A Quaker did observe to him That G. Whitehead did find fault with the Letter G. VVhitehead's saying He did not make S. Eccles's Expression an Article of our Faith which is as much as to say I don't believe what he says in that matter or am one with him in it is not a disowning with G. Keith But if he reasons well when he says p. 31. He that doth not testifie against a thing when he has just occasion for it justifies it May I not with as good reason say He that doth not justifie a thing when he is put upon it disowns it There is an implicit as well as an explicit owning or disowning of a thing But G. Keith is in and out In one place he says He can find nothing of blame or censure at all A few lines lower he says But I find not that he censured it all It did not all deserve censure Next says G. Keith G.W. tells you in what sence he owns it understands by it not the Letter but the Blood shed viz. That Blood had a peculiar signification I told him says G. Keith so had the Blood of Beasts a peculiar signification for their Blood signified Remission of Sin but was no satisfactory Offering for sin But the signification which that Blood had did peculiarly excel that of the Blood of Beasts For the Blood shed was a satisfactory offering for sin and did obtain Remission of Sin for all those that truly believe in and faithfully follow the Lord Jesus Christ. But G. Keith did not fairly by G. Whitehead in saying He tells you in what sense he owns it viz. That Blood had a peculiar signification and stops there as if that were all G. Whitehead had said For G. Whitehead went on and shewed wherein he owned that Blood shed to be more than that of another Saint in many particulars of great weight He confesses that I say G VVhitehead does own That the Blood of Christ is more than the Blood of another Saint But what Blood says G. Keith The Blood of Christ within says he and then says There 's the Trick He is full of his Tricks and it were well that he had not more Tricks than are good But such Tricks as these he never learnt among the Quakers Neither will his putting these Tricks upon us hurt us so much as himself For the Just God who knows our Innocency and his Envy will clear us and give him unless he unfeignedly Repent the Reward due to him for his wicked and unjust Accusations In the mean time he himself shall Convict himself of Falshood in this foul Charge Here he makes me to mean by the Blood of Christ which G. VVhitehead said he owns is more than the Blood of another Saint the Blood of Christ within Yet in the same page p. 30. had said before He T. Ellwood is so unfair he will have it that G. VVhitehead ownâ— that the material Blood of Christ is that by which we are justified How hangs this together That I would have the Blood which G. Whitehead then treated of and owned to be the Material Blood of Christ And yet at the same time I would have the same Blood to be not the Material Blood but the Blood of Christ within Besides G. Whitehead spake of that Blood mentioned in the Letter which S. Eccles said was forced out by the Soldier and expresly said he owned the Blood shed was more than the Blood of another Saint And will G. Keith call that the Blood of Christ within Do these things square Does not this manifest the Trick to be G. Keith's Yet upon this Trick of his he cries out Is not this enough to Cheat all the World Have not I more cause to say Are not such false Trick as these enough to belie abuse defame slander all the World What Man can be secure from such a Tricker as G. Keith is He goes on with his Trick further They have says he a double meaning as Arius had They say they own the Blood of Christ and every other thing said of him according to the Scripture so adds he said the Arians and Macedonians when at other times they discovered their meaning to be quite contrary to Scripture Is not this Man past shame He says we have a double meaning as Arius had He must say this either from Supposition or Knowledge If from Supposition what can be more horribly wicked than to brand a People or Persons with so great a Blemish upon Supposition only If he will pretend to know that we have a double meaning he must pretend to have that Knowledge either from our Books or our Mouths From our Books he can know it no more than another Man they being publick and common to all neither has he proved nor can he prove it from our Books If he will pretend to have had it from any of our Mouths let him name the Person I provoke him to it He says in his Solemn Appeal p. 7. He thinks he should know and doth know these called Quakers and their Principles far better than Cotton Mather his then Opponent or any or all his Brethren having been conversant with them in publick Meetings as well as in private Discourses with the most noted and esteemed among them for about 28 Years past and that in many places of the World both in Europe and America Now if we had a double meaning as he says we have so as to say one thing and mean another he who has had as he pretends so close and intimate a Conversation with us for so many Years must needs in that time have observed it discovered it known it been privy to it and consequently be able to make a plain demonstrative evidential Discovery and Proof thereof which I again provoke him to Had he that Trick when he was among us He complains in his Book called The Christian Faith c. printed but in 1692. p. 3. of Christian Lodowick such another Apostate as himself that Whereas divers of us says he declared sincerely before many People their sincere Faith as concerning the Lord Iesus Christ of Nazareth and what the holy Scriptures testifie of him yet he did continue to accuse them still as denying the true Christ alledging They had another sense than the scripture-Scripture-words did bear Appealing to their Consciences whether it was not so Thus making himself Judge says G. Keith over our secret thoughts as having a secret Sense in our thoughts of Scripture words contrary to the true Sense of them though we have not given him or any other occasion to judge so rashly and uncharitably of us and our Consciences bear us witness in the sight of God that we do sincerely believe and think as we speak Thus G. Keith but four years ago even after he had begun his quarrelling in Pensilvania yet the very same thing he then blamed C. Lodowick for doing towards him he now does himself towards us Would one not think he had
his Divine Seed and Body extended into us And thus he is the incarnate Word or Word made Flesh dwelling in our Flesh c. VVay cast up p. 133. And G. Keith in his answer to the Rector of Arrow said I put thee to prove by any one place in all the Scripture that Christ hath now any other Flesh or Body but that which is Spiritual Rector Corrected p. 24. and again p. 54. As concerning the Body of Christ that was Crucified was it not again raised up to be made a living Body And after he arose and ascended was it not a Spiritual Body Why then says G. Keith to the Rector sayst thou shew a syllable that intimates a spiritual Body Is not Christ's Body a spiritual Body which he hath now in the Heavens Shew a Syllable that Christ hath any other Body but that which is spiriâ—ual And p. 55 he says What is that Body of Christ mentioned by the Apostle Col. 2.17 which puts an end unto the outward Observation of Meats and Drinks new Moons and Sabbath-days Is that only the outward Body that was Crucified If thou sayst yea then thou dividest Christ whereas Christ is not divided And p. 44. he says That there is no such a distance betwixt Christ that is gone into the Holiest and his Saints upon Earth as thou imaginest see but ver 19 20 21 22. of Heb. 10. And in p. 23. speaking of the Power and Vertue of the Body of Christ that rose and ascended a spiritual and glorious Body he says But this vertue is not any visible thing nor is the glorified Body of Christ visible Flesh and therefore says he to the Rector thou dost grosly erre to say as thou dost the Son of Man is visible Flesh For seeing the Body of Christ is glorified and wholly spiritual as the Body of every true Believer shall be at the Resurrection how can it be visible Flesh And adds he Christ the second Adam is called in Scripture the quickning Spirit but not visible Flesh. Therefore says he in this see how he banters him thou ' dost grosly erre and needest Correction None of these Passages hath ever yet been retracted by G. Keith that I have seen or heard of and therefore he is the more to be blamed for blaming G. Whitehead for asserting Christ's Body to be a glorified spiritual Body not a gross carnal visible Body of Flesh which he himself says it is not He hath one Cavil more upon this Head against G. Whitehead and a mâ—â—r Cavil it seems to be He grounds it on a passage he takes out of a Book of G. Whitehead's called The He goats Horn broken written about 36 years ago in answer to two Books written by three Opposers whereof one was named Io. Horn and G. Keith seems to fancy that this Book of G. Whitehead's had that Title as alluding to the Name of Iohn Horn and he took occasion from thence to make himself and his Auditors some Sport about it Nar. p. 19. But unless he had beâ—ter ground to go upon than bare likeness in â—ound of words he may be mistaken for all that For I could shew him a Book written some years before that by R. Hubberthorn called The Horn of the He-goat broken in Answer to a Book published by one Tho. Winterton betwixt which Name and Title there is not the least likeness of sound That which G. Keith objects to G. Whitehead here is That he contradicts a passage in his Opponents Book which G. Keith says if he understands any thing of true Divinity or Theology is a sound Passage viz. That our Nature Kind or Being as in us not in Christ is corrupt and filthy in it self yet Christ took upon him our Nature not as it is filthy in us by sin in it c. How sound this Passage is I will not here dispute because I would not dilate Controversie to feed a carping Mind in a peevish Adversary neither will I presume to question G. Keith's understanding any thing of true Divinity lost I should be thought as ignorant as he is arrogant But yet I think it may be worthy of consideration how far that Passage is sound which says Our Nature Kind or Being is corrupt and filthy in it self not only as in us by sin in it but in it self And how suitable it was for Christ to take upon him a Nature that was corrupt and filthy in it self That Christ took on him the Nature of Man though it be not in Scripture exprest in those terms that I remember may in a right sense for the word Nature is taken in divers Acceptations be admitted The Scripture says he took upon him the form of a Servant and was made in the likeness of Men Phil. 2.7 And that Forasmuch as the Children are Partakers of Flesh and Blood he also himself likewise took part of the same Heb. 2.14 And in verse 16. it is said He took on him the Seed of Abraham But the Margin expresses it more agreeably to the Greek as G. Keith knows thus He taketh not hold of Angels but of the Seed of Abraham he taketh hold Now I do not find by G. Whitehead's Answer that he denies that Christ took Mans Nature but that he taxes his Opponents with Confusion in two respectsâ— one for that they excepted against his former wording of their Assertion thus That their Nature is restored in Christ and yet that their Nature is a filthy Nature and Christ took upon him their Nature The other that to free themselves from the imputation of Confusion in the former they say He might as well have taxed the Apostle with Confusion for saying Men by Nature do the things contained in the Law Rom. 2.14 And yet by Nature Children of wrath Ephes. 2.3 In which two places G. Keith I presume will not deny the word Nature to be used very differently Now to this G. Whitehead's Answer was We may justly tax thâ—se Men with Confusion indeed but not the Apostle for here they cannot discern between the sinful Nature and the pure Nature for the Nature of Christ is pure so that it 's not their Nature for their Nature is filthy and therefore it is not in Christ that is as it is filthy Then he goes on to shew their Confusion in the other part And their bringing that of Rom. 2.14 Ephes. 2.3 together to prove their confusion sheweth that they cannot discern between that Nature by which Men do the things contained in the Law and that Nature by which Men break the Law and are Children of wrath but make as if it were all one Now I do not â—ind G. Keith is able to make any great advantage by his Cavil against G. Whitehead He says indeed Our blessed Lord might well take on him our Nature and the Nature in us be sinful and in him pure and holy But will he say that that Nature which our Lord took on him was sinful or corrupt and filthy in it self Which
would have expected any other than that he would have read some Sentence out of some Book of G. Whitehead's wherein he had denied Faith in Christ as he outwardly suffered at Ierusalem because he said Most of my business is to read my Proofs out of their Books But instead of that he attempts to prove it Logically Thus he begins That this is opposed by them I prove thus says he The Object of Faith is opposed by them and therefore the Faith it self must needs be opposed I hope says he the Consequence is clear enough it needs no Proof Let us see then how he proves his Premise The Object of Christian Faith says he is Christ both God and Man and yet but one Christ. Here he hath shifted the Terms of his Proposition already First he spake of Faith in Christ as he outwardly suffered at Ierusalem By the words outwardly suffered at Ierusalem I take him to mean as is thereby generally understood his suffering Death upon the Cross. Now he says The Object of Christian Faith is Christ both God and Man But did he outwardly suffer at Ierusalem as God Was the Godhead crucified and put to Death He will not say it sure If then the Object of Christian Faith be Christ both God and Man why did he before place it only in Christ as he outwardly suffered for us at Ierusalem I only touch this transiently and that not to deliver my own sense but to shew how he blundered at the very entrance of his Work and that he is not an exact and clean Disputant However he goes on thus I offer to prove that G. Whitehead has denied Christ both to be God and Man To the same purpose he spoke in his Gross Error p. 14. How Deny'd him both to be God and Man What does he own him to be then if noâ— her God nor Man There have been some who have denied Christ to be God acknowledging him to be Man there have been others who have denied Christ to be Man acknowledging him to be God Both Condemnable But who ever heard of any before that denied Christ both to be God and Man Yet this he charges on G. Whitehead And first offers to prove that G. Whitehead in a Book of his called The Light and Life of Christ within has denied Christ to be God It were strange one would think that G. Whitehead should deny Christ to be God and yet about the same time too write a Book of above 20 sheets to assert and prove the Divinity of Christ calling his Book The Divinity of Christ and Vnity of the Three that bear Râ—cord in Heaven with the blessed End and Effects of Christs Appearance coming in the Flesh Suffering and Sacrifice for Sinners Confessed and Vindicated by his Followers called Quakers Which Book G. Keith cannot pretend Ignorance of for he picks somewhat out of it though as his manner is perversly in this very Narrative of his The proof he now offers against G. Whitehead is out of a Book of his called The Light and Life of Christ within p. 47. in Answer to VV. Burnet a Baptist Preacher who writing of Christ said As he was God he was Co-Creator with the Father and so was before Abraham and had glory with God before the world was and in this sence came down from Heaven To which G. Whitehead replied What Nonsense and Vnscripture-like Language is this to tell of God being Co-Creator with the Father Or that God had glory with God Does not this imply two Gods and that God had a Father Let the Reader judge In these words G. Whitehead blamed not the matter expressed but the manner of expressing it He did not deny Christ to be God nor that as God he was Creator and before Abraham c. But he excepted against the word Co-Creator as unscripture-like Language and implying two Gods For since Co contracted from the Prepositive Particle Con signifies Cum or Simul with or together with he that says God or Christ as God was Co-Creator must intend he was Creator with himself or Creator with another To say God was Câ—eator with or together with himself is that which G. Whitehead call'd Nonsense To say God was Creator with or together with Another is to imply two Gods two Creators which is that G. Whitehead called Vnscripture like Language For as God is a pure simple undivided Essence or Being so the Language of Scripture concerning God is that God is One Gal. 3.20 Mark 12.29 32. And although in some respect this One is said to be Three 1 John 5.7 yet in this respect of Essence Being and Godhead those Three are there said to be One Not only as of the Three that bear witness in Earth vers 8. to agree in One but to be One. And Christ himself with respect to his Godhead says I and my Father are One John 10 30 G. Keith adds another Passage of G. Whitehead's or rather the same Passage in another place of the same Book wherein he says p. 15 G. VVhitehead denies the Divinity of Christ and that he deceives the Nation and the Parliament by telling them They own Christ to be both God and Man and believe all that is Recorded of him in the Holy Scripture In this G. VVhitehead hath not deceived either the Parliament or the Nation or any one in it For certain it is that the People called Quakers do own Christ to be both God and Man and do believe all that is Recorded of him in the Holy Scriptures But G. Keith did endeavour then to deceive his Hearers and since to deceive his Readers by suggesting to them that G. VVhitehead or any of the Quakers did ever deny the Divinity of Christ or not own Christ to be both God and Man The other Passage which G. Keith now brings Nar. p. 15. taken out of p. 24. of G. Whitehead's forementioned Book called The Light and Life of Christ within whereupon the Baptist's calling God the Word Co-Creator with the Father G. Whitehead answer'd To tell of the Word God Co-Creator with the Father is all one as to tell of God being Co-Creator with God if the Father be God and this is to make two Gods two Creators c. For God Co-Creator with the Father plainly implies two This as I noted is one and the same Passage in Sense and almost in Words with the former and the same Answer serves to his Cavil against both It is plain to any considerate and unbyassed Reader that G. Whitehead did not by these Words deny the Divinity of Christ or disown Christ to be God but rather that he did own Christ to be Gâ—d and both the Father and He to be one God and one Creator not two And therefore blamed the Baptist for using such Expressions God Co-Creator with the Father as implyed two Gods two Creators But that G. Whitehead did then as well as now own Christ to be God is plain from several passages in that very Book
by some Teachers among us And to be sure he did then really believe and had good cause so to do that G. Whitehead and all the Quakers did so believe as well as himself which he had no cause since to disbelieve and therefore he did than Vindicate them all as well as himself charging Gordon with a Lye and false Accusation for saying the contrary And yet whatever pretence he may make of his Ignorance what was in other Books of G. Whitehead's written but a little before he may not be supposed Ignorant of what was in that Book which he himself had a share in out of which yet he now makes his greatest Cavil on this Head against G. Whitehead He adds in his note I confess I happened to find Divers Passages in G. Whitehead's and other Quakers Books that seemed to me unsound but in an excess of Charity I did construe them to be better meant than worded and that they had rather unwarily slipped from them than that they were the expressions of their unsound mind c. How long it is since this Accident befel him that as he words it he happened to find those divers passages which seemed to him unsound he does not tell But the tenour of his words import it to have been long ago For if ever he did to be sure he has not exceeded in Charity towards the Quakers of late Years But whenever he had found any passages either in G. Whitehead's or other Quakers Books that had seemed to him unsound had he been really sound himself and soundly tho' not excessively Charitable he would have Charitably and Friendly in a private manner have opened such passages to the respective Authors of such Books and have understood from themselves their Sense and Meaning therein that thereby he might have both inform'd and reform'd their Minds and Judgments in the passages if they had been really unsound or they have rectified his mistaking understanding by manifesting to him the soundness both of their minds and words And this Friendly Office he might more easily and inoffensively have undertaken if as he says he construed those Passages which to him seem'd unsound to be better meant than worded and that they had rather unwarily slipt from them than that they were the expressions of an unsound Mind But tho' he has not told us when that excessive Charity of his began yet he pretty plainly intimates when it ended and why by saying I construed those passages better meant than worded until that of late I had found them to Iustify the same and the like unsound words in my Adversaries in Pensilvania and to hate and excommunicate me for telling them of them Ay there 's the Hing of the business their Excommunicating him as he calls it that is their declaring him to be gone out from them and their Communion and to be no longer one of them From that time forward and some time before his excess of Charity turned to an excess of Enmity and then he saw the same things and Persons to be far worse than he saw them before because he saw them with a far worse Eye But to go on to his Charge and Proofs The next Proof he brings that G. Whitehead has denied the Existence of Christ in a body without us is out of a Book of G. Whitehead's called Christ ascended above the Clouds Printed in 1669. in answer to Io. Newman a Baptist. The Quotation begins thus p. 17. Io. Newman his Opponent's words were from Rev. 1.7 Those that pierced him in his Body of Flesh shall see that Body Visibly come again p. 21 22. G. Whitehead answereth These are not the words of Scripture but aâ—â—ed altho' to add or diminish be forbidden under a Penalty Rev. 22.18 19. Yet this Mans presumption leads him to incur that There G. Keith breaks off with a dash thus thereby leaving out what follows next in G. Whitehead which is thus See also for answer to him Rev. 1.8 and 13 14.16 In none of which is Iesus Christ either called or represented as a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones visibly to come again The leaving out these words was not fair in G. Keith because they shew upon what ground G. Whitehead opposed the Baptists and what sort of Body it was they disputed about viz. a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones Certain it is indeed that that Body which was pierced on the Cross was a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones And the Baptists from Rev. 1.7 said Those that pierced him in his Body of Flesh shall see that Body visibly come again not so much as mentioning any change in it G. Keith thereupon Nar. p. 17. says Is there any thing here offensive Nothing adds he but what is the declared Opinion of the Church of Rome the Church of England the Presbyterians Independents Baptists and mine all along He had forgot it seemes tho' I lately put him in mind of it that in his Book called The way cast up Printed 1677. long after the Book he carps at he said That Body that was crucified on the Cross at Ierusalem and is now ascended and glorified in Heaven is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure Ethereal or Heavenly Body p. 131. And although to shew his own Confusion he there says That Body notwithstanding its being changed from being a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones to be no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure Ethereal or Heavenly Body re-mains the same in substance that it was on Earth making the change from being a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones to be no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones to be a change not in subsâ—â—â—ce but in mode and manner only of its being Yet he had no reason to cavil with or blame G. Whitehead for opposing the Baptists notion of a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones now in Heaven since he himself declares it is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure Ethereal Body which the Baptists I am confident never dreamt of and which I suppose none of the Churches or People he has named will agree with him in if he will now agree with himself But he would have found less cause or colour to quarrel with G. Whitehead about that description of Christ in Rev. 1. if he had considered what himself hath writ further upon that Subject in his said Way cast up p. 141 142. N. 6. Where treating of Christ the Heavenly Man he says And as Iohn Rev. 1. describeth him he is a wonderfully great Man even that Son of Man whom Iohn saw after his Ascension in the midst of the Golden Candlesticks even he that liveth and was dead ver 18. to shew that it was the Man Christ and he had in his right Hand seven Stars which are expounded to be the Seven Angels or Pastors of the Seven Churches Now mark This sheweth saith he it is not his external Person or outward Body
Excellency to distinguish it from other Mysteries called by the Apostle The Mystery of Godliness as being a great part of that great Mystery Yet it is not properly called a Mystery from the Perfection of Holiness that was in him but from the wonderful and miraculous Manner of his Conception c. not easily to be apprehended by humane Understanding In which sense also and for which Reason the spiritual Vnion betwixt Christ and his Church is by the same Apostle called A great Mystery Eph. 5.32 And in 1 Cor. 15.51 The Apostle treating of the Resurrection saith Behold I shew you a Mystery we shall not all sleep but we shall all be changed The Mystery here lay not in the point of Holiness but in the strangeness of the thing that whereas the general Change is made by Death some should be changed without dying We shall not all Sleep that is we shall not all Dye Sleep in this Sense being a Synonima of Death Dan. 12.2 John 11.11 and 14. Acts 7.60 and 13.36 1 Thess. 4.14 but we shall all be changed So that the plain import of W. Penn's Words is but this Seeing the Incarnation of Christ which was his outward Appearance in the World being outwardly born of and brought forth by a Virgin was called a Mystery because of the extraordinary and supernatural Way and Manner of his Conception Much more may the Work of Regeneration Christ's being formed in the Saints Gal. 4.19 So that according to G. Keith himself they are his Mother that bring him forth by a Spiritual and Divine Birth Mat. 12.49 Way cast up p. 111. be called a Mystery seeing it is wholly inward and spiritual in its Operation and consequently more remote from outward Sense and harder to be comprehended by humane Understanding In which W. Penn would not in any respect lessen that great and glorious Work of God in the Incarnation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ But would exalt the glorious Work of Christ in his Saints And as plain also it is that the Scope and Drift of those Words of W. Penn both here and in his Rejoynder to Faldo which I have Answered elsewhere was to perswade People not to rest barely in an historical Belief of Christ's Incarnation and Manifestation in that Body of Flesh wherein he suffered at Ierusalem and obtained Redemption for all them that should lay hold on him by a living Faith But to come to that living Faith that thereby they might experimentally know and witness the great Work of Regeneration to be wrought in them Christ to be spiritually formed in them and to dwell in their Hearts by Faith without which the most exact literal Knowledge of the History of Christ's Incarnation Sufferings Death Resurrection and Ascension will stand them in no stead but add to their Condemnation He taxes VV. Penn with thinking it is a matter of little or no difficulty to believe that God sent Christ to die for Sinners and to reconcile God to Men by his Death How little of difficulty there is in barely and historically believing this the Common Faith of all that part of the World called Christian shews wherein all Professions and the most profligate and prophane in any Profession doth so believe it And though G. Keith talks of a true saving Faith and says Nar. p. 23. None of all the Church of England Men Independents or Presbyterians say the meer Historical Literal Traditional Faith of Christ will save any Yet I think it may without breach of Charity be doubted that too many in some at least of those Professions have no other and certain it is W. Penn's words related chiefly to such For he says in the place quoted by G. Keith At this rate the Lord Lord-Crier is highly priviledged alluding therein to the words of Christ Mat. 7.21 Not every one that saith unto me Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven But he that doth the Will of my Father which is in Heaven From which and his Answer in v. 23. Then will I profess unto them I never knew you depart from me ye that work Iniquity It is evident that these knew not him aright nor had true Faith in him notwithstanding their high pretences of having Prophesied cast out Devils and done many wonderful things in his name v. 22. Again G. Keith says p. 23. The matter is there is a saving Faith of Christ without us there he stops as to saving Faith but too short For Faith of Christ without us i. e. a Belief of all Christ did and suffered in that outward Body which he took of the Virgin without Faith in Christ within i. e. a receiving Christ by Faith into the Heart to cleanse the Heart and by his precious Blood to purge the Conscience from dead works to serve the living God will not prove a saving Faith Then he goes on saying And Christ without us as he is both God and Man the Emanuel as well as his inward Appearance in us is the Object of saving Faith but these Men would not own it If by these Men he means either the Quakers in general or any of those he has traduced by name his Charge is false We own Christ without as he is both God and Man joyntly and together with his inward appearance in the Heart to be the Object of saving Faith to all those to whom the knowledge of his outward Appearance hath come But in asmuch as a great part of Mankind hath not the Knowledge of that outward Appearance of Christ and what he therein did and suffered Christ without with respect to his Manhood and what he did and suffered in that prepared Body cannot be the Object of Faith to such until revealed to them And therefore if G. Keith will yet admit that such have been or may be saved and consequently that they had or may have saving Faith without which none can be saved because Without Faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 he must grant the Object of their Faith to be not that outward Appearance of Christ in the Flesh but his inward Appearance and Manifestation in and by his Divine Light Life Word and Power in their Hearts I say if he will yet admit it because he has of late so turned and wheel'd about from his former Principles that one knows not where to find him In his Way to the City of God p. 125. he said Even at Man's Fall the Seed of the Woman was given not only to bruise the Serpents Head but also to be a Lamb or Sacrifice to attone and pacifie the Wrath of God towards Men. And this is the Lamb that was slain from the beginning of the World And through the coming of Jesus Christ thus in the inward even before he was outwardly come or manifest many were saved and attained unto perfect Peace and Reconciliation with God in their Souls yet not in unholiness but in departing therefrom and becoming Holy and Sanctified unto God In
Logick as from an evil Design in him He adds You know there should be no Term nor thing of Importance in the Conclusion of any Syllogism or Argument but what should be in the Premises but strictly considered is not in the Premises therefore it should not be in the Conclusion Had he minded the Premises better he might have seen that though those very Terms strictly Considered were not expresly in the Premises yet equivalent Terms were namely the Terms Material and simply Natural which last yet was used only ad hominem upon the Adversary's Opinion therefore G. Keith might well have spared his Flurt at W. Penn's Logick but that he had a mind to crack of his own Skill therein He says No Man says The Body of Christ strictly considered without the Soul of Christ is Christ or that either the Soul and Body of Christ strictly considered without the Godhead is the Christ. But let him tell me what they say or upon their own Principle ought to say Who affirm that Christ as Christ was not in being till he was born of the Virgin He says The Sense of W. Penn's Argument is That Christ's Body was no part of him Herein he doth not say the Truth but gives a wrong sense of W. Penn's words Though Christ was Christ before he took upon him that Body yet after he had assumed that Body it was a part of him though but the Outward part He goes on to pervert W. Penn's both sense and words saying as from W. Penn. The one Seed cannot be an Outward thing and then says upon it This ye see is universal and exclusive of any outward thing W. Penn did not say The one Seed cannot be an Outward thing His words were as a Deduction from his Premises It will consequently follow that this Seed must be Inward and Spiritual which doth not universally exclude it from being in some respect an Outward thing also But if VV. Penn had said This Seed cannot be an Outward thing intending thereby a thing simply and wholly outward so as to exclude its being Spiritual and at all Inward Would G. Keith have consented to that I think not It is evident W. Penn contended with such as would restrain the Divine Seed of Promise to the Body which Christ took of the Virgin not being Spiritually-Minded enough to apprehend any other Seed than that which he then took of her whereas the Promised Seed which was the Heavenly Man Christ Jesus was in being and did operate in the Hearts of Men and bruised the Serpent's Head there many Ages before he took upon him that Body of Flesh of the Seed of the Virgin And during that time even from the making of that Promise until the time of his outward coming at Ierusalem he was altogether Spiritual working inwardly and Spiritually against the Enemy in the â—eart and could not properly be called an Outward thing at least in the gross Notion wherein we commonly use and understand the word Outward Not that he was so Inward as to be no where but in Man for he was in Heaven with his Father Iohn 3.13 But when in the fulness of time he descended and took on him the Seed of Abraham by taking on him that Body of Flesh from the Seed of the Virgin he was then and in that respect Outward as well as Inward Yet even then aâ—d since his Operation as a Seed of Light Life and Power to bruise the Head of the Serpent in Men has been Inwardly and Spiritually felt in the Heart working against and subduing the Enemy there where the Serpent is and where he works most to the hurt and disadvantage of Mankind And therefore it was idly done of G. Keith to ask in a Marginal note Is not the Serpâ—nt or Dâ—vil without Men as well as within many Men Since his being without is not so Destructive or dangerous to Man as his being within And therefore the Operation of the Holy Seed within to bruise his Head to break his Strength and Power there and to cast him out is the more advantageous and necessary And whereas G. Keith would infer from W. Penn's saying This Seed must be Inward and Spiritual that he universally excludes any Outward thing because he adds since one outward thing cannot be the Proper Figure and Representation of another He should have considered that though it cannot be so properly yet it may be so improperly or in a less proper way of Speaking which is not unusual in Scripture And that therefore to say one Outward thing cannot be the proper Figure and Representation of another is not universally exclusive of any other thing His charging W. Penn with a Sorites an imperfect or confused Argument in saying Because the Seed is one and that Seed Christ and Christ God over all blessed for ever We do conclude and that most truly that Christ was and is the Divine Word of Light and Life that was in the beginning with God and was and is God over all blessed for ever I say his quarrelling at this is Idle and shews he did not understand the Matter But the Inference he makes is worse For he says Thus you see he makes the promised Seed to be nothing but an Inward Principle God over all c. Why then is God over all nothing but an Inward Principle with G. Keith But W. Penn did not so confound things For though with the Apostle Gal. 3.16 he said The one Seed is Christ And with the same Apostle Rom. 9.5 Christ is over all God blessed for ever Yet he did not say that Christ was God over all as he was the Seed nor that the Seed of God in Men was God So that G. Keith in his heat and haste has overstruck himself and lost his Blow So also he shoots at random when he says But to say Christ is only God and not Man without us as W. Penn's way of arguing imports is most false Doctrine For neither did W. Penn say so nor doth his way of arguing import so The plain import of all his arguments in that long Quotation given out of him which G. Keith cavils at is that Christ as Christ was from the beginning before he took that outward Body of Flesh in which he suffered at Ierusalem which is so far from a denyal of his being Man as well as God that it is a fair acknowledgment of it inasmuch as he would not have been Christ if he had not been Man as well as God As therefore he was Christ from the beginning so was he also both God and Man and that not only in his People but out of or without them also And if he was truly Man then before he appeared in that outward Body which was nailed to the Cross to be sure he is not less truly Man now since that outward Manhood became as I may say a Cloathing to that Divine and Heavenly Manhood which he had before and is glorified with it What he intimates
Words thus Now the Quakers would be so far from directing Men to go to the material Temple at Ierusalem that they make it but a vain thing to look to Ierusalem to the Antitype of that Temple viz. to Jesus Christ as he was there Crucified or to that Blood that was there shed for Justification he says now see the Answer which he gives thus The Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype neither to the outward Temple nor yet to Ierusalem either to Jesus Christ or his Blood knowing that neither the Righteousness of Faith nor the Word of it doth so direct Rom. 10. And is it the Baptists Doctrine to direct Men to the material Temple and Ierusalem the Type for the Antitype What Nonsense and Darkness is this And where do the Scriptures say The Blood was there shed for Justification and that Men must be directed to Ierusalem to it Whereas that Blood shed is not in being said G. Whitehead out of p. 40. of Burnets Book This Charge G. Keith exhibited once before in his Book called The True Copy p. 19. And in his Gross Error p. 1 2. And I have answered it already in mine called Truth Defended p. 108 109 110. Where amongst other things I shewed that there is a Typographical Error in the Passage he carps at and that whereas it is Printed thus The Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype viz. neither to the outward Temple nor yet to Ierusalem either to Jesus Christ or his Blood it should have been either for Jesus Christ or his Blood This G. Keith could not well shun noting though he doth the rest of my Answer Therefore he says Nar. p. 27. T. Ellwood thinks to put a Trick on the Reader and says it is wrong Printed and that it should have been for instead of to And in the Postscript to his Gross Error calls it a dull and silly Juggle But I not only said it should have been for instead of to but proved it and that I think very plainly For I did not only say I find it hath been so amended with a Pen in the Book which I have which as having the least weight in it G. Keith takes notice of and says I do not say G. Whitehead mended it which is a very idle Cavil For though I do not know but G. Whitehead might mend it yet if he did not what then Could it be expected he should with a Pen mend a whole Impression But that which I gave as a more demonstrative Proof of the Place being misprinted G. Keith takes no notice of which was this viz. The former part of the Answer shews it should have been so for there it is the Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype mark for the Antitype not to the Antitype And as it is so there to the Type for the Antitype so it must be here also to the Temple or to Ierusalem for Jesus Christ or his Blood This plain Evidence G. Keith willingly shuns and says nothing to it But shuffles about and says G. Whitehead has it to to to several Times for which he quotes p. 38 39. and 61. That in p. 38. is the place in Controversie In p. 39. he uses the Word to as referring directly to Burnet's Words whose the Word to was saying Where do the Scriptures say the Blood was there shed for Justification and that Men must be directed to Ierusalem to it to that Blood that was shed there were Burnets express Words and therefore it was expedient G. Whitehead repeating his Words should use it So likewise in that other instance p. 61. where G. Whitehead setting forth the Confusion and Self-contradiction of his Adversary keeps in expressing it to his own Terms and therefore says Mark how one while W. Burnet makes that Blood and the shedding of it his Justifier Redeemer c. which he has confessed is not in being Then which G. Keith quotes another while People must seek their Saviour above the Clouds and Firmament contrary to the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 10.6 Another while they must look to Ierusalem for Justification to the Blood that was there shed The Word to was expresly Burnets there therefore G. Whitehead kept to it But in the very next Line when he spake his own Words he changed the Word to into for saying But if Men should look to Ierusalem for that Blood it is not there to be found for it 's not in being says VV. Burnet Now as this and what I have said before manifests that it was a mistake in the Printing So G. Keith's contending to have it wrong rather than right against the Author's Sense and Mind rather than with it shews him to be not only an unfair Adversary but a Man of an evil and malicious Mind For none else would have repeated a Charge of Error against another and persisted to urge it as G. Keith hath done this from a Word denied to be the Authors and so apparently proved to be a Typographical Error only as this was before In his Controversie formerly with R. Gordon he blames him sharply for serving him so and tells him Thou abusest my VVords taking occasion from a small Error in the Printing which is a disingenuous way of dealing and had not thy prejudice blinded thee thou might'st easily have Corrected it by the Sense So might he this had â—ot his prejudice not blinded him For I suppose he saw it at first however I shewed him it a Year ago but prevailed upon him to wrong G. Whitehead knowingly which is worse than if he had been blinded Yet so earnest is G. Keith in pursuit of his false Charge that upon G. VVhitehead saying Burnet's directing Men to Ierusalem for Christ is contrary to Deut. 30.13 14. and Rom. 10. G. Keith cries out Is not this abominable Perversion of Scripture to confirm his Antichristian Doctrine But as forward as he was to Charge another he was as backward to clear or defend himself For in my former Answer to this Charge Truth Defended p. 110. I shewed him that what he now calls in G. VVhitehead an abominable Perversion of Scripture is not more than if so much as he himself had written thirty Years ago in his Book called Help in time of Need not retracted by him p. 63. where he saith expresly thus And now we need not say Who will go down into the Grave and bring up Christ to us or who will ascend to Heaven to bring him down to us or who will go over the Seas and bring us Tidings of him from Jerusalem where he suffered in the Flesh Herein he had direct Relation to the Words of Moses and Paul in Deut. 30. and Rom. 10. Him says he whose Name is the Word of God Rev. 19. we of a Truth witness nigh us even in our Hearts so that we need not either ascend or descend or go forth c. Upon which I
in order to our Salvation yet cannot exclude the inward Work And I am perswaded this Consideration which I have now mentioned had some impression on G. Keith's Mind when he writ those Words I last cited of his out of his VVay cast up p. 157. which made him after he had repeated from those Words of Christ Thou in me and I in them here Christ is the Middle-man or Mediator as being in the Saints add these Words viz. Which confutes the gross and most comfortless Doctrine of the Presbyterians and others who affirm that Christ as Mediator is only without us in Heaven and is not Mediator in us whereas he himself in this Place hath declared the contrary Let us go on to his Clinch For he says Now here I clinch the Matter and he attempts it thus G. VVhitehead says he says But to say material Blood was a Type of that which was material this is to give the Substance no preheminence above the Type especially if neither of them be Mystical nor in being or as if one should say one Type was a Type of another so also Gross Error p. 18. Well this explains it self by those Words in the Parenthesis especially if neither of them be Mystical For those Words shew that he no otherwise opposes the Antitype's being Material than his Adversaries Argument excludes it from being Mystical or Spiritual This also appears to be his Sence from the very Entrance of his Answer where he said Do but mark here what a sad Consequence he has drawn as if one should Reason that because the Type was Material Visible and not Mystical which was Burnet's Term therefore the Antitype or Substance must needs be Material and not Mystical By this all Mysteries or Divine things are excluded from being either Spiritual Antitype or Substance And from hence it was that G. VVhitehead said This is to give the Substance no preheminence above the Type when the Substance or Antitype is denied to be Mystical and made only Material because the Type thereof was only Material and not Mystical As to the other part of G. VVhitehead's Words which G. Keith takes into his Clinch viz. Or like as if one should say one Type was a Type of another It appears from the Place in G. VVhitehead's Book that he spake it of those Temporal and Carnal Ordinances which he there mentions and particularly of Circumcision which in the very next Words he joyns to those former thus As to say because Circumcision which was a Type was material or outward therefore the Circumcision of the Spirit which is the Antitype of it must needs be outward too and not Mystical Wherein perhaps he might give a close Nip to those who hold Circumcision to have been a Type of VVater Baptism and VVater Baptism to be a Type of the Spiritual Baptism thereby making one Type a Type of another But I find G. Keith cannot clinch his Matter until he has made an Argument for G. Whitehead therefore he says Now the Argument lies here If the Sacrifices under the Law were Types of Christ's Blood then that Blood must not be outward Blood but inward Nay nay G. Whitehead said not so He did not say it must not be outward but it must not be only outward It must not be so outward as to destroy its being Inward It is both Inward and outward and hath always been so believed and owned by the Quakers in general and G. Whitehead in particular Whereas therefore G. Keith says This is a false Consequence of G. Whitehead and sheweth that he denie◠Remission of Sin and Iustification by the Blood of Chris◠outwardly shed I say That false Consequence is G. Keith's and shews that he hath renounced honesty and shame For G. Whitehead doth not deny but owns Remission of Sin and Justification so far by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed but not that Justification in the right sense of the Word as it imports a being made Iust or Righteous is wrought only by the shedding of the Blood outwardly without feeling the living Vertue of the Blood inwardly purging the Conscience from dead Works to serve the living God Thus G. Keith's Matter is left unclinched Now let us return to what he says upon S. Eccles's Letter in p. 30. where he begins thus Now as to the Letter says he we go on to what T. Ellwood says He says G. Keith is so unfair he will have it that G. Whitehead owns that the material Blood of Christ is that by which we are justified Of that I have newly spoken and shewed how far and in what Sence that is and ought to be owned But alas Does he call me unfair for this I rather thought he would have called at least have accounted me fair in that Would he therefore rather have G. Whitehead not own than own it only that he might have a spiteful blow at him What an evil Mind is that Yet in that evil Mind he goes on thus But here says he is the Trick G. Whitehead makes a Typical Offering of Christ and an Antitypical the Typical was the Offering of Christ at Jerusalem the Antitypical is the Offering of Christ within This is a Trick indeed an horrible false Trick of G. Keith's own devising So again a little below he says If Christ's Blood outwardly shed was a Type as G. Whitehead affirms it was Where does G. Whitehead affirm so I affirm I never saw that Affirmation yet but since he affirms that G. Whitehead has so affirmed I put him to produce that Affirmation See here then says he their Answer It was queried whether they owned that 〈◊〉 are by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed justified Or that the Blood that was outwardly shed did belong to the Sacrifice G. Whitehead has since of late answered Yea Here says he they have sought to blind all the VVorld Christ adds he as he outwardly suffered was a Sacrifice but a Typical Sacrifice Therefore says he the next Question to be put must be VVhether he was the Antitypical Sacrifice Ay so let it And the Answer to it shall be Yea He was the Antitypical Sacrifice of which the legal Sacrifices were a Type but that he was ever called a Typical Sacrifice I never heard nor saw from any Quaker's Mouth or Pen. Such foul Falshoods and gross Slanders as these neither deserve nor need any other Refutation than a bare denyal He is highly offended with G. Whitehead about S. Eccles's Letter He would have had him blamed and censured it severely and sharply as blasphemous If G. Whitehead had been as hot-headed as G. Keith perhaps he might But Blasphemy is an high Charge and they that understand it aright are not so forward as G. Keith it seems would be to brand Persons with it for every unsound Expression G. Keith is too hot and husty to see aright He can find nothing at all in G. Whitehead's Answer to blame or censure the Letter Yet in p. 31. his Narrative tells us
learnt this Trickling Art from that Apostate as he represents him C. L He compares us to the Arrians and Macedonians some of the worst of Hereticks and in that for which they were more to be condemned than for their Heresies since these might possibly proceed from Ignorance and Mistake that must flow from Hypocrisy and Design I reject his comparison and in plain and sober words deny his Charge as a most abominable Falsehood and Slander In p. 31. he quarrels with G. Whitehead for saying S. Eccles's intent in those words No more than the Blood of another Saint was as to Papists and you whose minds are Carnal who oppose the Light within and also simply as to the Essence of the Blood which you dare not say is still in being To the first part of this Sentence he says This never was my Quakerism For my belief all along was that Papists and Baptists and all have a benefit by Christ's Death And so was G. Whitehead's too Because his Death being a general Attonement for all that shall believe in and receive him all are thereby put into a Capacity by receiving and believing in him to attain unto Salvation But if any whether Papists Baptists or other being carnally minded which is or brings Death Rom. 8.6 do in their carnal mind Oppose the Light within and continue so to do of what particular benefit to the Salvation of the Soul will the Blood of Christ be to them Therefore G. Keith in this as in almost all places deals unfairly with G. Whitehead neither taking his right sense nor giving his full words For what G. Whitehead delivered as S. E's intent with respect to such Papists and Baptists whose minds are carnal and who Oppose the Light within that G. Keith extends to Papists and Baptists Vniversally and draws his Conclusion accordingly thus Now it is come to this says he That the Blood of Christ is no more to Papists and Baptists than the Blood of another Saint As if all Papists and Baptists quâ tales must of necessity be carnally minded and oppose the Light within In like manner he deals with him in the latter part of that Sentence viz. And also simply as to the essence of the Blood which you dare not say is still in being c. Which plainly appears to have been Spoken ad hominem only upon the Baptists Notion that that Blood which was shed was not in being Yet upon this G. Keith descants alledging what no Quaker that I know of ever denied viz. That it was never defiled with Sin and had a Miraculous Conception but wholly conceals those other words of G. Whitehead's which in his Book immediately follow But not as to the Spiritual Virtue and Testimony which is still in being Which said G. Whitehead S. E. owned to be his Intention And that plainly proves that S. E. owned the Blood shed was more than the Blood of another Saint as to the Spiritual Virtue and Testimony of it But says G. Keith Let us consider these words of S. E. which G. Whitehead saith might satisfy any Spiritual or unbyassed man viz. I do very highly esteem of the Blood of Christ to be more excellent c. There G. Keith stops with an c. which he should not have done For if he had a mind to save the Transcribing those other good Epithets Living Holy Precious which S. E. added to the Blood yet he should not have overppassed those explanatory Words of S. E's which follow viz. I mean the Blood which was offered up in the Eternal Spirit Heb. 9.14 The words of that Scripture are How much more shall the Blood of Christ who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without Spot or fault to God purge your Consciences c. Hence it is evident that by the Blood of Christ which S. E. said he so highly esteemed he meant the Blood that was of and in that Body which was offered up upon the Cross For he refers expresly to this Scripture which Speaks directly of that Offering This G. Keith unfairly but like himself concealed and then cries out Here 's S. E's Fallacy and G. Whitehead's Fallacy also But I think he will not be able to make it out without the help of one of his former Tricks nor even with it Thus he goes on Now you know what Blood they mean and see what Blood G. Whitehead means The Blood is Spiritual and Inward the other is a Type If they know what we mean it is a sign we mean as we speak and write for they could not know our meaning but by our speaking or writing But such as mean to know our meaning aright will do well to take it from our selves not from an unjust and implacable Enemy That the Blood is Spiritual and that it is inward as well as outward and outward as well as inward I grant But that the outward is a Type is not the saying nor meaning of the Quakers but a meaning invented by G. Keith to put a Trick upon us He quotes G. Whitehead's Book Light and Life p. 56. both in his Gross Error p. 17. and here thus It is confessed that God by his own Blood Purchased to himself a Church Acts 20.28 Now the Blood of God or that Blood that relates to God must needs be Spiritual he being a Spirit and the Covenant of God is inward and Spiritual and so is the Blood of it Upon this says G. Keith Nar. p. 31. So you see he doth not allow the Blood outwardly shed to relate to God or to be the Blood of the New Covenant or that God Purchased his Church with that Blood outwardly shed on the Cross. Why so I pray G. Whitehead said nothing against the Blood outwardly shed on the Cross but having to do with a Baptist who would have the Blood to be only outward and not Spiritual and who as G. Whitehead cites him in that 56 p. confessed he was as Ignorant of any such Blood as may be G. Whitehead asserted the Blood of God by which he purchased to himself a Church and the Blood of the New Covenant to be Spiritual not only outward as the Type of it was And will G. Keith say that the Blood of Christ which was outwardly shed had no Spirituality in it nor might in any sense be called Spiritual considering the Miraculous conception of the Body whereof the Blood was a Principal part through the overshadowing of the Power of the Highest G. Keith might have remembred that when he was in The way to the City of God which now he hath turned his Back upon he writ thus p. 131. Even according to that Birth to wit his outward Birth he was the Son of God no less than the Son of Man as having God for his Father as he had the Virgin Mary for his Mother Now the Child we know doth partake an Image or Nature from both Parents and thus did Christ who did partake of the Nature and Image of
next head but being loth to lose a Proof as he calls it he even thrusts it upon them He intends this Proof against VV. Penn but he names not the Book he takes it out of as he did not before upon G. Whitehead which shews he was in haste indeed But giving the words though not the Book which he did not in the other Case I have from the Circumstances of the matter found his Quotation in that Book of W. Penn's called Quakerism a New Nickname for Old Christianity p. 149. It is upon a Passage which I. Faldo had quarrelled with and perverted in a Book of Is. Penington's which G. K. having occasion to speak of makes as if he were so chary of Isaac Penington that he would be loth so much as to mention him and says I charitably think this Passage dropt from him unawares Then adds I wish I could have that ground of Charity to others of them It seems his Charity is very narrow if it can extend to but one and he not living neither But they are in best case that have no need of his Charity as the Quakers have not for it is as kind as the Crocodile's Tears But to his Proof he begins it thus J. Faldo thinks that he has made Is. Penington his own Can outward Blood wash the Conscience p. 29. A plain Denyal says J. Faldo Here is J. Faldo's Commentary on Is. Penington's words Is this Intelligible 'T is a sign by his Confusion he had enough of his work I must be fain to open the Passage and the occasion of it to make sense of his words Isaac Penington amongst many other Questions to Professors who place all upon the outward put this Question Can outward Blood cleanse the Conscience Can outward VVater wash the Soul cleà n This Io. Faldo whom G. Keith no longer ago than in 1692. branded in Print for a most partial and envious Adversary known well enough to be possessed with Prejudice against us Serious Appeal p. 6. and p. 60. catch hold of and made this false Comment upon it A plain denyal of the Efficacy of the Blood of Christ shed on the Cross to cleanse the Soul from the guilt of Sin by its Satisfaction to the Iustice of God What greater perversion could have been made G. Keith probably saw this and that his Auditors might not hear it nor his Reader see it he huddled through it in that Confused manner that rendred it not Intelligible For he gave no more of Is. Penington's words but Can outward Blood wash for cleanse the Conscience And no more of I. Faldo's but a plain Denyal without so much as saying what it was a denyal of He gives W. Penn's Reply some what fuller but not so fully as I think fit to give it For W. Penn having shewed that Is. Penington did not speak of the outward Blood with respect to the taking away the guilt of Sin past but with respect to Purgation and Sanctification of the Soul from the present Acts and Habits of Sin that lodge therein says Is he I. Faldo so Sottish as to make no distinction betwixt being pardoned Sin past and the ground of it and being Renewed and Regenerated in mind and Spirit and the ground of that Conversion Now follow what G. Keith quotes Or else is he so impiously unjust that because we do deny that outward Blood can be brought into the Conscience to perform that inward work which they themselves dare not nay do not hold therefore Is. Penington denies any Efficacy to be in that outward Offering and Blood towards Justification as it respects meer Remission of former Sins and Iniquities There G. Keith stops But W. Penn added We also say That Christ's Blood had an Influence into Justification as he phraseth it Thus far W. Penn. And note that this was spoken plainly and directly of the outward Blood or Blood of the outward Body Now G. Keith having given the Quotation short says So in short I take it thus W. Penn answers That Is. Penington's words are to be understood with reference to Sanctification but not Iustification Yes Justification in one sense but not in every sense Says he Outward Blood cannot be brought into the Conscience to perform that work But even the outward Blood had an Influence to Justification said W. Penn But says G. Keith The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience is by the application of a living Faith in Christ whose Blood it was the Spirit of God working that Faith in me But hath that Application he speaks of of Faith really brought that Blood into his Conscience to perform the work of Sanctification there If not which to be sure it could not Why does he say The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience as if it had been really and materially brought in there He says That Blood is not a Physical but a Moral cause of our Cleansing But did he never know or pretend to know and hold forth to others Christ's Blood as a Physical cause of our Cleansing He says Christ Iesus 1. by his Obedience and Suffering procured the Pardon of my Sins as well as he Sealed it by his Blood And 2. He procured the Spirit to Sanctifie me So then it is the Spirit within not the Blood without to which he himself ascribes the work of Sanctification Christ Jesus by his Obedience and Suffering procured the pardon of my Sins says he as well as he Sealed it by his Blood And 2. He procured the Spirit to Sanctifie me Is it not plain from hence that he makes the Obedience and Sufferings of Christ the cause of the Pardon of Sin and the Blood to be but as the Seal to that Pardon But he attributes the work of Sanctification to neither the one nor the other but expresly to the Spirit which Christ procur'd to Sanctify him And I wish he had given way to it that he might have been Sanctified by it and then we should not have had such unsanctified work the Abuse Wrong and Injustice from him that we have He says I find none say there must be a material Application of that Blood but a Spiritual and Moral and says he we can give Instances that Moral Causes are many times more Effectual Causes than Physical are As says he the Money wherewith we buy the Medicine that cures the Body is not the Physical Cause of Health but a Moral and the Money that we buy Bread with is not the Physical Cause of our Nourishment and Refreshment but a Moral But does he think the Money wherewith the Medicine and Bread is bought is a more Effectual Cause of Health and Nourishment than the Medicine and Bread that is bought therewith I am sure the Medicine and Bread are more proximate and immediate Causes of Health and Nourishment than the Money and if he having Money could have neither Medicine nor Bread for his Money he might perhaps be in as bad a Case as they that
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
that way But that which W. Penn reputed absurd was that a Body should be said to be changed from an Earthly or Animal Body to an Heavenly Body and yet after such change continue to be the same Earthly or Animal Body that it was before This is that of which W. Penn said How is it possible that it should be the same and not the same And if a thing can yet be the same and notwithstanding changed for shame let us never much so make stir against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation And indeed as easily may G. Keith defend the one as the other And if among those of the Protestant Parties he now Courts he should miss of the End of his turning from the Quakers it is not altogether unlikely but that he may try what Earnings he can make among them that hold that Doctrine He says It is not Transubstantiation if I say a Saint's Body is the same at the Resurrection for Substance as it was when it went into the Grave leaving the faces or drossie Part of it behind I say that is beside the Question But the Question is Whether a Natural or Carnal Body that is a Body consisting of Flesh Blood and Bones can be raised out of the Grave without Flesh Blood and Bones and yet be properly and truely said to be the same natural or carnal Body that it was while it consisted of Flesh Blood and Bones For if he would argue from the Substance of a Body he should first have defined what the Substance of a Natural or Carnal Body is that it might have been agreed whether the Faces or drossy Part as he calls it by which I understand him to mean the Flesh Blood and Bones be the Substance or any Part of the Substance of a Natural or Carnal Body He seems to hold that it is not For he blames W. Penn for holding that Carniety is essential to a Carnal Body that is that Flesh is essential to a Body of Flesh and he says thereupon see how contrary this is to common Sense and Vnderstanding But sure I think every one that has but common Sense and Understanding may have ground to Question Whether he has not lost his To manifest how contrary it is to common Sense and Understanding and withal to give his Auditors to understand that he is not only a mickle Philosopher but a little Piece of an Hen-Housewife too he says There is no VVoman that sets an Hen to breed Chickens but knows the contrary You know says he the Substance of the Egg the VVhite and Yolk by the force and heat of the Hen sitting on the Egg is changed into a Chicken Is here sâ—â—s he any Transubstantiation First observe he grants the White and the Yolk to be the Substance of the Egg. Next that this Substance of the Egg the VVhite and the Yolk is changed into a Chicken Now unless he will affirm that the Substance of a Chicken after it comes to be a Chicken is the VVhite and Yolk I see not how he will avoid a Transubstantiation that is a changing of the Substance of the Egg which was VVhite and Yolk into the Substance of a Chicken which of all the Chicken I have eaten of I always took to be Flesh Blood and Bones If he thinks otherwise and it should ever happen that he and I should be Fâ—llow-Commoners at a Chicken let him but let me have what I call the Substance of it and I will readily resign all the rest to him even the VVhite and the Yolk if he can find it and in requital of his Courtesie some part and the most solid of that which I call the Substance too which will not be unsuitable to a Cynical Philosopher But whereas he makes himself a little sport with VV. Penn's Philosophy he might have considered that what VV. Penn writ on that subject was not to entertain the Schools but to inform common and vulgar Capacities and therefore he handled it Scripturally not Philosophically using the Terms he writ in according to the ordinary Signification and common Acceptation of them What he says of a Chymical Operation I take to be but a Chymical VVhimsie in his Head or a Chimera which he pleases viz. That a gross Body of Herbs or other Substance can by Chymical Operation be made so subtile volatile and spiritual without any Transubstantiation or Change of the Substance that a Glass can scarce confine or hold it I don't think many have that understanding that he pretends to have of Chymical Operations That a subtile volatile spirituous Substance may by Chymical Operation be extracted from a gross Substance or Body of Herbs is easily apprehensible And that which is so extracted is usually called the Spirit of that Body out of which it is drawn not the Body it self But that the gross Body it self of Herbs or other Substance can be made so subtile and volatile as scarce to be contained in a Glass requires better Proof to gain belief than his bare saying it Besides if the gross Body be made so subtile and volatile as he says how is the Faeces or drossy part left behind as he says But that which must make his Chymical Conceit bear any right Parallel with that Notion of the Resurrection which VV. Penn opposed must be that this gross Body of Herbs which he says may be made so subtile and volatile must still remain the same gross Body of Herbs that it was before notwithstanding it s almost unconfinable subtility by Chymical Operation as they hold the Body that dies and is laid in the Grave to be changed in the Resurrection and yet to be the same Body after the Resurrection as it was when it died and was laid in the Grave This is that which VV. Penn compared to the Absurdity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Folly of which Doctrine not to meddle here with the Impiety of it lies in this that the Patrons of that Opinion affirm the very Substance of the Bread and VVine after the Words of Consecration as they call them are spoken to be really changed into the very Substance of Christ's Body and yet the Accidents of the Bread and Wine enforce the Senses to confess that the Substance of the Bread and VVine remains in them as before I perceive he has done and that quickly with his Third Head about the Resurrection Which as he has stated it he needed not at all have attempted to prove our denial of For it is a known thing that as we have always asserted a Resurrection of Bodies so we have always denied the Body which shall be raised to be the same Body that died with respect to Grosness and Carniety and that 1. From the Principles of our Opposers about it who hold that it is wonderfully changed and therefore it is a wonder it should be the very same 2. From the Reason and Nature of the thing which will not admit a Natural Carnal Body to be a suitable
the World was not far off What else made Paul when he had told the Corinthians That the things he had related were written for our Admonition add Vpon whom the Ends of the Word are come 1 Cor. 10.11 Why else did Peter say The End of all things is at hand 1 Pet. 4.7 G. Keith concludes this Page with a most horrible Falshood and Slander upon G. Whitehead saying He has Allegorized away Christs Birth his Death Resurrection and Ascension and Coming to Iudgment This I say is a most horrible Falsehood and Slander For though there is none of these that may not be allegorized and perhaps none among the Quakers has allegorized them so frequently and so far as G. Keith himself yet has not G. Whitehead so allegorized any of them as to take away the Literal sence and meaning of them but has owned and asserted the Truth and Benefit of them according to the Letter of the Scriptures In p. 40. He makes a Digression to entertain his Company thus I hope I have proved that I am not petulant and that I have just cause to accuse them of these Errors Then adds I was presented by a Grand Iury at Philadelphia and the Presentment would have been prosecuted if the Government had not been changed and I had been accused for endeavouring to alter the Government which is Capital by their Law and they would have found me guilty of Death had they not been turned out of the Government c. Now though in this he does but deliver his own Conjectures what would have been which how unlikely they are may be gathered from what was seeing when he was fined for some Evil Demeanor the Fine was not exacted though there was time enough to have done it before the Government was Changed yet his telling his Hearers that he had just cause to accuse the Quakers of Error and then immediately acquainting them with his having been Presented at Philadelphia is a sufficient Indication that the ground of his accusing the Quakers is not Zeal for Religion but Malice and Revenge In the same page he pretends to give another Proof against G. Whitehead but he does indeed but repeat one of the Proofs he gave before upon his first Head in p. 16. where I answer'd it at large He takes it out of p. 29. of that Book called The Nature of Christianity to which himself writ the Additional Postscript And he gives it thus Says G. Whitehead to R. Gordon Dost thou look for Christ's coming again to appear outwardly in a Bodily Existence If thou doest thou mayst look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him See now the Fraud and Falseness of this Man who that he might make this Passage look towards the End for which he brought it hath corrupted the place by leaving out those words that he knew would defeat his purpose For whereas he gives the words thus Dost thou look for Christ's coming again to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence If thou dost c. The words in G. Whitehead's Book are thus Doest thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee according to thy words p. 30 If thou dost c. It happened that one of the Auditors being a Quaker said Let the passage be read out G. Keith to have put it by said If we had not had these Oppositions we might have saved an hour Had he but now had an Auditor ready as he had in p. 39. to have said He has done enough it had passed and he had gone off so But no body offering to help him out he was fain to read the passage right and so it is set down at the top of his p. 41. He had put in the words coming again and left out the words as the Son of Mary and the words to save thee upon which the stress of the passage lay that so he might make himself a proof And yet in p. 41. upon his offering to read another Passage out of a Manuscript Paper he said I am glad that my Neighbour has such Charity for me that he thinks I will not read wrong for it seems the Person he called his Neighbour not suspecting him guilty of so great Baseness had said in another case p. 24. I think he does not read false And to beget the like Charity now he added I shall forfeit the Name of an Honest Man if I read one word different from the Original How differently from the Original he read this passage in p. 40. will appear by comparing it with the same Passage as he was fain at last to read it in p. 41. How far he has forfeited the Name of an Honest Man if he then had it to forfeit I leave the Reader to judge Upon this Quotation he says p. 41. Ye see these are plain and express words against Christ's outward Coming But in making this Inference he is doubly to Blame For first Here are no plain or express words against Christs outward Coming neither doth the passage relate to his outward Coming it self but to the End of that coming and to the manner state and quality in which he shall then come For the End of his coming then is not to Save as if Salvation were not to be obtained or known till then neither will he come in that low state of Humiliation and form of a Servant wherein he appeared as the Son of Mary tho' he was always more than barely the Son of Mary for he shall come in the glory of his Father Mat. 16.27 Or as Luke expresses it In his own Glory and in his Fathers and of the Holy Angels Luke 9.26 But secondly G. Keith is the more to be blamed for saying of those Words of G. Whitehead Here are plain and express Words against Christ's outward Coming seeing he confesses in p. 40. That in another Book called The Real Quaker a Real Protestant G. Whitehead hath declared He did not mean it of Christs coming to Iudgment but he meant it thus Because R. Gordon would needs have it that Salvation was delayed till Christs outward Coming Who but a Man of a mâ—st malicious Mind would urge another Mans words against him contrary to his own declared Sence and Meaning G. Keith says He is apt to think G. Whitehead abuses R. Gordon But every indifferent Reader will be apt to conclude beyond thinking that G. Keith has abused G. Whitehead and that very grosly In p. 41. he has a little Flurt at me which shews he wanted either Matter or Wit that he would entertain so great an Assembly with such a Trifle He tells it that I had said I had upward of six Manuscripts What says T. Ellwood in his way of Quibbling six and an half His words were I produced above six Manuscripts I knowing he loved a loose way of expressing himself and shunn'd plainness of Speech in my Answer to the Matter for which he
said he produced those Manuscripts as a Nip for his conceited Folly asked in a Parenthesis What means he by above six Does he mean six and a half For if they had been seven or eight he might as well have said so as above six This he calls my way of Quibbling which I think was suitable enough to his way of Scribbling Why should such a conceited Philosopher play the Fool and not be told of it He says I tell him he is guilty of Forgery in saying the Yearly Meeting censured any Expressions in his Manuscripts But because he repeats this over and over in the following part of his Narrative I say nothing to it here intending to speak to it once for all when he is got past his Manuscripts which he now says are seven or eight it seems he does not yet know whether however it is more than six and an half and not quite so uncertain as above six Yet I find not that he produced any more than two and those but private Letters from one Man and out of them he read but a piece of each and how truly and fairly he read those Pieces I know not having no Copy to prove them thereby for when they were read at the Yearly Meeting he mentions we could not obtain a Copy of them from him and we have seen but lately how unfair and unjust he was in giving a Passage out of G. Whitehead's Book The Letters he mentions go under the Name of one Iohn Humphreys and the substance of that part he read out of the first Letter is 1. A blaming them that divide Christ and put asunder what God hath joyned together by making such a distinction between Christ within and Christ without as divides Christs Body from his Spirit 2. A censuring G. Keith 's Ten Articles of Faith as relishing too much of Carnality And then says I am grieved to hear some say They did expect to be justified by that Blood that was shed at Ierusalem When G. Keith had read what he thought would serve his purpose he gave over and said I have not read the whole Letter but an intire Paragraph of it And thereupon says So farewel Christ without You divide Christ if you mention Christ without I think he wrongs the Man in the Inference for I take his meaning to be not that the bare mentioning Christ without is a Dividing of Christ but that so to distinguish between Christ within and Christ without as to make two distinct Christs of them whereas Christ within and Christ without is but one Christ this is to divide Christ and this I take to be that which Io. Humphreys did there blame But I would fain know why G. Keith did not read the whole Letter For though I would not be over-confident upon my own Memory of a thing I never heard read but once and that more than two years ago yet I am strongly perswaded there were other Passages in that Letter which was read in the Yearly Meeting that did explain I. Humphreys his meaning in these And I cannot think why G. Keith who is prolix enough at other times should pick out a piece of a Letter only and conceal the rest if he had not found something in the rest that he thought would take off the edge of his Objection against that he took As for those pieces of I. Humphreys Letters which G. Keith hath exposed in his Narrative though I do not hold my self nor the People called Quakers accountable for them or for every thing that particular Persons may write in private Letters yet I charitably hope though I know not the Man that wherein he hath erred it hath rather been in the Expression of his Mind than in his real Intent and Meaning For in that passage of his first Letter wherein he says I am grieved to hear some say they did expect to be justified by that Blood that was shed at Ierusalem I take these words to depend upon that complaint which he had made before of Dividing Christ by that kind of Distinction which some had made between Christ within and Christ without whereby they attributed at least he thought they did that to one part only as distinct and divided from the other which ought in a right sence to be ascribed to both joyntly I am the rather induced to believe this was his meaning from that Passage which G. Keith hath given out of his second Letter which seems to have been written on this occasion wherein he says the word Only should have been put in and that the leaving it out was the Omission of his Pen. Now had that word been in as it seems he intended it should have been the Sentence would have been thus I am grieved to hear some say They did expect to be justified by that Blood Only thaâ— was shed at Ierusalem And then I suppose G. Keith would not have quarrelled with it And though I. Humphreys when he saw how his Meaning was wrested in his first Letter did in his second Letter after he had declared the word Only should have been in and that that was his meaning in contempt of the deceitful and malicious workings of the Adversaries seemed indifferent whether they put in the word only or no saying as G. Keith cites him But however Let Deceit and Malice have its full force and scope upon it and that word only taken off the Conclusion of my Paper c. Yet it seems he did this not as intending thereby to exclude the Blood shed at Ierusalem from having any share or part in our Justification but as believing from his before declared Sense that Christ and consequently his Sacrifice ought not to be divided but taken joyntly that it would appear his Words had the force and import of the Word only and that that was his Meaning though the Word only was through inadvertency left out And therefore he refers to the Words of Christ Iohn 6.63 Which saying says he of our Saviour himself will clear me of your Aspersion So that even from what G. Keith hath thought fit to give of his second Letter it appears that their wresting the Words in his former Letter and inferring therefrom that he wholly excluded the Blood shed at Jerusalem from being concerned in our Iustification he took to be an Aspersion upon him and so called it Now the Words of our Saviour which he referr'd to in Iohn 6.63 are these It is the Spirit that quickeneth the Flesh profiteth nothing In which Words it may not be supposed our Saviour meant that his Flesh or Body as it was in Conjunction with his Spirit and Soul and contained that Divine Life which dwelt in it and was offered up together a compleat Sacrifice to the Father did profit nothing did avail nothing did contribute nothing to the Benefit and Advantage of Man But that the Flesh or Body considered simply of it self and by it self without that Divine Life Soul and Spirit that was in
are these viz. And although it appears that some few Persons have given Offence either through erronious Doctrines unsound Expressions or Weakness Forwardness want of Wisdom and right Understanding yet c. Upon this I then made this Observation which he now repeats in his Narrative p. 44. Here ye see Friends that that Paper of the Yearly Meeting is so far from owning them of the other side as he calls them that is the Friends in America to be guilty of unsound and erronious Doctrines which G. Keith here expresly saith it doth that it doth not undertake to determine whether the Offence said to be given by some few Persons was through erronious Doctrines and unsound Expressions or through Weakness Forwardness want of Wisdom and right Understanding And yet this Man hath the Confidence and Falseness to say positively that Paper doth own them guilty of holding unsound and erronious Doctrines This is that for which he says I charged him with Forgery And if I did he well deserved it for I proved it so plain upon him that he has not had the Confidence so much as to attempt to acquit himself of it And that with many more such gross things which I fastened on him in that Book were I suppose the reaon why he has not hitherto replied to it though it has been in Print well nigh these two Years Now not being able to shake off the Forgery he turns Cat in Pan and endeavours to make some Advantage against me for having denied that the Yearly Meeting had owned those Friends in America to be guilty of erronious Doctrines alledging that thereby I make both the Meeting and my self to approve and justifie them But that is no fair Consequent I hope there were some at least in his Auditory at Turners Hall that were more just that to condemn us so much as in their own Thoughts whom he had Arraigned and so highly Charged behind our backs though he pretended to Convict us from our own Books but would like wise and upright Men suspend their Judgment till they should have heard or read our Defence And if any that were there fell short of this impartial Iustice we value their Judgement no more than it deserves But if this is but right and reasonable in this Case how unright and unreasonable would it have been in the Yearly Meeting to have given forth judicially and authoritatively as a Yearly Meeting a Judgment against any particular Person or Persons upon the Accusation of a declared Enemy without due Proof and without hearing the Parties Face to Face or at all hearing the Defence of the Accused nay when the Persons accused were not only not present nor in the Nation but some thousands perhaps of Miles distant in another Quarter of the World This was the Case of that Yearly Meeting in 1694. G. Keith made a Clamour then against some in America for holding as he said gross and vile Errors as he has since done against some here And he urged the reading of some Papers he had brought with him relating to that Affair Which though the Meeting was not obliged in strict Justice to admit the Accused not being present yet to stop his present and to have prevented if it might have been his future Clamour the Meeting condescended and he read or caused to be read several Manuscripts But when they were read besides that divers of them appeared to be rather the hasty Products of Heat and Contention which he had raised and kindled there than the well-weighed Sentiments of a sedate and deliberate Judgment of what Authority could they be to the Meeting to ground a Judicial Sentence upon Or who would be willing to have Judgment given against him upon no Evidence but the bare reading of Letters supposed to be his own without having Liberty to make his own Defence and to give his own Sence of any Expression laid to his Charge This is not new to G. Keith for in my Book called A further Discovery in Answer to his called A seasonable Information I debated this Case fairly with him In p. 59. With respect to my self I told him which I had also told him before in another Book called An Epistle to Friends p. 41. I observe he makes a great Noise and Ouâ—ery of gross and vile Errors held by some and them upheld by others which he gives for one Reason or Cause of the Separation But inasmuch as this is only his Charge without due Proof and the Persons by him Charged with those vile Errors are not here present to make Answer to his Charge and defend themselves or to shew the Occasions that led to and Circumstances that attended those Discourses from which he pickt the Words he Charges them with and to explain their meanings therein I have not thought it fit or becoming me on no better Ground to meddle with those Matters being alike unwilling to justifie them if in any thing they have done or said amiss as to condemn them unheard upon the report of another and him their professed Adversary In p. 65. With respect to the Meeting 's Words before cited which he would have strained to be a Judgment against the Friends in America whom he had warred with I told him What offence was given might as well be through Weakness Forwardness want of Wisdom and right Understanding as through erronious Doctrines or unsound Expressions Nay if it were through unsound Expressions though they are not to be excused yet that doth not prove a Man guilty of holding gross and vile Errors c. For a Man that is sound in Iudgment and Doctrine mâ—a chance to drop an unsound Expression through weakness as some perhaps in America through G. Keith's catching Questions may have been drawn to do whose Weakness for him to expose in Print in that aggravating manner as he has done to the Reproach of the whole Profession is very great Wickedness in him and for which his Condemnation from God slumbers not And in p. 66. with respect to his Manuscripts which he would have had pass for sufficient Proofs I told him thus He being a Party is not a competent Iudge what is sufficient Proof in this Case That some Manuscripts were read in the Yearly Meeting by him or on his part I remember how many they they were or whether signed by the Persons own Hands I know not But supposing not granting those Manuscripts to be either Autographs or Authentick Copies I believe he himself would think much to be concluded or condemned from Inferences or Constructions made upon Manuscripts especially if they be private Letters as I think some of those he had read were without his being present and having the Liberty to open and explain his Sense and Meaning in any Passage Word or Sentence in them Thus had I controverted this Point with him formerly in that Book of mine called A further Discovery which he has never replied to which might have been enough to have stopped him
makes a Verbal Confession yea a bare verbal Confession sufficient to yoak them as he phrases it together in Church-Fellowship Now the leaving out the first Part of my Words is injurious to the Sense of the Latter For it makes as if the latter Part viz. That he makes abare verbal Confession sufficient to Yoak them together in Church-Fellowship had been an Assertion of mine whereas it is but an Inference from the former and that former an Inference from his Words there quoted For I did not affirm he makes a bare verbal Confession sufficient to Yoak them c. But from his saying we are convinced c. that God calleth us to separate c. and not to be yoaked in Church-Fellowship c. with any that we have not proof of by Confession of the Mouth that they are sound in Faith I inferr'd 1. That he made a verbal Confession a proof of their being sound in the Faith And 2. That his doing so his making a Verbal Confession a Proof of their being sound in the Faith makes a verbal Confession yea a bare verbal Confession sufficient to yoak in Church-Fellowship Now in this I do not apprehend I did him any wrong at all either in the Inferences or in ending the Quotation where I did and not giving the Words now added in the Paper Touching these necessary and fundamental Principles it should have been Parts of Christian Doctrine as well as that their Conversation is such as becomes the Gospel c. For the necessary Parts of Christian Doctrine are comprehended in the Words sound in Faith and Conversation was not in the Terms of the Debate and therefore not proper to have been there put in G. Keith's Clamour therefore in Nar. p. 48. is groundless where he says Take notice how they the supposed Authors of his Paper notifie his Forgery that he leaves out my Words This may be rather câ—lled his Forgery For the Paper he read says nothing of Forgery but only mentions what Words I left out without passing any Censure or making any Observation upon it The Third Head of that Paper is That in Page 103. T. Ellwood accuseth G. Keith for giving of false Quotation or forging Quotation this is the Scotch Dialect by which I guess who framed it out of R. Barclay's Book Then it saâ—s G. Keith's Quotation compared with R. Barclay 's agrees as quoted Reasons and Causes c. p. 16. For Substance of Doctrine p. 24 25 26. in express VVords and adds p. 106. T. Ellwood admits of Substance In the Margin is set Let the Quotations be read out of R. Barclay's Anar Now whereas G. Keith's pretended Advocates or Compurgators say here that G. Keith's Quotation compared with R. Barclay's agâ—ees as quoted Reasons and Causes p. 16. for Substance of Doctrine I deny it and that upon good ground having now again examined the one with the other And I put both G. Keith and all his Advocates upon it to make it appear if they can The mentioning the Quotations G. Keith gave in p. 24 25 26. of Reasons and Causes out of R. Barclay is nothing to the purpose if they do agree because it was not in those Pages that I charged him with false quoting But in my Epistle First I taxed him with wronging R. Barclay in the Words he gave in his Causeless Ground p. 8. as the express Doctrine and Testimony of R. Barclay in his Anarchy p 48. and I shewed it and plainly proved it by comparing the places together And in p. 61 62. of that Epistle I shewed a like abuse he had put upon R. Barclay and his Reader in his Reasons and Causes p. 16. in giving that Passage as R. Barclay's Doctrine in Anarchy p. 32 33 48 49. which was neither his Words nor his Doctrine And though he would have shuffled this off in his Seasonable Information p. 34 35. Yet I would not suffer him so to do but in my Further Discovery p. 101 102 103 104 105 106. drove him out of all his Holes and Subterfuges about it and fixed it as a false Quotation on him which neither he has cleared himself nor his Advocates have acquiâ—ted him of nor can Whereas they say T. Ellwood admits of Substance they speak not plainly If they mean that in p. 106. which they mention I admit G. Keith to have given the Substance of R. Barclay's Doctrine in that Quotation Reasons and Causes p. 16. which I taxed him for I deny it I only say there He hath not attempted to prove that this is the Doctrine or Substance of the Doctrine of R. Barclay in that Book by producing now R. Barclay's own Words to manifest it This is not admitting G. Keith's Quotation to be the Substance of R. Barclay's Doctrine there But to remove this conceit wholly I said in the Page but just before viz. p. 105. Ye see now G. Keith not only confesses they are not his VVords but dares not adventure to say they are plainly and directly his Doctrine but the Substance of his Doctrine And yet said I even that I deny I say they are neither R. Barclay's VVords nor Doctrine nor the Substance of his Doctrine What now may we suppose to be meant by those Words in the Paper T. Ellwood admits of Substance Why if we may Credit G. Keith in his Commentary upon it Nar. p. 48. He says These Men take notice that T. Ellwood is unfair in taking that Liberty to himself he will not allow to me They adds he observe he admits of Substance of Doctrine in his own Citations but will not allow it to me Whence will he pretend to have this The Paper he read and has Printed says nothing of it nothing towards it nothing like it This therefore I charge upon him as a plain downright Falshood and Forgery The fourth Head of that Paper is That in Further Discovery p. 19. T. Ellwood accuses G. Keith that he blames Friends that they were gone too much from the Outward to the Inward But G. Keith p. 20. it should be p. 10. which T. Ellwood brings for Proof says That he blames some Persons for not rightly and fully preaching Christ without So that T. Ellwood's Consequences seems not fair but strain'd This is weakness at least I shewed in that page that the word too much there related to their going from the Outward which I proved he blamed Friends for by his own saying Seas Inform. p. 10. I have blamed some Persons for not rightly and fully Preaching Christ without Now if according to him they did not Preach Christ without righâ—ly nor fully then according to him they were gone too much from the Outward And so my Consequence was not Strain'd but fair The fifth Head says p. 22. T. Ellwood accuseth G. Keith of a Fallacy in declaring he refused not to go forth at the Yearly Meeting which Fallacy alledged was that G. Keith should refuse to go out some one Day of the Yearly Meeting But that not appearing
to us by any Quotation the supposed Fallacy appears not Well What then Whether it appear'd to them or not the Fallacy is nevertheless certain And though I could not give a Quotation to prove it having only his Books to quote out of Yet I writ it not upon surmise but upon Sufficient â—â—ound and G. Keith so well knows it to be true that he has not had the boldness to deny it There is another part of this Head which says And further Whereas T. Ellwood alledges that he was led into this mistake by G. Keith's obscure way of writing for altho' in p. 14. nor 18. of the Book Reasons and Causes as T. Ellwood unduly Argueth yet in p. 3. Plea of the Innocent quoted by himself p. 19. of his first Book called An Epistle c. We find G. Keith gives account the Yearly Meeting at Philadelphia was in the first week of the 7 th Month 1691. This looks like G. Keith's work both by the Imperfectness of the Sense and the disposing of the words so that the Fallacy I had charged him with might pass for a Mistake of mine Whereas the Fallacy I charged him with was His saying he did go out at the Yearly Meeting to contradict my saying he refused to go out at the Yearly Meeting whereas there being several Meetings in that time of the Yearly Meeting he did go out at some or one of them but refused to go out at the rest But the Mistake that I was led into by his obscure way of writing was that the place of his Book which I then quoted to prove he refused to go out of the Yearly Meeting which was p. 14. Of Reasons and Causes spake not of the Yearly Meeting but another as I remember the Quarterly Meeting For that he did refuse to go out at two several Meetings that Book of his confesses p. 14. and p. 18 I complained that I was led into that Mistake by his obscure way of writing in not setting down the times wherein those Meetings were held and shewed that in those pages of that Book of his wherein those Meetings were spoken of there is neither Day Month nor Year set wherein either the Quartely or Yearly Meeting was held They blame me for blaming him for his obscurity and say though it was not in p 14. nor 18. nor indeed any where of that Book yet it was in p. 3. of another Book and so it may be in p. 13. of another Book beside that for ought I know But it was not at all in that Book which I mentioned where the Matter was treated of and where it ought to have been G. Keith upon this Rants at an high rate Nar. p. 49. and says You see he argues like a rare Logician He says I don't name the Year nor Day nor is it in p. 14. nor p. 18. But what then I do it in another page says he Ay so he did indeed But that other page was in another Book This is rare Logick says he And this is rarer Iuggling say I to set down his Matter in one Book and the time of it in another Book that he might hide himself puzzle his Reader and trepan his Opponent How could he or his Advocates either expect that I should have recourse to his Plea of the Innocent to find the date of a Meeting treated of in his Reasons and Causes Oh says G. Keith he has quoted that for another purpose True but as it was for another purpose so it was in another Book written at another time not in that wherein I complained of his Omissions but in the Epistle written three Months before The sixth Head is almost such another Cavil depending upon the uncertain Dates of some of their Meetings in Pensilvania wherein their Controversies had been handled G. Keith had complained that the Yearly Meeting there had not given a right Judgment against W. Stockdale I shewed that they had He thereupon asks Why did they contradict the Sound Iudgment of a Monthly Meeting at Philadelphia passing due Censure upon W. S. six Months thereafter I took and yet take the Monthly Meeting he speaks of to have been held six Months after that Yearly Meeting and thereupon askt him how the Judgment of the First could be said to contradict that of the Latter seeing the Latter was not in being when the First was given To this he says Nar. p. 49. Pray May not a Meeting held six Months after Contradict a Meeting going before I am charged say he that I cannot Speak Sense And why Because he T. Ellwood feigns that I said a Meeting six Months before Contradicted a Meeting held six Months after it when there is no such thing says he But that a Meeting six Months after Contradicts a Meeting six Months before Thus G. Keith But how falsly shall quickly be made appear and that both by G. Keith himself and his Advocates I ask therefore Which of the two Meetings the Yearly or the Monthly did Contradict the other Which of them was it that was Contradicted by the other G. Keith resolves this plainly in his Seasonable Information p. 11. by saying Why did they viz. the Yearly Meeting Contradict the sound Judgment of a Monthly Meeting at Philadelphia passing due Censure upon W. Stockdale six Months thereafter This is enough to shew that according to G. Keith it was the Yearly Meeting that did Contradict the Monthly that was Contradicted and yet both he here acknowledges that that Monthly Meeting was six Months after that Yearly Meeting and his Advocates undertake to Demonstrate it by giving the dates of Each viz. That of the Yearly Meeting the 1 st of the seventh Month 1691. That of the adjourned Meeting wâ—ich is the same that he calls the Monthly Meeting the 27 th of the 12 th Mo. 1691. And expresly say it was six Months after the Yearly Meeting Now if it was the Yearly Meeting that did Contradict and the Monthly Meeting that was Contradicted and that Yearly Meeting was six Months before that Monthly Meeting as from G. Keith's and his Advocates own words before cited I have proved that it was then that which was six Months before did according to G. Keith contradict that which came six Months after Which how great Nonsense it is G. Keith has already resolved But he cannot acquit himself of it nor of a down right Falshood with too great Boldness delivered to have excused himself from being too apt as Learned as he is to write Nonsense Of this I expect he should clear himself or Confess himself Guilty of both Nonsense and which is worse Falshood In the seventh Head p. 48. Having quoted several pages and recited some words out of my Further Discovery as p. 35 36 37 and 42 and 43. Where I treated about the Separation made by G. Keith in America they say Whereas T. Ellwood should have brought Matter of Fact to prove G. Keith guilty of the Separation instead thereof he argues as we
who was of the Earth Earthy as being made of the dust of the ground and therefore was in a proper sense called Adam But whereas he says the Scripture calleth the Man Christ the Second Adam and that the Man Christ had not only that which was heavenly but had even our earthly part but without sin I must put him in mind that in his Appendix to his Immediate Revelation for I shall be ever now and then trumping up some or other of his Old Doctrines in his way till he will be so honest and plain as openly to retract them he said p. 226. This same Jesus or Heavenly Man or Second Adam was before that Body of Flesh which he took upon him yea from the very beginning Look there now He was it seems the Second Adam before he took on him that Body of Flesh yea even from the beginning But had he our Earthly part or any thing that might be called Earthly or Humane from the beginning Another of his Cavils against G. Whitehead is about Repentance that T. Danson having affiâ—med that there is a continual need of Faith and Repentance in this Life G. Whitehead answereth That there is a continual need of Repentance this I deny for true Repentance where it is wrought and the fruits of it brought forth this is unto Salvation never to be repented of and is attended with a real forsaking of sin and transgression These words of G. Whitehead's he says are in the same Answer to T. Danson's Synopsis But â—e names no page and there are about 100 pages in that part of the Book It was unfairly done of him if it was by design and not through oversight that the Page was omitted to give me the trouble and waste of time to turn over the Book to seek the place which at length I have found in page 33 34. and find the words cited are an Answer to an Argument T. Danson brought to prove the necessity of a Continuance in Sin or the impâ—ssibility of being freed from Sin in this Life And that G. Keith wrangles upon the Grammatical sense of the word Repentance which he gives diversly Whereas the place he quotes shews G. Whitehead's meaning was only That there is no continual need of Repentance from a necessity of continual sinning For he says where true Repentance is wrought and the fruits of it brought forth it is attended with a real forsaking of Sin and Transgression and this is unto Salvation never to be repented of In p. 54. Referring to his having said in the Narrative That G. Whitehead hath allegorized away the Birth Death Resurrection and Coming again of Christ without us to Judgment he offers some instances out of G. Whitehead's Books which he calls Plain Proofs and so they are indeed but not at all of those things for which he brings them but of his own both Envy and Folly First He says G. Whitehead allegorizes away his Birth spoken of by Isaiah 9.6 Vnto us a Child is born a Son is given This he says he expoundeth of Christ born within He-Goats Horn p. 51. To this I need but give him his own Answer which he formerly gave to the Rector of Arrow in his Book called The Rector Corrected p. 30. viz. But why may it not speak of both to wit his being born outwardly and his being born within the one without prejudice of the other Dost thou not know that Maxim Subordinata non Pugnant Subordinates are not contrary And although G. Whitehead in the place cited from Rom. 8.29 said Christ was the First-born in many Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thereupon asked Was not Isaiah one of these Brethren who had been as with Child Isa. 26.17 which place G. Keith may see how he rendred in his Immediate Revelation Appendix p. 249. Yet G. Whitehead did not deny Christ's outward Birth but mentions his coming in the Flesh and tells his Opponent he had belyed R. H. and him in charging them with counting Christ's Coming in the Flesh to be but a Figure for says he It was never so affirmed by us His Second Instance is That G. Whitehead allegorizes away Christ's Resurrection expresly denying that Christ was bodily seen of Paul and perverting that place in 1 Cor. 15.8 to Christ within For proof of this he cites only page 51. but names no Book which made me suppose and I think reasonably he referred to the Book he had quoted last before which was the He-Goats Horn. But in that Book and Page there is nothing of the matter not so much as the name Paul nor any Text out of his Epistle to the Corinthians Neither know I where to seek the place All therefore that I think fit to say to this Cavil at this time is That if G. Whitehead had denied that Christ was bodily seen of Paul that had not allegorized away Christ's Resurrection I wish G. Keith don't allegorize away his own wits Thirdly He says G. Whitehead allegorizeth away his Coming without us to Judgment in these Scriptures Mat. 16.27 28. 1 Thes. 4.15 16 17 18. for which he cites Light and Life p. 40 41. But besides that these very places are already instanced and discussed in the Narrative G. Keith in urging that Text Mat. 16.28 for Christ's Coming without us to Judgment doth as flatly contradict himself as ever man did For in his Way Cast up which he is now Casting down p. 143 144. he said Christ himself hath taught us that his Spiritual Coming in his Saints is as the Son of Man and quotes this very Text for it Mat. 16.28 Verily I say unto you there are some standing here that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom Now mark This says he cannot be meant of his last Coming at the Day of Iudgment else it would infer that some that heard him speak these words have not as yet tasted of death nor shall unto the last day which is absurd Therefore this Coming of the Son of Man must be his Inward and Spiritual Coming into his Saints Can one think it any thing but judicial Blindness from God upon this Man that makes him thus break his own Head Fourthly He says Both he and R. H. allegorize away his Burial for which he cites Light and Life p. 52. and He-Goat's Horn p. 62. perverting that Scripture Isa. 53. He made his Grave with the wicked He adulterates says G. Keith the True Translation and turns it in the wicked c. In p 52. of Light and Life there is no mention of Christ's Burial but only he is said to be a Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World and made his Grave with the Wicked and with the Rich in his Death So here the Text is rendred with the Wicked not in the wicked The other place in He-Goats Horn p. 62. is R. Hubberthorn's distinct from G. Whitehead and it neither mentions Isa. 53. nor treats of the General
was accepted with him Acts 10.35 So now in every Profession of the Christian Religion he or she that fears God and worketh Righteousness that hungers and thirsts after the Lord with desire to know more of his Will that they may do it and who walk faithfully with him according to what they already know of him such are accepted with him according to the Sincerity he finds in them though clouded in their Understandings through Education or Tradition Such as these we do not deny to belong to Christ and to be dear unto him and taken care of by him Yet that makes not any of those intire Bodies of People amongst any of whom these are to be the true Church of Christ G. Keith mentions also these Words as out of a Paper of Solomon Eccles The Quakers are in Truth and none but they I have not seen that Paper that I remember nor know how fairly he hath cited the Words but before G. Keith out of a pettish Spleen forsook the Quakers he I suppose would have said the same The Quakers so called are in the Truth no Body of People that we know of are so inwardly gathered to the Truth as the People called Quakers are He also flings at us a saying of E. Burrough's to the People called Quakers thus The Tabernacle of God is with you and his dwelling Place is among you and only among you is God known p. 64. of his Works E. Burrough's Words are You who are called Quakers who are so not only in Word nor in shew but in Life and in Power whom God hath called and chosen to Place his Name in and to take up his Habitation among above all the Families of the Earth the Tabernacle of God is with you c. This also is very true if it be truly understood For though the Lord is good and gracious to all and doth answer the Breathings and good Desires of the honest hearted and doth visit them in loving Kindness and extend of his Mercies and Goodness unto them in every Profession and amongst every gathered People yet his Tabernacle and Dwelling Place is with and among his peculiar People and he is not so known among any other People as an imbodied People in that full inward spiritual living sensible experimental Manner and Degree as he is known among us his Poor despised People called Quakers whom G. Keith has taken all this Pains to wreak his Revenge and Malice upon and to stir up and engage all other People against if he could But the Lord who sees the Wickedness of his Heart knows how â—oth to reward him and to preserve us in whom alone we trust Out of the same Book of W. Penn G. Keith picks another Passage which he says is either perfect Nonsense or Antichristian Doctrine and because he cannot tell which he concludes or rather indeed both It is a question whether perfect Nonsense may be properly called Doctrine either Christian or Antichristian But upon due Consideration I think he will find neither Nonsense nor Antichristian Doctrine in it It is in p. 310. of W. Penn's Rejoynder to I. Faldo and it is given as a Reason among many others why the Body of Christ which was nailed to the Cross simply considered by it self and abstractly from that Divine Life and Power which dwelt in it should not be called the Christ viz. Because that Flesh of Christ is called a Vail but he himself is within the Vail which is the Holy of Holies whereinto Christ Jesus our High Priest hath entred Heb. 10.20 21. And as he descended into and passed through a Suffering State in his Fleshly Appearance and returned into that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory from whence he humbled himself which was and is the Holy of Holies then obscured or hid by his Flesh or Body the Vail while in the World So must all know a Death to their Fleshly Ways and Religions yea their Knowledge of Christ himself after the Flesh or they stick in the Vail and never enter into the Holy of Holies nor come to know him in any spiritual Relation as their High and Holy Priest that abides therein First Where 's the Nonsense here the perfect Nonsense this great Iudge of Sense complains of Why if he cannot find it he 'l make it rather than not Cavil For says he His saying Christ hath entred into the Holy of Holies within the Vail and that Vail is his Flesh and that Holy of Holies is himself What Nonsense is this says he VVas not Christ always in himself But where did W. Penn say That Holy of Holies is Christ himself Find me those Words in the whole Paragraph Nay does he not plainly say otherwise Does he not expresly call that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory from whence Christ humbled himself and into which he returned the Holy of Holies Read the Words again And as he descended into and past through a Suffering State in his fleshly Appearance and returned into that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory from whence he humbled himself which was and is the Holy of Holies So c. Pray what is the Antecedent here to the Relative VVhich but the Word State going before G. Keith is too well versed in Grammar not to know and see this I would he were but half so well versed in Honesty For this is a plain dishonest Perversion for which he deserves at least the Contempt and Censure of every honest Reader who by this Instance may see the ways G. Keith takes to make his Opponent speak Nonsense or Antichristian Doctrine He goes on with the like Honesty in his second Note upon these Words of VV. Penn thus His entring in within the Vail of his Flesh is either perfect Nonsense or it hath this Sense That he hath put off his Body be had on Earth and is sâ—parated from it This is a plain Perversion also For his entring in within the Vaâ—l is clearly explained by those Words of his returning into that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory called the Holy of Holies which he was in before he humbled himself to take on him that Flesh which was called a Vail because it vailed or hid from Men the Glory of his Godhead that dwelt in it Both Vail and Holy of Holies are Metaphorical Expressions borrowed from the Legal Tabernacle And as there in the Type they were used to set forth a difference of Places wih respect to Degrees of Holiness So here in the Antitype they are used to set forth a difference of States with respect to Degrees of Glory The State of Christ's Humiliation when he appeared in the form of a Servant in that Body of Flesh which was called The Vail was very glorious But the State of his Exaltation into that Immortality Eternal Life and Glory which he had with his Father before the World began which is called The Holy of Holies is a far more
glorious State Yet doth not his entring into this State imply that he has put off his Body he had on Earth and is separated from it For that Body being glorified is in Heavenly Glory with him But it is probable he raised this Cavil as to defame VV. Penn so also to introduce a Story which hereupon he tells of one R. Young in Pensilvania who he says affirmed this But that he did so G. Keith gives no Proof but his own Word which is justly in things of this kind of no Credit with me who have so often found and proved him false He makes a Third note upon those words of W. Penn before cited and that with as little Honesty as before For from W. Penn's saying All must know a Death to their Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh G. Keith says It is plain from his words that he hath this unsound sense of it that they must know a Death to the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh as the Flesh signifieth the Flesh of Christ as he came in the Flesh. But as this Comment is not very perfect sense and yet I will not call it perfect Nonsense so it is plain that he perverts W. Penn's words to a wrong sense and therein Abuses him For W. Penn's words are All must know a Death to their Fleshly ways and Religions which word Fleshly ways and Religions G. Keith left out see his Abominable Falshood and Treachery Yea their knowledge of Christ himself after the Flesh c. Which words Fleshly ways and Religions shew what sort of Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh he meant all must know a Death to viz. Their Fleshly Knowledge as Fleshly is opposed to Spiritual or that Knowledge which they in their Carnal Minds have comprehended or gathered in and in which too many rest without pressing after the Divine and Spiritual Knowledg of the End of Christ's coming in the Flesh and the Blessed effects thereof and manifold Benefits that accrue thereby to them that receive him in his Spiritual Appearance But how malicious a mind must he have who from those words would infer that W. Penn would have all to Die to the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh so as not to know that he ever came in the Flesh. In p. 58. G. Keith cites a Passage out of a Book of W. Penn's called Truth Exalted and with all rents a Quotation he gave before in his Narrative p. 21. out of a Book called The Christian Quaker which the Reader may find answered before From both which he infers that he and G. Whitehead and many other Teachers among the Quakers have no other Notion of Christ but an Inward Principle This is such a known Falshood and Apparent Slander Contradicted by almost all our Books and so fully disproved in many places of this Book that it neither deserves nor nâ—eds any other Answer here than a bare Denyal To his unjust Charge of unsound Passages he adds two or three seeming Contradictions which he would fasten upon W. Penn. The First is That in A Treatise of Oaths mentioned before he is earnest against all Oaths under the Gospel and yet in his Reason against Railing p. 180. he useth saith G. Keith the greatest Oath that ever was used among the Jews The Instance he gives is in these words directed to T. Hicks O that these heavy things might not be laid to thy Charge for so sure as God liveth there 's his Catch great will be the wrath that shall follow Yea God will visit for these unrighteous Dealings And I testify to thee from God's living Spirit if thou desist not and come not to deep Repentance the Lord will make thee an example of his Fury and thy Head shall not go down to the Grave in Peace c. This I take to be a meer Cavil and a very weak one too For first That form of Speech as the Lord liveth though it was sometimâ—â— used among the Jews of Old as an Oath yet it was not always so nor do I think G. Keith will take it to be intended for an Oath in all those places where he Reads it in the Bible as particularly in 1 Sam. 25 26. Where Abigail used it to David Concerning his Enemies See also Chap. 26.10 and Chap. 29.6 1 Ki. 17.12 and 18.10 2 Ki. 22.4.6 and Chap. 4.30 Iob. 27.2 with many other places in the Books of Samuel and the Kings where it is used sometimes singly as the Lord liveth sometimes with this Addition and as thy Soul liveth Yea and sometimes this latter Expression as thy Soul liveth is used without the former as in 1 Sam. 1.26 and 17.55 2 Sam. 11.11 14 19. Yet neither with it nor without it was intended for an Oath Secondly There is a difference between those two forms of Speech As the Lord liveth and so sure as God liveth for though the former was formerly used as an Oath yet the latter never was so used or taken but is only a Persuasive Form of Speech used to set forth the unquestionable Certainty of the thing delivered from the acknowledged Certainty that God lives In which sense and no other it is evident W. Penn there used it to express the Assurance he had of the Truth and Certainty of the Testimony he then gave against and to Tho. Hicks But none I think besides G. Keith would be so extravagant as to think that in these words W. Penn intended to take his Oath that the wrath of God which should follow those unrighteous dealings of T. Hicks would be great So to think were great Folly How mean a Cavil then is this And how meer a Caviller hath G. Keith shewn himself therein The latter part of W. Penn's words before cited G. Keith says imply some Prophecy against T. Hicks which he suggests was not fulfilled But he should have observed that what was there spoken of T. Hicks was Conditional if he desisted not and came noâ— to Repentance That he desisted is certain that he did not â—ome to Repentance I suppose G. Keith will not adventure to say that he did come to Repentance I have heard which that G. Keith also may do I wish His second Instance of Contradiction he gives in p. 59. out of two Books of W. Penn's One called Iudas and the Iews p. 13. the other An Address to Protestants p. 152. in the second Edition p. 151. in the first Edition the Passage is concerning the Power of the Church from those words of Christ Mat. 18.17 Go tell the Church This place in both those Books W. Penn expounded of Private Offences or Personal Injuries between Brethren which has no shew of Contradiction in it 'T is true that in the former he inferr'd from those words of Christ That Christ gave his Church Power both to try and reject Spirits In the other he denies that those words of Christ do Impower the Church to define and Impose upon all People under Temporal and Eternal Punishment Articles of
his Narrative where he hath repeated these Charges against W. Penn and G. Whitehead and I as before have endeavoured to free them from his Perversions and Abuses The Fourth Error he bestows on me is That I deny that the Gift of the Divine Grace or Power within is the real Purchase of Christ's Obedience unto Death arguing that if so that would not be the Free Gift of God p. 121. Here are two notable Pieces of Art he has shewed in the framing of this Error First He has changed my VVords from The Gift of the promised Seed to The Gift of the Divine Grace or Power within Which quite alters the Sence of the Place For whereas I inferred from his Words that the Gift of the promised Seed was not a free Gift or did not proceed from the free Love of God to Man contrary to Iohn 3.16 but was the real purchase of Christ's most holy and perfect Obedience unto Death when he came which was the Error and Absurdity I drew upon him from his own Words He to slip from under that changes the Words as I shewed before from the Gift of the promised Seed to the Gift of the Divine Grace and Power within referring to Rom. 5.15 Eph. 4.7 8. and Psalm 68.18 which latter Places mention Christ's giving Gifts unto Men when he ascended up on High after his Death and Resurrection So turning the Free Gift of God in promising the Seed and giving his only begotten Sun to the Gift of Divine Grace and Power within which Christ the promised Seed gave when he ascended up on high and then charges me with Error in denying this Gift given by Christ to be the real purchase of his Obedience unto Death whereas it was the Gift of Christ himself as the promised Seed that I spake of which was the Effect of God's free Love not the purchase of Christ's Death The other piece of his Art is in turning this upon me saving He denies Whereas I neither denyed nor affirmed but shewed him the Absurdity and Error of his own Words The Fifth Error he assigns me is That I blame him for saying Christ's Body is the same in substance it was on Earth p. 129. I desire the Reader to examine that Place in my Book and he will see that I do not blame G. Keith for saying Christ's Body is the same in substance it was on Earth But I expose his Confusion and Folly in saying it is the same in substance that it was on Earth and yet saying It is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure ethereal or Heavenly Body as if Christ's Body when on Earth had not been a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but an Ethereal or Airy Body Or as if Flesh Blood and Bones were not of the substance of an outward visible tangible Body such as was that which was nailed to the Cross at Ierusalem The Sixth Error he allots me is That I deny that Christ came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary p. 136. In this as in the rest he is extreamly unjust In this place also we treated of Christ as he was the promised Seed And he undertaking to prove in p. 22. of his Book called The True Copy c. from Mat. 1.1 That the Seed of Promise came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary I pinched him up close with his own words in that same Book of his p. 20. where he had said It is neither the Body of Christ strictly considered nor the Soul of Christ strictly considered without the Godhead nor the Godhead strictly considered without the Soul and Body of the Manhood of Christ that is the Seed of the Woman or Seed of Abraham but the Godhead and Manhood jointly considered and most gloriously united Hereupon I shewed him that in urging Mat. 1.1 to prove the Seed of Promise as he had defined it came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary he shewed himself to be of a corrupt Judgment and contradicted his former Saying I was so favourable before as only to say Should I not serve him right if from hence I should conclude against him that he holds the Seed of Promise as consisting of Godhead and Manhood united to have come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary since he blamed S. C. for denying it But I think I have just cause now to set it harder on him and charge it home upon him as a vile and gross Error That he holds that Christ who he says in the same place was the Son of God by an eternal Generation before the World began the promised Seed which he says is neither the Body of Christ strictly considered nor the Soul of Christ strictly considered without the Godhead nor the Godhead strictly considered without the Soul and Body of the Manhood of Christ but the Godhead and Manhood joinâ—ly considered and most gloriously united that Christ the promised Seed or Seed of the Woman thus defined did come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary And I hope he will think himself or that others however will think him obliged to clear himself of this Error which is vile and gross enough before he take upon him to arraign others The Seventh Error he abuses me with is That I pervert the Apostle's Creed in that Clause Conceived of the Holy Ghost p. 138. by which I infer that Christ came not by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary and in so doing he says I make the Holy Ghost to be the maâ—erial Cause of that Generation as if that Holy Thing conceived were of the substance of the Holy Ghost whereas the Holy Ghost was the Efficient Cause thereof but not the Material Cause Perversion is so natural to him that he can do nothing at this sort of work without it That he might fasten an Error upon me he perverts yea alâ—ers the words of that Creed For the words of that Creed in that Clause are Conceived by the Holy Ghost and so I gave them in my Book he has changed the word by to of and renders it Conceived of the Holy Ghost Whereas the word by imports the Holy Ghost to have been the Efficient Cause that by vertue of which Mary conceived But the word of imports him to have been the Material Cause as if the thing conceived had been taken of the Matter or substance of the Holy Ghost To avoid which I following the express words of that Creed said the common Creed called The Apostles says Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost though born of the Virgin Mary Now how shameless is this Man to charge me with vile and gross Error in perverting the Apostle's Creed in that Clause Conceived of the Holy Ghost When it plainly appears from his own Book that it is he himself that has altered and thereby perverted the words of that Creed and not I Besides