is contrary to Scripture (viz. Deut. 30. and Rom. 10.) for People to seek their Saviour above the Clouds and Firmament, or to look to the Blood that was shed at Jerusalem for Justification. And in p. 56. he saith (expounding Acts 20. 28.) Now the Blood of God, or that Blood that relates to God, must needs be spiritual, he being a Spirit; and the Covenant of God is inward and spiritual, and so is the Blood of it. Here G. Whithead perfectly agreeth with W. Bailly in his Notion, That the Blood is the Life, and the Life is the Light of Men (see W. B's Testimony of the Light in him, pag. 23.) This I did take to be also T. V's Notion of the Blood, seeing he told us, he differ'd not in his Faith from other Friends; and yet he will not allow, that by the Blood of Christ, Rev. 7. 14. he meant the Light, see True Relation, p. 5. This is another Instance of his Contradiction both to himself and his Friends, from whom, he said, he doth not differ. As to the distinction, making the Faith in Christ, as he outwardly came in the Flesh, &c. necessary to the Salvation of those that live in the Christian World, but not to the Heathen Gentiles. I query first, Doth not the Scripture plainly refute that distinction, that holdeth not forth two ways of Justification and of eternal Salvation; one by Faith in Christ without Men, another by obedience to the Light within, without Faith in Christ without Men; which is a plain setting up of Salvation by the Covenant of [Page 25] Works; see Gal. 3. 26. and Rom. 3. 30. Where Faith in Christ Jesus, as he outwardly suffered, &c. is declared to be necessary, as well to the Gentiles as the Jews. 2. If the Light in Heathens be sufficient to Salvation, without the Faith of Christ's outward Manifestation, is it not as sufficient in Christians without that Faith (otherwise it is less sufficient in Christians than in Heathens) and consequently that Faith is superfluous, or at least not more necessary in Christians than in Heathens? 3. Why is that Faith necessary to the Christians but not to the Heathen? If it be said, because that the Doctrine concerning Christ, as he outwardly came and was Crucified, is Preached, or declared to the Christians (though not to the Heathens) by the Scriptures and other outward means. But the Question is again, Is that Faith necessary to us, because externally the Doctrine is Preached or declared to us, then let it not be Preached or declared to them that are ignorant of it, and they shall be saved without it; yea, according to this corrupt Notion, they shall be more easily saved without it than with it; because the dictates of the Light within, as common to all Men, are fewer and easier to be obeyed, than the many Commands given by Christ in the Writings of the New Testament. Again, if the Doctrine of Christ, as outwardly Crucified, &c. and the Faith of it be necessary to us in Christendome, because Preached or declared to us, what makes the Faith of that Declaration necessary to us? Not the Scriptures, seeing they are not with them the Rule of Faith and Practice to Christians; nor the Light within, because the Light within doth not, without the external Doctrine, teach us that Faith; and if the external Doctrine be necessary to have that Faith, it is a plain case the Light within is not sufficient to us, without the external Doctrine, to beget that Faith in us, and consequently is not sufficient to our Salvation without that external Doctrine. That the Scripture is not to them the Rule of Faith and Practise, is expresly affirmed by W. P. in his Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Practice, Reprinted this Year, 1699. To which I have printed an Answer, called, The Deism of W. Penn and his Brethren. If the external Doctrine be necessary to be added to the Light within, in order to give the Faith of Christ's outward Manifestation and coming in the Flesh, then the Light within is not sufficient without it, if not [Page 26] necessary; then seeing the Light is the same in kind and nature (according to these my Adversaries among the Quakers) both in Heathens and Christians, the Light in the Heathens doth as much oblige them to have that Faith, as it doth oblige us to have it in order to Salvation; because, according to this way of arguing, the Light within doth, without the necessity of the Scripture, or outward means, reveal it in Christians, and therefore also in the Heathens; or if it doth not in the Heathens, and yet doth it in the Christians, then it is of a differing kind, because of a differing ability, as not performing that in the Heathens which it performeth in the Christians; by all which it doth plainly appear, how self-contradictory and inconsistent these Colchester Quakers are, both with themselves, and with their most approved Authors and Brethren at London, and elsewhere, and indeed all of them one with another.
Here followeth a Certificate of Parson Shelton to the truth of the Case in debate betwixt G. Keith and T. Upsher, as the said Parson Shelton sum'd it up at the end of the Conference; attested likewise by Nine other credible Witnesses: And another Certificate of his to the truth of the Relation of the said Conference that is now printed.
WHereas I William Shelton am informed, that a Quaker in Colchester has Written to a Quaker in London, that I stood up at a Conference in Colchester (when G. Keith was to prove, that T. Vpsher had contradicted himself) and did declare openly, that G. Keith had wrongfully charged T. Vpsher with contradicting himself, and that G. Keith was, in my Judgment, quite routed, and worsted in that Dispute; I do hereby testifie, that it is a very false Report, and he that wrote [Page 27] the Letter has done me great wrong; for I do averr, that (as I was not, that I remember, desired to do it, so) I did not at all declare my Judgment at that time, whether G. Keith had wronged T. Vpsher or no. That which I then said, was a summing up the state of the Case in these words, or, I am sure to this Sense; but conditionally, viz. If G. Keith has proved, that T. Vpsher in the Forenoon did affirm, that Faith in Christ, as he was born of the Virgin Mary, and dyed without the Gates of Jerusalem, and ascended into Heaven, and is there in his Glory, and shall come again at the end of the World, is absolutely necessary (as some say he said) or (as others) is necessary to Salvation; and if in the Afternoon he did affirm, that the Light within, or Christ within, or Grace within, (or any other word in use with them of the same signification) is sufficient to Salvation, then G. Keith has proved T. Vpsher contradicted himself. Taking a Pen in my Hand, I added; If I should say this Pen is necessary for me to write with, and should say, I can write without it, I should contradict my self. To this they generally assented, that I had stated the Case right and fair; and this if proved was a Contradiction. But whether G. Keith had proved this or no, I did not say on either side.
That thus William Shelton summed up the State of the Case in debate betwixt G. Keith and T. Vpsher, the 6th of July, 1699, as he himself has above declared, is further attested by Daniel Gilson, and John Gledhil, Non-conformist Ministers, Samuel Ryder, the Person chosen by the Quakers for their Moderator, Edward Brasier and Thomas Streaton, who were two of them that took the Conference in Short-hand, Jacob Johnson, Peter Covency, Noah Raoiil, and Thomas Cook, all very credible Persons (the last of which, viz. Tho. Cook, is a noted Quaker, and of good report among the Quakers at Colchester, but that they blame him for being a friend to G. Keith, and for owning his Doctrine) all which above-named Persons have signed to a Certificate of the truth of W. Shelton's Testimony, as above delivered. The said William Shelton, at the end of his said Testimony, adds these following words. If I [Page 28] may but know who it is has done me this wrong, I doubt not but I shall prove to his Face, by many credible Witnesses then present, that he has abused me, and consequently done his Cause wrong, by thinking to strengthen it with such a notorious Lye. When I have taken a more thorough view of the Narrative of that Conference, than I have yet time to do, then it may be time enough to say how far G. Keith has proved what he undertook. In the mean time, because my words are so liable to be misrepresented, I only say, that I think G. Keith has no reason to be ashamed, nor T. Vpsher and his Friends to boast of that days Conference.
And in another Paper, he gives the following Testimony to the truth of the Relation (that is now in Print) of that Conference.
Being (at G. Keith's request) present at a Conference between him and T. Vpsher in Colchester, on the 6th Day of this Instant July, and having read over the Narrative of the said Conference, subscribed by Edward Brasier, Thomas Streaton, and Arthur Winsley Junior, who took it in Short-hand Writing, I do hereby testifie, That to the best of my remembrance (though I do not undertake for every word) this Narrative subscribed by the forenamed, &c. is, as to the substance of it, a just and true Account of the said Conference; and I am not aware of any thing unduly expressed to the advantage or disadvantage of either side.
ERRATA.
PAGE 10. l. 11. for them, r. me. p, 12. l. 3. for unsed, r. used. p. 12. l. 12. for First, r. Fifth.