‘Whereas, G. Keith hath, after his wonted irregular and unruly manner, challenged divers of us to defend ourselves against such charges as he has to exhibit against us at Turner’s-hall: these are to certify all whom it may concern, that the reasons why we decline any such meeting are as follow:
First. ‘Because the said G. Keith hath given us such frequent proofs of his very passionate and abusive behaviour, at the many more select meetings we have had with him, in all manner of sweetness, long-suffering and patience, on our side, to satisfy and preserve him from these extremes: that we cannot assure ourselves now of any better entertainment, or that the meeting can have any desirable success, for a thorough information.
Secondly. ‘We decline to meet, because it is not an agreed meeting on both sides, which it ought to have been, and where that is not, or cannot be adjusted, the press is the next fair way and expedient, which he has begun with, and now seems to decline; nor hath he sent us a copy of his charge or indictment against us, which also he ought to have done.
Thirdly. ‘That he has two of our books which lie hard at his door, in vindication of us and our doctrines from his exceptions, and which he has not yet answered; so that he is not upon equal terms with us; and therefore we think his challenge, appointment, and summons, unfair; and that all that are not partial will be of the same mind with us.
Fourthly. ‘Such public and unlimited meetings, are too often attended, with heats, levity, and confusion, and answer not the end desired by sober and inquiring men. Besides, that it sets up a practice that authority may judge to be an abuse to our liberty, and so draw that under reflection, as no friend to the civil peace.
Fifthly. ‘We know not what religion or persuasion this wavering man is of, or what church or people he adheres to, or will receive him, with his vain speculations, that have led him to desert us; nor who are accountable to us for him and his irregularities and abuses; the generality of such assemblies usually making ill auditors, worse judges, and no good security for our satisfaction. And we must therefore take leave to say, it seems to us an indirect way of disquieting and invading our present liberty, that so irreligious a meeting should be held, whose end is to abuse other men for their religion. If this should be imitated by all the several sorts of different persuasions in this city, what heats and confusions must necessarily ensue.
Sixthly, and lastly. ‘Wherefore be it known unto all, that for the sake of religion, the liberty granted us, and the civil peace, we decline to meet him; and not from any apprehension we have of his abilities, or our own consciousness of error, or injustice to the said G. Keith; whose weak and unbridled temper we know is such, that what learning and parts he hath, have not been able to balance and support him on less occasions, so that we may say they are in ill hands: and if he proceeds as he begins, they will be employed to an ill end, which his, poor man! cannot but be, unless he change his course; which we heartily pray for, that a place of repentance he may find; and through a true contrition, the remission of his great sin of envy, and evilly intreating the Lord’s people, and way, which we profess, and which he the said G. Keith, hath long and lately both professed, and zealously vindicated as such.’
These reasons the Quakers, as hath been said, published in print, to show the world, that it was not without a weighty cause, that they did not accept G. Keith’s summons. Now though G. Whitehead, and W. Penn, for the abovesaid reasons did not appear in Turner’s-hall, yet some of their friends were there as spectators, to see what would be the issue of the business. G. Keith seeing himself thus disappointed in his intention, took upon him for all that to defend his charge in the absence of his adversaries, which now he could do easily, since none contradicted him; and he was applauded by the frequent shoutings of the mob that was there in great numbers. After the reasons of non-appearance were read, Keith signified that they were not satisfactory, by calling them slender, weak, and frivolous. ‘What,’ said he, ‘may a malefactor make this excuse; You shall not call me before a justice without my consent? If a man robs me, I may complain of him as a robber, and without his consent call him to account. But here is a strange thing: if injuring men may not be called to account without their consent, it will trespass against the law, and intrenches upon liberty of conscience.’ This reason he published in print, in his narrative of that day’s work: but who would formerly ever have thought, that such a little man as he was, would have been so big. It looked just as if the Quakers were obliged to appear as malefactors before the pretended judge Keith, accompanied with his assistants, the mob, and I do not know who. And to keep to G. Keith’s comparison, though a malefactor may not say, you shall not call me before a justice without my consent, yet with some good reason he might say, you shall not make yourself a justice, as Keith now did. It is probable that he was supported by some great churchmen, otherwise such a bold action might easily have turned to his disadvantage.
My limits do not admit of a circumstantial relation of what was transacted at that time in Turner’s-hall; yet to show briefly how he treated matters, I will produce one or two instances, by which my reader may know, ut ex ungue leonem,[104] and so judge of the rest. He said he would charge the Quakers with nothing but what he would prove from their own writings, and he went on thus: ‘I offer to prove that G. Whitehead hath denied Christ both to be God and man.’ A strange thing indeed, since it was very well known that G. Whitehead had published a book of above twenty sheets, under this title, ‘The Divinity of Christ, and Unity of the Three that bear record in Heaven, with the blessed end and effect of Christ’s appearance, coming in the flesh, sufferings, and sacrifice for sinners, confessed and vindicated by his followers called Quakers.’ This book G. Keith could not pretend ignorance of, for he picked somewhat out of it in his narrative: but to maintain his charge, he appealed to a book of G. Whitehead’s, called, ‘The Light and Life of Christ within.’ This book G. Whitehead had written in answer to W. Burnet, a Baptist preacher, who writing of Christ, said, As he was God, he was Co-Creator with the Father, and so was before Abraham, and had Glory with God before the world was, and in this sense came down from heaven. To which G. Whitehead answered, ‘What nonsense and unscripture-like language is this, to tell of God being Co-Creator with the Father? Or that God had glory with God? Doth not this imply two gods, and that God had a father? Let the reader judge.’ Certainly it appears from this plainly, that G. Whitehead did not intend any thing else, but to censure the unscriptural expressions of his antagonist, as Co-Creator, and implying two gods: for not only the apostle saith, God is One, but Christ himself saith I and the Father are One. Yet G. Keith did not stick to say, G. Whitehead denieth the divinity of Christ, and he deceives the nation and the parliament by telling them the Quakers own Christ to be both God and man, and believe all that is recorded of him in the holy scripture. This he strove to prove from a passage taken out of the aforementioned book, which in sense agreed with the former; and speaking in another page of the same matter, viz. The Baptists calling God the Word, Co-Creator with the Father, G. Whitehead answers thus to it: ‘To tell of the Word God Co-Creator with the Father, is all one as to tell of God being Co-Creator with God, if the Father be God; and this is to make two gods and two creators: for God Co-Creator with the Father plainly implies two. Was this showing of others their absurd expressions, a denial that Christ was God, as Keith would have it? Might it not be asked here, whether the acute wit of Keith was now altogether flown away? But a great part of his auditory consisted of an ignorant crew, and one or other of them was continually heard to cry out, It is sufficient.
[104] As of a lion by his claw.