Now to prove that G. Whitehead had denied Christ to be man, Keith cited from the forementioned book, called ’The Divinity of Christ,‘ &c. these words, ’If the body and soul of the Son of God were both created, doth not this render him a fourth person?’ Here Keith stopped, and broke off with an &c. without adding the following words; ‘For creation was in time, which contradicts the doctrine of three distinct, uncreated, co-eternal, co-essential persons in the Deity, seeing that which was created was not so.’ This G. Whitehead asked and said, to show his opponent, T. Danson, the absurdity of his assertions about the personalities of the Deity. But Keith went on, reading from G. Whitehead’s book thus: ‘Where doth the Scripture say that his soul was created? For was not he the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his divine substance? But supposing the soul of Christ was with the body created in time,’ &c. Here Keith broke off again, omitting the following words: ‘I ask, if from eternity he was a person distinct from God and his holy Spirit, without either soul or body? Where doth the Scripture speak of any person without either soul or body? Let us have plain Scripture.’

Now though G. Whitehead had written this to show, how we often enter into inextricable straits, when we do not keep to the words of the holy Scripture, which no where speaks of three persons in the Deity; yet Keith perverting the passage abusively, said to his auditory, ‘Here ye see he will not own that Christ had a created soul.’ At this rate, and after this manner, Keith reasoned, and treated the other passages. But how smartly would he have carped at others, if they had cited his words thus piecemeal.

But now he had a temporal reward in this view, and seeing for that end, he began more and more to declare himself in favour of the episcopal church; somebody of that persuasion, who did not further make himself known than by these initial letters, W. C. made it his business to show the changeableness of Keith’s opinion and sentiments, from his own writings, which he had published in print; and thereby evidently proved, that in every respect Keith was turned an apostate, though he appeared much offended at the Quakers, because they had called him so. ‘But,’ said this author, ‘if the Presbyterian principles, of which society Keith once was a member, were better than the Quakers, then is Mr. Keith an apostate, in revolting from, and deserting the Presbyterians, and turning his coat Quaker-fashion. But if the Quakers were more in the right than the Presbyterians, then è contrá.’

Now he appeared to fawn on the episcopal clergy, and esteemed lawful what formerly he had zealously oppugned. For he was in hopes that by opposing the Quakers he should be best rewarded among the Episcopalians; and this was not altogether without reason; for it being no more in their power now to persecute the Quakers in manner as formerly, they made use of other means as much as possibly they could, to render them and their doctrine odious; for which Keith seemed to them no unfit tool; for he being both of a witty impetuous temper, was also crafty, subtle, cunning, and violent in his expressions. And to charge the Quakers with inorthodoxy, he himself launched out into an heterodox sentiment. For it was believed, that for maintaining this position, that the historical knowledge of Christ’s sufferings, death, resurrection, &c. was absolutely necessary for salvation, he had no other ground than the twelve pretended transmigrations or transitions of man’s soul from one body into another; and because the ignorant souls from hence seemed to get opportunity of being informed, before the end of the world, concerning the death and resurrection of our Saviour. Who would have imagined before that this same G. Keith should have accused the Quakers of inorthodoxy in point of doctrine, which he had often so effectually defended; and among the rest, in a book against one Cotton Mather, wherein upon the charge of their being guilty of many heresies and blasphemies, he said after this manner; ‘Our principles do mostly agree with the fundamental articles of the Christian Protestant faith. According to my best knowledge of the people called Quakers, and those owned by them as preachers and publishers of their belief, being of an unquestionable esteem among them, and worthy of double honour, as there are many such, I know none of them that are guilty of such heresies and blasphemies as they are charged with. And I think I should know, and do know those called Quakers, having been conversant with them in public meetings as well as in private discourses, with the most noted and esteemed among them, for about twenty years past, and that in many places of the world, both in Europe and America.’ Who would ever have thought then, that one who had conversed so many years with the Quakers, preached their doctrine, and defended it publicly both by writing and by word of mouth, should afterwards have decried them, as deniers of the most essential points of the Christian faith? But to what extravagancies may not temporal gain transport a man, the case of Balaam may serve for an evidence.

I have in all this relation of Keith’s behaviour, set down nothing but what I believe to be really true; neither have I endeavoured to aggravate his failures; for I never bore him ill-will, but a good esteem when I believed him to be upright, because in that time I perceived in him some good abilities. And I yet wish from my very heart, that it may please God, in his unsearchable mercy, so to touch his heart, before the door of grace be shut, that seeing the greatness of his transgression, he may by true repentance, obtain forgiveness from the Lord, of his evil; which I take to be worse, because by his craftiness he endeavoured to set false colours on things that were really good, thereby to insinuate himself into favour with the episcopal party.[105] And since some others suborned thereto did no omit also to render the Quakers odious, as such that held inorthodox sentiments, these did not neglect to show in print, how they were injured and wronged. For now the old tale, that there were Popish emissaries among them, was revived and divulged anew. But it was no hard matter for them to show how ill-grounded this conceit was; and therefore they might say, ‘We are so well known to our neighbours, that if this were true, our adversaries would be very active to find out and discover such emissaries, since the law against them is still in force.’ Three episcopal clergymen in Norfolk, had also drawn up a paper to the king and parliament, to blacken the Quakers from their own writings; but George Whitehead, William Penn, and others, were not backward to show how their words, or the true meaning thereof, were perverted; since at such a rate, even the salutary lessons of the holy Scriptures might be exposed as wicked expressions.

[105] N. B. This was written some years before I heard G. Keith was deceased.

Now the late king James intending an invasion upon England, and great preparations being made in France in order thereto, a plot was discovered in England against king William; this gave occasion to the House of Commons to draw up a kind of declaration, which was called an association, to be signed by all their members, as follows:

‘Whereas, there has been a horrible and detestable conspiracy, formed and carried on by Papists, and other wicked and traitorous persons for assassinating his majesty’s royal person, in order to encourage an invasion from France, to subvert our religion, laws, and liberties, we whose names are hereunto subscribed, do heartily, sincerely, and solemnly promise, testify, and declare, that his present majesty king William, is rightful and lawful king of these realms. And we do mutually promise and engage to stand by and assist each other, to the utmost of our power, in the support and defence of his majesty’s most sacred person and government, against the late king James, and all his adherents. And in case his majesty come to any violent and untimely death, which God forbid, we do hereby further freely and unanimously oblige ourselves to unite, associate, and stand by each other, in revenging the same upon his enemies and their adherents, and in supporting and defending the succession of the crown, according to an act made in the first year of the reign of king William and queen Mary, entitled, ‘An Act declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects, and settling the succession of the Crown.’’

An association was also signed by the lords, and both presented to the king, and were followed by all the corporations in England. See Life of king William, vol. III. The dissenters also presented declarations to the king, that had some resemblance with the other. But the Quakers professing non-resistance, and an inoffensive behaviour, could in no wise enter into such a league; yet to show that they were loyal and faithful to the king, they drew up the following declaration, and published it in print: