A Modest Account FROM PENSYLVANIA, OF The Principal Differences In Point of Doctrine, BETWEEN George Keith, And those of the People CALLED QUAKERS, From whom he Separated: SHOWING His great Declension, and Inconsistency with Himself Therein. Recommended to the Serious Consideration of Those who are Turned Aside, and Joined in his SCHISM. If any man draw back, my Soul shall have no plasure in him. LONDON, Printed and Sold by T. Sowle, in White-Hart Cou●t in Gracious-Street. 1696. A Modest Account FROM PENSYLVANIA, OF THE Principal Differences BETWEEN George Keith, And those of the People called QUAKERS, From whom he Separated. SOme Assertions and Expressions touching Points of Doctrine, being agreeable to the Writings of Faithful Friends and Brethren, as also the Writings of G. K. himself, with some Observations thereon, written here, and proposed to the Consideration of You that differ with us about Doctrinal Points, and yet profess yourselves to be at Unity with all Faithful Friends and Brethren in all parts of the World, both in Spirit and Doctrine; that you may candidly and impartially consider thereof, and by which you may see clearly how G. Keith is contradicting not only himself, but also Faithful Friends and Brethren, in several Points of Doctrine, but especially about one part of that you call the main matter of Controversy. Also several Reasons offered to show that G. K. designed either to conform Friends to some New Matter, or else to separate long before he took the occasion against W. S. and T. F. wherein his Insincerity is manifest in pretending to be One with all Faithful Friends, both in Spirit and Doctrine. Here is also shown my sense of his Confusions about the Resurrection; with some Remarks upon the Almanac-makers' accusing Friends for Persecuting their Brethren. Unto which is added, A very good way and means proposed by G. K. himself, to bring the Difference among Christians, in point of Judgement, to a small compass: With some Observations and Queries thereon, etc. Note, I have been careful to cite the Book and Pages of the following Passages, by which it may be seen (though for brevity's sake I have not sometimes taken in the whole Paragraphs, yet, as is premised in the Title) it is nothing but what is agreeable to them. IN the First place then, As concerning one part of that which you call The main matter of Controversy with us, to wit, Of the universal necessity of the Knowledge and Faith of Christ's Death and Sufferings without us, to Salvation, as by your Books, Plea of the Innocent, page 17. and Some Fundamental Truths, etc. page 14. appears: Now you may see what R. Barclay and G. K. have laid down in this matter, to wit, As the Light, and Grace, and Seed, R. Barclay's Apology, page 90. comes to be received and not resisted, it works the Salvation of all, even of those who are ignorant of the Death and Sufferings of Christ. Who receive him in his Inward Coming, G. K's Light of Truth, etc. pag. 12. and become subject to him, receive the benefit of his outward Coming, receive the benefit of his Sufferings and Death, his Sufferings and Death is theirs. But that the express knowledge and belief of his taking on him the Form Page 6. of a Man, and his Obedience and Sufferings therein, is of absolute necessity unto Salvation, so as none could be saved without the express knowledge, though it was never revealed to them; This I deny; and how canst thou prove it by Scripture? For why may not the benefit of Christ's taking on him the Form of a Man, redound unto many who do not expressly know it, even as a diseased Person may receive benefit of a Cure applied to him, though he has not an express knowledge of all the means and ways how, from first to last, it hath been prepared? And even as many have suffered hurt through the Disobedience of the First Man Adam, who have not known expressly that ever such a Man was, nor the manner of his Disobedience; so even why may not many receive benefit through the Obedience of Christ in the Outward, who have not known expressly his Outward Coming and Sufferings? Otherwise Adam's Disobedience was more effectual for Man's Destruction, than the Obedience of Christ was for his Salvation. Again, G. K. frames an Objection, G. K.'s Universal Free Grace of the Gospel, page 116, 117. and answers thus: Object. This Light cannot discover the Birth, Suffering, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the Outward, the knowledge of which is essentially necessary to Salvation. To which G. K. concludes his Answer after this manner: That the Unbelievers that had not the Scriptures (saith he) neither know him nor the Scriptures that testified of him, being gone from his inward appearance of his own Light in their hearts, which would have discovered both him in the Outward, and the Scripture's Testimony of him: But that the knowledge of him, as in the Outward, to be of necessity to Salvation, We Grant not. Secondly, As concerning the sufficiency Edw. Burrough's Works. p. 54 of the Light, without something else (that you have made such a pother about of late.) There is a Light in every Man sufficient of itself to bring Eternal Life and Salvation. It is a real degree of Blasphemy to G. K.'s Refutation, p. 38, 39 say, This Light cannot make Satisfaction for the Sins that are past, nor lead into Evangelical or Gospel Truths, or give Eternal Peace and Salvation. We believe and acknowledge him G. K.'s Light of Truth, p. 113. who was manifest in the Body of Flesh, to be the true and only Christ and Saviour, as manifest in us, (mark) (As manifest in us.) The Light within is God and Christ. Here with open Mouth thou speakest G. K.'s Here●y of Hatred▪ p. 1●. G. K's Light of Truth, page 8. against our Principle, the Light that Enlightens every Man that comes into the World, being the true Christ our only Saviour, Mediator and Redeemer; and that there is not another: And that Man is to heed and be joined to this Light, as that which as it condemns him, so is able of itself to redeem him, as he becomes obedient thereunto. Thou sayest, This Doctrine declaring the Light and Power and Spirit within, Ibid. p. 8. to be Christ the only Mediator and Saviour, asserts another Christ, another Saviour, than him, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who was born of the Virgin Mary, etc. But (saith G. K.) if thou wert indeed for this Mystery Christ within, as he is the Seed, the Light, the Power and the Life, thou wouldst not say this asserts another Christ, etc. God and Christ can do all things, and G. K.'s Refutation, p. 32. both God and Christ are in all Men. Thirdly. As concerning Christians and Preachers being Magistrates; you Edw. Burbough's Works, p. 75. may see what E. B. and G. K. says, to wit, Such we would have to Reign who Rule for the Lord, Exercising and Executing Righteous Judgements by the Spirit of God (saith E. B.) This is our Faith, That Magistrates G. Keith's Looking-Glass for Protestants, p. 10. may Preach (saith G. K.) Fourthly. G. K. concludes concerning Christ's Body now in Heaven, thus. It being no more a Body of flesh, blood G. Keeth's Way cast up, page 113. and bones, but a pure ethereal or Heavenly body, like unto which the bodies of the Saints are to be at the Resurrection, G. K's Way cast up, p. 131. Fifthly. Concerning the Resurrection of the Dead, William Penn says, W. Penn's Reason against Railing, p. 124. For our parts, a Resurrection we believe, and that of Bodies too, unto Eternal Life; what they shall be, we leave to God, who will give every one a Body as it pleaseth him; and [thou Fool] belongs too the unnecessary meddler. It is enough that we believe a Resurrection, And his Key. and that of a Glorious and Incorruptible Body, without farther Niceties. But to tell of these bodily Eyes to be made Spiritual, and then of seeing G. W. Life and Light of Christ, Book 64. God with them, and that they must be so Spiritual, and yet be the same they are for Matter and Substance; this is a strange Doctrine, and that which we could never have demonstrated from any Maxim in Divinity, nor yet from any general Rule in Philosophy. That we deny the Resurrection of the Dead, this is a most false Charge, G. K's Presbyterian and Independent Ch. c. 8. p. 229. which they can never prove; but because we deny their Carnal Conceptions (meaning the Professors) of the Resurrection, and hold us to Scripture words (which is most safe) therefore they have so belied us. The Flesh that is Mortal, Gross and G. Keeth's Testimony against the false and absurd Opinions, etc. page 10. Corruptible, is not the Flesh that shall be raised up Immortal and Incorruptible. Now Friends, do but consider the above Expressions and Assertions, and if you are One with all Faithful Friends in all parts of the World, both in Spirit and Doctrine, and are in dear Unity with them, and if you faithfully believe your Faith doth well agree with them, and that yours is the Real, Sound and Upright Faith, as hath been received by the most Sound, Ancient, and Present Priends, called (in scorn) Quakers; I say, if you are thus One with them, as in the Book called, Some Page 17. and 28. Reasons, etc. you positively say, you are; nay, if you are but one with G. K. himself in what he hath written, as to points of Doctrine; or if G. K. himself be but consistent with himself (as he boasts he is) then surely these things being sincerely considered by you, I see no reason you have to to differ with us about the Doctrines aforesaid. But that you are not One with them, and that G. K. is not consistent with (but in manifest contradiction against) himself about it, methinks may easily be made appear by what follows, viz. by comparing the former Assertions with his other Books, etc. as thus; First. If all be saved who receive, R. B's Apology, p. 90. and not resist the Light, Grace and Seed, though they are ignorant of Christ's Death and Sufferings, how is it, that none are saved who are faithful Improvers of this Light and Grace, etc. without the Faith and Knowledge of his Death and Sufferings? Now pray, consider, whether you are One with that Faithful, Ancient, and Sound Friend, R. Barclay, or not, in this matter? Again, Secondly. If the express Knowledge G. Kieth's Priest and Independen visible Ch. etc. p. 133. of Christ becoming Man, and Suffering, etc. was positively denied to be of necessity to Salvation; how is it now that he saith, That express Knowledge is indispensibly necessary to Salvation, or Perfect Justification? Since the Knowledge of him in the Outward, in another Book, was then not granted to be of necessity to Salvation, how is it that he does not only grant it, but furiously quarrels with Friends about it, and confesses it himself to be a main matter of Controversy with Friends here, as aforesaid? But now to conclude this Head, I do say, That many are, or may be saved, who are ignorant of Christ's Death and Sufferings, according to R. Barclay, His Apology. and yet that none are, or can be saved, but such who have the Knowledge of his Death and Sufferings, according to G. K. who saith, He doth not contradict R. Barclay; as also that the express Truth and Innocency, page 17. Knowledge of him in the Outward, is of necessity unto Salvation, according to G. K's late Books, and that the express Knowledge of him, as in the Outward, is not of necessity to Salvation, according to his former Books; and yet that he does not contradict himself, nor R. Barclay neither, in these matters, is such a Riddle, that I know not how to unfold. Fourthly, Seeing according to those faithful Friends, Edw. Burrough's and Samuel Fisher, the Light is sufficient of itself; how is it that you are or can be One with them, to say, it is not sufficient without something else? Seeing, (according to G. K.) it is Blasphemy to say, this Light cannot make Satisfaction for the sins that are past, nor give Eternal Peace and Salvation: Then surely, by the Rule of Contraries, the Light can do these things; how then is it not sufficient without something else? Fifthly. Again, seeing (according to G. K.) he is not only the true Christ who was manifest in the Body of Flesh, but also, that he is that only true Christ (as manifest in us) how is it then that he that is manifest in us, is something else, than he that was manifest in that Body of Flesh, seeing, in both respects, he is so confessed to be the only true Christ and Saviour? And surely the word [only] is alone, and admits of nothing else. Sixthly. Seeing it is our Principle, which (G. K. saith) Robert Gordin with open Mouth smites against, viz. That the Light is the true Christ or only Saviour, Mediator and Redeemer, and that there is not another; and that, as it condemns, so is able, of itself, to save and redeem, as Man becomes Obedient thereunto: Now I say, if this Light be able of itself, to save and redeem, as Man becomes Obedient thereunto, how is it, that it is not sufficient to save without something else? His Comparison of ones saying, (John Delaval's) not being a Man without his Soul, denies him not be a Man, halts too much to reach the matter; for the Question should not be, whether a Man be a Man without his Soul, because the Question is not, whether Christ be Christ without the Man Christ? But, whether the Man Christ be become something else besides Christ? For he saith, the Light is Christ, but the Man Christ is something else— But to wave such Comparisons. Seventhly, Seeing G. K's Answer to R. Gordin, implies, that the Light, Power and Spirit within, is Christ the only Mediator and Saviour, and that so to assert, is not to assert another Christ than Jesus of Nazareth, etc. Then surely Jesus of Nazareth cannot be something else than the Light, Power and Spirit within; because Jesus of Nazareth is the only Christ, Mediator and Saviour; and so is the Light, Power and Spirit within acknowledged to be— And if the same, than not any thing else. Eighthly. Seeing (according to G. K.) the Light within is God and Christ, and yet not sufficient without something else; is not this as much as to say, God and Christ is not sufficient without something else, or something besides? For so he saith, the word (else) signifies And how it is then said in Hosea c. 13. 4. Thou shalt know no God but me, for there is no Saviour besides me? Where is now (the something else?) And whereas he owns the Light within to be Christ in express words, but by that (something else) he saith, he means the Man-Christ; doth not this imply two Christ's, to wit, Christ one thing, and the Man Christ some other thing, or something besides Christ? But now though we cannot yield to G. K. in these his Terms, that the Light is not able of itself, and consequently, that God, by G. K's own words, who saith, the Light is God, is not able to save, because we believe, besides him there is no Saviour; yet we do not in the least question, but dearly own and acknowledge and believe the way and means that the Lord was pleased out of his infinite Love and Good Will to Mankind, to take, in order to redeem him from Sin and Death, as sending his only begotten Son into the World, not only as a Light to show us the way we should go, and a Spirit to convince and reprove us of our Sins, and enable us against the Act thereof; But also as Man, in the prepared Body to offer up himself a most acceptable Sacrifice for the Sins of the whole World; Which Offering the Lord was pleased to accept of, and by his Spirit and Power it is made effectual for the Reconciliation and Salvation of all those that repent of their Sins, and truly believe in his Name: And that God doth not save any without respect to that great Offering, we all grant, and truly believe: For as G. K. saith, The Lord having Light of Truth, p. 6. ordained it so to be, how can or dare we say therefore, That he was or is not sufficient by his Light, Power, and Spirit, to save, without something else? Surely this seems to me too presumptuous Acts 2. 22. ptuous an Expression; For was not that Body prepared of God? And what was done in it, is it not said, God did it by him? So that the scruple with us is not in the least what God hath done, or doth do for lost Man, (as G. K. often disingeniously words it) by altering the state of the Controversy, which never was, What God or Christ hath done for us, nor of the Way and Means he hath taken to Redeem us, according as it's recorded in the Holy Scripture; but, What He by his Light and Spirit is sufficient to do: For we say, He being God, can do as he pleaseth, else how is he God Almighty and Omnipotent? Therefore let us not undertake to argue as if there were any thing that God by his Light, Spirit, and Power, is not sufficient to do; and we need not debate any longer about it. Ninthly, If, according to that Faithful Friend and Brother, Edward Burroughs, That We (meaning the Quakers) would have such to Reign, who Rule for the Lord, Exercising and Executing Righteous Judgements by the Spirit of God: Then must it not be such who are lead by the Spirit of God? And if so, than Sons of God: And surely, as Edward Burroughs saith, such are of us. Now how does your Faith agree with his in this matter, that say, No Christians can Rule? And if it be our Faith, (as G. K. saith it is) That Magistrates may preach, then surely it is our Faith that Preachers may be Magistrates. Against which Practice itself, G. K. hath (all of a sudden) very Unmanly; as well as Unchristianly, appeared; exposing Friends to the World in Print about it, without ever admonishing them beforehand of it: For was not that his place to have done, when he reckoned himself an Elder in the Church among us, as well as that he was a Neighbour inhabiting in the Town among Friends, that then were in place of Government? But (which is most to be observed) that instead of reproving them for Retaking a Sloop, (for which Act he has since exposed them) or admonishing about it, he comes to them and Commended them for what they did, and said, It was very well done, etc.— Methinks you should consider these things. But to the matter, How it should be our Faith that Magistrates may preach, according to G. K's former Doctrine, and yet against our Faith that Preachers should be Magistrates, according to his latter Doctrine; and yet that there is no Contrariety between his present and former Doctrine (as he saith there is not) is sure too hard to reconcile. Tenthly, Since, according to G. K's express words, Christ's glorified Body now in Heaven, is no more a Body of Flesh, Blood, and Bones; but a pure, ethereal or Heavenly Body, like unto which the Bodies of the Saints are to be at the Resurrection, as before; and that we firmly believe that one Mediator between God and Man to be the Man Christ Jesus, according to the express Testimony of Scripture; and that he ever lives to make Intercession for us according to the will of God; so we desire to rest satisfied therein, without aspiring to attain to high things beyond our reach; or (as David said) Not to exercise ourselves in things too high for us, Eleventhly, Concerning the Resurrection, since it is enough, according to that Faithful Friend and Brother, William Penn, That we believe in the Resurrection, and that of a Glorious and Incorruptible Body, without farther Niceties: And if in Spirit and Doctrine you are one with him herein, why then do you obtrude such Questions upon us, Shall the same Body rise? Or, Shall any thing of this Body rise? But seeing it is safest in this, and all At the Bank Meeting House in the 4th Month, 1693. other matters of Faith, to keep to Scripture-words, according to J. C. why then would not our Faith be taken, when so often offered, to be delivered in the very words of Scripture? But more of this hereafter. I shall now sum up, in short, the substance of some of the aforesaid Passages, etc. wherein he is, to me, so clearly inconsistent with the Doctrine of Faithful Friends, as also greatly in contradiction to himself; as well as that he is guilty of strange Absurdities therein, which take as followeth, viz. Men may be saved who are ignorant R. Barclay. of Christ's Death and Sufferings. None are saved but who have the The Places cited before. knowledge of Christ's Death and Sufferings. The express knowledge of his Sufferings and Death, as Man, in the Outward, is universally necessary to Salvation. The express knowledge is not universally necessary to Salvation. The Light is sufficient of itself. The Light is not sufficient without something else. The Light is able to save and redeem of itself. The Light is not sufficient without something else. The Light within is God and Christ. The Light within is not sufficient without something else. The Light, Power, and Spirit within, is Christ the only Mediator and Saviour. The Light is not sufficient to save, without something else. It is our Faith that Magistrates may G K. A testimony 〈◊〉 p. 3. preach. It is our Faith that Preachers may not be Magistrates. That which rises is the Corruptible, Truth Advanced, page 118. that puts on Incorruption. That which rises is a pure noble part, that consumeth not, nor corrupteth. Note, now, pray Friends, and consider, how does your Faith well agree with the Faith of all faithful Friends, in all parts of the World? And how inconsistent is G. K's Faith and Doctrine, surely the impartial among you may easily discern. But again, It is a real degree of Blasphemy to say, Refutation, page 33. The Light cannot make satisfaction for the sins that are past, nor give Eternal Peace and Salvation. But the Light is not sufficient without something else. The Light or Principle in Man being God, can do all things. But the Light is not sufficient to save, without something else. And now notwithstanding, the Pretences G. K. hath made for this Separation, was for want of having Justice against 2 Ancient Ministers, with some other Reasons in his Book called, Some Causes and Reasons, etc. Yet when we call to mind the many expressions that he hath uttered to several Friends, upon distinct Discourses with them, as also some passages that are dropped here and there in his late Books, we cannot but conclude that he did either intent to conform Friends to some Doctrine, of which, by what follows, the 12 Revolutions may be supposed to be not the least in his Eye, or else to separate from them; Some of which Passages and Expressions from whence we so conclude, are to this purpose as followeth, viz. Because in this Catechism he concludes, 1st. G. K. p. 8. That the Sons of the first Covenant cannot perish, though they die in that State; and yet the State of the second Covenant being absolutely necessary for them to Witness, is in order to the perfecting their Salvation. Page 10. Then I ask, When must they obtain that second Covenant-State, if they die without it, unless they come again, seeing, in the Grave there is no Repentance? And in another Book he saith, That G. K 's Presbyterian Independent, p. 115. Men have been in a State of Salvation and Acceptance with God, who have not had the Mystery of Christ's Death and Resurrection made known unto them, and surely these Men continuing faithful to what they had received, when saith he, they could not perish. And in another Book he saith, They Refutation, paga 4. could not perish, though they died in that State. Now I say, If they could not perish, though they died without Faith and Knowledge, and yet that Faith and Knowledge is absolutely necessary to perfect their Salvation: I again ask, Where must they have that Faith and Knowledge, unless they come again to receive it? And if they do, what will then become of that Text G. K's Presbyterian and Independent visible Ch. c. 8. p. 259. brought by G. K. against the New-England Professors, arguing for Non-Perfection in this Life, viz. Eccl. 11. 13. where it is said, As the Tree falls, so it lies. Now according to this Text brought by G. K. himself, if an honest Indian, or poor Infant, die or fall without that outward Knowledge, so they must lie. And then if they cannot be perfectly saved without it, than their lying must be but as Souls saved in part, and that to be their State for ever; because, as they fall, so they lie. Again, his strange way of expressing Page 100 himself in the aforesaid Book, where he saith, God hath given sufficient to all Men, whereby they may be saved one time or other [before the end of the World.] And in another Book he saith, Whosoever Pretended Antidote, p. 98. is not saved one time or other before the end of the World, the cause and fault is in themselves, etc. Much more might be instanced, which is taken notice of elsewhere. But now, as to what he hath said to Persons. Because he told Ebenezer Slocam of Road-Island, as he affirms, to this purpose— That it was God▪ s great Mercy to the Jebusites, Amorites and Hittites of old, in that he destroyed them so much at once by the Israelites, for that by so doing, their Souls might be sooner come into the Bodies of the Jews Children, and so consequently become the sooner to be Members of the Visible Church, etc. Because he told John Delaval, as he affirmed, That he believed, God would lay it upon him to Preach the Doctrine of the Revolution of Souls, for though he hath denied it, yet we have reason to believe John Delaval before him, because we know he hath denied since, what he hath spoken to other Persons. Because he told myself and John Delaval, That there were not above six Friends in the World that Preached Christ aright, which he hath since denied. Because he called George Fox a good Gentile Preacher; which he also denied, till Jedediah Allen proved it upon him at the Bank great Meeting, the 7th Day of the 4th Month, 1693. Because he told John Wilford, That Friends were not the People, but that there must come another People. Because he told John Kinsey, That if he could but get a Company to stand by him, he would leap over them that stood in opposition against him, as so many Straws. Because with some Disgust he took with Margaret Beardsley, in discourse with her, he said after this manner, I'll promise you, if you serve George Keith so, George Keith will leave you, and then you shall wander about for lack of Knowledge, and shall not find it. Surely now Friends, these things considered impartially by you, how can you think George Keith sincere, when he saith, he is in dear Unity with all faithful Friends and Brethren in all parts of the World, both in Spirit and Doctrine; and can he be sincere now, or in his last Answer to Cotton Mather too? For now he saith, We are Unbelievers, Heretics and holder's of false Doctrine: But then he said, he did not only know us and our Principles, far better than Cotton Mather and all his Brethren, but solemnly challengeth him at the same time, to give him but one single Instance of any one fundamental Article of the Christian Faith denied by us a People; or by any one of our Preachers or Writers, as generally owned or approved of by us— Thus far George Keith, in Praise of the Quakers Doctrine, and that from the great Reason, he said, He had to know them, by the near intimacy he hath had with them, not only in Europe, but for these divers years (saith he) in America. Observe this, his Praising our Doctrine, was Printed few Months (if any) before he separated from us, under pretence of our being Heretics, Unbelievers, and holder's of false Doctrine. Now is it not strange, that such a great Body of People, hereaway at least, should be so soon degenerated in point of Doctrine, especially as we must needs be, if we are such Heretics and Unbelievers as he renders us to be? But now a little concerning the Clamour he hath made of late against Friends in his Books for their denying (as he falsely saith) the Resurrection of the Dead. For my part, I really think it had been better he had kept himself more close to Scripture in it, as well as more consistent with himself about it, before he had gone about unjusty to quarrel with us concerning it. For I must needs say, I cannot see how he can reckon himself consistent with himself in this matter, if you seriously consider what follows. For whereas he saith in one place, A Testimony against that absurd Opinion, p. 3. where he goes about to demonstrate what part of a Man's body shall rise; saith he, That which riseth, is the Mortal that puts on Immortality, and the Corruptible which puts on Incorruption: But in another place he saith, The Flesh that is Mortal and Corruptible, is not that Flesh that shall Ibid. p. 10. be raised up Immortal and Incorruptible. And in another Book he saith Truth advanced, etc. of that which riseth, That it is a pure noble part, that consumeth not, nor corrupteth— Now I ask, If that which rises be the corruptible, how is it that that which rises is incorruptible and corrupteth not again? Whereas he saith from Phil. 3. 21. Ibid. p. 10. where the Apostle saith, He shall change our vile bodies, etc. Now (saith George Keith) It is clear from this, that the change is not a Commutation of one thing for another, but a Transmutation from one thing to another, even as the Soul when Sanctified, is the same for Substance, as it was before the filth of sin, etc. was separated from it; and as Ashes or Sand is turned into Glass, and yet the same for Substance as before: Now as he is proving this as a thing yet to come, he saith, The bodies of the Saints remain low, weak, mortal and corruptible, and not made like to Christ's Glorious body, till the Resurrection of the Dead; importing that then will be the change (meant in the Text) of this low, weak and corruptible body into an incorruptible one; Then I say, How is it that he saith, That the Flesh which is Corruptible, is not that Flesh which shall be raised up Incorruptible; and yet, that the Text must mean, That this Vile and Corruptible, must be changed into Incorruptible? But if the Corruptible be laid aside, and that which corrupteth not, but is separated (as he saith) in about a years time, more or less, and laid by Divine Providence in some certain invisible place till the Resurrection: How then doth it receive the change meant by him in the Text, at the Resurrection? viz. If it be Incorruptible before the Resurrection (for he saith, It corrupteth not) and the change must be a Transmutation from one thing to another; must it not then needs be, from an Incorruptible body to an Incorruptible body? And what change is that? For if it be a Transmutation, what is it which is Transmuted? It cannot be the Noble and Pure part, because the Apostle saith, It is our vile Body: And according to George Keith, it cannot be that which corrupteth, because he saith, That which riseth corrupteth not: Now whereas he goes about to demonstrate the matter of the Soul's being the same for Substance as it was before its being purified from sin, etc. and also of Ashes and Sand being the same for Substance (when made into Glass) as before, and such like. Now to me this is very short of the matter; for, as for the Soul, it was a Spiritual Substance in its self, before its Sanctifying, as after; (so is not the Body) so that such a change is surely rather a Purification than a Transmutation, even as the washing of a body besmeared with Dirt, when cleansed, is a Purification, and not a Transmutation. And as for Ashes and Sand, it is still of a Temporal and Corruptible Nature after it is Transmuted into Glass, as well as before: So that unless he could demonstrate how a Natural & Corruptible Substance, (as suppose Ashes or Sand) can be turned into a Spiritual and Incorruptible One, and yet be the same for matter and Substance as it was before that change: All that I find he hath said, is (to me) far from the Matter in hand: Again, if the grossy Ibid. p. 114 113. 117. part (which he saith, is called by Paul, Corruption) is not proper to Man as Man (as he intimates) nor no proper part of Man's body, and the other part corrupteth not; then no proper part of Man's body, nor nothing of Man, as Man, corrupteth; How then is it said of David, That he slept with his Fathers and saw corruption? And if Acts 13. 36 nothing that is proper to Man, as Man, Rom. corrupteth; How is Man in Scripture called corruptible Man? And how is it that Job said in his day, I Job. have said of corruption, Thou art my Father, and to the Worms, Thou art my Sister? Again, whereas he saith (speaking of the Principle or Substance of the body, which he calls the visible part) Though the Man-eater Truth advanced, &c (saith he) may eat the gross part of Man's body, yet that more subtle and invisible part, they cannot eat: Now what is this, but to say, they may eat Man's body, but they cannot eat the Substance of Man's body? And is not this as contrary to that common Understanding God hath given Man to judge of, and distinguish things by, as the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation? For the Papists say, Though as to their Sense, they eat the very Bread, it having the very colour, the smell, the taste and show of Bread, yet the Substance of Bread they eat not: So G. K. holds, That though Man-eaters may eat the visible part of Man's body, which is seen with the outward Eyes, yet the Matter and Substance of Man's body they cannot eat; What strange Doctrine is this? And if any say, things that are impossible to Man, are possible with God; so say the Papists for their Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Now to conclude this matter, I do say, Though the Scripture is very plentiful of Testimonies and Proofs of the Resurrection of the Dead, and that, according thereunto, we firmly believe there shall be a Resurrection both of the Just and of the Unjust, the one to Eternal Life, the other to Condemnation; and that herein it is, that we exercise ourselves to have a Conscience void of offence towards God, and towards Man: And that, if in this life we have hope only, we are of all Men most miserable: Yet I say, though we firmly believe this according to Scripture; we do not think it a necessary business to be curiously prying into the manner of it, neither do we find the Primitive Christians come to any express Result about what their bodies should be. For, First. If it was the common belief of the Primitive Christians, That the very same Matter and Substance of this corruptible body, should be the body that is raised, why should any (among themselves especially) have asked such a needless Question, as [With what body do they come?] Secondly. But then such a Question ●eing asked, would not the Apostle think you (who was ready to give every Man an answer of the hope that was in him) have answered more to the matter, and said, Thou Fool, what dost thou ask that for? Inasmuch as it is our common belief, that it is the very same body for Matter and Substance, which is buried in the Grave: The Matter and Substance whereof being, in common acceptation, the same Flesh, Blood and Bones. But instead of that, said he, Thou Fool, that which thou sowest, is not quickened except it die: And thou sowest not the Body that shall be: So that as a Grain sowed in the Field, is not quickened except it die; So Mankind, (on whom, through the envy of the Devil, came Death) being sown in the Field of the World, as unless he first come to die unto sin, is not quickened or raised to the Life of Righteousness here in this World; so nor until he come to die the bodily death, is he raised to the State of Glory with such a Spiritual body as it shall please God to give in the World to come: And so that which is sown, is not quickened except first it die. Thirdly. Because, as to what body it shall be, he answers in the Negative, to wit, That which thou sowest, is not that body that shall be, but bare Grain, etc. and then concludes, that God gives a body, as it pleaseth him, and yet to every Seed it's own body; so that none shall be invested with another's body, but it's own proper, yet a Spiritual body, and such a one as it shall please God to give; with whose good pleasure I desire my Soul may rest satisfied in all things (as long as I have a Being) viz. Concerning what bodies he will be pleased to give at the Resurrection of the Dead. Now Friends, methinks you may easily see what a strange Babel G. K. is a building. And why was not the Almanac-maker so Ingenious and Impartial, since he would needs be doing and meddling with things so impertinent to an Almanac, and instead of such silly idle stuff he there puts in, to have taken notice of some of the confused work which G. K. hath made of late amongst us also; but it is a true saying, Prejudice blinds Men. But now farther, as to the Almanac-maker, I shall take a little notice of the noise he makes therein concerning some Quakers at Philadelphia, who (he said) persecuted their Brethren about a Religious difference, etc. A high Charge, but sooner said than proved: For all Men that are brought before Magistrates and Courts, are not sufferers for Religion, though true it is, Men on the one hand may be Petsecutors for Religion, and yet pretend other matters for their doing so; on the other hand, Men may be Abusers of Christian Liberty, by doing things under pretence of Conscience and Religion, for which the Magistrates may be Justifiable both to call them to an Account, and (if occasion be) to punish them for it: This surely G. K. will not deny; for doth not he himself, (in his late Answer to Cotton Mather, when speaking of a Woman that went stark naked into a Public Assembly) say, That we (meaning the Quakers) all judge that any such Practice doth deserve Corporal Punishment, and that she deserved much more punishment than Imprisonment for it; yet this Woman pretended Religion for what she did: Now admit the Magistrates here had been full as bad in other matters, as you have rendered them to be, yet that would not justify them in abusing of them, in those matters for which they were called to an Account; nor did I ever read, that I can remember, That any were Recorded as Sufferers for Conscience sake, when it was for abusing and belying of Magistrates both in Print and otherwise, as these did at Appeal it in the 2●. etc. p. ●. Philadelphia, Printing that the Magistrates not only countenanced the hireing of Men to fight, but also gave them a Commission so to do, Signed by Three Justices of the Peace, whereof one was a Preacher, and that the Worldly Government was here engrossed by the Ministers, in all which are these falsehoods against the Magistrates. First. That they Signed a Commission to fight: This falsehood was of very bad tendency, thus to Print abroad to the World, That the Magistrates, and that Quakers too, signed a Commission to fight, for this is more than they had Power to do, being Civil Magistrates, for that Power was given by the King to none but the Governor, his Captains or Officers; so that they might have been called to an Account for it, and rendered ridiculous to the World about it. The second falsehood was, That it was Signed by three Justices of the Peace, whereof one was a Preacher; whereas it being but a Warrant of the Hue and Cry, Signed but by two Justices, and neither of them a Preacher. The third falsehood was, That the Ministers here had engrossed the Worldly Covernment, for there were many that were not Ministers, nor Quakers neither, then in Government: And doth not the Almanac Maker say himself, That there were then Justices who were not Quakers? Consequently the Government was not engrossed by them. Neither did I ever read, That any were Recorded as Sufferers for Conscience sake, when it was for falsely insinuating against Magistrates; as, That one should be carried to Bed Drunk, and another to be as Drunk, that he could scarce get over the Ships side he was in, and that he Waged his Horse with John Slocam, but being Drunk, the said Slocam would not take the advantage of the Wager against him. Now though he may say, This was but by way of Quaery, yet to insinuate such gross and false things, especially against Magistrates, though by way of Quaery, surely is not justifiable: For as Will. Penn saith in his late little Book, It were intolerable to be a Minister of State, if every body must be Accuser and Judge: Let therefore (saith he) the false Accuser no more escape an exemplary punishment, than the guilty Minister; for (saith he) it profanes Government, to have the Credit of the Leading Men in it subject to vulgar Censure, which is often ill grounded; besides whatever he may say concerning Querying, ●e concludes his Letter more peremptorily than so, saying, Let these Actions be also condemned (meaning as well as G. K's Actions were.) Again, I never read that any were Recorded as Sufferers for Conscience sake, for being either published by Authority as a person publicly reviling the Governor, calling him, Impudent Man, telling him, he was not fit to be a Governor, and that his Name would stink, etc. Or for being called to an account for exposing the Reputation of a Judge, Printing him to be an Ignorant, Presumptuous, and Insolent Man; and also for falsely accusing another Magistrate, of putting his hand under women's Petticoats bidding him go home to his Whores: This or suchlike stuff was the matter they call a Religious Difference, or Religion's Dissent, for which they are called to an account: And surely in vain it is, as well as that it is ridiculous, to say these things were not done or spoke against them (as Magistrates:) For if that might be allowed, might not Magistrates at any time be abused at the pleasure of every idle person, and then come off with the like Excuse? More might be said about these things, but my chief intent at this time is to show his inconsistencies in Doctrinal points, that it may be seen, he is not a Man of such a sound Judgement, nor of so true a Spirit neither, as some have taken him to be. For though a man may have much read Prophecies and Chronologies concerning things past or to come, and may by comparing things and times one with another (which may be useful in its place) speak or write his sense of it, and that sometimes it may accordingly so come to pass; yet such a man may be of a wrong Spirit for all that, as some Jews were; for we read, when Christ Matth. 2. was born, Herod called the Chief Priests and Scribes of the People together, to demand of them where He should be? Who readily and rightly answered, In Bethlehem: for thus it is written, etc. yet we read that it was the Chief Priests and Scribes consulted how they might kill him, it was the Scribes that mocked him; it was the Scribes that said, He cast out Devils by Belzebub the Prince of Devils; in short, it was the Elders, Chief Priests and Scribes that rejected him and caused him to Suffer, notwithstanding it was the Scribes could tell so well where he should be born. Then again, may not there be much Erring in Judgement in taking of Prophecies with a sense too literally, as the People did, when Christ told them of his being lifted up: Now the Scriptures speaking of Christ's being a Priest for ever; say they, We have read in our Law, That Christ abides for ever; and how sayest thou. The Son of Man must be lifted up? Imagining that the Scripture meant he was to continue for ever in Person among them. Doubtless from such kind of Mistakes it was that they imagined the Messiah was to redeem them from outward Bondage and Subjection: For whereas we read that the Government was to be upon his Shoulders, and that he was to Rule the Nations with a Rod of Iron, and be the Restorer of Paths to dwell in; so they imagined this Restoration to be from outward Bondage, as aforesaid; which made them say to Christ, That they hoped it had been He that should have redeemed Israel: Nay his very Disciples to the last day of his being among them in Person, had not a right understanding of it, when they said, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom again to Israel? Unto which Christ answered plainly, It is not for you to know the Times and Seasons, which the Father hath put in his own Power, etc. Again, As some Men have, and others may, in some things hit right as to the meaning of Prophecies, etc. and yet be of a wrong Spirit; So may there not be others who may not see so far into those things, as a wrong spirited Man may do, who may be of a right Spirit? As in the case of Nathaniel, who, tho' it was spoken by the Prophets, that Christ should be called a Nazarine, yet when Philip told him They had found Jesus of Nazareth, his Answer was, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Now Christ did not presently call him Heretic, unbeliever, Denier of the Man Christ, or the like; but on the contrary, having regard to the sincerity of his heart, he said of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile. Now to be plain, This is to show that G. K may be (as well as others have been) a Man of great Knowledge in Chronology, yet being led by a wrong Spirit, what doth it profit? Even as the Apostle saith, Tho I have the Gift of Prophecy, and understand all Mysteries, and 1 Cor. 13. 1. all Knowledge, and tho' I have all Faith so that I could remove Mountains, and have not Charity, I am (saith he) Nothing. Now how far G. K. is a Man of Charity, even in such things wherein he himself allows Charity ought to be used (as I am now coming to show) so let all that read it compare it with his late Treatment of Friends, and then judge of it. I am now coming to it, by adding to what I have writ, a very good way and means proposed by G. K. himself, to bring the Differences (of those called Christians) in point of Judgement, to a very small compass, taken word by word out of his Book called Truth's Defence, etc. beginning in page 169. Thus (saith he) as to the most Weighty and Necessary Things, to wit, Such as are the General Principles of the Christian Faith and Doctrine; and which as such, are generally to be received by all Christians, as well of those of the meanest Capacity, as others of the greatest Note; We see the Lord hath not left it to Man's Industry, to search after them by Consequences long or short; nor hath not left it to Man's Industry to search after them, but delivered them to us in plain express Scripture-Words and Terms, over and over again, as in respect of many of them in the holy Scriptures; And why is it that the Scriptures are so full and large in their Testimony to the Doctrines and Principles of Religion, but to let us understand that all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith, which God requireth in common of all Christians, are expressly there Delivered and Recorded, and put as it were in a Public Register. And therefore for my part, what I cannot 〈◊〉 expressly delivered in Scripture, I see no reason why I should receive and believe it as any common Article or Principle of the Christian Faith or Life; And for such to whom God hath given that Divine Skill to dive or dip into the Depth of the Scriptures, so as to Collect or Gather by Just and True Consequences other things, that lie out of the view of their weaker Brethren, they ought not to obtrude them upon any, to be received as Principles of Faith, but in that case to have Faith to themselves, and receive them as peculiar Discoveries or Revelations of the Spirit to them, and such others as God hath so enlightened. That which by the Apostle Paul is called, The Word of Wisdom, to wit, Such a peculiar Degree of Wisdom or Understanding in the Depth of the Scriptures, which others (who yet are true Christians) did not reach unto; And concerning such a peculiar Gift of Divine Wisdom, he said, We speak Wisdom among the Perfect; This certainly could be no common Article of Faith, else he should have preached it unto all; And this by the same Apostle is called The Knowledge of Mysteries, as distinguished from the common Faith and Knowledge of the whole Church. Now if this were but received among those called Christians, That nothing should be required by one sort from another, as an Article of Faith, or Doctrine, or Principle of the Christian Religion, in common to be believed, but what is expressly delivered in the Scripture, in plain express Scripture-Terms; of how great an Advantage might it be to bring a true Reconcilement among them, and beget true Christian Unity, Peace, Love and Concord? And as for the Consequential part of peculiar Doctrines, whether True or False, to leave every one a Freedom or Latitude, without Imposing the Affirmative or Negative, as any Bond or Tye of Christian Fellowship. For if such Consequential be false, it's more Unreasonable to impose it; and therefore in Observe, this is Charity, which G. K. now wants for us. that Case, a Dissenter should have his Liberty to differ in Judgement, without any Breach of Brotherly Unity and Society; And if it be true, yet not being Opened or Revealed to another, it cannot be in Justice pressed upon him, where God has not given him the true Freedom and Clearness of Mind to receive it: And to do otherwise, is to transgress that Golden Rule delivered by Paul, viz. To walk by the same Rule, according to what we have attained; And if any be otherwise minded (saith he) God will reveal it unto him. Or if this Advice could find place, it would bring the Differences (among those called Christians) in point of Judgement, to a very small and narrow compass; and they would derstand one another far better than now they do. Thus far G. Keith in his said Book. Now, pray Friends, consider of it, for if this advice either had, or yet could find place with you that are gone after G. K. or could it have found place with G. K. himself, when so often desired it might, it is well known, the difference had never come to this furious Printing and Separation as it did: But if you say, G. K. is of another Mind now, we do not Question that in the least, but then surely the more insincere Man he, still to pretend to be of the same Mind; for in his Answer to the New England Priests, he speaking of the Fall of Adam, etc. saith thus, What the Scripture saith of it is readily believed and granted, and it is safest (saith he) in this and all other Matters of Faith to keep to Scripture Words, especially in all Cases and Matters that are in Controversy; for the Scripture is a Rich Treasure or Storehouse sufficient to afford us Words, whereby to express our Faith in all Matters of Christian Doctrine; and (saith he) it is not safe to leave the Scripture Words, etc. Nay in his last great Book so much talked of before it came out, for a profound piece of Divinity, though as little heeded by many, since they see what it is; I say, in that Book he hath these Words, viz. But against the Doctrine of the Resurrection Truth advanced, page 118. here delivered and opened, by plain evidence of Holy Scripture Words and Terms, to which it is only safe in this and in all other matters of Faith to keep close, etc. Thus far again G. K. Again Now whereas you say, we have given you to understand, We have a sense contrary to Scripture Words, it is surely more likely, contrary to your Meanings upon Scripture Words: But what uncharitableness is this, when we offer to express our Faith in Scripture Words, for you to say, we have another sense then what we speak? Now I ask, how do you know that? did we either at any time make, or offer to make, any Confession, but in Scripture Words expressly? For though here and there a particular Man may have dropped an unadvised Expression contrary to the Principles of the Church they belong to, both among us, you, and others; yet certainly in this Case, I verily believe the fault hath been chief in you, for perverting our Words. Now whereas you allege, The Papists say they keep to Scripture Words, when they say from Christ's Words, This is my Body, etc. that the very Bread they eat in the Sacrament, is the very Body of Christ that was crucified on the Cross, etc. Now I say, the Papists erring here, is not by keeping, but adding to Scripture Words, because the Scripture saith no such things, only (This is my Body, etc.) Now in what sense Christ called the Bread of the Passover his Body, in that sense 'twas his Body; even as in what sense he called himself a Door and a Vine, in that sense he is a Door and a Vine; and so we may conclude, without any danger of perverting the Text, or running into Error about that or such like Texts of Scripture. But if some of you think yet, That it is not safe enough to express our Faith in the express words of Scripture, and should offer any Reasons for it; let them be offered to G. K. and see how you can reconcile your Reasons with the Method he hath laid down, as the only Means to reconcile differences, as abovesaid; and if you are one with G. K's Method, than I say, it being according to him, not only safest, but the only safe way, to reconcile differences in Religion, to keep to express Scripture; Then surely all other ways are unsafe, and why should not this only safe way be accepted of us, when we so often offered to take that way to express our Christian Belief by? And seeing, according to G. K. there is no other Truth advanced, page 17. safe way to express our Faith, but in express Scripture Words: Let me therefore a little Query with you about it. First, Where are the express Words of Scripture, that say, The same Body for Matter and Substance shall rise? Secondly, Where are the express Scripture Road Island ●●eet, page 7. Words, that say, None but those that have the Faith of Christ crucified and raised again, can love Enemies, etc. according to G. K's Doctrine? G. K. himself saith, That many of the Gentiles of old did not only teach things, but also, in a large measure, practise them. Thirdly, Where are the express Scripture Testimony 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 opinion, page 3. Words, that say, The four hundred pieces of Silver, that Abraham purchased the Buryingplace with, signifies four hundred Virtues, and that those that have not those four hundred Virtues, &c. cannot have the Privilege to be buried in that most excellent Buryingplace? Fourthly, Where are the express Scripture Truth advanced, pag● 1. Words, that say, Adam and Eve were not naked before the Fall? And also the Garden that God placed Man in in the beginning, was no part of this visible Earth, nor is the Dust, of which he was made, such Dust as we go upon; both which he saith, are hurtful and dangerous Errors, false Doctrine, etc. Fifthly, Where are the express Scripture Ibid. Words, that say, Men may not have [that] Holy Ghost, which was given to believe in Christ Crucified, without the Faith of Christ Crucified; for what was that Holy Ghost that the wicked Jews always resisted? And what was that Holy Ghost which Christ told his Disciples, should speak in them, Luke when he sent them out by two and two to Preach the Gospel, even before they understood he was to rise from the Dead, neither did they understand it for some time after he was risen? And what was that G. K. saith, the Heathen once had, and that Pharaoh had before his Heart was hardened? where he saith, It is our Faith, that the Heathen once had the Spirit of God, and that Pharaoh, before his Heart was hardened, had the Spirit of Grace; for is not the Spirit of Grace the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit? And was not the Spirit of Grace that which was to be poured forth in the Gospel-Days, by which they should see him whom they had pierced, and mourn over him? Was not this the Holy Ghost which Pharaoh had, having (as is confessed) the Spirit of Grace? Though they had it not in that peculiar Degree, as true Believers in Christ had, is not denied; even as it is said, That Christ should give those Light that did awake Ephes. out of Sleep, and arise from the Dead; not but that he enlightens all men, tho' not all in like Degree. But alas, what does he drive at? or how many Holy Ghosts, would he make us believe there are? Sixthly, Where are the express Scripture Words, that say, The Light is not sufficient without something else? Seeing G. K. saith, The Light is God and Christ, and the Scripture expressly saith, God is Almighty or Omnipotent. Seventhly, Now as to that part of that you call the main Matter of Controversy. Where are the express Scripture Words and Terms, that say, No Man ●an attain to Eternal Life and Happiness without the Knowledge of Christ's outward Sufferings, Death, Resurrection, & c? But the Scripture saith expressly, Glory, Honour and Peace to every Man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: And which Words G. K. saith) do import, That some of those Gentiles did work good, and received the Reward of Glory and Honour ●hereof: Therefore (saith he) it follows, they were justified. Now I say, this being called by yourselves, the main Matter of Controversy, and that to hold the contrary, is great Heresy, how is it that you in the first place do not so deal with G. K. for holding this Heresy, so as either to cause him to condemn what he hath writ so positively for it, or else, to declare your ●elves out of Unity and Fellowship with ●im about it, and not only about that, but about divers other Doctrinal Points written by him, as afore is shown, which are the Doctrines you so quarrel with, and Unchristian us about: And really, I could never yet see how you can be in partial in the Case, to find such fault with us about these things, so as to separate and divide yourselves from us, and that one of your Chief Reasons pretending for your so doing, was for that some had spoken unsound Words among us, as W. S. and T. F. For which they were not brought to such Condemnation, as to Time and Manner, as pleased you: And yet to join with and extol G. K. (as you do) whilst he lies under the guilt of the same Errors (as you call them) especially about the main Matter of Controversy he is directly positive, as is aforeshewed; for though much of it was formerly writ, yet he justifying still all written in his former Books, how can you then deny and separate from us about Words spoken, so as the saying of them might be forgotten, and yet justify him in such Words written, that cannot be easily blotted out? Let me desire you ingeniously to consider this matter without prejudice or affection to either Me● or Parties, for Men or Parties sake. For if the Doctrine of G. K. then held ●e false, how can you justify him in it, and yet condemn us for holding the ●ame thing? For, do we hold, The Light is sufficient of itself? So does G. K. too. It being God, the Word, and Holy Spirit. Do we say, he is the only true Christ and Saviour, as manifest in us? So does G. K. too. Do we hold, the Light, Power and Spirit within to be Christ the Mediator and Saviour? So does G. K. too. It is our Faith, That Magistrates may Preach. So it is G. K.'s too. Do we deny the Professors carnal Conceptions of the Resurrection, and hold us to Scripture Words for that and all other Matters of Faith, judging it most safe so to do? So does G. K. too. Do we hold, that nothing should be required among us for an Article of Faith, but what is expressly delivered in Scripture in plain express Scripture Words? So does G. K. too. Do we hold, That where the Scripture is not express to the contrary, a Dissenter should have his Liberty to differ in Judgement? And that to do other wise is to transgress that golden Rule delivered by Paul, as aforesaid? So does G. K. too. And now Lastly, As to the main Matter of Controversy: Do we say, That the Knowledge of Christ's Death, Resurrection, etc. in the outward, is not indispensibly necessary to all and every one to Salvation, so as none can be saved without it. So doth G. K. too. Now to conclude, I do say, The Premises being throughly and impartially considered, methinks you may easily see that G. K's separating was not from any solid weighty Ground in Truth, nor that he did intent in it, to maintain the Doctrine of the most found, ancient and present Friends of Truth, called in scorn Quakers; neither as to Doctrinal Points did he intent to keep to the express Words of Scripture, for if he had, what need had he to have differed with us about them? Since First, we offered so often to express them on●y in Scripture Words. Then Secondly, Because, he cannot be so ignorant, but must needs know, having (as he confesseth) these eight Years been so intimate with those of Chief Note among us, not only in Europe, but for these divers Years in America, I say therefore, How is it but he must needs know, that according to express Words of Scripture, We really own and unfeignedly believe in one God, that made the World and all things therein, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, who is called the Word of God, in whom is Life, and which Life is the Light of Men, and that he is the true Light that enlightens every Man that comes into the World, who commanded us to believe in the Light, that we might be Children of the Light: This is express Scripture. And that we believe, that as the Children were partakers of Flesh and Blood, he himself also took part of the same; being Conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem; and by wicked Hands was Crucified and Slain; and that he died for the Sins of the World, whose Body Joseph of Arimathea begged; and that he was buried, and the third Day he risen gain from the Dead, and shown himself to his Disciples, being seen o● them forty Days, and whilst they beheld, he was taken up into Heaven, and a Cloud received him out of their sight; and that this Man Jesus Christ is the Mediator between God and Man, and that he ever lives to make Intercession for us: And that by him it is, who is the Life and Light of Men, who said to his Disciples, I will come again and receive you; I go away and come again unto you; I in them, and thou in me; he that is with you shall be in you, John 14. and Chap. 18. and promised to be with his own to the end of the World, Mat. 28. he, even he it is who died and was buried, risen again and ascended, and sits on the right Hand of God; Him, Jesus our only Saviour, and no other, it is that we believe God will judge the World by at the Day appointed; or great Day of Judgement. But how or after what Manner his Body was changed after it was taken up out of their sight, we think no need to undertake, as well as that it is impossible for us to determine; But G. K. saith, It is no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones. And again according to express Scripture Words; We believe that there is no Salvation in any other, nor no Name given under Heaven, whereby we must be saved, but this Name Jesus. But G. K. saith, It is not the outward Name that saves, but the inward Name Virtue and Power signified thereby. And according to the express Words of Scripture, We believe there shall be a Resurrection of the Dead, both of the Just and Unjust, as is afore expressed, and that in such a Body as God pleaseth to give, this is Scripture. Now I say, how can G. K. be ignorant, but that this he must needs know we believe? Though this (I cannot find) will do with him, unless we say, The Light is not sufficient without something else, or unless we say, God will not give Eternal Life and Salvation to honest and conscientious Heathens; no more to Infants neither, that die in that State, unless they have first the Knowledge of Christ's outward Sufferings, etc. I shall now conclude with a few Words more particularly to those that are most Sincere amongst you, for whose sakes I was chief drawn forth thus to write, and lay before you these things. Let me entreat you to begin a little to consider what you have been doing, and how you have caused many to stumble at the way of Truth, and how you that could so easily and rashly run into this Separation and Division, dividing yourselves from your Brethren, and then exposing the weakness of some, and perverting the Words of others, with such cruel and uncharitable Aggravations, that I do not remember I ever heard the like. Now I say, You that could so easily thus divide from, and on this manner deal with your Brethren, without that true Regard had, as you ought, for the Fame of Truth, the way of it; or to the afflicted People in remote Parts, that live therein: Pray consider this and lay it to Heart, and what hath been the Effect of it. And you that were so much contending about Doctrinal Points, not being content with the Expressions of Scripture concerning them, how are you now rend and shattered among yourselves about them? What shall I say more? But come, return again, and let us be content to receive for Doctrine, what the Holy Ghost moved the Holy Men of Old to lay down for us in the Holy Scripture, and that by a measure of the same Spirit, in which they were right, we may be enabled to follow the Lord in the narrow Path of Regeneration; why should you thus turn aside from the Flocks of the Companions? I hope you may see, by what is here written, G. K. had not any matter of weight in Truth, nor Matter consistent in itself, to draw you thus aside: Therefore do but return in the way of Truth, and then it may please the Lord we may yet meet together, and sit down in deep Humility before him, every one being upon his Watch Tower, guarding strongly in the Strength of the Lord, against our common Enemies, the World, the Flesh and the Devil; and so may yet be a People of one Judgement, one Heart, and one Mind, Worshipping and Serving the Lord our God with one Consent. Now my Friends, if what is here written may prevail upon any of you for your good, I shall be glad; if not, we must leave our Cause with God, who judgeth righteously. Thus truly desiring Truth, Peace and Concord may be restored, kept and remain in the Churches of Christ, I remain one that hearty Wishes for all your welfares, and Rest your true Friend Caleb Pusey. The 23d. 12th. Month, 1695. Rom. 16. 17. NOW I beseech you, Brethren, mark them which cause Divisions among you, contrary to the Doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. Acts 20. 30. Also from your own selves shall Men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them. Coll. 2. 18. Intruding into those things which he hath not seen. 1 John 3. 2. Beloved, now are we the Sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be. John 8. 13. If ye continue in my Word, then are ye my Disciples indeed, and ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free. John 3. 21. But he that doth Truth, cometh to the Light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Acts 20. 32. And now Brethren, I commend you to God, and to the Word of his Grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an Inheritance among all them which are Sanctified. The End.