Habitation for a Glorified Soul in Heaven to dwell in nor to be the same Body that it was when it was a Natural and Carnal Body if it cease to be a Natural and Carnal Body and be made wholly Spiritual 3. From the uncontroulable Testimony of the Holy Apostle who says expresly That Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdoms of God 1 Cor. 15.50 And by a Metaphor borrowed from Agriculture says That which thou sowest which is the Body that dies and is put into the Grave thou sowest not that Body that shall be ver 37. which is alike as if he had said in so many Syllables The Body that shall arise is not the same Carnal Body that dies and is put into the Grave No the Body that is put into the Grave or is sown is a Natural Body But the Body that is raised is a Spiritual Body It is sown a Natural Body it is raised a spiritual Body says the Apostle ver 44. And that none might think this spiritual Body was the same with the Natural Body he adds There is a Natural Body and there is a spiritual Body He does not say the Natural is made a spiritual Body or the Natural Body and the Spiritual Body is but one and the same Body But he sets them in Opposition as two distinct Bodies There is a Natural Body and there is a Spiritual Body The Apostle illustrates this Difference between the Body that dies or is sown and the Body that is raised from the two Adams the first and the last saying The first Man Adam was made a living Soul the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit ver 45. Is this quickening Spirit the same with that living Soul Is the last Adam and the first Adam but one and the self same Adam The first Man is of the Earth Earthly the second Man is the Lord from Heaven ver 47. Will G. Keith say This second Man which is the Lord from Heaven is the same with the First Man which is of the Earth Earthy As is the Earthy such are they also that are Earthy and as is the Heavenly such are they also that are Heavenly ver 48. Does not the Apostle here plainly shew that as the second Man the Lord from Heaven is not the same with the first Man of the Earth Earthy So the Heavenly Bodies which the Saints shall have are not the same with the Earthy Bodies which they have had And says he as we have born the Image of the Earthy we shall also bear the Image of the Heavenly ver 49. This shews we shall bear the Image of another Body in Heaven than that which we bore on the Earth consequently not the Image of the same Body But if by Heavenly Body were meant the same Body that was Earthy then we should bear the Image of the same Body hereafter in Heaven which we have born here on Earth quite contrary to the Apostle's Doctrine who to clear the matter fully that in all this Discourse of his about the Resurrection he did not mean the same Body of Flesh and Blood that dies should be raised concludes thus ver 50. Now this I say Brethren that 〈…〉 Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God But the 〈◊〉 that dies every one knows is a Body of Flesh and Blood therefore that Body cannot inherit the Kingdom of God but it must be a Body which is not of Flesh and Blood and that cannot be the Body of Flesh and Blood that dies This is so fully handled in those Books of W. Penn and G. Whitehead out of which G. Keith took his pretended Proofs as well as in other Books of theirs that G. Keith needed not have fetched a Round to prove it by alledging that they hold the Resurrection immediately after Death but that he had a Mind to fix if he could that slander on them which they no where say nor do the Places he has quoted prove it For they therein only argued against the absurd and gross Notion of their Opponents which was that the Body which is raised is the same Carnal Body that Died and was Buried which he if he have a Mind may undertake the Proof of But though we cannot subscribe to that gross and carnal Notion yet both the Quakers in general and they in particular do own and always have owned a Resurrection and that of Bodies So said W. Penn in the Book G. Keith quoted or should have quoted if he had not mistaken and quoted another for it Reason against Railing p. 133. We do acknowledge a Resurrection in order to Eternal Recompence and that every Seed shall have its own Body and we rest contented with what Body it shall please God to give us But as we are not such Fools as curiously to enquire What So must we for ever deny the gross Conceits of T. Hicks and his Adherents of whom G. Keith is now become one concerning the Resurrection And having refuted those gross Conceits he spaâ—â— of he concluded thus in p. 140. For our parts 〈…〉 we believe and of Bodies too unto 〈…〉 What they shall not be I have briefly said 〈…〉 roved what they shall be we leave with God 〈…〉 will give every one a Body as pleaseth him and 〈…〉 Fool belongs to the unnecessary medler G Keith himself but a while ago undertook W. Penn's Defence in this Point of the Resurrection against Cotton Mâ—ther in his Serious Appeal p. 9. where he says As for his citing W. Penn's Words arguing against that same Numerical Body its rising at the Resurrection it is clear that he understandeth the same exact Number of the small Particles or Dusts neiâ—her more nor less than what is commonly buried and what hurt is there in that Said G. Keith then If G. Keith has a Mind now to maintain and defend the contrary and will undertake to prove that it is the same Numerical Body with all its Numerical Particles that rises which was buried let him do it Scripturally not only Philosophically and that by false Notions of Philosophy lest he make People suspect he intends only a Resurrection of Philosophers or at most but a Philosophical Resurrection I advise him to keep to Scripture-Terms because he hath so often recommended that to others and blamed his Opponents formerly for going from it And particularly in his Book called Truth 's Defence p. 169. is Positive That all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith which God requireth in common of all Christians are expresly delivered and recorded in the Scriptures and therefore says he there for my part what I cannot find expresly delivered in Scripture I see no Reason why I should receive or believe as any common Article or Principle of the Christian Faith or Life The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead is a common Article of the Christian Faith which we find expresly delivered in the Scriptures and accordingly we sincerely believe it But we do not find it expresly
have no Money I expect he will as he uses to do pay me off with Ignorance and Folly for questioning any thing of his Philosophy But 't is no matter if he do I learnt when I was a Boy Sâ—ultitiam Simulare loco Prudentia Summa est That little Skill I have I know when where and how to use and how to hide It were well if he knew how to make better use than he doth of his greater Stock But Breaking off this short Digression which I hope will be excused for though I cannot dress out Dishes nor serve them up so elegantly as he yet I expect he should allow me Interferre meis interdum gaudia curis He sees I rather chuse to change the Verb than break the Poet's Head and thereby hazard the breaking of my own if I had chnaged the Mood of Interpono I return to the matter again where I observe that he makes the outward Blood not at all the Efficient Cause I mean the worker of Sanctification in the Heart but the Spirit and the Blood no more the Cause of Sanctification than Money is the Cause of Health and Nourishment to the Body to wit by procuring the Spirit to Sanctify as Money procures Medicine and Bread to Cure and Nourish the Body And in that sense perhaps as he says he agrees with all true Christians we may agree with him provided he will under the Name of Blood take in the whole Offering of Christ his Obedience and Sufferings both inwardly and outwardly and not divide the Sacrifice At the close of this page he tells his Auditors he has now done with the two first Heads and asks them Shall I go on to prove the other two or shall we adjourn to another Day And truly his Auditors seem'd to have had so fully enough of that Days work that they would rather endure the Fatigue of one half Hour more than be troubled with him another Day And bid him if half an Hour would do go on So on he goes The Third Head of G. Keith's Charge viz. That We deny the Resurrection of the Body that dieth Considered The Third Head says he p. 34. to be proved is That the Body that dieth riseth not again First says he from W. Penn 's holding the Resurrection immediately after Death in his Rejoynder p. 138. I think adds he this will be enough for W. Penn if I give no more It may be so indeed but I don't think it will be enough for G. Keith if he intends to make a Proof against W. Penn about the Resurrection For that place in that Book treats of the Scriptures but not a Word of the Resurrection The poor Man in his over-eager haste mistook his Books and quoted Rejoynder instead of Reason against Railing in which latter I have found the place he quotes I defend Truth and therefore need not take advantage of Errors of the Press if this had been the Printers Error as it is not but his own fumbling mistake though he hath most unworthily done so against G. Whitehead and that after it hath been proved unto him Before I recite the Quotation which I find he cited also before in his Gross Error p. 12. and perverted there as here I cannot but take notice of the Medium he uses to prove his Charge by viz. That W. Penn holds the Resurrection immediately after Death So that G. Keith to prove one Charge makes another which needs Proof as much as the former Now let us see how he attempts it T. Hicks says he argues thus for the Resurrection of the Body That if there be no Resurrection of the Body the Ioys of Heaven should else be imperfect Now here says G. Keith is W. Penn's Answer to it I answer Is the Joy of the Antients now in Glory imperfect Or are they in Heaven but by halves If it be so unequitable that the Body which hath suffered should not partake of the Joys Coelestial is it not in measure unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul held-by many Baptists on I am mistaken But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Widow and so in a state of Mourning and disconsolateness to be without its beloved Body Which state is but a better sort of Purgatory Thus far he gives out of W. Penn then adds G. Whitehead argues the same way but does not tell where naming neither Page nor Book But he gives his words thus If the deceased Saints in Heaven or their Souls have not all that they expect to all Eternity all the Resurrection they look for then they must be in Purgatory for the time But if the latter be not then not the former Upon this G. K says But this Contradicts many Scriptures that especially in Act. 26. That Christ should suffer and should be the first that should rise from the Dead Now says he according to this Doctrine of W. Penn and G. Whitehead Christs Resurrection was later than that of many Millions Tho' he has much curtail'd W. Penn's Answer and given no direction whereby to find G. Whitehead's neither have I upon diligent search found it and G. Whitehead deniâ—â— the words above given as his to be his yet from the words of each which he has given I find that neither of those Quotations will answer the End for which he brings them They both relate to one and the same Objection That if there be not a Resurrection of the same Body the Joys of Heaven should be imperfect To shew the absurdity of that Objection they both argued That if the Joys of Heaven to the Souls already in Heaven depend upon the Resurrection of the same Bodies in which those Souls lived on Earth then the Joys of Heaven to the Saints already there should have been imperfect hitherto and must continue to be imperfect until the same Bodies shall be raised But this does not at all conclude that they held the Resurrection immediately after Death but rather the contrary For they did not argue That the Souls of the deceased Saints have perfect Joy in heaven because their Bodies in which they lived on Earth have had a Resurrection already but because the Joys of Heaven do not depend upon the Resurrection of those Bodies This then is no proof that they held the Resurrection immediately after Death nor consequently that they contradicted that Scripture Acts 26. That Christ should be the first that should rise from the dead which whether in a strict Sense he was has been questioned by some who have urged the Instance of Lazarus and some others before him But it seems as if he did not intend those Words of G. Whitehead for a Proof because after he had passed his Sentence upon that he says Now if you will hear a Proof from G. Whitehead you may and cites p. 353. of the Book
Resurrection or the Resurrection of the Body but only answers some Cavilling Queries put by I. Horn about the two Seeds and therefore is perversly applyed by G. Keith to the Resurrection of the Body Lastly He says G. Whitehead allegorizeth away the Resurrection of the Saints Bodies by his perversion of Phil. 3.21 to a Change of the Body that the Apostles and Saints witnessed before death But he quotes no place neither Page nor Book for this But he tells us that G. Whitehead in his Real Quaker a Real Protestant p. 105. understands that very Place of a Change of the vile or low and humble Body like unto the glorious Body of Christ as a thing to come And by this I understand that G. Keith hath sufficiently disproved the proofless Proof he brought before against G. Whitehead by bringing this for him so that I need say no more to it That which I would observe to the Reader is that G. Keith of all men is most unjust in charging G. Whitehead with allegorizing who has indulged himself so far in that way of Writing that scarce Origen himself has abounded more in Allegories From Allegories he proceeds to give some of G. Whitehead's Contradictions as he would have them to be taken of which he gives two or three Instances how idle and improper will easily be seen The First he assigns is That G. Whitehead in his Light and Life p. 69. thinks him a very Blind and Ignorant Man that reckons Bodies Celestial and Terrestrial to be all one in Matter and Substance and yet the same G. Whitehead in Malice of the Independent Agent p. 17. owns that Christ's Body now in Heaven is the same in substance he had on Earth So by his own words says G. Keith he hath declared himself to be a Blind and Ignorant Man and yet Infallible otherwise by his own word No True Minister But hold a little Did G. Whitehead ever call or own Christ's Body now in Heaven or while it was on Earth to be Terrestrial or of the Earth If he did not G. Keith is clearly out with his idle pretence of Contradiction Hath he forgotten what he told Cotton Mather in his Serious Appeal p. 23. That Contradictions lie not betwixt two Particulars nor two Vniversals but one Particular and another Vniversal And that a Contradiction is not betwixt two Positives but the One Positive the Other Negative And that is not enough neither for in his Truth 's Defence p. 191. he puts his Opponent I. A. in mind of a Rule in his School Logick That Propositions are not contradictory although the one be Affirmative and the other Negative unless they be in ordine ad idem in order to the same and in regard of the same Circumstances of Time Place Condition c. Now let him make out his Contradictions if he can according to these Maxims who hath already blamed G. Whitehead and that but just now for denying Christ's Body to be Terrestrial or Earthly and therefore refusing to call it Humane Another Contradiction he pretends to find in G. Whitehead is that in a late Printed half Sheet called The Christian Faith he owns Christ to be both God and Man c. and yet says he it is proved in the above Narrative that he neither owneth him to be God or Man Here G. Keith brings his own Narrative to prove that wha that Narrative says is true Is not that pâ—etty Whereas what he has charged G. Whitehead with in that Narrative is denyed and rejected as false and the Proofs he has pretended to bring out of G. Whitehead's Books upon a due Examination prove to be but G. Keith's Perversions and Misconstructions of G. VVhitehead's Words as from the former Part of this Discourse will I believe appear The like Method he takes in the following Instance of Contradiction referring to his Narrative for Proof And in his Fourth and Last Instance p. 55. which is of G. VVhitehead's signing among others a Treatise against Oaths wherein it is said We look upon it to be no less than a presumptuous tempting of God to summon him as a Witness not only to our Terrene but Trivial business c. and his now admitting it lawful to declare the Truth in the presence of God c. He seems to put no difference between summoning God as a VVitness and speaking the Truth in the Presence of God who is VVitness of the Truth spoken and yet he might have seen in the place he cites what was meant by summoning God as a VVitness viz. That it is vain and insolent to think that a Man when he pleaseth can make the great God of Heaven a Witness or a Judge in any Matter to appear by some signal Approbation or Judgment to help or forsake him as the Truth or Falseness of his Oath requires when he saith So help me God If G. Keith will not see a difference betwixt speaking with Impreâ—ation and without others do and that that difference destroys his pretended Contradiction In p. 55. He has an envious Fling at G. Fox from whom he suggests G. Whitehead and many others did receive unchristian Doctrine and he mentions a Paper of G. Fox's directed to all People in Christendom c. Which he says hath very unsound and unchristian Doctrine concerning Christ's Flesh. This Paper I have not seen nor heard of before that I remember How faithfully he recites out of it I know not But this I observe from what he cites that whereas he says by Christs Flesh G. Fox meaneth not his outward Flesh the very first Words he cites are Christ according to the Flesh crucified Was not that his outward Flesh that was Crucified 'T is true G. Fox says there as G. Keith cites him It was never corrupted But that doth not prove he did not mean the outward Flesh For I hope G. Keith will not say That that ever corrupted But surely G. Keith might have forborn falling thus foully on G. Fox for unsound and unchristian Doctrine now that he is gone to Rest considering how highly he writ of him while he was living For in his Rector corrected p. 211. he said not only that the Lord had made G. Fox a worthy Instrument unto us and among us and he hoped yet should unto many more but that he was safe in the hand of him that holdeth the seven Stars and the seven golden Candlesticks in his right Hand And said he to the Rector All thy malicious Reviling and slanderous Defamation of him cannot diminish any thing from that true Honour wherewith the Lord hath honoured him and other faithful Labourers with him whom the Lord hath raised up in this Day of the Appearance of his great and mighty Power Can G. Keith read this without Blushing to see how he is repeating the Rector's malicious Reviling and slanderous Defamation of G. Fox and other faithful Labourers with him that he might try if he could diminish that true Honour wherewith the Lord hath
honoured G. Fox which he told the Rector he could not I gather from G. Keith's Words that this Paper of G. Fox's which he charges with very unsound and unchristian Doctrine is of older Date than his Book in Answer to the Rector Is he not ashamed so openly to contradict himself as to charge a Man that he was guilty of very unsound and unchristian Doctrine at the same time that he had proclaimed him such a worthy Instrument of the Lord 's making and had affirmed he was then safe in the Hand of him that holdeth the seven Stars and the seven golden Candlesticks in his right Hand In p. 56. Having done with G. Whitehead he falls upon W. Penn again first For some Passages which he calls unsound and scandalous and then for some Contradictions as he would make them The First Passage he brings against him is out of his Rejoynder to J. Faldo p. 179 180. about the Excommunication of Robert Norwood by Sidrach Sympson an eminent Preacher among the Independents Where W. Penn not to defend Norwood but to shew Faldâ— that he had dealt by the Quakers somewhat like as Sympson had done by Norwood sets down Norwood's Opinion and Sympsons Charge against him upon it Norwood it seems denied the Locality of Heaven and Hell and believed the Soul to have been breathed from God and therefore assigned to it something more of Divinity than the usual opinion doth Sympson stretched this to be a denial of any Heaven and Hell at all and a rendring the Soul God it self W. Penn shewing how severely Norwood was dealt with only for Opinion added in a Parenthesis and that not very offensive This Expression G. Keith catches hold of and deals by W. Penn as Sympson did by Norwood that is he stretches it to the worst Construction he could make and far beyond what it could bear For whereas by the Word Locality of Heaven and Hell it is probable no more was intended than that Heaven and Hell were not certain particular Places or parts of the World set out bounded and limited to any certain and determinate Dimensions as the Heathen Poets described their Elysium to be G. Keith would represent W. Penn as thinking it not very offensive to deny that Christ's Body that was raised from the Dead is in any Heaven that is an outward place or without us And then stretches out his Throat with a loud Appeal to all sincere Christians that this is really so offensive that the denying of that one Truth of such a Locality I suppose he does not mean but of Christ's Body not being in any Heaven without us is a plain denial of one of the greatest Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith and so makes void the whole to any that holds such a damnable Opinion which I am perswaded Rob. Norwood did not hold and I am conâ—ident W. Penn never dreamt of For though he said of Norwood's Opinion it is not very offensive as he understood it and compared with what Sympson represented it Yet his calling it not very offensive shews he held it to be offensive and was offended at it His Cavil upon the other part of Norwood's Opinion by which he would reflect upon W. Penn is that the Soul of Man is a created Being and hath nothing of Divinity essential to it p. 57. Norwood's Opinion as W. Penn mentioned it has no such Word as essential in it He only said he believed the Soul to have been breathed from God thereby assigning to it something more of Divinity than the usual Opinion doth And G. Keith here acknowledges That the Divine Power that made the Soul of Man is in it and operateth in it more manifestly than in the inferiour Creatures Therefore he might have spared all this Cavil But he has not yet done with Norwood because he is not yet willing to have done with VV. Penn Norwood in his Answer to Sympson's Excommunication who had charged him with withdrawing himself from the People of God said Are none the People of God but your selves This VV. Penn said was Argumentum ad hominem to I. Faldo who had represented the Quakers as worse than the Heathens and Mahometans G. Keith catches at this too and reckons though without his Host this is as good an Argument for him against VV. Penn and the Yearly Meeting that denied him because they call themselves the Church of Christ as if says he they were the only Church of Christ. He once thought them so no doubt and if he does not think them so now he must think some other Body of People to be it For as Christ has a Church so he has but one Church in the World I speak not of particular Gatherings with respect to Place but of all that are of one and the same Fellowship in all Places throughout the whole World Neither speak I with respect to particular Persons but with respect to a gathered People which is both the common and the true Notion of a Church That we the People called Quakers are the Church of Christ is no Presumption in us to affirm nor ought to be offensive to others to hear since we therein claim no more to our selves than every other Body of professed Christians challenge to themselves namely that they and they only as a gathered People are the true Church of Christ. But for this Protestantism had never been neither Name nor Thing Had the Protestants believed the Church of Rome to be the true Church of Christ they would not have withdrawn from her Communion as neither would the several sorts of Protestants have successively separated from one another had they believed those they separated from to be the true Church of Christ. For who but G. Keith would be so Mad to disjoyn himself from that People which he believed to be the true Church of Christ Yet I do not think that of the several sorts of Professors of Christianity who have left those Religious Societies or Fellowships they were once of any were so devoid of Charity as to think there were no good Persons none that feared God none that sought and breathed after him and sincerely desired the Knowledge of his Will that they might do it among those People whom they parted from But that honesty and those good desires in such particular Persons though it had and hath acceptance with the Lord and was and is answered by him with sweet and comfortable Discoveries of himself unto them yet it makes not those Gatherings or Bodies of People amongst which such particular Persons are to be the Church of Christ. So we whom the World calls Quakers whom the Lord God hath raised up in this Age and gathered by the invisible Arm of his Divine Power to be a peculiar People to himself though we dare not but own and declare our selves to be the Church of Christ yet we have always acknowledged and do that as of old in every Nation He that feared God and wrought Righteousness
brings it forth And though G. Keith says This is as absurd as to say The Beams of the Sun that descend on the Earth are the chief Cause of the Earths Fruitfulness and not the Sun it self that is in the Firmament yet both the Absurdity and Error will prove his own in his comparing the Inward Appearance of Christ in the Heart whereby the work of Regeneration and Sanctification is wrought to the Beams of the Sun that is in the Firmament by which the Earth is fructified as if Christ were no otherwise in the Saints than the Sun is on the Earth viz. by its Beams Whereas the Travail of the Apostle was That Christ might be formed in them he writ to Gal. 4.19 That he might dwell in their hearts by faith Ephes. 3.17 And G. Keith saith expresly Way cast up p. 134. The word Incarnate or made Flesh and called by Iames the Ingrafted Word we do really see for it dwelleth in us And p. 124 125. It is impossible says G. Keith that he could hear us and be sensible of our Prayers and especially of our Thoughts if he were not immediately present in us and with us And in p. 123. He says The Man Christ Jesus is really present in and among us I do not mean says he by his external or outward Person for that is ascended into Heaven but in vertue of his divine Life and Spirit or Soul extended into us in his divine Seed and Body which is his heavenly Flesh and Blood wherewith he feedeth the Souls of them that believe in him In p. 107. He brings many Scriptures as Ioh. 6.56 and 17.23 Rom. 8.10 Eph. 3.17 Col. 1.27 1 Cor. 13.3 and 5. to prove Christs Being and Dwelling in the Saints and that as the Word made Flesh according to Iohn 1.14 And in p. 111. Speaking of Christ's dwelling in the hearts of the Saints by Faith he says He is formed in them Gal. 4.19 so that they are his Mother who bring him forth by a spiritual and divine Birth Mat. 12.49 Is this to be compared to the Beams of the Sun that descend on the Earth Or did it hold forth a more immediate and substantial Indwelling of Christ in his People How unsuitable then is G. Keith's Comparison besides the Error it discovers in his Judgment of the Beams of the Sun descending on the Earth and there causing Fruitfulness in it to Christ's working Regeneration and Sanctification in his People As if Christ in his Spiritual Appearance and Working were no nearer to his People than the Sun in the Firmament is to the Earth What remains of his Appendix to his Narrative at the bottom of p. 61 and 62. being little and to as little purpose I designedly wave as supposing he may probably receive an Account of it from another hand But I shall here fetch in a Passage in p. 60. which I purposely stept over there with intention to bring it in here It is this In p. 60. He says Now before I have quite done with W. Penn let me put him in mind of his Promise That he would answer me in the face of the Nation For I think I have made good my Word that I have put him to prove his Charge against me that I am an Apostate in the face of the Nation What need W. Penn do that and he too Did W. Penn so oblige himself to do it that he must needs do it over again after G. Keith hath been so kind to him to save him that labour by having done it himâ—elf again and again and that indeed in the face of the Nation in every Book he has published since It is probable W. Penn might have done it before now if G. Keith had not taken the work out of his hand and shewed himself so officious and forward to do it that he has thereby rather confirmed the apprehension I formerly had of his Meaning when in p. 32. of his Book called The True Copy he said I propose this just demand to W. Penn that he give me an Opportunity to make good his Charge against me c. namely That he wanted but opportunity to do it himself and thereby free W. Penn from that small undertaking I know not how I may speed for reminding him of this For I remember he was very angry with me before for but gently touching it and I think pretty modestly with a He seems to have bespoke a publick Meeting that â—e might have done it himself there Yet this soft touch put him into such a Heat that I doubt whether he be Cool yet For no longer ago than the Third Month last when he publishâ— his intention of Holding his Court at Turner's Hall he was in such a Fret about it that in the Postscript to his Advertisement in p. 11. of his Narrative he calls it a most impulent and notorious Perversion a Cheat and Forgery Me a gross and impudent Forgerer Wresâ—er and Perverter offers to prove me to be not only guilty â—â— Gross Forgeries and Perversions and Antichristian Principles oâ— which the Reader hath just now heard a long List in Ten Heads and not only so but says he grosly ignorant in that which he pretends to have knowledge of Humane Learning and of that I can assure him I never pretended to much and though I love Learning well yet I had rather be as Ignorant as he takes me to be than as Arrogant as I take him to be Neither is this all but I am also he says guilty of Pedantick Trifling and Quibling from meer Errors of the Press not so duly corrected yet obvious to any intelligent Reader I confess I think both his Book and Himself under correction be it spoken have need enough to be duly corrected and that I suppose is obvious to any intelligent Reader Now if I did happen to mistake his Meaning in that hobling Expression of his lame Demand of an Opportunity for him as his words seemed to import to make good the Charge against himself I think he has sufficiently paid me off with his Billingsgate Rhetorick and Scottish Complements Yet were it not that I am loath to offend him again so soon I could tell him that the Explanation he gives doth not sufficiently clear the sense of that Cloudy Sentence neither hath he shewed that it was the Error of the Press but added another viz. when I will for where I will But I have done with that leâ—t he tax me with Quibling I return to p. 60. of the Narrative where G. Keith having put W. Penn in mind of his Promise to prove him an Apostate c. which G. Keith himself hath sufficiently done says And let him not put off this Work that belongs to himself to any Deputy or Busie Intruder as T. Ellwood or I. Penington who have already sufficiently shewed their Folly in Print But how if T. E. and I. P. should not think they have sufficiently shewed their Folly in Print Will he not give them