A modest detection of George Keith's (miscalled) Just vindication of his earnest expostulation published by him as a pretended answer to a late book of mine, entituled, Some brief observations, &c. By E.P.

A modest detection of George Keith's (miscalled) Just vindication of his earnest expostulation published by him as a pretended answer to a late book of mine, entituled, Some brief observations, &c. By E.P.

Table of contents

Title page

A Modeſt Detection of George Keith's (miſcalled) Juſt Vindication of his Earneſt Expoſtulation, &c.

BOOKS Printed and Sold by T. Sowle, next to the Meeting-Houſe in White-Hart-Court, in Gracious-Street. And at the Bible in Leaden-Hall-Street, near the Market, 1697.

A Modeſt Detection of George Keith's (miſcalled) Juſt Vindication of his Earneſt Expoſtulation, &c.

[Page]

[Page]

HAD I not by Obſervation of paſt Actions known George Keith a little too well, I might have been induced to have Thought, that the extravagancies of Expreſſions, bitterneſs of Words, and angry Language, vented againſt thoſe whom he calls A Gang or Sort of Quakers, were only the product of a ſuddain angry Fit, which in a more ſerene Temper he would be aſhamed of, But alas! I find if I had ſo thought, I had been miſtaken in the Man, and conſequently my Opinion of him and his malicious Work; but too true, and that is, that his Spleen is ſo ſwelled with the Ill-will he bears us, that a common venting his Paſſion wont eaſe him; but as if not only Intoxicated, but perfectly Drunk therewith, he Vomits out great Floods of Railing Accuſations; and what is worſe, ſtill Sucks in more, whereby he is ſo far from coming to his right Mind; as that he may be ſaid to be continually inflamed therewith, and thereby hindred from ſeeing the Deformity of it, and the inconveniencies it ſubjects him to, whence it is, that inſtead of being aſhamed, he Vindicates [Page] what any Sober, Moderate Man (I am perſwaded) cannot read with Approbation.

I confeſs his Anſwering (if his deſerve that Name) my late ſmall. Treatiſe; Entituled, Some brief Obſervations upon George Keith's Earneſt Expoſtulation, is no ſurprize upon me: For I did ſuppoſe, that he who declines anſwering an Antagoniſt more conſiderable in every reſpect, to whom he is Debtor for three Books yet unanſwered by him; would fall upon me, if poſſible to Nip me in the Bud; which is all of a Piece with his anſwering Caleb Puſey of Pennſilvania, who living at ſo great a diſtance, he might in probability not expect a Reply in haſt, not knowing ('tis like) that any Body here would take up the Cudgels againſt him on behalf of C. Puſey. But as I therein conſulted not with Fleſh and Blood, nor entertained any reaſonings in my Mind concerning the Arts, Parts, or Qualifications of the Man, or my own meanneſs or inabilities for ſuch a Work: So now I muſt needs ſay, I do not find his performances in his Reply to mine, ſo conſiderable as to render the Piece unanſwerable, but rather (what he is pleaſed to Term mine) Trifling Exceptions, therefore I ſhall now betake my ſelf to it.

In my former, I taxed him with ‘fondly imagining that he and he alone amongſt the Quakers had monopolized Knowledge,’ and for Proof thereof produced a Paragraph out of a Book Entituled, A Modeſt Account, &c. p. 28. viz. ‘If you ſerve George Keith ſo, George Keith will leave you, and then ye ſhall wander about [Page] for lack of Knowledge, and ſhall not find it.’ Brief Obſervations, p. 3. This he now tells us, p. 1. is a lying Story, an abominable Falſhood. I Anſwer, He knows whence I had it, I reſerred to Book and Page, which is more then he does in ſome of his Stories, therefore I made it not; but that it is falſe, we have only his bare Denial now, and not ſo much before in his Anſwer to the ſaid Book: He only ſays, Antichriſts and Sadducees, p. 8. concerning ſome Relations C. Puſey gives in his Modeſt Account, ‘Moſt of which are abſolutely Falſe (and that little that's true, in any of them, is not fairly nor duly related)’ ſhould he not have told us which were, and which were not falſe; and how far true, how far falſe? However, upon the whole it is but his denial againſt the others Affirmation; which, Whether the one would be guilty of Forging a lying Story without any ground, or the other of denying a real Truth to ſave his Credit; as not being willing to be thought ſo preſumptuouſly conceited of his own profound Knowledge, and ſo undervaluingly ſlighting of others, muſt be left to every Reader to judge as he ſees occaſion; and in the mean time he muſt excuſe me if I disbelieve him, and tell him in his own Dialect to C. Puſey, he hath brought nothing in diſproof of it, but his own forſeited Credit. He proceeds, And this, and the like falſe Accuſations, are the beſt Armour, theſe my Adverſaries have to Fight againſt me. Which is a groſs Abuſe and proofleſs Aſſertion, and as ſuch I reject it; the only Reaſon of my producing it, being as an Inſtance of his Malice, which is one of [Page] my Charges upon him, under which he is uneaſie.

What I charged upon him, Brief Obſervations, p. 4. relating to 'his impoſing fond Notions and unſcriptural Creeds, he will have to be no other then ſome of the great Fundamentals of the Chriſtian Religion, the denial whereof (ſays he) I have ſufficiently proved them guilty of in the Meeting at Turners-Hall, &c. I Anſwer, He miſtakes the Point, I called not thoſe fond Notions, which he falſly accuſed us at Turners-Hall, with denying; but I'le tell him where he may find ſome that I call ſo; viz. in Truth Advanced, from p. 17. to p. 30. likewiſe p. 115, 116, 117. and from p. 124, to p. 127. beſides other places of that Book, what they are he has been already told in part, in a Book lately Publiſhed, Entituled Keith againſt Keith, from p. 39, to p. 53. and from p. 93, to p. 100. and ſo that Labour ſaved me for the preſent. Then what I call unſcriptural Creeds, I ſhall now tell him; viz. Articles of Faith not delivered in Scripture Terms, impoſed as a Boundary, Term and Bond of Ʋnion, which unleſs a Perſon confeſs with his Mouth in the hearing of ſome of his Fellow-members, he is not to be owned as a Member of the Church, (ſee the laſt of the Ten Articles) and methinks G. Keith ſhould not call this a falſe Charge, for the very ten Articles themſelves mentioned Exact Narrative, p. 42. are not in Scripture Language (though whether right or wrong and wherein I wave at preſent) and how far they were offered to be impoſed is known to ſome; and that himſelf refuſed to accept of a Confeſſion [Page] of Faith drawn up in Scripture Phraſe by the Pennſylvanian Friends himſelf hath acknowledged; therefore my Charge ſtands grounded upon a good Bottom. Beſides, he's too haſty to take it for granted, that what he ſaid and alledged at Turners-Hall was ſufficient Proof; I may as well tell him, his ſo called Proofs were ſufficiently diſproved by T. Ellwood in his Anſwer to the Narrative; and ſhall have more ground for my ſo ſaying, than he for his; 'till he Reply thereto.

In the next Place he labours to palliate the Contradictions I charged upon him, relating to the different Characters; given both of the Epiſcopal Clergy and Diſſenting Miniſters in his former Books, to what he gives them in his Expoſtulation; but therein he uſeth ſuch poor Evaſive Shifts, as ſhew he is hard put to it: He would fain reconcile them, or at leaſt ſeem ſo to do; that's his Drift, he's loath to have it thought that George contradicts Keith; but all his Daubing won't ſerve, 'tis untempered Mortar he uſeth, that won't ſtick; and ſo the Crack becomes wider than it was before. I urged Quotations out of three of his Books, viz. 1. Help in Time of Need. 2. Way caſt up. 3. Presbyterian and Independent Viſible Churches, of theſe he takes Notice only of the firſt; ſaying, For which he citeth ſome Paſſages in a Book of mine, called; Help in Time of Need, Printed above thirty Years ago; As if I had quoted nothing out of any other Books of his upon this Subject, but withal let him take Notice that's within theſe thirty three Years; conſequently they either much changed for the [Page] better, or elſe he much for the worſe ſince. Now though I am at my Liberty, to quote paſſages out of any Book of his to diſprove his following Evaſions; yet that he may ſee his own weapon turned againſt himſelf, in this Point now in Debate I ſhall confine my ſelf to this one Book, having Proof enough and to ſpare from thence, to drive him out of his ſubterfuges.

He begins his Matter thus, But none of theſe Paſſages prove, that I did judge there were none among them all [Church of England and Diſſenters] Pious and Learned, for indeed I was never ſo uncharitable. This Man who will needs Print Books, had need to go to School to learn that from particulars to the Ʋniverſal, the Conſequence is not good. Anſw. What if he had not ſaid they were univerſally bad, ſo as to include every individual; yet I do affirm his Words extend far beyond Particulars, even to the Generality; yea to ſo great a Majority as falls very little ſhort of Univerſal, as may be ſeen in Help in Time of Need, p. 36, 37. Where taxing the Miniſters with Preaching up that then (in 1664.) which they had preached down three or four Years before; adds, ‘Which breeds no ſmall Admiration to poor People, as if they had changed their God; but I know well, generally they have kept their God all along very conſtantly, among all their Changes, being ſuch (the Apoſtle mentions) GENERALLY,’ whoſe God is their Belly, and this Maſter they have ſerved; and do ſerve very ‘faithfully, making every Change anſwer its deſire.’ Here's a Charge upon Miniſters GENERALLY, [Page] which how conſiſtent it is with true PIETY needs no Comment. Again, p. 29. ‘Now Judas fell from his Miniſtry (as ſaith the Scripture) in ſelling his Maſter; which GENERALLY your Miniſters have done, and have they not thereby fallen from their Miniſtry; ſuppoſing, but not granting; they had once been true Miniſters;’ This is general again, as inconſiſtent with Piety as the other; but this is not all, ſee p. 24, 25. ‘And were not the ſet Forms of Prayer cryed down alſo in Scotland, as lifeleſs barren things (and the Service Book denied) and now ye have again licked up that Vomit, and through your Cities Men ſet up (MOSTLY alſo SCANDALOUS in their Converſations) at ſuch Hours of the Day or Night to read a ſet Form of Prayer? And is there any material Difference between this and the Service Book? And have not your BRETHREN IN ENGLAND, taken it up again? And when it's offered to you to read, will ye not alſo do the like? There is no Queſtion of it, but MOST of you will, and WORSE alſo when ye are put to Tryal.’ Again p. 75. ‘And that whereon there is ſo much ſtreſs laid; to wit, the calling of the People, or Patrons, is NOT OF GOD, but of Babylon; for in the State they are in, they will be loath ever to call a good Man unto them (SUPPOSING HE COULD BE FOUND) but ſuch who will wink at their Faults, and run with them thereinto.’ Well to conclude this Point, I ſhall give one Inſtance more and that is in p. 35, 36. viz. ‘And were it not for a livelyhood, and worldly Honour and Reſpect, would SO MANY [Page] betake themſelves to ſuch a Work? And does not your gain from your quarter, which you ſo punctually Exact (and they that will not put into your Mouths, ye prepare War againſt them) and your removing from one Pariſh to another, where ye can have a fatter Stipend, manifeſtly prove; ye are moved thereto, rather from a Principle of Covetouſneſs, then from any deſire of doing good to the Souls of the People? And how came MANY of you to be Teachers? Was it not the deſign of your Fathers and Relations, who ſaw it a ready way for them to put you in a way of Livelihood; and ſent you to Schools to learn the Calling; as ever the Shooemaker, or other Tradeſman paſt his Apprentiſhip, and then becomes free to uſe the Trade? The thing is well known, and I ſpeak it with regret; and have not many of your ſelves ſome time a Day intreated the Lord, that he would ſend a Purge, and put away out of his Houſe ſuch BUYERS and SELLERS? and now the Lord is come to make the Purge, and who of you can abide the Day of his coming? The Purge goes ſo deep, it's like to ſcourge you ALL out of Doors; and e're you be put out, ye will rather hold in who are in, and ſeek to uphold one another, but ye ſhall ALL fall together.’ What ſaieſt thou now Reader, are theſe Quotations a Deſcription of PIOUS Men, or the contrary? Do they refer to Particulars only? Here's in ſo many Words, generally, moſtly, a doubt whether a good Man be to be found amongſt them, and at laſt all, methinks that ſhould [Page] be ſomething a-kin to Ʋniverſal, and truly a little unlike his Expoſtulation, which begins thus. ‘It may ſeem ſtrange, how it comes to paſs, that while ſo many Pious and Learned Men are judged to be found in this Nation not only of the Church of England, but among the Diſſenters and Nonconformiſts, &c.’ Now I am ready to conclude this contradictory to the former, and perhaps ſome others may do ſo too; he would do well to undeceive us if he can.

Philoſophy is the next point he goes upon, he tells us, What I ſaid of the Philoſophy then taught, in the Colledges of that Nation, many Learned and Pious Men in both Nations, will aſſent to be true, to wit, the Jeſuit Philoſophy; for that was it which was then taught, and which I learned almoſt word by word out of Jeſuit Authors. Anſw. That Jeſuit Philoſophy was then and there taught, may be true for ought I know; I have no reaſon to contradict him, but the queſtion with me is, Whether no other Philoſophy beſides Jeſuit Philoſophy was then and there taught? The place by me cited maketh no mention of Jeſuit Philoſophy, or diſtiction between one ſort and another, only in general terms, ‘The Philoſophy which is taught them is meer Deceit and Pedantry.’ But, to drive him out of his hole, I ſhall produce a paſſage in another part of the ſame Book, which manifeſts what ſort of Philoſophy he then meant, ſee p. 30, 31. viz. ‘Your Fathers, the Primitive Proteſtants and Reformers, made not Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and Ariſtotle's Logick and Philoſophy, with [Page] other humane Learning, and the paſſing of ſo many Years courſe at the Colledge, and that you call School Divinity, the qualifications of a Miniſter of Chriſt.’ Now upon the whole I query, whether Ariſtotle was a Jeſuit or no? Since 'twas Ariſtotle's Philoſophy it ſeems, that was taught at the Colledges; in ſhort, I look upon it little better then a Jeſuitical Evaſion, which ſhews he has not quite forgot what he learnt, almoſt word for word. But, enough of this, he goes on p. 2. And ſince that time, both that Colledge, and I ſuppoſe all other Colledges in both Nations, have changed that ſort of Philoſophy, out of their diſlike to it, as I my ſelf had done before I was a Quaker. Anſw. It may be ſo, for indeed I muſt confeſs he tells his Reader p. 76. ‘Which even I came to ſee, when among them, and many of themſelves ſee it, and confeſs it to be but Vanity.’ But what then, it ſeems their changing of it is but labour in vain, all to no purpoſe, for he ſays Ibid, ‘And many among themſelves have attempted the Reformation of their ſo called Philoſophy, and ſqueezed their Brains to find out a new one, but all in vain; it ſhall never be found out till they come to the Croſs of Chriſt, and under his Croſs, denying their own Wiſdom, become Diſciples of Chriſt, &c.’ The reaſon he gives is, ‘The inviſible things of God, from the Creation, of the World, are clearly ſeen, being underſtood by the things that are made, which carry upon them indeed the Characters of infinite Wiſdom, Goodneſs and Power, but are a ſealed Book, no leſs then the Scriptures, to [Page] ſuch who are not come to the teachings of him, who made them, and who only can give an Eye to read them with a true Underſtanding, and to Advantage.’ And this he teſtifies from his own Experience and Trial, who (as he ſaith) ‘hath had a Trial and Experience of both the one and the other.’ Now I would ask him, Are they under theſe qualifications now? If ſo, then my former queſtion is anſwered, viz. Are ye changed? For it ſeems they were otherwiſe then, or elſe he falſely accuſed them: But if they were ſo then, and not exceedingly changed for the better now, in the abovementioned reſpects, then is he egregiouſly changed for the worſe. But (adds he) what if I ſhould blame the Philoſophy, that is now taught in all the Colledges? Is there no other good Learning, but that called Philoſophy? He has but little Learning that ſo Argues. Anſw. I have little Learning enough, I confeſs, yet I did not ſo Argue, for I produced a quotation which includes Colledge Learning generally, and condemns it by the Lump, without this diſtinction between Philoſophy and other Learning, See Brief Obſervations, p. 5. viz. ‘And I certainly know, that Humane Wiſdom or Learning taught in them, is one of the main Bulwarks of Antichriſt againſt the Revelation, and ſetting up the Kingdom of Chriſt in the Earth, and becauſe this is ariſing, and ſhall riſe, down muſt the other go, and all who ſeek to uphold it, ſhall fall therewith, ſaid G. Keith, Help in time of need, p. 76.’ In farther excuſe of himſelf, he proceeds thus, viz. What I then ſaid [Page]againſt Schools and Ʋniverſities, was againſt the ill Conſtitution, and great Abuſes in them, at that time; but not againſt Schools well and duly Conſtituted, as neither was Luther, whoſe Authority I cited againſt them. Anſw. Here he uſes ſlight of Hand, thereby to ſlip his Neck out of the Collar; he changeth the Terms from Univerſities and Colledges of Philoſophy, to Schools and Univerſities, and then in the next Line, goes about to vindicate himſelf, as not being againſt Schools, whereas I did not object that againſt him (and by the way, I may tell him, neither are the Quakers, for if they were, or had been, they would hardly have given him ſo large a Sallary, as they did at Philadelphia, for teaching School there) but againſt the other, he is poſitive, without any exception as to conſtitution, and brings in Luther to back him, See Help in time of need, &c. p. 75, 76. viz. ‘And away with the Education of your Youth, at Univerſities and Colledges of Philoſophy, ſo called; I may ſay of them, which Luther ſtuck not to call them in his Day, that they were ſtews of Antichriſt.’

Next (adds he) as to what I ſaid concerning Prelacy, and Lording Biſhops (for ſo I cautioned it) in that Book. Neither doth this prove, that I did conclude there could be no Pious Biſhops. Anſw. It is not here material, whether he did then allow, or yet allows, that ſome Pious Biſhops have been, or yet are, but the Hierarchy it ſelf, he diſapproved of, Prelacy in general he diſowned, not ſome particular Biſhops only, their Miniſtry in general, not ſome particular [Page] Miniſters only of that Communion, and that it was I then objected. I then ſhewed, that he called Prelacy, a Limb of Antichriſt; therefore what particular Perſons he is now pleaſed to except, is but exceptions out of a general rule, therefore foreign to the matter. He farther called Prelacy, ‘That filthy thing ſet up in the Land, which Thouſands (of the Presbyterians) vowed to God againſt,’ and he upbraids them with, ‘Not bearing a ſuitable teſtimony againſt it, according to their very Principles; and ſays, We have kept our vow, and ye have ſhrunk there from, p. 38, 39. And p. 50. tells them, Oh, ye did run well, who did hinder you? But ye are become ſo fooliſh, who began in the Spirit, to end in the Fleſh; and now when ye got up upon the Walls and Bulwarks of your Enemies buildings, and Levelled it to the Ground, when ye had rooted out Prelacy, and the many Corruptions and Superſtitions accompanying the ſame, and digged down a good part of Babylons up-ſetting then ye betook your ſelves to Build, &c.’ Now hereby the Reader may ſee that he ſlips the matter in controverſie, from a diſowning the whole order of Prelates, as corrupt qua talis, he comes to granting there may be ſome among them, pious as Men; perhaps there may have been Pious Popes and Cardinals too, as Men: Doth that infer, that the order and conſtitution of them is not Antichriſtian. Well, ſo much for the Epiſcopal Church Government. Now ſee what he ſays of the Miniſters of an inferiour Degree, ordained according thereto, and [Page] their worſhip, p. 47, 48. part whereof I gave in my Brief Obſervations, but ſhall now be more large, which take as follows, viz. ‘And ye (ſaid G. Keith) did well, in diſowning and departing from ſuch Men, who gave themſelves forth to be the Lords Miniſters and Servants, but they ran, and he ſent them not, and their Covetouſneſs and Ambition, and ſeeking how to pleaſe Men for their own ends, and not his honour, nor any true zeal for him, ſet them on ſuch a work, to Lord it over the People, which he had forbidden, and it is Abomination to him, together with the many things accompanying them, which they gave forth for his ordinances, good order, decency, and comelineſs in the Church, but were the meer Inventions of Men, and Babylons Golden Cup of Fornications, and that ye vomited up, and refuſed to drink of this Cup, or to admit of ſuch things as his Ordinances, or belonging to his Worſhip, or as if he allowed it (whereby your Iniquity is exceeding aggravated before God, and his Indignation and Jealouſie burns as Fire againſt you, for your returning thereto) and becauſe of the iniquity of ſuch Men, their Pride, Covetouſneſs, Tyranny, and Ambition, his wrath kindled againſt them, and he poured Contempt and Deſolation upon them, &c.’ Well, for a cloſe of this point, take another quotation, p. 53. viz. ‘Ye denied their Lordſhips, and took to your ſelves Maſterſhips, (both equally forbidden by Chriſt) ye would not ſuffer them to Lord it over you, but ye would Lord it over the [Page] People; yea and did as Tyrannically as ever the Biſhops had done; and ye were offended at the Surplices, and Canonical Coats and Belts of their Clergy, and yet ye were equally Superſtitious and Vain in your Black Cloaths and Gowns, with Paſm [...]s and Ribbons upon them, and other ſuperfluity of naughtineſs; and ye were angry at their Revenues being ſo great, and yet ye ſtept in alſo to many of them, (and ſome of you had as much by the year as ſome of them) and into their Pride, Covetouſneſs, Lightneſs, Vanity, Ambition, Careleſneſs concerning the Work of Jeſus Chriſt, and the Salvation of poor People; whereof ye took up the Charge, and many other Iniquities they were found in, for which the Lord was provoked againſt them, ye have taken as it were a Succeſſion of, and ye thought the Lord ſhould have winked at you, &c.’ Here are a parcel of home ſtrokes at both Epiſcopal and Presbyterian Miniſters of his own Nation, and truly at that time I queſtion not but he would have given the like Character of both ſorts in this Nation. But how ſuits this I pray with the before cited Paſſage in his Expoſtulation, viz. ‘It may ſeem ſtrange, how it comes to paſs, that while ſo many Pious and Learned Men are judged to be found in this Nation, not only of the Church of England, but among the Diſſenters and Nonconformiſts, &c.’ Neither will his ſaying, For within a few Lines, in that very Page, I did own there were ſome Biſhops in Queen Mary's days, to whom the Lord had regard, according to their Faithfulneſs to what they ſaw; Excuſe [Page] him, for to what he here alledgeth, he there added, ‘but ſuch who came after ſaw further into Miſtery Babylon—ſo that herein ye have not only Apoſtatized from your Fathers, but from what ye were of late your ſelves.’ So that it ſeems he once accounted it Apoſtacy to ſubmit again to Prelacy; after having once forſaken it, and ſeen further, and I ſuppoſe at that time would have thought it ſome degree thereof, to have ſolicited a Biſhops favour againſt his then Brethren, or to have Appealed to a Prelate in point of Doctrine, though it can now go down very glibly, and why ſhould he blame us for calling him an Apoſtate, when as it was his own charge againſt the Presbyterians, and that too not on the ſcore of Errours in Fundamentals, but Matters of Church Government, and Method of Worſhip, as the above ſpecifies, whilſt part of our Charge upon him, is an alteration in Principle and Doctrine. He proceeds thus, By Lording Biſhops, it is obvious, what I meant, even the ſame that is meant, 1 Pet. 5. 3. Being Lords over Gods Heritage. Anſw. What he meant by Lording Biſhops, is plain, by his joyning it to Prelates, viz. The Hierarchy its ſelf, who, as Biſhops have the Title of Lords, and as ſuch ſit in Parliament, ſo that we have no other but ſuch in theſe three Kingdoms, and that that Title of Lord Biſhop hath been diſreliſhed upon the account of its ſavouring too much of Lording and Lordſhip by all ſorts of Diſſenters, be the Men who go under thoſe Titles, Lordly, or Humble, or what they will, he cannot but know; therefore, this is nothing but a weak [Page] come off: Beſides the Text he quotes hath reſpect to Elders in general, who feed the Flock, which comprehends the whole Miniſtry, without having any particular relation to Biſhops only, therefore unduly applied in this place.

His Reflection upon G. Whitehead and W. Penn, as more Lordly then ever he found any of the Biſhops, either Engliſh or Scottiſh, carries its anſwer along with it, viz. for by none of them was I ever Excommunicated, but by the former I was Excommunicated.—This quite blunts the edge of his Charge againſt them, by ſhewing the ground thereof, viz. Their having been concerned againſt him, and the motive thereto. viz. his Spleen againſt them therefore. But his complaint of being Excommunicated appears a falſe pretence to cover himſelf. He was juſtly reprehended and warned to Repentance for his Diviſions and Turbulent Behaviour: This he has called a Bull and Excommunication, when he himſelf hath not ſpared to ſend out his furious Bulls of Excommunication and Reproach in Print againſt others, and by perſiſting in his Turbulent Unchriſtian Spirit and Behaviour, he has apparently Excommunicated himſelf, and is gone out from our Peaceable Chriſtian Society.

His Book of Retractations I ſhall ſpeak ſomething to by and by, ſo ſhall wave it here: And as to his Recrimination of the Quakers, in giving hard Names, and paſſing hard Cenſures, &c. I anſwer, When the Quakers deſire the help of the National or Diſſenting Miniſters againſt G. Keith or any other of their Oponents, it will be time [Page] enough then, either to retract or ſmooth them over, till then I intend not to concern my ſelf about them: Only thus much I ſhall ſay to his inſinuation of Uncharitableneſs, I believe (and that upon good grounds too) that their Charity to All in general diſſenting from them is greater than his.

Having done with their Piety, He next takes a touch at their Learning, and ſays, And that there are Learned Men among them, far beyond any ſtock of Learning any of the Quakers lay claim to, I ſuppoſe they will not gain ſay. Anſw. Why truly I am ready to ſuppoſe ſo too; but, why then doth he in his Help in time of need, p. 73. bid the People ‘put away this Dead, Lifeleſs, IGNORANT, Prophane, Scandalous Miniſtry, and p. 75, 76.’ as quoted in my former ſay. ‘For out of them comes this IGNORANT, Scandalous Miniſtry,’ (which perhaps was as Learned then, as now) ‘wherein they learn to talk of things they underſtand not, &c.’ Is this ſuitable to the Character he now gives of them; let him reconcile theſe Different Epithets, 'tis his Work, not mine; neither is it for him thereupon to inſinuate, as if I undervalued their Learning, which I do not, only am willing he ſhould be filled with his own ways, and have enough of his Self-Contradictions thrown upon his back, till (if poſſible) he may be made aſhamed of them.

To my Query, ‘Hath he ever retracted this?’ He replies p. 3. I have both by word and writ, and is deſigned by me to be in Print very ſhortly, retracted all the hard cenſures and names that I have[Page]at any time given to any, who have not deſerved them. Anſw. Is he conſcious of having given hard Cenſures and Names to ſome who have not deſerved them? If not, his Retractation is but Formal and Hypocritical. But if ſo, then ſay I, What he hath done by Word and Writ, I know not; therefore not of any weight with me, and as to his deſigned Print, it hath been often threatned, though not yet performed, ſo he ſtill chargable therewith till that is done; his Retractations hitherto have been but very ſlender, as well as general; therefore every particular hard Cenſure or Name till particularly Retracted, as publickly as it was formerly fixed, he is as yet accountable for: Moreover, he hath in this very Paſſage, left himſelf a large Latitude, whoever he thinks deſerved his hard Cenſures or Names, muſt lie under them ſtill, whether they do really deſerve them or no; ſo that by this means, he makes proviſion for being Judge in his own Cauſe. In ſhort, when they come out, we ſhall ſee them; and whether he will or no, every Reader will judge as they ſee meet, and if not effectual, I ſuppoſe none of his Opponents will ask his leave what Cenſure to paſs upon them; nor yet, whether or no they ſhall expoſe their Opinions in Print, if thy think convenient. Yet ſurely, from the above Expreſſion, whereby he lets us underſtand his purpoſe of Retracting in Print all undeſerved Charges, we may expect to ſee a Recantation ſhortly; I would therefore caution him to take the Clergy-man's Advice; given him (as I am informed) at Turners-Hall, viz. To go through ſtitch with his Work, [Page]and do it in earneſt, leſt by ſeeking to skin over the Wound before 'tis healed at the bottom, it break out again, and be worſe than 'twas before.

He goes on, But what a baſe inſinuation is it in them, that I would have any of the Pious and Learned of the ſeveral Proteſtant Profeſſions, to become my Journeymen to work under me? Is there any thing like this in my Expoſtulation with them? Anſw, I eſteem him the Maſter Workman, who appoints others what Work they ſhall do; them the Journeymen, who do as they are appointed, and that the tendency and drift of his Expoſtulation is of this nature; I refer to the Book it ſelf, only adding, Though he hath no power of compulſion over any, yet if they don't do as he bids them, they are it ſeems, with him to lie under the Reflection of coming ſhort of the Papiſts in Zeal againſt Anti-chriſtian Errours and Hereſies, and conſequently hazard the falling under the weight of his high diſpleaſure. And as idle is his pretence, that he hath not deſired any of their aſſiſtance, whereas the natural tendency of ſuch a Work, could he perſuade them to it, would be an eaſing of him of part of his Load, by taking it upon their own Shoulders, which he knows well enough, therefore doth but prevaricate in pretending the contrary.

I now come to his Cavils againſt the Ten Heads I treated of in my former, indigeſted Matter, he is pleaſed to call them, indeed I perceive he cannot well Digeſt them, they riſe in his Stomach, and many a ſowr Belch he rifts up, proceeding as I take it from the foulneſs of [Page] his Stomach, and yet he hath only nibled at a bit here, and a bit there, generally omitting thoſe Parts where the ſtreſs of my Obſervations lay, which, how becoming it is a Man of his Learning and Pretenſions, to a Novice, Idiot, &c. as he renders me, I leave the Reader to judge. The meanneſs of my Parts I aknowledge, yet had I as much as he, it would not become me to boaſt of them; but, though I do grant my Parts to be vaſtly inferiour to his, yet withal I muſt needs ſay, I ſhould have been aſhamed of ſo much Sophiſtry as he is guilty of in that one ſheet of Paper: For though in ſcorn he calls me Junior Sophiſter, (he would not take it well to be called a Senior Sophiſter) yet if the ſignification thereof be, one who uſeth deceitful Covers and falſe Gloſſes, to make Paſſages look otherwiſe than what the real purport and drift of them is, then is he egregiouſly guilty of Sophiſtry, in this his miſcalled Juſt Vindication, as (God permitting) I ſhall farther prove upon him before I have done.

My Firſt Head was, ‘His repreſenting the Quakers worſe than Papiſts,’ He ſaies of me, On this Head he is guilty of Groſs Ʋntruth, and Falſhood in two Particulars, The one it ſeems is, That he doth not charge the Quakers Indefinitely, or Ʋniverſally, but a Sort and Gang of them. And then adds, If he be ſuch an Ideot, to make no diſtinction between a part, and the whole, how is he fit to Print Books. Anſw. If I would now lye upon the catch, I might put him to prove, that my Words were of that extent, as to bear that Conſtruction he puts upon them, of Ʋniverſally[Page]or Indefinitely, and likewiſe ask him, whether he meant Ʋniverſally and Indefinitely, or only a Sort and Gang of them, when in his Presbyterian and Independent Viſible Churches, p. 145. (as quoted in my former) he ſaies, ‘ALL theſe [EPISCOPAL, PRESBYTERIAN, INDEPENDENT and BAPTISTS] as well as others, are open and declared Enemies to the holy Spirit, &c.’ I might likewiſe tell him, though he know it well enough already, that in wriing or ſpeaking, 'tis no Lye to entitle the whole, to what the Majority does or ſaies. But I ſhall go farther, and require him to prove, that any Meeting or Body of People, who go under the name of Quakers, thoſe only excepted, who are gone off, as he, into a ſeparation, do not own G. Whitehead and W. Penn in thoſe Doctrinal points he urged, and wherein he miſerably miſrepreſented them at Turners-Hall, the 11th of the 4th Month laſt, or elſe in this particular, I return his groſsly abuſive charge above-mentioned upon himſelf. I remember his Friend Tho. Criſp, in his Eſſay, gueſſing at the number of Quakers in theſe three Kingdoms, ſuppoſes them to be 100000, whereof he reckons 80000 to be influenced by W. Penn. Now I would deſire G. Keith to Inform me in his next, how many of the remaining 20000 who profeſs themſelves Quakers, own him, and then, I ſuppoſe, his company will look more like a Gang, than the other; for by T. Criſp's own conceſſion (if he ſay true) thoſe Influenced by W. Penn may paſs for the main Body. I will next examine his ſecond particular, and ſee whether they be not [Page] both of a piece, which is 2. That he makes me repreſent them, I ſo charge, abſolutely worſe then Papiſts, when as I cautioned my words thus—Vile Errors, not only as bad as any Popery, but much worſe then the worſt of Popery, in divers reſpects. Obſerve in divers reſpects: I ſaid not abſolutely, and in all reſpects, but in divers reſpects. Anſw. Very well, I'le allow him his full Scope, he did not ſay abſolutely in all reſpects, neither did I mention all matters in reſpect of which the Papiſts differ from the Quakers, but ſaies he, in divers reſpects, ſo I quoted him, What wrong have I done him? Wherein am I guilty of the groſs Ʋntruth and Falſhood, he charges upon me? For my part, I can ſee none. This, he tells us, he can eaſily prove, and in proof thereof, goes about to anſwer one of my Queries, viz. ‘Do we promote Errours worſe, then worſhipping a piece of Bread, as God?’ He replies, I ſay that's a Tranſition from the Subject of the Controverſie betwixt them and me, to another forreign Subject, viz. Tranſubſtantiation. Anſw. He chargeth this Gang of Quakers (as he calls them) with promoting Errours, not only as bad as any Popery, but much worſe then the worſt of Popery in divers reſpects. Now I am ready to think, that moſt Proteſtants will agree with me, that Tranſubſtantiation, Adoration of Images, Praying to Saints and Angels, meritorious Works, and Purgatory, are not only Popery (that is Principles wherein Proteſtants diſſent from Papiſts) but ſome of the worſt of Popery: Now my Queries were, Do we promote Errours worſe than &c. mentioning all theſe former Heads at large, [Page] denying his charge as not yet proved: Therefore wherein he can prove this a Tranſition, and Tranſubſtantiation, another foreign Subject, unleſs he will be ſo kind to the Papiſt's darling Sacrament, as not to Rank it amongſt the worſt of Popery, or indeed allow it to be any Popery at all, I ſee not. He proceeds, It ſeems this bold Novice has not learned the Maxim, Words are to be underſtood according to the Subject matter: If I ſay this is not one of theſe reſpects, wherein I have charged them, this Junior Sophiſter is at a Nonplus. Anſw. Hold a little George, not ſo faſt, If Tranſubſtantiation ſay I, be any part of the worſt of Popery, then thou muſt ſhew in what reſpects the Quakers hold Errours, not only as bad, but much worſe than it, and this I take to be according to the Subject matter, call me what thou pleaſeſt. In ſhort, G. Keith ſaith, Our Principles are much worſe than the worſt of Popery, in divers reſpects, and he is offended with me, for taking him at his Word (who ſo ſeldom holds to it) and reciting the worſt of the Papiſts Principles, as if foreign from the matter. Surely Tranſubſtantiation is none of the beſt: If he thinks 'tis, let him apply himſelf in the next place to them, and ſee if they will truſt him, and be at his beck, as he would have the Pious and Learned among the Proteſtants be: Well, in further Vindication of his aforeſaid Affertion, he refers to his Narrative, telling us, He has clearly proved, that G. Whitehead has deſtroyed the true Object of the Chriſtian Faith and Worſhip, &c. All which are ſo far from being clearly proved by him; that his pretended [Page] Proofs, are clearly diſproved by T. Ellwood, in his anſwer thereto, which, unleſs he had replied to, he might be aſhamed to entitle the matters contained in his Narrative, by ſo wrong a name. Yet upon the Foot of the aforeſaid lame Objections, he utters many foul Reproaches againſt us, not worth the notice, and what is worſe, I am ſatisfied, writes what he knows to be falſe, in his Vilifying the Light the Quakers Preach, and direct People to, as if that led them to Vilifie and Reproach the Man Chriſt Jeſus without them. Therefore his Inſinuation that the Quakers Worſhip the Devil within, thereby to prove them worſe than the Papiſts, who, he grants, Worſhip a piece of Bread without, is wholly Proofleſs, Groundleſs, envious in the higheſt degree, and ſuch a Slander as he might well be aſhamed to Impoſe upon the World. But to what a degree of hardneſs muſt this Man be come, who can tax us, with adoring a falſe Chriſt within, and ſetting up a falſe Notion of Light within, upon no other Foundation, but Miſconſtruction and Wreſting of Sentences, pickt out of Books, whereon he erects his Fabrick of Slanders and falſe Accuſations of his own Inventing, not without knowledge, but contrary to his own certain knowledge. He ſays, He is ſorry we give him this Occaſion to detect us; Alas! Poor Man, he diſcovers himſelf, and hurts not us, the more he takes ſuch Work in hand, he does but encreaſe his Burthen, whilſt we being ſafe in the Sanctuary of our own Innocency, can appeal to the Searcher of all Hearts, concerning the Falſhood of his Malicious Charges, and commit our [Page] Cauſe to Him, who in due time, will eaſe us of this troubleſom Detractor, as he hath already of many of his Predeceſſors.

He ſlips over the reſt of my Queries, ſaving that about Merits, and to that he ſays, I am ſure moſt Papiſts are more ſound then ſome of them. Anſw. That's more than he can be ſure of, Is he acquainted with moſt Papiſts? Yet however it comes to paſs, he is a little more modeſt than uſual, than ſome of them, ſays he, But let us hear wherein ſome of them are leſs ſound in this particular, than moſt Papiſts, viz. Whereas Papiſts generally profeſs highly to value Chriſts Merits, and own their firſt Juſtification to the Merits of Chriſt's Obedience and Righteouſneſs without them: W. Penn hath called this Doctrine, A Doctrine of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption, deluging the whole World. Anſw. His Charge againſt W. Penn, I did intend to have paſſed over, as defective, becauſe he mentions neither Page nor Book (a way of Managing Controverſie, unbecoming a Schollar) neither for ſome time, did I know where to find the Paſſage he carps at, but having at length received Information, where I might meet with it, accordingly I had recourſe to the Book, from whence he produceth it, and there find that G. Keith hath much abuſed, and miſrepreſented W. Penn: For whereas he ſtates the Caſe, as if Chriſt's Merits, and the owning Men's firſt Juſtification to the Merit of Chriſt's Obedience and Righteouſneſs without them, was, by W. Penn, called, A Doctrine of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption, deluging the whole World. He [Page] therein miſtates the Caſe, for the Doctrine which he ſo called, was the attributing Juſtification wholly to the Works wrought by Chriſt without us, ſo as thereby to exclude the works wrought by the Spirit in us, from having any ſhare therein, as plainly appears from the place referred to (though not named) by G. Keith, viz. A Serious Apology, p. 148. Wherein W. Penn reciting an Objection of one Tho. Jenner, viz. ‘That we deny Juſtification by the Righteouſneſs which Chriſt hath fulfilled in his own Perſon for us (WHOLLY without us) and therefore deny the Lord that bought us.’ He Anſwers, ‘And indeed this we deny, &c.’ Now mark, the ſtreſs of his denial, lies upon his Antagoniſt's Word [WHOLLY] whereupon W. Penn argues thus,

‘No Man can be Juſtified without Faith (ſays Jenner.)’

‘No Man hath Faith without Works (any more than a Body without a Spirit’ (ſays James.)

‘Therefore the Works of Righteouſneſs, by the Spirit of Chriſt Jeſus, are neceſſary to Juſtification.’

Obſerve, he doth not ſay the Works of the Spirit are only neceſſary, thereby excluding the Righteouſneſs which Chriſt fulfilled in his own Perſon without us, but joins them together; the Works wrought without us, and the Works wrought within us; and calls that Doctrine which would divide them, and Attribute all wholly to the outward; A Doctrine of Devils, which to manifeſt the more clearly, and thereby [Page] the more fully to detect G. Keith's Injuſtice and Falſhood: I ſhall give the Reader another Quotation out of the very next Page of the ſame Book, where explaining our Faith concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in that part relating to the Son; he ſaith, ‘Who took upon him Fleſh, and was in the World, and in Life, Doctrine, Miracles, Death, Reſurrection, Aſcenſion, and Mediation, perfectly did, and does continue to do the Will of God; to whoſe Holy Life, Power Mediation and Blood, we only aſcribe our Sanctification, JUSTIFICATION, Redemption and perfect Salvation.’

But beſides G. Keith his abuſing and miſrepreſenting W. Penn in the above-mentioned Paſſage, I have another Remark to make upon him, and that is, That the very ſame Doctrine which W. Penn in his aforenamed Serious Apology, called a Doctrine of Devils in T. Jenner: G. Keith in his Poſtſcript to the Nature of Chriſtianity calls corrupt Doctrine in R. Gordon, ſee p. 70. of the ſaid Book, The Title of that Part is, Some of Robert Gordon's corrupt Doctrines, and p. 71. the eighth Head is, ‘That Redemption, Juſtification were finiſhed and compleated in the Crucified Body in Chriſt for us, not in our Perſons.’ And the twelfth Head, viz. ‘That Redemption, &c. and all things are wrought, purchaſed, &c. for us, without the help of any thing to be wrought in us.’ Now if theſe are corrupt Doctrines with G. Keith now, which were ſo it ſeems with him, in 1671. the Time of the Date of that Book, is he not inſincere in a high Degree in quarrelling with W. Penn for [Page] oppoſing the very ſame Doctrine in the very ſame Year (his Serious Apology being likewiſe Printed in 1671.) And on the other Hand, if theſe Doctrines be not corrupt, according to his Opinion and Judgment at this Time, then doth he give himſelf the lye in this very Paper of his now before me, p. 4, and 5. wherein he expreſſeth himſelf thus. ‘But whereas they upbraid me again, and again, with contradicting my former Doctrines and Principles, as to Articles of Faith, I cannot find that they have proved it againſt me in one Particular.’ Of which more anon.

Well to conclude this Matter, I ſhall tell him yet farther, that I know not of any Quakers; who do not aſcribe Remiſſion of Sins to that one Offering upon the Croſs, through Faith in the Name of Jeſus Chriſt, but if I underſtand any thing of the Quakers Principles, as I think I do; that is one of them, and to prove that I ſpeak not by Rote, I will produce another Author approved amongſt them, viz. my Father Iſaac Penington to confirm what I ſay, as the Reader may ſee in his Treatiſe; Entituled, The Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt &c. p. 16. and of his Works, Part 2. p. 186. ‘It was a ſpotleſs Sacrifice of great Value, and Effectual for the Remiſſion of Sins: And I do acknowledge humbly unto the Lord, THE REMISSION OF MY SINS THEREBY, and bleſs the Lord for it, even for giving up his Son to Death for us all; and giving all that believe in his Name and Power, to partake of Remiſſion through him.’

[Page] In my Brief Obſervations, p. 8. I produced a Proof out of A brief Narrative of the ſecond Meeting, &c of his Self-contradiction in then ſaying, ‘The whole Proteſtant cauſe lieth at ſtake, in the Defence whereof we with all true Proteſtants, are concerned againſt the Jeſuites and Baptiſts.’ And yet in his Expoſtulation; ‘We promote vile Errours worſe than the worſt of Popery.’ This he ſhuffles off, ſaying p. 4. In vain are all his ſhuffling Aggravations againſt me, upbraiding me with my being changed in my Opinion, of what theſe Quakers were; and a little lower, I own it, they deceived me, they were the Deceivers, and I was the Deceived. Anſw. Any intelligent Reader may perceive, it was Principles, and not Perſons he vindicated; the Cauſe, not Parties he then eſpouſed; therefore this is only a Sophiſtical turn, to ſerve a turn; and his Pretences to knowing them better, only a falſe gloſs that he may abuſe them the worſe, and the Cauſe of their Changing their Opinion of him; is his changing Sides, and now taking up the Baptiſts old Arguments againſt his quondam Friends, which he once aſſiſted them in Baffling, and now wou'd inſinuate a miſtake in the Men, and not in the Principles, to hold up his Credit of not being changed, whereas the Men are the ſame, their Principles the ſame, now he oppoſes them, as they were when he Vindicated them, and he is the Man that is Changed, Deviated, Apoſtatized, and therefore an ill Man, which hath been over and over proved upon him, and not diſproved by him, any other way, than by a bare denial without Demonſtration, [Page] and ſo any farther Proof at preſent needleſs. Yet to ſhew the Reader his former Judgment of our Principles, both as Conſonant with Scripture; and alſo with thoſe of the firſt Reformers, ſo far as theirs agreed with Scripture: I ſhall add a Quotation out of Help in Time of Need, p. 46. viz. ‘And now ye who accuſe us (in Deriſion called Quakers by you) as Apoſtates, and that we have denied our Fore-fathers Faith; try your ſelves, and Paralel your Fathers Principles and Practices with your own, and alſo with ours; and ye ſhall find ye are degenerated from them exceedingly, as we were while with you; but through the Grace of God are we recovered, and brought to witneſs the Spirit and Life of the Primitive Proteſtants and Chriſtians—and ye cannot Inſtance to us one Particular, wherein we Diſſent from them, warranted from the very Letter of the Scripture.’

The Second Head (viz. ‘His Reflections upon the Proteſtant Clergy as more Lukewarm, if they oppoſe not the Quakers here, than the Popiſh Clergy at Rome would be in ſuch a caſe.)’ He ſaith, Hath nothing in it worth noticing but their unjuſt charging me with Malice, both with reſpect to them, viz. that Gang of Quakers above mentioned, and with reſpect to ſuch whom I directed my Expoſtulation unto. Anſw. I wonder he counts any thing at all therein worth noticing, I know he hath a good Opinion of his own Doings, how Malicious ſoever; and truly I am ready to think reputes but few Books beſides his own, worth much notice; thoſe wrote againſt him, none at [Page] all: But in Proof of what he calls their unjuſt charging, &c. He ſays nothing to the purpoſe, for after he hath uſed ſome circumlocution which I ſhall take notice of by and by, he ſlips off by the help of his Sophiſtry, and to blind the Matter, queries, But how doth he prove that I am Malicious to the Pious and Learned in the Church of England, or among the Diſſenters? They and not he, nor his Gang are a fit Judge of this. Am I Malicious either to the one or the other, to tell them I would not have the Papiſts out-do them in Zeal for the Chriſtian Faith? Is it not an evident Argument of my Love to them? Anſw. I had proved how and wherein before, if he had but had the honeſty to have took notice of it, but ſince by the Legerdemain of theſe Queries, he would caſt a Miſt before his Readers Eyes; I ſhall ſtate the Caſe anew. He quarrels with the Quakers, Prints Book after Book againſt them, at length They anſwer him; He for a while anſwers them too, after a ſort; but finding their Arguments begin to pinch him, his falſe Coverings wherein he wrapt himſelf, like to be pulled off, he drops that Method, appoints a Meeting at Turners-Hall, Summons ſome of them thither; they perceiving his Craft, that 'tis only to ſhift off his Shoulders the Load their Books had laid on, by Evading their Anſwers in Print, under the notion of a general anſwer by word of Mouth, refuſe to appear, and purſue him in the Preſs, thereupon he calls out to the Pious and Learned of ‘the Church of England and Diſſenters to employ ſome of their Time and Labour, to refute thoſe vile Errours, boldly (as he ſays) avowed [Page] and publickly broached among a Gang and ſort of Quakers:’ What is this this leſs then calling for their aſſiſtance againſt the Quakers, becauſe he finds himſelf not ſufficient of himſelf to go through with the Cauſe he hath undertaken; and what is the whole from the beginning to the end, but a ſeries of Malice againſt the Quakers? The Argument he uſes to theſe Pious and Learned, is this, ‘I am confident if ſuch Anti-chriſtian Errours and Hereſies were but the tenth part ſo avowedly broached in the City of Rome, or any where elſe in Popiſh Countries, theſe eſteemed Watchmen among them, would be more alarmed to oppoſe them by Word and Writing, than moſt among Proteſtants do.’ Is not this a Malicious inſinuation, as if Proteſtants were more Supine, Careleſs, and leſs zealous for the true Chriſtian Faith, than Papiſts: and to what end I pray, but to make them as ſpightful as himſelf? He goes on, ‘Which would ſeem to caſt a Reflection on the Proteſtant Churches, if ſome able Men, &c.’ Now here is not only a calling them out, awaking them as it were out of a Sleep, as if they had been all this while Slumbring, regardleſs what Errours or Hereſies crept in, but that alſo under the Pain and Penalty, if they did not rouſe up, of lying under the weight of his Reflection. Therefore, whether this was an Argument of his Love to them, or the contrary, I dare leave with the Pious and Learned to determine themſelves. And now ſhall reſume what I had before skipt to come at this Paſſage, viz. Their Application of that Place, in Acts 21. 28. againſt me, is very abuſive and [Page]ſhameleſs; The Jews cried, Men of Iſrael help. But againſt what? Againſt Paul, and the worthy Name of Chriſt which he bore Teſtimony to. Did I make any ſuch cry, to help againſt that worthy Name, or any true Profeſſors of it, by my inviting them to oppoſe the vile Errours that are contrary to it. Anſw. This is but a begging the Queſtion, that his Antagoniſts are not true Profeſſors of the worthy Name of Chriſt is but gratis dictum, he ſays it, we deny it, Affirmanti incumbit probatio; he that affirms muſt prove; therein he falls ſhort; we ſay there's no ſuch danger of any oppoſition to the worthy Name of Chriſt, by our promoting thoſe Doctrines which he calls vile Errours, and inſinuates us guilty of, ſo that 'tis Men of Straw he Fights againſt. But on the other hand, the Application of this Scripture belongs to him, on this account, Thoſe malicious Jews who oppoſed the Apoſtle, accuſed him of that which he was not guilty of, upon a falſe ſurmize, as may be ſeen in the following Verſe, and upon that foul miſtake, ſtirred up the People againſt him, which how parallel it is with the ſtate of the Caſe between G. Keith and us is apparently diſcernable, by an intelligent Reader, who underſtands the ſtate of the Controverſie between us. Nex he endeavours to Evade, but not diſprove what I urged, in relation to his endeavours to ſtir up Perſecution againſt us, but doth it ſo lamely upon the foot of ſome idle Excuſes in his Expoſtulation and Narrative; that, to retaliate him in his own Language, I think it not worth the leaſt regarding.

[Page] The Third Head, (viz. ‘He chargable while a Quaker, with what he reflects upon the Quakers’ for, in relation to Diſputes) he ſays, So far as it contains a falſe Reflection on me, I ſhall not notice. Anſw. Neither ſhall I notice his caling it a falſe Reflection, any farther than to tell him, 'tis but rarely, if ever, that he is brought to acknowledge any thing to be true that is alledged againſt him. But, adds he, in ſo far as it tells a moſt impudent untruth, with reſpect to the People called Quakers; I cannot omit it, for, whereas I have ſaid, that many of their chiefeſt Teachers, have with great boldneſs, provoked ſuch as differed from them, to publick Diſputes. This he denieth to be true. Anſw. His charge of an impudent untruth, I retort back upon himſelf, for his Aſſertion I neither Affirmed, nor Denied, but left him to prove, as my words themſelves will plainly manifeſt; ſee Brief Obſervations, p. 11. thus, ‘That the Quakers have with great boldneſs provoked to Publick Diſputes, he ſays indeed, but doth not prove it.’ Now, pray whoſe Face has moſt Braſs in it; mine for ſo ſaying, or his for falſly charging me. He goes on, But the colour they would put upon it, is that what they did, was to clear themſelves, and to detect the Abuſes put on them; as if they had been only on the Defenſive part, in all publick Oppoſitions they made in Congregations, and elſewhere; whereas it is abundantly known, they were the firſt Aggreſſors, &c. Anſw. I won't grant him an Ace, but require Proof of all that he ſays, and as to his referring to G. Fox's Journal and E. Burroughs's Collected Treatiſes, they are large Books, and what part [Page] of them he quarrels with I know not, therefore let him mention particulars, and then if I think it worth my while, he may perhaps hear farther from me. And ſince he has not Enervated, but only Shufled off the ſtate of the Caſe I laid down in my former; I need ſay no more at preſent, then that it was too much truth to be denied, even by G. Keith himſelf, though I'le ſay that for him, he is a Man very expert in that faculty.

The Fourth Head (viz. ‘His itch to have you [the Pious and Learned] Dance after his Pipe, viz. Challenge Diſputes with the Quakers)’ He tells us, contains nothing but repeated Recriminations and Reflections againſt him, already anſwered; except in the latter part of it, &c. Anſw. As he ſays already anſwered, though I ſay only Evaded, as the Reader may ſee, if he pleaſe to be at the trouble of comparing the one with the other, yet what part of it he has already taken ſome ſmall notice of, is already replied to, and ſo I ſhall follow him to the latter Part, which he gives thus, They propoſe it, whether it would not be moſt equal and reaſonable for them, viz. ſuch to whom I have directed my Expoſtulation, to begin with me, by calling me forth to a publick Hearing upon my former Books. To this I anſwer, that I am moſt willing they do, and what I cannot juſtly and ſafely defend of any paſſages in my former Books, I will fairly retract. Anſw. A very fair Propoſal, ſo ſay, and ſo do, and ſo far we ſhall be agreed, but I am afraid, if it were to be put to the Tryal, he would draw back, for I can tell him of one Paſſage which I quoted in my former, and which for the remarkableneſs [Page] of it, I care not if I quote again, which he muſt retract in the firſt place, or elſe he can never be ſincere in retracting the reſt, viz. ‘I know not any fundamental Principle, nor indeed any one Principle of the Chriſtian Faith, that I have varied from, ever ſince I came among the Quakers,’ which is about Thirty three Years ago, Exact Narrative p. 15. Moreover in this very Sheet, now before me, he ſays. But whereas they up-braid me again, and again, with contradicting my former Doctrines and Principles, as to Articles of Faith; I cannot find that they have proved it againſt me in one particular. To which I anſwer, If he will ſhut his Eyes, and will not ſee, who can help it? Or if he will be ſo Partial in his own Cauſe, as to reſolve not to be convinced of it, let what Proof will be offered, 'tis his own fault. T. Ellwood whath proved it upon him in three Tracts, and that in more than one particular; and his not having anſwered either of them, is ſufficient ground to continue the Charge upon him, taking it for granted, that if he could have done it fairly, he would, or if by any Sophiſtical Art, he could have neatly blinded it, he would not have been wanting in his endeavours. In the next place, in p. 5. He would fain perſuade thoſe to whom he directs his Expoſtulation, that 'tis moſt proper to begin with us firſt, becauſe, ſays he, whatever juſt Offence I have given to any of them, my late Adverſaries of that Gang among the Quakers have far exceeded me. Anſw. That is but his ſay ſo, whereof himſelf is no competent Judge. And adds he, they have that which caſts of Ballance as to them, that [Page]they juſtifie all they have ſaid, and Printed againſt them to every Tittle, to maintain their Infallibility; which I have not done, but in divers things I confeſs my miſtakes, and wherein I have juſtly offended any, I humbly ask their Forgiveneſs. Anſw. Suppoſing, but not granting what he ſays to be true, have not thoſe he applies himſelf to, the more need to begin with him firſt, that they may take him in the mind while he is in the mind, and bring him from lurking in bare Generals to deſcend to Particulars, and ſo try whether he be ſincere in his Proteſtations, by bringing him to a thorow Recantation; Whereas, if the Caſe be as he repreſents it with us, they muſt expect no ſuch compliance from us, but a ſteddy adherence to our Aſſertions, conſequently, like to be a more tedious as well as a more difficult Work; therefore moſt Prudence to begin with the eaſieſt firſt, eſpecially having to do with a ſlippery Chapman, of whom they can have no aſſurance, that he will long continue in the ſame Humour, though he were at preſent, never ſo much (ſeemingly) reſolved, to be as good as his word. And as to the Flout he throws at the Quakers, concerning Infallibility; I ſhall add a paſſage out of Help in time of need, to ſhew what he formerly Aſſerted, as to the neceſſity of People's being led by the Infallible Spirit, ſee p. 23. ‘Therefore another Head was ſet up in the Church, then Jeſus Chriſt, and the Pope and his Council was made Judge to determine all Controverſies in Religion, and no Man was to look at an Infallible Judge (the Spirit of Truth within him) and are ye not become as bad, who openly [Page] affirm, that ye are not led by the infallible Spirit, and conſequently not by the Spirit of God.’

My Fifth Head (viz. ‘His pretended tender Compaſſion to the Souls of People, highly inſincere.)’ And my Sixth Head (viz. ‘The Irregularity of his Propoſal of Diſturbing our Meetings, contrary to Law)’ He joins together as ſufficiently anſwered in his Narrative and Expoſtulation, ſo that he ſees not the leaſt cauſe to ſay any thing unto them. Anſw. He has the prettieſt faculty of anſwering Matters beforehand, as a Man ſhall likely hear of; he has anſwered good part of my Book it ſeems, before its ſelf was in Being; 'tis much he had not anſwered it all beforehand when his Hand was in, yet here ſtill comes in ſome buts and onlys that ſpoil his antecedent Anſwers, and if it were not for theſe buts and onlys, he needed have wrote but two or three Words in Anſwer to the whole Book, and have left it ſo to the Readers Conſideration, as he doth now; He ſays, Only I take notice of the bold untruth he chargeth me with, of my propoſing the Diſturbing of their Meetings. Anſw. The untruth is his, not mine, as the Words I then quoted will evince to rational Men, which I ſhall again Tranſcribe, viz. ‘Or if they continue to juſtifie them, to refute them openly in the Face of their own Meetings, and in the Preſence of them that do ſo much admire and follow them:’ His Reaſon for promoting this work is, ‘And thus to ſerve them, as they have ſerved others, and with what Meaſure they have met to others, the ſame to meet to them again: [Page] Which he tells us a little before was, Some of their Teachers aſſaulted the National Miniſters in the Face of their Congregations.’ Can any thing be plainer? Nor will his following excuſe acquit him. viz. For I cautioned it exrreſly, that what ſhould be done to refute their vile Errours, might be done at the End of their Meetings, or at other ſet Times. Anſw. I think a Meeting cannot be properly ſaid to be ended, unleſs the People diſperſe, but rather continued, however confuſedly diſturbed by ſuch irregular Practices. In the next Place, how will his Propoſal of other ſet Times, hold with the other of meeting to them as they have met to others, whom (as he ſays) they aſſaulted in the Face of their Congregations, will he ſay it was not during their Worſhip, but at other Times; then ſay I, not in the Face of their Congregations; if he ſay, it was in the Face of their Congregations, than how can he propoſe the Quakers ſhould have the ſame Meaſure met to them, by others doing it to them at ſet Times; if he ſays true, in relation to their aſſaulting the National Miniſters in the Face of their Congregations. This is as Poor, a confuſed, trifling, ſleeveleſs excuſe as can well be urged, 'twill not help him off at all.

Now to ſhew what a Man of Order he is, though got to the Sixth Head (having only named the fifth Head for faſhion-ſake, medling no farther with it) he recurs to the Third, yet hath pretended to Anſwer that before; but ſince he hath foiſted in this Paſſage in this Place, I muſt (though contrary to Method) take notice of it here, 'tis this. And, ſeeing they juſtifie [Page]what ſome of them did, by way of publick Oppoſition, to clear themſelves; and to detect the Abuſes put upon them, and that they allow this to be Equal and Reaſonable, and no Treſpaſs againſt the Civil Peace. Anſw. How far did I juſtifie it, but upon a Point of Neceſſity? The Mob were incenſed by railing Accuſations, ſeveral of the Quakers went in danger of their Lives by them, theſe ſlanders were vented by the publick Preachers from their Pulpits, the Mob divers times ſtirred up and encouraged by them: What Room was here left for any other Method? What Breach of the Civil Peace? For that was broke before by their Adverſaries, a juſt Detection of whom ſeemed a likely way to Calm them; conſequently to preſerve the Civil Peace. What might be acted at other Times, wherein the above Caſe was not plain and obvious, I leave, neither Aſſenting to nor Denying his Charge; and ſo neither do I Juſtifie or Condemn the Actions, unleſs I knew better then I do the Matters by him objected, but ſhall go on with him, who ſays farther. And that many, or rather indeed all of other Profeſſions do judge that the Quakers have miſrepreſented them, and put Abuſes on them; why ſhould they not think it fair, that thoſe of other Profeſſions, who think themſelves injured by them in Point of Doctrine, ſhould have Freedom in Publick to clear themſelves. Anſw. They have had Freedom, and have endeavoured it too, we look upon our ſelves abuſed by them; we have had Freedom in Publick to clear our ſelves, and have done it too; and that in the moſt publick way [Page] in the World, viz. in Print, and that is according to his own Conceſſion, ‘The laſt Remedy againſt Oppreſſion,’ Exact Narrative, p. 38. and indeed a far more proper way than Face to Face by way of publick Oppoſition; whether at the Beginning, Middle, or End of Meetings. And the ſame Liberty hath he too, which he hath not only made uſe of formerly, but ſtill doth when he pleaſeth himſelf.

The Seventh Head (viz. ‘His endeavours to excite the Civil Authority againſt us)’ he repreſents as nothing but an unjuſt Inſinuation; that, ſays he, I would excite the Civil Authority againſt them, and that I would fain inſtruct the Civil Authority, what their Duty is in this Caſe. But they bringing no Proofs of their Charge againſt me, it were a ſuperfluous labour in me to Anſwer them on this Head. Anſw. He ſeems to be very Cautious of beſtowing ſuperfluous Labour, but if he had been ſo in Reality; he might either have forborn ſaying any thing at all; or or elſe have offered ſomething more to the purpoſe, for a ſufficient Proof I then brought, viz. his own Words quoted out of his Expoſtulation; which I ſhall now repeat and are theſe. ‘And it would be a commendable and praiſe worthy thing, for the Civil Authority to encourage ſuch a Practice [to refute them openly in the Face of their own Meetings, &c.] throughout the Nation.’ Now what he can make of this, but exciting the Civil Authority againſt us, therein to act contrary to an eſtabliſhed Act of Parliament, as I obſerved before, Brief Obſervations, p. 17. for my Part, I cannot [Page] tell, nor yet by what Figure he can call the above no Proof. He proceeds ſaying, I am very hopeful that as formerly I have had the Countenance of ſome in Civil Authority, in my publick Oppoſition to their vile Errours, ſo I may have the like for the Future. Anſw What Countenance he had from ſome in Authority, I preſume proceeded from their want of a right Knowledge of him and us too; but this I can tell him, had thoſe he ſummoned anſwered his Challenge, there are ſome in Authority would not have countenanced them; but did diſſwade them from appearing, and were well pleaſed with them for taking their Advice. Their Inſinuation, adds he, p. 6. That ſuch Encouragement of any in the Civil Authority, would be a breach of an eſtabliſhed Act of Parliament, is ſo ſilly and ignorant, that it deſerves not the leaſt Conſideration. Anſw. As ſilly and ignorant as it is, he were not beſt to try Concluſions, in putting the propoſed Method in Practice; neither I ſuppoſe will the Magiſtrates be in haſt to run the venture of it, according to his Solicitations, for (doubtleſs) they know better than either he or I, what the Conſequence thereof would be. But what would this vain Man make of the Act of Parliament for Liberty of Conſcience, A meer Cypher? Or not ſo much, ſurely he thinks it may be ſerved as Boys ſerve Nine-Pins, ſet up to be thrown down again, ſo this made to be broke.

The Eighth Head (viz. ‘His high Opinion of himſelf, in ſetting up for Directer, both of Church and State, in methods to be uſed [Page] for the preſervation of the true Proteſtant Religion)’ He calls a bare Fac'd Calumny. Doth (ſaith he) any honeſt Man, that Propoſeth his humble Opinion, what may be good for both the Proteſtant Religion, and State of the Kingdom, deſerve ſuch an unworthy Character? Anſw. No not at all, by no means, but G. Keith's Propoſal, is not his humble Opinion only, but a poſitive direction, how and what they ſhould do, as commendable and praiſe worthy: He ſaith not, I propoſe my humble Opinion that &c. But it would be a commendable and praiſe worthy thing, &c. thereby implying, that if they do not ſo, they will neither do commendably nor praiſe worthily in that Caſe, but ſhould be diſ-commended and diſ-praiſed, as falling ſhort of Papiſts, in Zeal for the Chriſtian Faith; and how far this method was like to prove deſtructive, rather than beneficial (if practiſed) to the true Proteſtant Religion, I then ſhewed, but he jumps over, as indeed he doth moſt of the moſt material Points through that whole Treatiſe, from the beginning to the end, ſo that I may truly ſay, he hath not anſwered it, ſo much as by halves, Snapping at this, and Snarling at the other, but going through little or nothing, as he ſhould, which how meanly it looks in one of his Qualifications, to ſo pitiful an Antagoniſt, as he renders me, I need not determine, but ſhall refer that part to my Reader, to think of it as he ſees Cauſe. As to what he objects concerning G. Fox the Elder, G. Fox the Younger, and E. Burroughs, he is ſtill in nubibus, only a fling and away, keeps in bare generals, comes to [Page] no particulars, and therefore not worthy ef notice.

In my Ninth Head (viz. ‘His malice againſt our Books’) I charged him with, being ‘either groſsly inſincere in pretending it is far from him, to deſire the leaſt Sufferings to come upon our Perſons or eſtates, or elſe very Ignorant of the Law in ſuch caſes’ (viz. Matters Blaſphemous and Heretical, which he hath alledged our Books contain) ‘which deeply affects both Perſons and Eſtates, by Impriſonments, Fines and Pillory, &c.’ To this, ſaith he, I anſwer. 1. Were not by the ſame Argument, they Inſincere or Ignorant, who have charged, not only ſome of their Brethren, but differing from them, in Punctilio's of their Church-Government, and Womens Meetings, as in particular Chriſtopher Taylor, his charging William Rogers with high Blaſphemy, in a Printed Book of his, but alſo in charging with Hereſie and Blaſphemy, many of the Miniſtry in the Nation, reputed Orthodox by Civil Authority. Anſw. His Reflection upon C. Taylor, will not do him any kindneſs, for 'tis not Paralel with the State of the Caſe between him and us, For C. Taylor dealt with W. Rogers Controverſially only in writing, and by way of a Religious Reproof, and there left it, but did not appeal to the Civil Magiſtrate againſt him, no not at all; he was ſo far from that, that he directed it to none but Friends, as An Epiſtle of Caution to them. But on the other Hand, G. Keith propoſed to have the Pious and Learned, &c. encouraged by the Civil Power, to queſtion Friends about Blaſphemy, Hereſie, &c. which would tend to [Page] a Judicial and Civil Tryal and Conviction, and ſo, if his attempts could take effect, bring them under the danger of the Temporal Laws. Again G. Keith ſays falſly, in aſſigning the difference between W. Rogers and Friends, to be a difference only in Punctilio's of Church-Government: For had he read the Book, and not reſolved to cloſe his Eyes, he might ſee that W. Rogers finds fault with our Doctrine. Preface, p. 32. and Chriſtian Quaker, Part 1. p. 69. And therefore in his Second Part, treats of Doctrines, wherein he oppoſed his to ours, in many particulars. Thirdly, If nothing of this kind could be offered, yet is Recrimination of another, no Juſt Vindication of a Man's ſelf. If C. Taylor had been Culpable, and done amiſs, that doth not Juſtifie G. Keith in doing Evil. And now I think fit to take notice, and that once for all, of his Unmanly dealing; he, by way of diſlike and reproach, mentions in ſeveral places of his Vindication, G. Fox, both Elder and Younger, E. Burroughs and C. Taylor, who are all Dead, two of them (I believe) before himſelf went under the name of a Quaker, the other two he eſteemed as Brethren, and ſeemed to be in Unity with, while Living, and yet he muſt now be digging up their Graves, I would ask him, What hurt they have done him, ſince they were Dead, that he cannot let them reſt now, ſeeing while Living, he had nothing to ſay againſt them? He goes on to a 2dly, But muſt not their Vile Errours and Hereſies be oppoſed, and the Authors of them witneſſed againſt, and warning given againſt them, otherwiſe all that do ſo, muſt they be reckoned[Page]Perſecutors and Malicious. Anſw. If he like the work, let him go on with it, no Body hinders his Printing, nor propoſes to hinder it; Oppoſition in Meetings by Countenance, or Authority, from the Civil Magiſtrate was the thing I found fault with. But let me tell him withal, it is not his calling this, that, or the other, Errour and Hereſie, that will make it ſo; and if he call things by their wrong Names on purpoſe to render a People odious, that's Malice and a degree of Perſecution proceeding from a Root of bitterneſs, and if encouraged will not ceaſe 'till it come to Fire and Faggot, Rack and Gibbet. And if what he wrote above thirty Years ago be worthy of Credit, we are not a People deſerving ſuch Reflections, fe [...] Help in Time of Need, p. 68. ‘And we the People of the Lord, whom he hath formed for himſelf, ſhall ſhew forth his Praiſe; and the Lord will make it manifeſt, that we are his; and that he hath raiſed us up, and put his Spirit in us; and that he dwells in and among us, to all the Kindreds and Nations of the Earth; and they who will not ſee, ſhall ſee; and be aſhamed, and confounded for their Envy at the People whom God hath bleſſed, and will bleſs for ever and ever, and no Deceit nor Violence ſhall prevail againſt them.’ Now if he dare believe himſelf, had he not better deſiſt from his fruitleſs and envious Work he is carrying on againſt us, leſt himſelf be confounded.

I am now come to his Objections againſt my Tenth and Laſt Head, wherein he endeavours to evade the Proofs I brought to Evince, that, ‘[Page] The Caſe between our Books, and his Pennſylvania Books, as ſtated by him, was far different. To my alledging, 'It was but common Prudence, to hide the Bone of Contention, which he had prepared to throw in amongſt us; leſt his quarrelſome Books ſhould infect ſome with the ſame Spirit of Diſcord here, as his quarrelſome Diſcourſes and Behaviour, had infected ſome there.’ He Anſwers, p. 7. thus, 1. Had it not been more honeſty in them, as well as Chriſtian Prudence, to have diſowned theſe groſs Errours, which I evidently proved againſt them in Pennſylvania, out of their own Letters and Manuſcripts, as well as by other Proofs, then to have hid and cloaked them, and excommunicated me, for my faithful oppoſing them. Anſw. That ever thoſe groſs Errours he exclaims againſt, were evidently proved againſt thoſe he accuſes, I never yet underſtood from any but himſelf, who is too much a Party to be eſteemed an unbyaſſed Judge in his own Cauſe how evident, or how lame the Proofs were; and upon the ſame bottom is his Charge laid againſt thoſe he accuſeth of Hiding and Cloaking thoſe Errours he hints at: but that he was Excommunicated (as he Terms it) for his faithful oppoſing them, I deny; The Words of the Paper by him called The nameleſs Bull, being my warrant for ſo doing; which are, ‘That the ſaid George Keith is gone from the bleſſed Unity of the peaceable Spirit of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and hath thereby ſeparated himſelf from the Holy Fellowſhip of the Church of Chriſt.’ Whereby it appears, that 'twas his Turbulency in the Oppoſition he made, whereby he manifeſted [Page] himſelf gone from Unity with, and ſeparated from the Fellowſhip of the Church, and gone from the peaceable Spirit of Chriſt; ſo not a bare faithful oppoſing of what he deemed Errours, that drew that Judgment down upon him. For if he had in Calmneſs and Coolneſs objected what he eſteemed Erroneous, and managed his Cauſe in a peaceable Temper of Mind; until he were either Convinced of his Errour in ſo thinking of them, or by ſtrength of Argument offered in the Spirit of Meekneſs, he had Convinced them that they really were in Errour; I preſume that Meeting would not have given forth that Paper againſt him. He proceeds to a 2. But where is the far different Caſe? Why they ſhouid ſuppreſs my Books, and the Civil Authority ſhould not ſuppreſs theirs Anſw. I then told him where, but ſince he takes no Notice of it, ſhall tell him again, part of what I then offered. 1. We had Right and Title to ſuch an Authority over him and his Books at that Time, as a Community or Society amongſt whom he then pretended Memberſhip; and yet contrary to the Method now long ſince practiſed amongſt us, and which himſelf (while himſelf) had practiſed as well as others, Publiſhed the ſaid Books without the Approbation of thoſe with whom we had Fellowſhip, with an apparent Deſign to leaven a Faction for himſelf. 2. His were bought and paid for, and ſo became the real Property of the Purchaſers, ours he propoſes ſhould be ſuppreſſed by the Civil Authority without mentioning ſo much as one word in the leaſt of being paid for by the Seizers, which is an Invaſion of Property, and if therein he ſees no difference, [Page] the reaſon muſt be, becauſe he won't; for the caſe is plain enough. Again, Why? My Books would have been a Bone of Contention, to infect ſome with the ſame Spirit of diſcord. Anſw. That they have ſo been, notwithſtanding the Precaution uſed by purchaſing all that could be got, by their being Reprinted here by our old Adverſaries, and by their gratifying thoſe two Apoſtates, F. Bugg, and T. Criſp, ſetting them to Scribling anew, and giving new Life to their old Contentious Work, is ſo evident, that a Man may as well deny the Sun's Shining at Noon-day, as deny that. He queries, But muſt not the Truth be contended for? Are we not commanded to contend earneſtly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints? And ſuch was the contentions of my Books, and of my Spirit. Anſw. This is but a begging the Queſtion, a taking for granted the thing in Debate; we ſay as well as he, that our Books contend for the Faith once delivered to the Saints, therefore his contention againſt us groundleſs: Who muſt determine this? The impartial Chriſtian Reader I think, therefore to him I leave it. He thinks, it ſeems, he hath the advantage, we the diſadvantage, for my part, I can ſee no ground for ſuch a Suppoſition, but am contented he ſhould hug himſelf with the Fancy, if he will not be undeceived; but let him have a care, leſt while he compaſſes himſelf about with the Sparks of his own kindling, in the end he do not lie down in Sorrow. The reſt of his Reflections on this Head, he ſpends in flinging contumelious Reproaches on our Books, which being nothing but Recrimination without Demonſtation, and in ſubſtance anſwered already, as a weak blaſt of empty Air, I paſs over.

[Page] He concludes with a Paſſage he takes a long ſtride back to pick out of my Sixth Head; I therein only gave him a gentle touch about the Revolutions, but rubbing on a Sore place, he cannot bear it; I had perhaps ſlipt it over now, had he not committed a blunder unbecoming a Man of his Reading. I told him Brief Obſervations p. 16. ‘It would almoſt tempt a Man to conclude, if the Doctrine of Revolutions were as probable an Hypotheſis, as G. Keith hath repreſented it to be, that the Soul of Eroſtratus were come again in this Incendiary.’ Having relation in that compariſon to the Man who ſet on Fire the Temple of Diana at Epheſus (which was ſo rare a piece of Workmanſhip, as to be reputed one of the wonders of the World) with intent to perpetuate his name to Poſterity by a Wicked Deed, ſince he could not by Virtuous Actions, whoſe Name was Eroſtratus. To this he ſays, Were I inclined to retort his idle ſtory of Eraſiſtratus againſt me, &c. Now upon Examination I find that this Eraſiſtratus was a famous Phyſician of Ariſtotle's Family, which how he came to overlook, I know not, but believe if I had been guilty of ſuch a Trip, he would have paid me off with the Epithets of Bold Novice, Ideot, Junior Sophiſter, &c. But now let us ſee what it is he could retort upon us, ſays he, I might ſay theſe my late Adverſaries. who place all upon the inward Principle excluding the Man Chriſt Jeſus from being our Saviour, are the old Stoicks, Epicureans, Pelagian Brittains redivive, and other Ethnick Philoſophers, who bitterly oppoſed the Chriſtian Faith. Anſw. I know no Quakers guilty of this Charge; therefore the Foundation [Page] of his Retortion is a Bare-fac'd Calumny, for we place not all upon the inward Principle, but what God hath joyned together, we dare not put aſunder; neither do we exclude the Man Chriſt Jeſus from being our Saviour, but ſay that the Man Chriſt Jeſus, and the Light within which proceeds from Him, in whom the Fulneſsd wells, are one and not divided, and He as outwardly offered up and Aſcended into Heaven, where He ſits at the Right Hand of the Majeſty on High, and as inwardly revealed in the Hearts of his true Believers, is one compleat Saviour: And wherein G. Keith repreſents us to believe otherwiſe, he very well knows, he greatly Slanders us, having himſelf often declared the contrary: Whereof I have given many inſtances, but ſhall now add another out of the often already quoted Book, viz. Help in time of Need, p. 78, 79. ‘And now, whether ye will hear, or forbear; this I do declare unto you, in the Name and Power, and Authority of the Living God, the Day of the Lord is of a Truth broken forth among us, and ye ſhall look till your Eyes fail you, and Rot within your Eye holes, e're ever ye ſee another day, or appearance of Jeſus Chriſt to your comfort, then what we the People of the Lord called Quakers, do witneſs Come, and yet more abundantly Coming, and if ye will not hear, my Soul ſhall Mourn for you in ſecret places, and Weep before the Lord on your behalf.’ Well, here's a large Teſtimony on the Quakers behalf, therefore either he falſely accuſeth us now, or elſe in 1664 he was guilty of tranſcendent Preſumption, in pretending to ſay as above, in the [Page] Name, Power and Authority, of the Living God, if it was not ſo, but quite otherwiſe. He concludes thus. But though they have not their Souls, I am ſure they have their Heatheniſh, Anti-chriſtian Principles. Anſw. This in ſubſtance is anſwered already, yet becauſe he ſo often calls us Anti-chriſts, and our Principles Anti-chriſtian; I ſhall not think much of my Pains, to give the Reader an account what he once accounted Anti-chriſtianiſm, and then leave it to the impartial to judge how far that affects us, Help in time of Need, p 22. ‘This is the Anti-chriſt, who denies Chriſt the Son, come thus in the Revelation of himſelf in the Heart; for that coming of Chriſt in his Bodily Appearance at Jeruſalem, Anti-chriſt will not, does not deny it, being he knows it will never harm his Kingdom; ſo to confeſs him come, providing Chriſts Kingdom be not ſet up in the Heart.’ Now, upon the whole, as he ſaid to the Teachers, he directed his Speech to, Ibid. p. 33. ‘Ye could be better employed in holding a Plow, or digging in a Field, or any other honeſt Occupation, then to be deluding poor People.’ So ſay I, he might be better employed in Teaching Scool, or any other honeſt Occupation, then in thus Villifying and Abuſing an honeſt People, and impoſing that upon the World, as truth of which he is ſure, when in the mean time he knows otherwiſe.

One thing more (though not ſo very Material) I ſhall take notice of before we part, and that is, In the management of his Vindication and the Objections he raiſes againſt my Brief Obſervations; he ſometimes uſes the words they and [Page] their, ſometimes he and his as if Synonimous; truly, if I did not conclude him to be a good Grammarian, I might be ready to query, whether he took theſe Pronouns to be all of a Number; but ſince his Schollarſhip is not to be queſtioned at all, much leſs in ſo common a Caſe as the firſt parts of the Accidence taught School-Boys, it argues confuſion in him, and want of circumſpection, both in Penning and Reviſing, and might have been better excuſed, had he been a Novice, though a bold one, or an Ideot either.

I have now gone through his Sheet, and cannot but here obſerve, to what a paſs an ill cauſe brings a Man, though qualified with Arts, Parts, and Learning. That the heat of Controverſie (the current whereof, I muſt needs tell him, hath run againſt him, let him Bolſter himſelf up with what Bull-ruſhes he pleaſes) ſhould inſtigate him to pour out ſo virulent a peice as that Expoſtulation, a plain indication that he is not led by the peaceable Spirit of Chriſt, but a froward, angry, revengeful Spirit, and when laid open and proved plainly upon him, by Matter of Fact, without ſtretching or ſtraining Words or Sentences; Rather then he will fall under Reproof, or ſeem to be ſenſible, that in his Paſſion he had over-ſhot himſelf, by lying ſtill under a tacit acquieſcing that he had ſo done; diſdaining, 'tis like, that a young Man of ſo inferiour qualifications ſhould tell him his own; muſt Publiſh ſomething in Defence of a thing not at all Defenſible: Which how it is performed, whether he hath not done it very ſlightly, without anſwering, or ſo much as touching ſome of the moſt Material Paſſages I urged againſt him, and whether this my Rejoinder have not anſwered the whole ſubſtance of his (ſo called) Juſt Vindication, as it is not ſo proper for me to determine, ſo I ſhall again ſubmit to the Learned, Pious, and Judicious among all ſorts of Proteſtants, into whoſe Hands theſe Treatiſes may happen to light.

Edward Penington.

THE END.

§

[Page]

A Modeſt DETECTION OF George Keith's (MISCALLED) JUST VINDICATION OF HIS Earneſt Expoſtulation: PUBLISHED By him as a pretended Anſwer to a Late Book of Mine, Entituled, Some Brief Obſervations, &c.

By E. P.

Iſa. 28. 20.

For the Bed is ſhorter, then that a Man can ſtretch himſelf on it: And the Covering narrower, then that he can wrap himſelf in it.

LONDON: Printed and Sold by T. Sowle, near the Meeting-Houſe in White-Hart-Court in Gracious-Street, and at the Bible in Leaden-Hall-Street, near the Market, 1696.

BOOKS Printed and Sold by T. Sowle, next to the Meeting-Houſe in White-Hart-Court, in Gracious-Street. And at the Bible in Leaden-Hall-Street, near the Market, 1697.

[Page]

AN Epiſtle to Friends. Briefly commemorating the Gracious Dealings of the Lord with them; and warning them to beware of that Spirit of Contention and Diviſion which hath appeared of late in George Keith, and ſome ſew others that join with him, who have made a Breach and Separation from Friends in ſome Parts of America. By Thomas Ellwood. Price Stitch'd 6 d.

The State of the Caſe, briefly but impartially given, betwixt the People called Quakers in Pennſylvania, &c. in America, who remain in Unity; and George Keith, with ſome few Seduced by him into a Separation from them. As alſo a juſt Vindication of my Self from the Reproaches and Abuſes of thoſe Backſliders. By Samuel Jennings. Price Stitch'd 6 d.

A Further Diſcovery of that Spirit of Contention and Diviſion which hath of late appeared in George Keith, &c. Being a Reply to two late. Printed Pieces of his, the one Entituled, A Loving Epiſtle, &c. The other, A Seaſonable Information, &c. Wherein his Cavils are anſwered, his Falſhood is laid open, and the Guilt and Blame of the Breach and Separation in America; and of the Reproach he hath brought upon Truth and Friends, by his late Printed Books are fixed faſter on him. Written by way of Epiſtle, and Recommended as a further Warning to all Friends. By Thomas Ellwood. Price Stitch'd is.

Truth Defended, and the Friends thereof Cleared, from the falſe Charges, foul Reproaches, and envious Cavils, caſt upon It and Them, by George Keith (an Apoſtate from them) in two Books by him lately Publiſhed; the one being called, Atrue Copy of a Paper given into the Yearly Meeting of the People called Quakers, &c. The other, The Pretended Yearly Meeting of the Quakers, their Nameleſs Bull of Excommunication, &c. Both which Books are herein Anſwered, and his Malice, Injuſtice and Folly, Expoſed. By Thomas Ellwood. Price Stitch'd 1 s.

An Apoſtate Expoſed: Or George Keith contradicting himſelf and his Brother Bradford; wherein their Teſtimony to the Chriſtian Faith of the People called Quakers, is oppoſed to G. K's late Pamphlet, Stiled, Groſs Error and Hypocriſie Detected. By John Penington. Price Stitch'd 3 d.

A Modeſt Account from Pennſylvania of the Principal Differences in Point of Doctrine, between George Keith, [Page] and thoſe of the People called Quakers, from whom he ſeparated; ſhewing his great Declenſion, and Inconſiſtency with himſelf therein. Recommended to the Serious Conſideration of thoſe who are turned aſide, and joined in his Schiſm. Price Stitch'd 4 d.

The People called Quakers cleared by George Keith, from the falſe Doctrines charged upon them by G. Keith; and his Self-Contradictions laid open in the enſuing Citations out of his Books. By John Penington. Price Stitch'd 4 d.

More Work for George Keith: Being George Keith's Vindication of the People called Quakers, as well in his Part of the Diſpute held at Wheelers-Street, the ſixteenth Day of the eighth Month, 1674. As in his Treatiſe againſt Thomas Hicks, and other Baptiſts, with the reſt of their Confederate Brethren at the Barbican Diſpute, held at London the twenty eighth of the ſixth Month, 1674. Price Stitch'd 4 d.

The Quakers cleared from being Apoſtates: Or, the Hammerer Defeated, and proved an Impoſtor. Being an Anſwer to a Scurrilous Pamphlet, falſly Intituled, William Penn and the Quakers either Apoſtates or Impoſtors, ſubſcribed Trepidantium Malleus. With a Poſtſcript, containing ſome Reflections on a Pamphlet, Intituled, The Spirit of Quakeriſm, and the Danger of their Divine Revelation laid open. By B. C. Price Stitch'd 6 d.

An Anſwer to George Keith's Narrative of his Proceedings at Turners-Hall, on the eleventh of the Month called June, 1696. Wherein his Charges againſt divers of the People called Quakers (both in that, and in another Book of his, called, Groſs Error and Hypocriſie Detected) are fairly Conſidered, Examined, and Refuted. By Thomas Ellwood. Price 1 s. 6 d.

Keith againſt Keith: Or ſome more of George Keith's Contradictions and Abſurdities, collected out of his own Books (not yet Retracted) upon a Review. Together with a Reply to George Keith's Late Book, Entituled, The Antichriſts and Sadduces detected among a ſort of Quakers, &c. By John Penington. Price Stitch'd 9 d.

Some Brief Obſervations upon George Keith's Earneſt Expoſtulation, contained in a Poſtſcript to a late Book of his, Entituled, The Antichriſts and Sadduces Detected, &c. Offered to the Peruſal of ſuch as the ſaid Expoſtulation was Recommended to. By E. P. Price Stitch'd 2 d.

A Modeſt Detection of George Keith's (miſcalled) Juſt Vindication of his Earneſt Expoſtulation: Publiſhed by him as a pretended Anſwer to a Late Book of Mine, Entituled, Some Brief Obſervations, &c. By E. P. Price Stitch'd 4 d.

[Page] No Croſs, No Crown. A Diſcourſe ſhewing the Nature and Diſcipline of the Holy Croſs of Chriſt. By W. Penn. In Two Parts. The Fifth Edition. Price 3 s.

An Addreſs to Proteſtants of all Perſwaſions; more eſpecially the Magiſtracy and Clergy, for the Promotion of Virtue and Charity. In Two Parts. By W. Penn, a Proteſtant. The Second Edition, Corrected and Enlarged. Price Bound 1 s. 6 d.

An Account of W. Penn's Travails in Holland and Germany, for the Service of the Goſpel of Chriſt, by way of Journal. Containing alſo divers Letters and Epiſtles writ to ſeveral Great and Eminent Perſons whilſt there. The Second Impreſſion, Corrected by the Author's own Copy, with ſome Anſwers not before Printed. Price Bound 2 s.

A Brief Account of the Riſe and Progreſs of the People called Quakers, in which their Fundamental Principle, Doctrines, Worſhip, Miniſtry and Diſcipline are plainly Declared, to prevent the Miſtakes and Perverſions that Ignorance and Prejudice may make to abuſe the Credulous. With a Summary Relation of the former Diſpenſations of God in the World, by way of Introduction. By W. Penn. Price Bound 1 s.

A Call to Chriſtendom. By W. Penn. Price Stitch'd 3 d.

Tender Counſel and Advice, &c. By W. Penn. Price Stitch'd 3 d.

The Harmony of Divine and Heavenly Doctrines, Demonſtrated in ſundry Declarations on Variety of Subjects. Preached at the Quakers Meetings in London, by Mr. W. Penn, Mr. G. Whitehead, Mr. S. Waldenfield, Mr. B. Coole, Taken in Short-hand as it was delivered by them; and now Faithfully Tranſcribed and Publiſhed for the Information of thoſe who by reaſon of Ignorance may have received a Prejudice againſt them. By a Lover of that People. Price 1 s. 6 d.

Primitive Chriſtianity Revived, in the Faith and Practice of the People called Quakers. Written, in Teſtimony to the preſent Diſpenſation of God, through them to the World: That Prejudices may be Removed, the Simple Informed, the Well-enclined Encouraged, and the Truth and its Innocent Friends Rightly Repreſented. By W. Penn. Price 1 s.

Rabſhakeh Rebuked, and his Railing Accuſations Refuted; containing, I. Some Reflections upon a late Sheet, Entituled, An Eſſay towards the allaying of George Fox his Spirit; by way of Introduction. II. A Reply to a later Book, Entituled, A Diſcovery of the Accurſed Thing, &c. Enlarged; both written by Thomas Criſpe. III. A Diſplay [Page] of ſome, amongſt many, of his Self-contradictions and Tautologies; by way of Concluſion. By E. P. Price Stitch'd 6 d.

A Diurnal Speculum; containing, I. A plain and eaſie Method to find out thoſe things that are moſt uſeful to be known Yearly: And may ſerve as an Almanack for Thirty Years; and many other things ſuitable to the Matter, &c. II. An Explanation of Weights, Money, and Meaſures, both Scriptural and Uſual, with ſundry Tables depending thereon, &c. III. Some Remarks on England; or a Brief Account of every County, with the Names, and Days of the Markets, and the Chief Commodities therein, &c. The whole conſiſting of Great Variety, explained by divers Examples, the like in all particulars not extant; as by the Contents does more at large appear. Collected by J. B. Price Bound 1 s. 6 d.

The Spirit of the Martyrs revived, in a brief Compendious Collection of the moſt Remarkable Paſſages and Living Teſtimonies of the True Church, Seed of God, and Faithful Martyrs in all Ages. Price 2 s. 6 d.

The Arraignment of Popery; being a Collection taken out of the Chronicles and other Books of the State of the Church in the Primitive Times. I. The State of the Papiſts; how long it was before the Univerſal POPE and MASS was ſet up; and the bringing in their Rudiments, Traditions, Beads, Images, Purgatories, Tythes and Inquiſitions. II. A Relation of their Cruelties they acted after the Pope got up, being worſe than the Turk and Heathen: New Rome proving like Old. III. What the People of England Worſhipped before they were Chriſtians. IV. To which is added, the Blood of the Martyrs is the Seed of the Church. With ſeveral other things, very profitable for all that fear God to Read, Try and give Judgment by the Spirit of Truth, againſt the Worſhip of the Beaſt and Whore. Price 1 s. 6 d.

Inſtructions for Right Spelling, and plain Directions for Reading and Writing True Engliſh. With ſeveral delightful things, very Uſeful and Neceſſary, both for Young and Old to Read and Learn. Price 6 d.

A New Book for Children to Learn in. With many wholeſome Meditations for them to conſider. With Directions for true Spelling. And the Ground of true Reading and Writing of True Engliſh. Price 3 d.

Miſcellania: Or a Collection of Neceſſary, Uſeful, and Profitable Tracts on variety of Subjects, which for their Excellency, and Benefit of Mankind, are compiled in one Volume. By Thomas Tryon Phyſiologus. Price 1 s.

THE END.

Information about this book

Title statement

A modest detection of George Keith's (miscalled) Just vindication of his earnest expostulation published by him as a pretended answer to a late book of mine, entituled, Some brief observations, &c. By E.P.

Penington, Edward, 1667-1701.

Edition statement

1696

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2006-06 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A54015

ID [STC]

Wing P1144

ID [STC]

ESTC R220367

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

99831771

ID [PROQUEST]

99831771

ID [VID]

36238

Availability

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

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A54015)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 36238)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 2052:08)

Source

— A modest detection of George Keith's (miscalled) Just vindication of his earnest expostulation published by him as a pretended answer to a late book of mine, entituled, Some brief observations, &c. By E.P., Penington, Edward, 1667-1701..

Extent

56, [4] p.

printed and sold by T. Sowle, near the Meeting-House in White-Hart-Court in Gracious-Street, and at the Bible in Leaden-Hall Street, near the Market,. London :: 1696.. (E.P. = Edward Penington, whose name appears at the foot of p.56.) (With two final advertisement leaves.) (A reply to: Keith, George. A just vindication of my earnest expostulation, added to my book, called The Antichrists and Sadduces detected, &c.) (Reproduction of the original in the Friends House Library, London.)

Creation

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

Editorial practices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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