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

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

HAD I not by Observation of past Acti∣ons known George Keith a little too well, I might have been induced to have Thought, that the extravagancies of Ex∣pressions, bitterness of Words, and angry Lan∣guage, vented against those whom he calls A Gang or Sort of Quakers, were only the pro∣duct of a suddain angry Fit, which in a more se∣rene Temper he would be ashamed of, But a∣las! I find if I had so thought, I had been mi∣staken in the Man, and consequently my Opini∣on of him and his malicious Work; but too true, and that is, that his Spleen is so swelled with the Ill-will he bears us, that a common ven∣ting his Passion wont ease him; but as if not only Intoxicated, but perfectly Drunk there∣with, he Vomits out great Floods of Railing Accusations; and what is worse, still Sucks in more, whereby he is so far from coming to his right Mind; as that he may be said to be con∣tinually inflamed therewith, and thereby hin∣dred from seeing the Deformity of it, and the inconveniencies it subjects him to, whence it is, that instead of being ashamed, he Vindicates

what any Sober, Moderate Man (I am per∣swaded) cannot read with Approbation.

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

In my former, I taxed him with

fondly imagining that he and he alone amongst the Quakers had monopolized Knowledge,

and for Proof thereof produced a Paragraph out of a Book Entituled, A Modest Account, &c. p. 28. viz.

If you serve George Keith so, George Keith will leave you, and then ye shall wander about

for lack of Knowledge, and shall not find it.

Brief Observations, p. 3. This he now tells us, p. 1. is a lying Story, an abominable Falshood. I Answer, He knows whence I had it, I reserred to Book and Page, which is more then he does in some of his Stories, therefore I made it not; but that it is false, we have only his bare Deni∣al now, and not so much before in his Answer to the said Book: He only says, Antichrists and Sadducees, p. 8. concerning some Relations C. Pusey gives in his Modest Account,

Most of which are absolutely False (and that little that's true, in any of them, is not fairly nor duly related)

should he not have told us which were, and which were not false; and how far true, how far false? However, upon the whole it is but his denial against the others Affirmati∣on; which, Whether the one would be guilty of Forging a lying Story without any ground, or the other of denying a real Truth to save his Credit; as not being willing to be thought so presumptuously conceited of his own profound Knowledge, and so undervaluingly slighting of others, must be left to every Reader to judge as he sees occasion; and in the mean time he must excuse me if I disbelieve him, and tell him in his own Dialect to C. Pusey, he hath brought no∣thing in disproof of it, but his own forseited Cre∣dit. He proceeds, And this, and the like false Accusations, are the best Armour, these my Adver∣saries have to Fight against me. Which is a gross Abuse and proofless Assertion, and as such I re∣ject it; the only Reason of my producing it, being as an Instance of his Malice, which is one of

my Charges upon him, under which he is un∣easie.

What I charged upon him, Brief Observations, p. 4. relating to 'his imposing fond Notions and unscriptural Creeds, he will have to be no other then some of the great Fundamentals of the Christian Religion, the denial whereof (says he) I have sufficiently proved them guilty of in the Meeting at Turners-Hall, &c. I Answer, He mistakes the Point, I called not those fond Notions, which he falsly accused us at Turners-Hall, with deny∣ing; but I'le tell him where he may find some that I call so; viz. in Truth Advanced, from p. 17. to p. 30. likewise p. 115, 116, 117. and from p. 124, to p. 127. besides other places of that Book, what they are he has been already told in part, in a Book lately Published, Entitu∣led Keith against Keith, from p. 39, to p. 53. and from p. 93, to p. 100. and so that La∣bour saved me for the present. Then what I call unscriptural Creeds, I shall now tell him; viz. Articles of Faith not delivered in Scripture Terms, imposed as a Boundary, Term and Bond of Ʋnion, which unless a Person confess with his Mouth in the hearing of some of his Fellow-members, he is not to be owned as a Member of the Church, (see the last of the Ten Articles) and methinks G. Keith should not call this a false Charge, for the very ten Articles themselves mentioned Ex∣act Narrative, p. 42. are not in Scripture Lan∣guage (though whether right or wrong and wherein I wave at present) and how far they were offered to be imposed is known to some; and that himself refused to accept of a Confessi∣on

of Faith drawn up in Scripture Phrase by the Pennsylvanian Friends himself hath acknow∣ledged; therefore my Charge stands grounded upon a good Bottom. Besides, he's too hasty to take it for granted, that what he said and al∣ledged at Turners-Hall was sufficient Proof; I may as well tell him, his so called Proofs were suf∣ficiently disproved by T. Ellwood in his Answer to the Narrative; and shall have more ground for my so saying, than he for his; 'till he Re∣ply thereto.

In the next Place he labours to palliate the Contradictions I charged upon him, relating to the different Characters; given both of the Epi∣scopal Clergy and Dissenting Ministers in his for∣mer Books, to what he gives them in his Expo∣stulation; but therein he useth such poor Evasive Shifts, as shew he is hard put to it: He would fain reconcile them, or at least seem so to do; that's his Drift, he's loath to have it thought that George contradicts Keith; but all his Daubing won't serve, 'tis untempered Mortar he useth, that won't stick; and so the Crack becomes wi∣der than it was before. I urged Quotations out of three of his Books, viz. 1. Help in Time of Need. 2. Way cast up. 3. Presbyterian and Independent Visible Churches, of these he takes Notice on∣ly of the first; saying, For which he citeth some Passages in a Book of mine, called; Help in Time of Need, Printed above thirty Years ago; As if I had quoted nothing out of any other Books of his upon this Subject, but withal let him take Notice that's within these thirty three Years; consequently they either much changed for the

better, or else he much for the worse since. Now though I am at my Liberty, to quote pas∣sages out of any Book of his to disprove his fol∣lowing Evasions; yet that he may see his own weapon turned against himself, in this Point now in Debate I shall confine my self to this one Book, having Proof enough and to spare from thence, to drive him out of his subterfu∣ges.

He begins his Matter thus, But none of these Passages prove, that I did judge there were none a∣mong them all [Church of England and Dissen∣ters] Pious and Learned, for indeed I was never so uncharitable. This Man who will needs Print Books, had need to go to School to learn that from particulars to the Ʋniversal, the Consequence is not good. Answ. What if he had not said they were universally bad, so as to include every individu∣al; yet I do affirm his Words extend far be∣yond Particulars, even to the Generality; yea to so great a Majority as falls very little short of Universal, as may be seen in Help in Time of Need, p. 36, 37. Where taxing the Ministers with Preaching up that then (in 1664.) which they had preached down three or four Years before; adds,

Which breeds no small Admiration to poor People, as if they had changed their God; but I know well, generally they have kept their God all along very constantly, among all their Changes, being such (the Apostle mentions) GENERALLY,

whose God is their Belly, and this Master they have served; and do serve very

faithfully, making every Change answer its de∣sire.

Here's a Charge upon Ministers GENE∣RALLY,

which how consistent it is with true PI∣ETY needs no Comment. Again, p. 29.

Now Judas fell from his Ministry (as saith the Scrip∣ture) in selling his Master; which GENERALLY your Ministers have done, and have they not thereby fallen from their Ministry; supposing, but not granting; they had once been true Mi∣nisters;

This is general again, as inconsistent with Piety as the other; but this is not all, see p. 24, 25.

And were not the set Forms of Prayer cryed down also in Scotland, as lifeless barren things (and the Service Book denied) and now ye have again licked up that Vomit, and through your Cities Men set up (MOSTLY also SCANDALOUS in their Conversations) at such Hours of the Day or Night to read a set Form of Prayer? And is there any material Difference between this and the Service Book? And have not your BRETHREN IN ENG∣LAND, taken it up again? And when it's offe∣red to you to read, will ye not also do the like? There is no Question of it, but MOST of you will, and WORSE also when ye are put to Tryal.

Again p. 75.

And that whereon there is so much stress laid; to wit, the calling of the People, or Patrons, is NOT OF GOD, but of Babylon; for in the State they are in, they will be loath ever to call a good Man unto them (SUPPOSING HE COULD BE FOUND) but such who will wink at their Faults, and run with them thereinto.

Well to conclude this Point, I shall give one Instance more and that is in p. 35, 36. viz.

And were it not for a livelyhood, and worldly Honour and Respect, would SO MA∣NY

betake themselves to such a Work? And does not your gain from your quarter, which you so punctually Exact (and they that will not put into your Mouths, ye prepare War against them) and your removing from one Parish to another, where ye can have a fatter Stipend, manifestly prove; ye are moved thereto, rather from a Principle of Covetous∣ness, then from any desire of doing good to the Souls of the People? And how came MA∣NY of you to be Teachers? Was it not the de∣sign of your Fathers and Relations, who saw it a ready way for them to put you in a way of Livelihood; and sent you to Schools to learn the Calling; as ever the Shooemaker, or other Tradesman past his Apprentiship, and then becomes free to use the Trade? The thing is well known, and I speak it with regret; and have not many of your selves some time a Day intreated the Lord, that he would send a Purge, and put away out of his House such BUYERS and SELLERS? and now the Lord is come to make the Purge, and who of you can abide the Day of his coming? The Purge goes so deep, it's like to scourge you ALL out of Doors; and e're you be put out, ye will ra∣ther hold in who are in, and seek to uphold one another, but ye shall ALL fall together.

What saiest thou now Reader, are these Quo∣tations a Description of PIOUS Men, or the contrary? Do they refer to Particulars only? Here's in so many Words, generally, mostly, a doubt whether a good Man be to be found a∣mongst them, and at last all, methinks that should

be something a-kin to Ʋniversal, and truly a little unlike his Expostulation, which begins thus.

It may seem strange, how it comes to pass, that while so many Pious and Learned Men are judged to be found in this Nation not only of the Church of England, but among the Dissenters and Nonconformists, &c.

Now I am ready to conclude this contradictory to the former, and perhaps some others may do so too; he would do well to undeceive us if he can.

Philosophy is the next point he goes upon, he tells us, What I said of the Philosophy then taught, in the Colledges of that Nation, many Learn∣ed and Pious Men in both Nations, will assent to be true, to wit, the Jesuit Philosophy; for that was it which was then taught, and which I learned almost word by word out of Jesuit Authors. Answ. That Jesuit Philosophy was then and there taught, may be true for ought I know; I have no reason to contradict him, but the question with me is, Whether no other Philosophy besides Jesuit Philosophy was then and there taught? The place by me cited maketh no mention of Jesuit Philosophy, or distiction between one sort and another, only in general terms,

The Philoso∣phy which is taught them is meer Deceit and Pedantry.

But, to drive him out of his hole, I shall produce a passage in another part of the same Book, which manifests what sort of Phi∣losophy he then meant, see p. 30, 31. viz.

Your Fathers, the Primitive Protestants and Refor∣mers, made not Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and Aristotle's Logick and Philosophy, with

other humane Learning, and the passing of so many Years course at the Colledge, and that you call School Divinity, the qualifications of a Minister of Christ.

Now upon the whole I query, whether Aristotle was a Jesuit or no? Since 'twas Aristotle's Philosophy it seems, that was taught at the Colledges; in short, I look upon it little better then a Jesuitical Evasion, which shews he has not quite forgot what he learnt, almost word for word. But, enough of this, he goes on p. 2. And since that time, both that Colledge, and I suppose all other Colledges in both Nations, have changed that sort of Philosophy, out of their dislike to it, as I my self had done be∣fore I was a Quaker. Answ. It may be so, for indeed I must confess he tells his Reader p. 76.

Which even I came to see, when among them, and many of themselves see it, and confess it to be but Vanity.

But what then, it seems their changing of it is but labour in vain, all to no purpose, for he says Ibid,

And many among themselves have attempted the Reformation of their so called Philosophy, and squeezed their Brains to find out a new one, but all in vain; it shall never be found out till they come to the Cross of Christ, and under his Cross, denying their own Wisdom, become Disciples of Christ, &c.

The reason he gives is,

The invisible things of God, from the Creation, of the World, are clearly seen, being under∣stood by the things that are made, which car∣ry upon them indeed the Characters of infinite Wisdom, Goodness and Power, but are a sea∣led Book, no less then the Scriptures, to

such who are not come to the teachings of him, who made them, and who only can give an Eye to read them with a true Understand∣ing, and to Advantage.

And this he testifies from his own Experience and Trial, who (as he saith)

hath had a Trial and Experience of both the one and the other.

Now I would ask him, Are they under these qualifications now? If so, then my former question is answer∣ed, viz. Are ye changed? For it seems they were otherwise then, or else he falsely accused them: But if they were so then, and not ex∣ceedingly changed for the better now, in the abovementioned respects, then is he egregiously changed for the worse. But (adds he) what if I should blame the Philosophy, that is now taught in all the Colledges? Is there no other good Lear∣ning, but that called Philosophy? He has but little Learning that so Argues. Answ. I have little Learning enough, I confess, yet I did not so Argue, for I produced a quotation which in∣cludes Colledge Learning generally, and con∣demns it by the Lump, without this distinction between Philosophy and other Learning, See Brief Observations, p. 5. viz.

And I certainly know, that Humane Wisdom or Learning taught in them, is one of the main Bulwarks of Antichrist against the Revelation, and set∣ting up the Kingdom of Christ in the Earth, and because this is arising, and shall rise, down must the other go, and all who seek to uphold it, shall fall therewith, said G. Keith, Help in time of need, p. 76.

In farther excuse of him∣self, he proceeds thus, viz. What I then said

against Schools and Ʋniversities, was against the ill Constitution, and great Abuses in them, at that time; but not against Schools well and duly Con∣stituted, as neither was Luther, whose Authority I cited against them. Answ. Here he uses slight of Hand, thereby to slip his Neck out of the Collar; he changeth the Terms from Univer∣sities and Colledges of Philosophy, to Schools and Universities, and then in the next Line, goes about to vindicate himself, as not being against Schools, whereas I did not object that against him (and by the way, I may tell him, nei∣ther are the Quakers, for if they were, or had been, they would hardly have given him so large a Sallary, as they did at Philadelphia, for teach∣ing School there) but against the other, he is positive, without any exception as to consti∣tution, and brings in Luther to back him, See Help in time of need, &c. p. 75, 76. viz.

And away with the Education of your Youth, at Universities and Colledges of Philosophy, so called; I may say of them, which Luther stuck not to call them in his Day, that they were stews of Antichrist.

Next (adds he) as to what I said concerning Prelacy, and Lording Bishops (for so I cautioned it) in that Book. Neither doth this prove, that I did conclude there could be no Pious Bishops. Answ. It is not here material, whether he did then allow, or yet allows, that some Pious Bishops have been, or yet are, but the Hierarchy it self, he disapproved of, Prelacy in general he disowned, not some particular Bishops only, their Ministry in general, not some particular

Ministers only of that Communion, and that it was I then objected. I then shewed, that he called Prelacy, a Limb of Antichrist; therefore what particular Persons he is now pleased to except, is but exceptions out of a general rule, therefore foreign to the matter. He farther called Prelacy,

That filthy thing set up in the Land, which Thousands (of the Presbyterians) vowed to God against,

and he upbraids them with,

Not bearing a suitable testimony against it, according to their very Principles; and says, We have kept our vow, and ye have shrunk there from, p. 38, 39. And p. 50. tells them, Oh, ye did run well, who did hinder you? But ye are become so foolish, who began in the Spirit, to end in the Flesh; and now when ye got up upon the Walls and Bulwarks of your Enemies buildings, and Levelled it to the Ground, when ye had rooted out Prelacy, and the many Corruptions and Superstitions accompanying the same, and digged down a good part of Babylons up-setting then ye be∣took your selves to Build, &c.

Now hereby the Reader may see that he slips the matter in controversie, from a disowning the whole or∣der of Prelates, as corrupt qua talis, he comes to granting there may be some among them, pious as Men; perhaps there may have been Pious Popes and Cardinals too, as Men: Doth that infer, that the order and constitution of them is not Antichristian. Well, so much for the Episcopal Church Government. Now see what he says of the Ministers of an inferi∣our Degree, ordained according thereto, and

their worship, p. 47, 48. part whereof I gave in my Brief Observations, but shall now be more large, which take as follows, viz.

And ye (said G. Keith) did well, in disowning and departing from such Men, who gave them∣selves forth to be the Lords Ministers and Ser∣vants, but they ran, and he sent them not, and their Covetousness and Ambition, and seek∣ing how to please Men for their own ends, and not his honour, nor any true zeal for him, set them on such a work, to Lord it over the People, which he had forbidden, and it is A∣bomination to him, together with the many things accompanying them, which they gave forth for his ordinances, good order, decency, and comeliness in the Church, but were the meer Inventions of Men, and Babylons Golden Cup of Fornications, and that ye vomited up, and refused to drink of this Cup, or to admit of such things as his Ordinances, or belonging to his Worship, or as if he allowed it (where∣by your Iniquity is exceeding aggravated be∣fore God, and his Indignation and Jealousie burns as Fire against you, for your returning thereto) and because of the iniquity of such Men, their Pride, Covetousness, Tyranny, and Ambition, his wrath kindled against them, and he poured Contempt and Desolation up∣on them, &c.

Well, for a close of this point, take another quotation, p. 53. viz.

Ye de∣nied their Lordships, and took to your selves Masterships, (both equally forbidden by Christ) ye would not suffer them to Lord it over you, but ye would Lord it over the

People; yea and did as Tyrannically as ever the Bishops had done; and ye were offended at the Surplices, and Canonical Coats and Belts of their Clergy, and yet ye were equally Super∣stitious and Vain in your Black Cloaths and Gowns, with Pasm••••••s and Ribbons upon them, and other superfluity of naughtiness; and ye were angry at their Revenues being so great, and yet ye stept in also to many of them, (and some of you had as much by the year as some of them) and into their Pride, Covetousness, Lightness, Vanity, Ambition, Carelesness concerning the Work of Jesus Christ, and the Salvation of poor People; whereof ye took up the Charge, and many other Iniquities they were found in, for which the Lord was pro∣voked against them, ye have taken as it were a Succession of, and ye thought the Lord should have winked at you, &c.

Here are a parcel of home strokes at both Episcopal and Presby∣terian Ministers of his own Nation, and truly at that time I question not but he would have given the like Character of both sorts in this Nation. But how suits this I pray with the be∣fore cited Passage in his Expostulation, viz.

It may seem strange, how it comes to pass, that while so many Pious and Learned Men are judged to be found in this Nation, not only of the Church of England, but among the Dissen∣ters and Nonconformists, &c.

Neither will his saying, For within a few Lines, in that very Page, I did own there were some Bishops in Queen Mary's days, to whom the Lord had regard, ac∣cording to their Faithfulness to what they saw; Ex∣cuse

him, for to what he here alledgeth, he there added,

but such who came after saw further into Mistery Babylon—so that herein ye have not only Apostatized from your Fathers, but from what ye were of late your selves.

So that it seems he once accounted it Apostacy to submit again to Prelacy; after having once forsaken it, and seen further, and I suppose at that time would have thought it some degree thereof, to have solicited a Bishops favour against his then Brethren, or to have Appealed to a Prelate in point of Doctrine, though it can now go down very glibly, and why should he blame us for calling him an Apostate, when as it was his own charge against the Presbyterians, and that too not on the score of Errours in Fun∣damentals, but Matters of Church Government, and Method of Worship, as the above specifies, whilst part of our Charge upon him, is an alte∣ration in Principle and Doctrine. He proceeds thus, By Lording Bishops, it is obvious, what I meant, even the same that is meant, 1 Pet. 5. 3. Being Lords over Gods Heritage. Answ. What he meant by Lording Bishops, is plain, by his joyn∣ing it to Prelates, viz. The Hierarchy its self, who, as Bishops have the Title of Lords, and as such sit in Parliament, so that we have no other but such in these three Kingdoms, and that that Title of Lord Bishop hath been disrelished upon the account of its savouring too much of Lording and Lordship by all sorts of Dissenters, be the Men who go under those Titles, Lordly, or Humble, or what they will, he cannot but know; therefore, this is nothing but a weak

come off: Besides the Text he quotes hath re∣spect to Elders in general, who feed the Flock, which comprehends the whole Ministry, with∣out having any particular relation to Bishops on∣ly, therefore unduly applied in this place.

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

His Book of Retractations I shall speak some∣thing to by and by, so shall wave it here: And as to his Recrimination of the Quakers, in giving hard Names, and passing hard Censures, &c. I answer, When the Quakers desire the help of the National or Dissenting Ministers against G. Keith or any other of their Oponents, it will be time

enough then, either to retract or smooth them o∣ver, till then I intend not to concern my self a∣bout them: Only thus much I shall say to his insi∣nuation of Uncharitableness, I believe (and that upon good grounds too) that their Charity to All in general dissenting from them is greater than his.

Having done with their Piety, He next takes a touch at their Learning, and says, And that there are Learned Men among them, far beyond any stock of Learning any of the Quakers lay claim to, I sup∣pose they will not gain say. Answ. Why truly I am ready to suppose so too; but, why then doth he in his Help in time of need, p. 73. bid the Peo∣ple

put away this Dead, Lifeless, IGNO∣RANT, Prophane, Scandalous Ministry, and p. 75, 76.

as quoted in my former say.

For out of them comes this IGNORANT, Scan∣dalous Ministry,

(which perhaps was as Learn∣ed then, as now)

wherein they learn to talk of things they understand not, &c.

Is this sui∣table to the Character he now gives of them; let him reconcile these Different Epithets, 'tis his Work, not mine; neither is it for him there∣upon to insinuate, as if I undervalued their Learning, which I do not, only am willing he should be filled with his own ways, and have enough of his Self-Contradictions thrown upon his back, till (if possible) he may be made ashamed of them.

To my Query,

Hath he ever retracted this?

He replies p. 3. I have both by word and writ, and is designed by me to be in Print very shortly, re∣tracted all the hard censures and names that I have

at any time given to any, who have not deserved them. Answ. Is he conscious of having given hard Censures and Names to some who have not deserved them? If not, his Retractation is but Formal and Hypocritical. But if so, then say I, What he hath done by Word and Writ, I know not; therefore not of any weight with me, and as to his designed Print, it hath been often threatned, though not yet performed, so he still chargable therewith till that is done; his Retractations hitherto have been but very slender, as well as general; therefore every particular hard Censure or Name till particularly Retra∣cted, as publickly as it was formerly fixed, he is as yet accountable for: Moreover, he hath in this very Passage, left himself a large Lati∣tude, whoever he thinks deserved his hard Cen∣sures or Names, must lie under them still, whe∣ther they do really deserve them or no; so that by this means, he makes provision for being Judge in his own Cause. In short, when they come out, we shall see them; and whether he will or no, every Reader will judge as they see meet, and if not effectual, I suppose none of his Op∣ponents will ask his leave what Censure to pass upon them; nor yet, whether or no they shall expose their Opinions in Print, if thy think con∣venient. Yet surely, from the above Expression, whereby he lets us understand his purpose of Retracting in Print all undeserved Charges, we may expect to see a Recantation shortly; I would therefore caution him to take the Clergy-man's Advice; given him (as I am informed) at Tur∣ners-Hall, viz. To go through stitch with his Work,

and do it in earnest, lest by seeking to skin over the Wound before 'tis healed at the bottom, it break out again, and be worse than 'twas be∣fore.

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

I now come to his Cavils against the Ten Heads I treated of in my former, indigested Matter, he is pleased to call them, indeed I per∣ceive he cannot well Digest them, they rise in his Stomach, and many a sowr Belch he rifts up, proceeding as I take it from the foulness of

his Stomach, and yet he hath only nibled at a bit here, and a bit there, generally omitting those Parts where the stress of my Observations lay, which, how becoming it is a Man of his Learn∣ing and Pretensions, to a Novice, Idiot, &c. as he renders me, I leave the Reader to judge. The meanness of my Parts I aknowledge, yet had I as much as he, it would not become me to boast of them; but, though I do grant my Parts to be vastly inferiour to his, yet withal I must needs say, I should have been ashamed of so much Sophistry as he is guilty of in that one sheet of Paper: For though in scorn he calls me Junior Sophister, (he would not take it well to be called a Senior Sophister) yet if the significa∣tion thereof be, one who useth deceitful Co∣vers and false Glosses, to make Passages look otherwise than what the real purport and drift of them is, then is he egregiously guilty of Sophistry, in this his miscalled Just Vindication, as (God permitting) I shall farther prove up∣on him before I have done.

My First Head was,

His representing the Quakers worse than Papists,

He saies of me, On this Head he is guilty of Gross Ʋntruth, and Falshood in two Particulars, The one it seems is, That he doth not charge the Quakers Indefinitely, or Ʋniversally, but a Sort and Gang of them. And then adds, If he be such an Ideot, to make no di∣stinction between a part, and the whole, how is he fit to Print Books. Answ. If I would now lye upon the catch, I might put him to prove, that my Words were of that extent, as to bear that Construction he puts upon them, of Ʋniversally

or Indefinitely, and likewise ask him, whether he meant Ʋniversally and Indefinitely, or only a Sort and Gang of them, when in his Presbyterian and Independent Visible Churches, p. 145. (as quo∣ted in my former) he saies,

ALL these [EPI∣SCOPAL, PRESBYTERIAN, INDEPEN∣DENT and BAPTISTS] as well as others, are open and declared Enemies to the holy Spirit, &c.

I might likewise tell him, though he know it well enough already, that in wri∣ing or speaking, 'tis no Lye to entitle the whole, to what the Majority does or saies. But I shall go farther, and require him to prove, that any Meeting or Body of People, who go under the name of Quakers, those only excepted, who are gone off, as he, into a separation, do not own G. Whitehead and W. Penn in those Doctrinal points he urged, and wherein he miserably misrepre∣sented them at Turners-Hall, the 11th of the 4th Month last, or else in this particular, I re∣turn his grossly abusive charge above-mention∣ed upon himself. I remember his Friend Tho. Crisp, in his Essay, guessing at the number of Quakers in these three Kingdoms, supposes them to be 100000, whereof he reckons 80000 to be influenced by W. Penn. Now I would desire G. Keith to Inform me in his next, how many of the remaining 20000 who profess themselves Quakers, own him, and then, I suppose, his company will look more like a Gang, than the other; for by T. Crisp's own concession (if he say true) those Influenced by W. Penn may pass for the main Body. I will next examine his second particular, and see whether they be not

both of a piece, which is 2. That he makes me represent them, I so charge, absolutely worse then Papists, when as I cautioned my words thus—Vile Errors, not only as bad as any Popery, but much worse then the worst of Popery, in divers re∣spects. Observe in divers respects: I said not ab∣solutely, and in all respects, but in divers respects. Answ. Very well, I'le allow him his full Scope, he did not say absolutely in all respects, nei∣ther did I mention all matters in respect of which the Papists differ from the Quakers, but saies he, in divers respects, so I quoted him, What wrong have I done him? Wherein am I guilty of the gross Ʋntruth and Falshood, he charges upon me? For my part, I can see none. This, he tells us, he can easily prove, and in proof thereof, goes about to answer one of my Que∣ries, viz.

Do we promote Errours worse, then worshipping a piece of Bread, as God?

He replies, I say that's a Transition from the Sub∣ject of the Controversie betwixt them and me, to another forreign Subject, viz. Transubstantiation. Answ. He chargeth this Gang of Quakers (as he calls them) with promoting Errours, not only as bad as any Popery, but much worse then the worst of Popery in divers respects. Now I am ready to think, that most Protestants will a∣gree with me, that Transubstantiation, Adoration of Images, Praying to Saints and Angels, meritorious Works, and Purgatory, are not only Popery (that is Principles wherein Protestants dissent from Papists) but some of the worst of Popery: Now my Queries were, Do we promote Errours worse than &c. mentioning all these former Heads at large,

denying his charge as not yet proved: There∣fore wherein he can prove this a Transition, and Transubstantiation, another foreign Subject, unless he will be so kind to the Papist's darling Sacrament, as not to Rank it amongst the worst of Popery, or indeed allow it to be any Popery at all, I see not. He proceeds, It seems this bold Novice has not learned the Maxim, Words are to be understood according to the Subject matter: If I say this is not one of these respects, wherein I have charged them, this Junior Sophister is at a Nonplus. Answ. Hold a little George, not so fast, If Transubstantiation say I, be any part of the worst of Popery, then thou must shew in what respects the Quakers hold Errours, not only as bad, but much worse than it, and this I take to be according to the Subject matter, call me what thou pleasest. In short, G. Keith saith, Our Principles are much worse than the worst of Popery, in divers respects, and he is offend∣ed with me, for taking him at his Word (who so seldom holds to it) and reciting the worst of the Papists Principles, as if foreign from the matter. Surely Transubstantiation is none of the best: If he thinks 'tis, let him apply him∣self in the next place to them, and see if they will trust him, and be at his beck, as he would have the Pious and Learned among the Prote∣stants be: Well, in further Vindication of his aforesaid Affertion, he refers to his Narrative, telling us, He has clearly proved, that G. White∣head has destroyed the true Object of the Christian Faith and Worship, &c. All which are so far from being clearly proved by him; that his pretend∣ed

Proofs, are clearly disproved by T. Ellwood, in his answer thereto, which, unless he had re∣plied to, he might be ashamed to entitle the matters contained in his Narrative, by so wrong a name. Yet upon the Foot of the aforesaid lame Objections, he utters many foul Reproa∣ches against us, not worth the notice, and what is worse, I am satisfied, writes what he knows to be false, in his Vilifying the Light the Qua∣kers Preach, and direct People to, as if that led them to Vilifie and Reproach the Man Christ Jesus without them. Therefore his Insinuation that the Quakers Worship the Devil within, there∣by to prove them worse than the Papists, who, he grants, Worship a piece of Bread without, is wholly Proofless, Groundless, envious in the highest degree, and such a Slander as he might well be ashamed to Impose upon the World. But to what a degree of hardness must this Man be come, who can tax us, with adoring a false Christ within, and setting up a false Notion of Light within, upon no other Foundation, but Miscon∣struction and Wresting of Sentences, pickt out of Books, whereon he erects his Fabrick of Slan∣ders and false Accusations of his own Inventing, not without knowledge, but contrary to his own certain knowledge. He says, He is sorry we give him this Occasion to detect us; Alas! Poor Man, he discovers himself, and hurts not us, the more he takes such Work in hand, he does but en∣crease his Burthen, whilst we being safe in the Sanctuary of our own Innocency, can appeal to the Searcher of all Hearts, concerning the Fals∣hood of his Malicious Charges, and commit our

Cause to Him, who in due time, will ease us of this troublesom Detractor, as he hath already of many of his Predecessors.

He slips over the rest of my Queries, saving that about Merits, and to that he says, I am sure most Papists are more sound then some of them. Answ. That's more than he can be sure of, Is he acquainted with most Papists? Yet however it comes to pass, he is a little more modest than usual, than some of them, says he, But let us hear wherein some of them are less sound in this particular, than most Papists, viz. Whereas Papists generally profess highly to value Christs Merits, and own their first Justification to the Me∣rits of Christ's Obedience and Righteousness without them: W. Penn hath called this Doctrine, A Doctrine of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of Cor∣ruption, deluging the whole World. Answ. His Charge against W. Penn, I did intend to have passed over, as defective, because he mentions neither Page nor Book (a way of Managing Controversie, unbecoming a Schollar) neither for some time, did I know where to find the Passage he carps at, but having at length re∣ceived Information, where I might meet with it, accordingly I had recourse to the Book, from whence he produceth it, and there find that G. Keith hath much abused, and misrepresented W. Penn: For whereas he states the Case, as if Christ's Merits, and the owning Men's first Justi∣fication to the Merit of Christ's Obedience and Righteousness without them, was, by W. Penn, called, A Doctrine of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption, deluging the whole World. He

therein mistates the Case, for the Doctrine which he so called, was the attributing Justifi∣cation wholly to the Works wrought by Christ without us, so as thereby to exclude the works wrought by the Spirit in us, from having any share therein, as plainly appears from the place referred to (though not named) by G. Keith, viz. A Serious Apology, p. 148. Wherein W. Penn reciting an Objection of one Tho. Jenner, viz.

That we deny Justification by the Righ∣teousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us (WHOLLY without us) and therefore deny the Lord that bought us.

He Answers,

And indeed this we deny, &c.

Now mark, the stress of his denial, lies upon his Antagonist's Word [WHOLLY] whereupon W. Penn argues thus,

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

No Man hath Faith without Works (any more than a Body without a Spirit

(says James.)

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

Observe, he doth not say the Works of the Spirit are only necessary, thereby excluding the Righteousness which Christ fulfilled in his own Per∣son without us, but joins them together; the Works wrought without us, and the Works wrought within us; and calls that Doctrine which would divide them, and Attribute all wholly to the outward; A Doctrine of Devils, which to manifest the more clearly, and there∣by

the more fully to detect G. Keith's Injustice and Falshood: I shall give the Reader another Quotation out of the very next Page of the same Book, where explaining our Faith concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in that part re∣lating to the Son; he saith,

Who took upon him Flesh, and was in the World, and in Life, Doctrine, Miracles, Death, Resurrection, As∣cension, and Mediation, perfectly did, and does continue to do the Will of God; to whose Holy Life, Power Mediation and Blood, we only ascribe our Sanctification, JUSTIFICATI∣ON, Redemption and perfect Salvation.

But besides G. Keith his abusing and misre∣presenting W. Penn in the above-mentioned Passage, I have another Remark to make upon him, and that is, That the very same Doctrine which W. Penn in his aforenamed Serious Apology, cal∣led a Doctrine of Devils in T. Jenner: G. Keith in his Postscript to the Nature of Christianity calls corrupt Doctrine in R. Gordon, see p. 70. of the said Book, The Title of that Part is, Some of Robert Gordon's corrupt Doctrines, and p. 71. the eighth Head is,

That Redemption, Justi∣fication were finished and compleated in the Crucified Body in Christ for us, not in our Persons.

And the twelfth Head, viz.

That Redemption, &c. and all things are wrought, purchased, &c. for us, without the help of any thing to be wrought in us.

Now if these are corrupt Doctrines with G. Keith now, which were so it seems with him, in 1671. the Time of the Date of that Book, is he not insincere in a high Degree in quarrelling with W. Penn for

opposing the very same Doctrine in the very same Year (his Serious Apology being likewise Printed in 1671.) And on the other Hand, if these Doctrines be not corrupt, according to his Opinion and Judgment at this Time, then doth he give himself the lye in this very Paper of his now before me, p. 4, and 5. wherein he expres∣seth himself thus.

But whereas they upbraid me again, and again, with contradicting my former Doctrines and Principles, as to Arti∣cles of Faith, I cannot find that they have pro∣ved it against me in one Particular.

Of which more anon.

Well to conclude this Matter, I shall tell him yet farther, that I know not of any Quakers; who do not ascribe Remission of Sins to that one Offering upon the Cross, through Faith in the Name of Jesus Christ, but if I understand any thing of the Quakers Principles, as I think I do; that is one of them, and to prove that I speak not by Rote, I will produce another Au∣thor approved amongst them, viz. my Father Isaac Penington to confirm what I say, as the Reader may see in his Treatise; Entituled, The Flesh and Blood of Christ &c. p. 16. and of his Works, Part 2. p. 186.

It was a spotless Sacri∣fice of great Value, and Effectual for the Re∣mission of Sins: And I do acknowledge hum∣bly unto the Lord, THE REMISSION OF MY SINS THEREBY, and bless the Lord for it, even for giving up his Son to Death for us all; and giving all that believe in his Name and Power, to partake of Remission through him.

In my Brief Observations, p. 8. I produced a Proof out of A brief Narrative of the second Meet∣ing, &c of his Self-contradiction in then say∣ing,

The whole Protestant cause lieth at stake, in the Defence whereof we with all true Pro∣testants, are concerned against the Jesuites and Baptists.

And yet in his Expostulation;

We promote vile Errours worse than the worst of Popery.

This he shuffles off, saying p. 4. In vain are all his shuffling Aggravations against me, upbraiding me with my being changed in my Opinion, of what these Quakers were; and a lit∣tle lower, I own it, they deceived me, they were the Deceivers, and I was the Deceived. Answ. Any intelligent Reader may perceive, it was Principles, and not Persons he vindicated; the Cause, not Parties he then espoused; therefore this is only a Sophistical turn, to serve a turn; and his Pretences to knowing them better, only a false gloss that he may abuse them the worse, and the Cause of their Changing their Opinion of him; is his changing Sides, and now taking up the Baptists old Arguments against his quon∣dam Friends, which he once assisted them in Baffling, and now wou'd insinuate a mistake in the Men, and not in the Principles, to hold up his Credit of not being changed, whereas the Men are the same, their Principles the same, now he opposes them, as they were when he Vindicated them, and he is the Man that is Changed, Deviated, Apostatized, and therefore an ill Man, which hath been over and over pro∣ved upon him, and not disproved by him, any other way, than by a bare denial without De∣monstration,

and so any farther Proof at present needless. Yet to shew the Reader his former Judg∣ment of our Principles, both as Consonant with Scripture; and also with those of the first Re∣formers, so far as theirs agreed with Scripture: I shall add a Quotation out of Help in Time of Need, p. 46. viz.

And now ye who accuse us (in Derision called Quakers by you) as Apo∣states, and that we have denied our Fore-fa∣thers Faith; try your selves, and Paralel your Fathers Principles and Practices with your own, and also with ours; and ye shall find ye are degenerated from them exceedingly, as we were while with you; but through the Grace of God are we recovered, and brought to witness the Spirit and Life of the Primitive Protestants and Christians—and ye cannot Instance to us one Particular, wherein we Dissent from them, warranted from the ve∣ry Letter of the Scripture.

The Second Head (viz.

His Reflections up∣on the Protestant Clergy as more Lukewarm, if they oppose not the Quakers here, than the Popish Clergy at Rome would be in such a case.)

He saith, Hath nothing in it worth noticing but their unjust charging me with Malice, both with respect to them, viz. that Gang of Quakers above mention∣ed, and with respect to such whom I directed my Ex∣postulation unto. Answ. I wonder he counts any thing at all therein worth noticing, I know he hath a good Opinion of his own Doings, how Malicious soever; and truly I am ready to think reputes but few Books besides his own, worth much notice; those wrote against him, none at

all: But in Proof of what he calls their unjust charging, &c. He says nothing to the purpose, for after he hath used some circumlocution which I shall take notice of by and by, he slips off by the help of his Sophistry, and to blind the Mat∣ter, queries, But how doth he prove that I am Ma∣licious to the Pious and Learned in the Church of England, or among the Dissenters? They and not he, nor his Gang are a fit Judge of this. Am I Mali∣cious either to the one or the other, to tell them I would not have the Papists out-do them in Zeal for the Christian Faith? Is it not an evident Argument of my Love to them? Answ. I had proved how and wherein before, if he had but had the hone∣sty to have took notice of it, but since by the Legerdemain of these Queries, he would cast a Mist before his Readers Eyes; I shall state the Case anew. He quarrels with the Quakers, Prints Book after Book against them, at length They answer him; He for a while answers them too, after a sort; but finding their Arguments begin to pinch him, his false Coverings where∣in he wrapt himself, like to be pulled off, he drops that Method, appoints a Meeting at Tur∣ners-Hall, Summons some of them thither; they perceiving his Craft, that 'tis only to shift off his Shoulders the Load their Books had laid on, by Evading their Answers in Print, under the notion of a general answer by word of Mouth, re∣fuse to appear, and pursue him in the Press, there∣upon he calls out to the Pious and Learned of

the Church of England and Dissenters to em∣ploy some of their Time and Labour, to refute those vile Errours, boldly (as he says) avow∣ed

and publickly broached among a Gang and sort of Quakers:

What is this this less then calling for their assistance against the Quakers, because he finds himself not sufficient of himself to go through with the Cause he hath undertaken; and what is the whole from the beginning to the end, but a series of Malice against the Quakers? The Argument he uses to these Pious and Learn∣ed, is this,

I am confident if such Anti-chri∣stian Errours and Heresies were but the tenth part so avowedly broached in the City of Rome, or any where else in Popish Countries, these esteemed Watchmen among them, would be more alarmed to oppose them by Word and Writing, than most among Protestants do.

Is not this a Malicious insinuation, as if Protestants were more Supine, Careless, and less zealous for the true Christian Faith, than Papists: and to what end I pray, but to make them as spight∣ful as himself? He goes on,

Which would seem to cast a Reflection on the Protestant Churches, if some able Men, &c.

Now here is not only a calling them out, awaking them as it were out of a Sleep, as if they had been all this while Slum∣bring, regardless what Errours or Heresies crept in, but that also under the Pain and Penal∣ty, if they did not rouse up, of lying under the weight of his Reflection. Therefore, whether this was an Argument of his Love to them, or the contrary, I dare leave with the Pious and Learned to determine themselves. And now shall resume what I had before skipt to come at this Passage, viz. Their Application of that Place, in Acts 21. 28. against me, is very abusive and

shameless; The Jews cried, Men of Israel help. But against what? Against Paul, and the worthy Name of Christ which he bore Testimony to. Did I make any such cry, to help against that worthy Name, or any true Professors of it, by my inviting them to oppose the vile Errours that are contrary to it. Answ. This is but a begging the Question, that his Antagonists are not true Professors of the worthy Name of Christ is but gratis dictum, he says it, we deny it, Affirmanti incumbit pro∣batio; he that affirms must prove; therein he falls short; we say there's no such danger of any opposition to the worthy Name of Christ, by our promoting those Doctrines which he calls vile Errours, and insinuates us guilty of, so that 'tis Men of Straw he Fights against. But on the other hand, the Application of this Scri∣pture belongs to him, on this account, Those malicious Jews who opposed the Apostle, ac∣cused him of that which he was not guilty of, upon a false surmize, as may be seen in the following Verse, and upon that foul mistake, stirred up the People against him, which how parallel it is with the state of the Case between G. Keith and us is apparently discernable, by an intel∣ligent Reader, who understands the state of the Controversie between us. Nex he endeavours to Evade, but not disprove what I urged, in relation to his endeavours to stir up Persecuti∣on against us, but doth it so lamely upon the foot of some idle Excuses in his Expostulation and Narrative; that, to retaliate him in his own Language, I think it not worth the least regard∣ing.

The Third Head, (viz.

He chargable while a Quaker, with what he reflects upon the Quakers

for, in relation to Disputes) he says, So far as it contains a false Reflection on me, I shall not notice. Answ. Neither shall I notice his cal∣ing it a false Reflection, any farther than to tell him, 'tis but rarely, if ever, that he is brought to acknowledge any thing to be true that is al∣ledged against him. But, adds he, in so far as it tells a most impudent untruth, with respect to the People called Quakers; I cannot omit it, for, where∣as I have said, that many of their chiefest Teachers, have with great boldness, provoked such as differed from them, to publick Disputes. This he denieth to be true. Answ. His charge of an impudent un∣truth, I retort back upon himself, for his As∣sertion I neither Affirmed, nor Denied, but left him to prove, as my words themselves will plain∣ly manifest; see Brief Observations, p. 11. thus,

That the Quakers have with great boldness provoked to Publick Disputes, he says indeed, but doth not prove it.

Now, pray whose Face has most Brass in it; mine for so saying, or his for falsly charging me. He goes on, But the colour they would put upon it, is that what they did, was to clear themselves, and to detect the Abuses put on them; as if they had been only on the De∣fensive part, in all publick Oppositions they made in Congregations, and elsewhere; whereas it is abun∣dantly known, they were the first Aggressors, &c. Answ. I won't grant him an Ace, but require Proof of all that he says, and as to his referring to G. Fox's Journal and E. Burroughs's Collected Treatises, they are large Books, and what part

of them he quarrels with I know not, there∣fore let him mention particulars, and then if I think it worth my while, he may perhaps hear farther from me. And since he has not Enervated, but only Shufled off the state of the Case I laid down in my former; I need say no more at pre∣sent, then that it was too much truth to be deni∣ed, even by G. Keith himself, though I'le say that for him, he is a Man very expert in that faculty.

The Fourth Head (viz.

His itch to have you [the Pious and Learned] Dance after his Pipe, viz. Challenge Disputes with the Quakers)

He tells us, contains nothing but repea∣ted Recriminations and Reflections against him, al∣ready answered; except in the latter part of it, &c. Answ. As he says already answered, though I say only Evaded, as the Reader may see, if he please to be at the trouble of comparing the one with the other, yet what part of it he has already taken some small notice of, is already replied to, and so I shall follow him to the lat∣ter Part, which he gives thus, They propose it, whether it would not be most equal and reasonable for them, viz. such to whom I have directed my Expo∣stulation, to begin with me, by calling me forth to a publick Hearing upon my former Books. To this I answer, that I am most willing they do, and what I cannot justly and safely defend of any passages in my former Books, I will fairly retract. Answ. A very fair Proposal, so say, and so do, and so far we shall be agreed, but I am afraid, if it were to be put to the Tryal, he would draw back, for I can tell him of one Passage which I quoted in my former, and which for the remarkable∣ness

of it, I care not if I quote again, which he must retract in the first place, or else he can never be sincere in retracting the rest, viz.

I know not any fundamental Principle, nor in∣deed any one Principle of the Christian Faith, that I have varied from, ever since I came a∣mong the Quakers,

which is about Thirty three Years ago, Exact Narrative p. 15. Moreover in this very Sheet, now before me, he says. But whereas they up-braid me again, and again, with contradicting my former Doctrines and Princi∣ples, as to Articles of Faith; I cannot find that they have proved it against me in one particular. To which I answer, If he will shut his Eyes, and will not see, who can help it? Or if he will be so Partial in his own Cause, as to resolve not to be convinced of it, let what Proof will be offered, 'tis his own fault. T. Ellwood whath pro∣ved it upon him in three Tracts, and that in more than one particular; and his not having answer∣ed either of them, is sufficient ground to conti∣nue the Charge upon him, taking it for gran∣ted, that if he could have done it fairly, he would, or if by any Sophistical Art, he could have neatly blinded it, he would not have been wanting in his endeavours. In the next place, in p. 5. He would fain persuade those to whom he directs his Expostulation, that 'tis most proper to begin with us first, because, says he, whatever just Offence I have given to any of them, my late Adversaries of that Gang among the Quakers have far exceeded me. Answ. That is but his say so, whereof him∣self is no competent Judge. And adds he, they have that which casts of Ballance as to them, that

they justifie all they have said, and Printed against them to every Tittle, to maintain their Infallibility; which I have not done, but in divers things I confess my mistakes, and wherein I have justly offended any, I humbly ask their Forgiveness. Answ. Supposing, but not granting what he says to be true, have not those he applies himself to, the more need to begin with him first, that they may take him in the mind while he is in the mind, and bring him from lurking in bare Generals to descend to Particulars, and so try whether he be sincere in his Protestations, by bringing him to a thorow Recantation; Whereas, if the Case be as he represents it with us, they must expect no such compliance from us, but a steddy adherence to our Assertions, consequently, like to be a more tedious as well as a more difficult Work; there∣fore most Prudence to begin with the easiest first, especially having to do with a slippery Chapman, of whom they can have no assurance, that he will long continue in the same Humour, though he were at present, never so much (seem∣ingly) resolved, to be as good as his word. And as to the Flout he throws at the Quakers, concerning Infallibility; I shall add a passage out of Help in time of need, to shew what he former∣ly Asserted, as to the necessity of People's being led by the Infallible Spirit, see p. 23.

There∣fore another Head was set up in the Church, then Jesus Christ, and the Pope and his Coun∣cil was made Judge to determine all Contro∣versies in Religion, and no Man was to look at an Infallible Judge (the Spirit of Truth within him) and are ye not become as bad, who open∣ly

affirm, that ye are not led by the infallible Spi∣rit, and consequently not by the Spirit of God.

My Fifth Head (viz.

His pretended ten∣der Compassion to the Souls of People, high∣ly insincere.)

And my Sixth Head (viz.

The Irregularity of his Proposal of Distur∣bing our Meetings, contrary to Law)

He joins together as sufficiently answered in his Nar∣rative and Expostulation, so that he sees not the least cause to say any thing unto them. Answ. He has the prettiest faculty of answering Matters beforehand, as a Man shall likely hear of; he has answered good part of my Book it seems, before its self was in Being; 'tis much he had not answered it all beforehand when his Hand was in, yet here still comes in some buts and onlys that spoil his antecedent Answers, and if it were not for these buts and onlys, he needed have wrote but two or three Words in An∣swer to the whole Book, and have left it so to the Readers Consideration, as he doth now; He says, Only I take notice of the bold untruth he chargeth me with, of my proposing the Disturbing of their Meetings. Answ. The untruth is his, not mine, as the Words I then quoted will evince to rational Men, which I shall again Transcribe, viz.

Or if they continue to justi∣fie them, to refute them openly in the Face of their own Meetings, and in the Presence of them that do so much admire and follow them:

His Reason for promoting this work is,

And thus to serve them, as they have ser∣ved others, and with what Measure they have met to others, the same to meet to them a∣gain:

Which he tells us a little before was, Some of their Teachers assaulted the National Ministers in the Face of their Congregations.

Can any thing be plainer? Nor will his following ex∣cuse acquit him. viz. For I cautioned it exrresly, that what should be done to refute their vile Errours, might be done at the End of their Meetings, or at other set Times. Answ. I think a Meeting cannot be proper∣ly said to be ended, unless the People disperse, but rather continued, however confusedly di∣sturbed by such irregular Practices. In the next Place, how will his Proposal of other set Times, hold with the other of meeting to them as they have met to others, whom (as he says) they as∣saulted in the Face of their Congregations, will he say it was not during their Worship, but at other Times; then say I, not in the Face of their Congregations; if he say, it was in the Face of their Congregations, than how can he pro∣pose the Quakers should have the same Measure met to them, by others doing it to them at set Times; if he says true, in relation to their as∣saulting the National Ministers in the Face of their Congregations. This is as Poor, a con∣fused, trifling, sleeveless excuse as can well be urged, 'twill not help him off at all.

Now to shew what a Man of Order he is, though got to the Sixth Head (having only na∣med the fifth Head for fashion-sake, medling no farther with it) he recurs to the Third, yet hath pretended to Answer that before; but since he hath foisted in this Passage in this Place, I must (though contrary to Method) take no∣tice of it here, 'tis this. And, seeing they justifie

what some of them did, by way of publick Opposi∣tion, to clear themselves; and to detect the Abu∣ses put upon them, and that they allow this to be Equal and Reasonable, and no Trespass against the Civil Peace. Answ. How far did I justifie it, but upon a Point of Necessity? The Mob were incensed by railing Accusations, several of the Quakers went in danger of their Lives by them, these slanders were vented by the publick Preachers from their Pulpits, the Mob divers times stirred up and encouraged by them: What Room was here left for any other Me∣thod? What Breach of the Civil Peace? For that was broke before by their Adversaries, a just Detection of whom seemed a likely way to Calm them; consequently to preserve the Civil Peace. What might be acted at other Times, wherein the above Case was not plain and obvious, I leave, neither Assenting to nor Denying his Charge; and so neither do I Ju∣stifie or Condemn the Actions, unless I knew better then I do the Matters by him objected, but shall go on with him, who says farther. And that many, or rather indeed all of other Pro∣fessions do judge that the Quakers have misrepre∣sented them, and put Abuses on them; why should they not think it fair, that those of other Professions, who think themselves injured by them in Point of Doctrine, should have Freedom in Publick to clear themselves. Answ. They have had Freedom, and have endeavoured it too, we look upon our selves abused by them; we have had Free∣dom in Publick to clear our selves, and have done it too; and that in the most publick way

in the World, viz. in Print, and that is accor∣ding to his own Concession,

The last Reme∣dy against Oppression,

Exact Narrative, p. 38. and indeed a far more proper way than Face to Face by way of publick Opposition; whether at the Beginning, Middle, or End of Meetings. And the same Liberty hath he too, which he hath not only made use of formerly, but still doth when he pleaseth himself.

The Seventh Head (viz.

His endeavours to excite the Civil Authority against us)

he represents as nothing but an unjust Insinuation; that, says he, I would excite the Civil Authority against them, and that I would fain instruct the Civil Authority, what their Duty is in this Case. But they bringing no Proofs of their Charge against me, it were a superfluous labour in me to Answer them on this Head. Answ. He seems to be ve∣ry Cautious of bestowing superfluous Labour, but if he had been so in Reality; he might ei∣ther have forborn saying any thing at all; or or else have offered something more to the purpose, for a sufficient Proof I then brought, viz. his own Words quoted out of his Expo∣stulation; which I shall now repeat and are these.

And it would be a commendable and praise worthy thing, for the Civil Authority to encourage such a Practice [to refute them openly in the Face of their own Meetings, &c.] throughout the Nation.

Now what he can make of this, but exciting the Civil Authority against us, therein to act contrary to an esta∣blished Act of Parliament, as I observed before, Brief Observations, p. 17. for my Part, I can∣not

tell, nor yet by what Figure he can call the above no Proof. He proceeds saying, I am very hopeful that as formerly I have had the Countenance of some in Civil Authority, in my pub∣lick Opposition to their vile Errours, so I may have the like for the Future. Answ What Counte∣nance he had from some in Authority, I pre∣sume proceeded from their want of a right Knowledge of him and us too; but this I can tell him, had those he summoned answered his Challenge, there are some in Authority would not have countenanced them; but did disswade them from appearing, and were well pleased with them for taking their Advice. Their Insi∣nuation, adds he, p. 6. That such Encouragement of any in the Civil Authority, would be a breach of an established Act of Parliament, is so silly and ignorant, that it deserves not the least Considerati∣on. Answ. As silly and ignorant as it is, he were not best to try Conclusions, in putting the proposed Method in Practice; neither I sup∣pose will the Magistrates be in hast to run the venture of it, according to his Solicitations, for (doubtless) they know better than either he or I, what the Consequence thereof would be. But what would this vain Man make of the Act of Parliament for Liberty of Conscience, A meer Cypher? Or not so much, surely he thinks it may be served as Boys serve Nine-Pins, set up to be thrown down again, so this made to be broke.

The Eighth Head (viz.

His high Opinion of himself, in setting up for Directer, both of Church and State, in methods to be used

for the preservation of the true Protestant Re∣ligion)

He calls a bare Fac'd Calumny. Doth (saith he) any honest Man, that Proposeth his hum∣ble Opinion, what may be good for both the Pro∣testant Religion, and State of the Kingdom, de∣serve such an unworthy Character? Answ. No not at all, by no means, but G. Keith's Propo∣sal, is not his humble Opinion only, but a positive direction, how and what they should do, as commendable and praise worthy: He saith not, I propose my humble Opinion that &c. But it would be a commendable and praise worthy thing, &c. thereby implying, that if they do not so, they will neither do commendably nor praise worthily in that Case, but should be dis-commended and dis-praised, as falling short of Papists, in Zeal for the Christian Faith; and how far this method was like to prove destru∣ctive, rather than beneficial (if practised) to the true Protestant Religion, I then shewed, but he jumps over, as indeed he doth most of the most material Points through that whole Trea∣tise, from the beginning to the end, so that I may truly say, he hath not answered it, so much as by halves, Snapping at this, and Snarling at the other, but going through little or nothing, as he should, which how meanly it looks in one of his Qualifications, to so pitiful an Antagonist, as he renders me, I need not determine, but shall refer that part to my Reader, to think of it as he sees Cause. As to what he objects con∣cerning G. Fox the Elder, G. Fox the Younger, and E. Burroughs, he is still in nubibus, only a fling and away, keeps in bare generals, comes to

no particulars, and therefore not worthy ef no∣tice.

In my Ninth Head (viz.

His malice against our Books

) I charged him with, being

either grossly insincere in pretending it is far from him, to desire the least Sufferings to come upon our Persons or estates, or else very Igno∣rant of the Law in such cases

(viz. Matters Blasphemous and Heretical, which he hath al∣ledged our Books contain)

which deeply affects both Persons and Estates, by Imprisonments, Fines and Pillory, &c.

To this, saith he, I an∣swer. 1. Were not by the same Argument, they In∣sincere or Ignorant, who have charged, not only some of their Brethren, but differing from them, in Pun∣ctilio's of their Church-Government, and Womens Meetings, as in particular Christopher Taylor, his charging William Rogers with high Blasphemy, in a Printed Book of his, but also in charging with Heresie and Blasphemy, many of the Ministry in the Nation, reputed Orthodox by Civil Authority. Answ. His Reflection upon C. Taylor, will not do him any kindness, for 'tis not Paralel with the State of the Case between him and us, For C. Taylor dealt with W. Rogers Controversially only in writing, and by way of a Religious Reproof, and there left it, but did not appeal to the Civil Magistrate against him, no not at all; he was so far from that, that he directed it to none but Friends, as An Epistle of Caution to them. But on the other Hand, G. Keith proposed to have the Pious and Learned, &c. encouraged by the Civil Power, to question Friends about Blasphemy, Heresie, &c. which would tend to

a Judicial and Civil Tryal and Conviction, and so, if his attempts could take effect, bring them under the danger of the Temporal Laws. A∣gain G. Keith says falsly, in assigning the dif∣ference between W. Rogers and Friends, to be a difference only in Punctilio's of Church-Govern∣ment: For had he read the Book, and not re∣solved to close his Eyes, he might see that W. Rogers finds fault with our Doctrine. Preface, p. 32. and Christian Quaker, Part 1. p. 69. And therefore in his Second Part, treats of Doctrines, wherein he opposed his to ours, in many par∣ticulars. Thirdly, If nothing of this kind could be offered, yet is Recrimination of another, no Just Vindication of a Man's self. If C. Taylor had been Culpable, and done amiss, that doth not Justifie G. Keith in doing Evil. And now I think fit to take notice, and that once for all, of his Unmanly dealing; he, by way of dislike and reproach, mentions in several places of his Vindication, G. Fox, both Elder and Younger, E. Burroughs and C. Taylor, who are all Dead, two of them (I believe) before himself went under the name of a Quaker, the other two he esteemed as Brethren, and seemed to be in U∣nity with, while Living, and yet he must now be digging up their Graves, I would ask him, What hurt they have done him, since they were Dead, that he cannot let them rest now, seeing while Living, he had nothing to say against them? He goes on to a 2dly, But must not their Vile Errours and Heresies be opposed, and the Authors of them witnessed against, and warning given against them, otherwise all that do so, must they be reckon∣ed

Persecutors and Malicious. Answ. If he like the work, let him go on with it, no Body hin∣ders his Printing, nor proposes to hinder it; Opposition in Meetings by Countenance, or Authority, from the Civil Magistrate was the thing I found fault with. But let me tell him withal, it is not his calling this, that, or the other, Errour and Heresie, that will make it so; and if he call things by their wrong Names on purpose to render a People odious, that's Malice and a degree of Persecution proceeding from a Root of bitterness, and if encouraged will not cease 'till it come to Fire and Faggot, Rack and Gibbet. And if what he wrote above thirty Years ago be worthy of Credit, we are not a People deserving such Reflections, fe•• Help in Time of Need, p. 68.

And we the People of the Lord, whom he hath formed for himself, shall shew forth his Praise; and the Lord will make it manifest, that we are his; and that he hath raised us up, and put his Spirit in us; and that he dwells in and among us, to all the Kindreds and Nations of the Earth; and they who will not see, shall see; and be ashamed, and confounded for their Envy at the People whom God hath bles∣sed, and will bless for ever and ever, and no Deceit nor Violence shall prevail against them.

Now if he dare believe himself, had he not better desist from his fruitless and envious Work he is carrying on against us, lest himself be confounded.

I am now come to his Objections against my Tenth and Last Head, wherein he endeavours to evade the Proofs I brought to Evince, that,

The Case between our Books, and his Penn∣sylvania Books, as stated by him, was far dif∣ferent. To my alledging, 'It was but com∣mon Prudence, to hide the Bone of Contenti∣on, which he had prepared to throw in a∣mongst us; lest his quarrelsome Books should infect some with the same Spirit of Discord here, as his quarrelsome Discourses and Be∣haviour, had infected some there.

He An∣swers, p. 7. thus, 1. Had it not been more ho∣nesty in them, as well as Christian Prudence, to have disowned these gross Errours, which I evidently pro∣ved against them in Pennsylvania, out of their own Letters and Manuscripts, as well as by other Proofs, then to have hid and cloaked them, and excommu∣nicated me, for my faithful opposing them. Answ. That ever those gross Errours he exclaims a∣gainst, were evidently proved against those he accuses, I never yet understood from any but himself, who is too much a Party to be esteem∣ed an unbyassed Judge in his own Cause how evident, or how lame the Proofs were; and up∣on the same bottom is his Charge laid against those he accuseth of Hiding and Cloaking those Errours he hints at: but that he was Excom∣municated (as he Terms it) for his faithful opposing them, I deny; The Words of the Pa∣per by him called The nameless Bull, being my warrant for so doing; which are,

That the said George Keith is gone from the blessed U∣nity of the peaceable Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and hath thereby separated himself from the Holy Fellowship of the Church of Christ.

Whereby it appears, that 'twas his Turbulen∣cy in the Opposition he made, whereby he ma∣nifested

himself gone from Unity with, and se∣parated from the Fellowship of the Church, and gone from the peaceable Spirit of Christ; so not a bare faithful opposing of what he deem∣ed Errours, that drew that Judgment down up∣on him. For if he had in Calmness and Cool∣ness objected what he esteemed Erroneous, and managed his Cause in a peaceable Temper of Mind; until he were either Convinced of his Errour in so thinking of them, or by strength of Argument offered in the Spirit of Meekness, he had Convinced them that they really were in Errour; I presume that Meeting would not have given forth that Paper against him. He proceeds to a 2. But where is the far different Case? Why they shouid suppress my Books, and the Civil Authority should not suppress theirs Answ. I then told him where, but since he takes no Notice of it, shall tell him again, part of what I then offered. 1. We had Right and Title to such an Authority over him and his Books at that Time, as a Community or Society amongst whom he then pretended Membership; and yet contrary to the Method now long since practised amongst us, and which himself (while himself) had pra∣ctised as well as others, Published the said Books without the Approbation of those with whom we had Fellowship, with an apparent Design to leaven a Faction for himself. 2. His were bought and paid for, and so became the real Property of the Purchasers, ours he proposes should be suppressed by the Civil Authority with∣out mentioning so much as one word in the least of being paid for by the Seizers, which is an Invasion of Property, and if therein he sees no difference,

the reason must be, because he won't; for the case is plain enough. Again, Why? My Books would have been a Bone of Contention, to infect some with the same Spirit of discord. Answ. That they have so been, notwithstanding the Precaution used by purchasing all that could be got, by their being Reprinted here by our old Adversaries, and by their gratifying those two Apostates, F. Bugg, and T. Crisp, setting them to Scribling anew, and giving new Life to their old Contentious Work, is so evident, that a Man may as well de∣ny the Sun's Shining at Noon-day, as deny that. He queries, But must not the Truth be contended for? Are we not commanded to contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints? And such was the contentions of my Books, and of my Spirit. Answ. This is but a begging the Question, a taking for granted the thing in Debate; we say as well as he, that our Books contend for the Faith once delivered to the Saints, therefore his contention against us groundless: Who must determine this? The im∣partial Christian Reader I think, therefore to him I leave it. He thinks, it seems, he hath the advan∣tage, we the disadvantage, for my part, I can see no ground for such a Supposition, but am contented he should hug himself with the Fancy, if he will not be undeceived; but let him have a care, lest while he compasses himself about with the Sparks of his own kindling, in the end he do not lie down in Sorrow. The rest of his Reflections on this Head, he spends in flinging contumelious Re∣proaches on our Books, which being nothing but Recrimination without Demonstation, and in substance answered already, as a weak blast of empty Air, I pass over.

He concludes with a Passage he takes a long stride back to pick out of my Sixth Head; I therein only gave him a gentle touch about the Revolutions, but rubbing on a Sore place, he can∣not bear it; I had perhaps slipt it over now, had he not committed a blunder unbecoming a Man of his Reading. I told him Brief Obser∣vations p. 16.

It would almost tempt a Man to conclude, if the Doctrine of Revolutions were as probable an Hypothesis, as G. Keith hath re∣presented it to be, that the Soul of Erostratus were come again in this Incendiary.

Having relation in that comparison to the Man who set on Fire the Temple of Diana at Ephesus (which was so rare a piece of Workmanship, as to be reputed one of the wonders of the World) with intent to perpetuate his name to Posterity by a Wicked Deed, since he could not by Vir∣tuous Actions, whose Name was Erostratus. To this he says, Were I inclined to retort his idle story of Erasistratus against me, &c. Now upon Ex∣amination I find that this Erasistratus was a fa∣mous Physician of Aristotle's Family, which how he came to overlook, I know not, but believe if I had been guilty of such a Trip, he would have paid me off with the Epithets of Bold Novice, Ideot, Junior Sophister, &c. But now let us see what it is he could retort upon us, says he, I might say these my late Adversaries. who place all upon the inward Principle excluding the Man Christ Jesus from being our Saviour, are the old Stoicks, Epicureans, Pelagian Brittains redivive, and other Ethnick Philosophers, who bitterly opposed the Christian Faith. Answ. I know no Quakers guilty of this Charge; therefore the Founda∣tion

of his Retortion is a Bare-fac'd Calumny, for we place not all upon the inward Principle, but what God hath joyned together, we dare not put asunder; neither do we exclude the Man Christ Jesus from being our Saviour, but say that the Man Christ Jesus, and the Light within which proceeds from Him, in whom the Fulnessd wells, are one and not divided, and He as outwardly offered up and Ascended into Hea∣ven, where He sits at the Right Hand of the Ma∣jesty on High, and as inwardly revealed in the Hearts of his true Believers, is one compleat Saviour: And wherein G. Keith represents us to believe otherwise, he very well knows, he greatly Slanders us, having himself often de∣clared the contrary: Whereof I have given many instances, but shall now add another out of the often already quoted Book, viz. Help in time of Need, p. 78, 79.

And now, whether ye will hear, or forbear; this I do declare unto you, in the Name and Power, and Au∣thority of the Living God, the Day of the Lord is of a Truth broken forth among us, and ye shall look till your Eyes fail you, and Rot within your Eye holes, e're ever ye see another day, or appearance of Jesus Christ to your com∣fort, then what we the People of the Lord called Quakers, do witness Come, and yet more abun∣dantly Coming, and if ye will not hear, my Soul shall Mourn for you in secret places, and Weep before the Lord on your behalf.

Well, here's a large Testimony on the Quakers behalf, therefore either he falsely accuseth us now, or else in 1664 he was guilty of transcendent Pre∣sumption, in pretending to say as above, in the

Name, Power and Authority, of the Living God, if it was not so, but quite otherwise. He concludes thus. But though they have not their Souls, I am sure they have their Heathenish, Anti-christian Principles. Answ. This in substance is answered already, yet because he so often calls us Anti-christs, and our Principles Anti-christi∣an; I shall not think much of my Pains, to give the Reader an account what he once accounted Anti-christianism, and then leave it to the impartial to judge how far that affects us, Help in time of Need, p 22.

This is the Anti-christ, who denies Christ the Son, come thus in the Revelation of himself in the Heart; for that coming of Christ in his Bodily Ap∣pearance at Jerusalem, Anti-christ will not, does not deny it, being he knows it will never harm his Kingdom; so to confess him come, providing Christs Kingdom be not set up in the Heart.

Now, upon the whole, as he said to the Teachers, he directed his Speech to, Ibid. p. 33.

Ye could be better employed in holding a Plow, or digging in a Field, or any other ho∣nest Occupation, then to be deluding poor People.

So say I, he might be better employ∣ed in Teaching Scool, or any other honest Oc∣cupation, then in thus Villifying and Abusing an honest People, and imposing that upon the World, as truth of which he is sure, when in the mean time he knows otherwise.

One thing more (though not so very Mate∣rial) I shall take notice of before we part, and that is, In the management of his Vindication and the Objections he raises against my Brief Obser∣vations; he sometimes uses the words they and

their, sometimes he and his as if Synonimous; truly, if I did not conclude him to be a good Grammarian, I might be ready to query, whe∣ther he took these Pronouns to be all of a Number; but since his Schollarship is not to be questioned at all, much less in so common a Case as the first parts of the Accidence taught School-Boys, it argues confusion in him, and want of circumspection, both in Penning and Revising, and might have been better excused, had he been a Novice, though a bold one, or an Ideot either.

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

Edward Penington.

THE END.