very Title of the Snake in the Grafs; thereby 1697. ' to have diverted us from pursuing the Contro-o verly (then, and ftill in hand) with him: But when he found that would not do (for the Defign was seen) he roar'd againft us like a • Bull at Turners - ball, in the Month called June 1696, and afterwards in his Narrative thereof: The Answer to that, which foon followed, has it feems involv'd him in fuch Difficulties, that he hath not thought fit to appear against it in his own Shape; but either affuming another Perfon, or turning over his 'broken Forces (with the united Forces of the whole Party) to the hiffing Author of the Snake, they have amongst them lately thrust ⚫ forth another Book, as a Reply to that Answer ' of mine to G. Keith's Narrative: This (with' out a Name too, and faid to be written by the • Author of the Snake in the Grass) is called • Satan Dif- rob'd from his Difguife of Light. But the obfervant Reader will find Cause enough I think, to conclude that whoever 'writ it, was fully inrob'd in Satan's Over-guise and proper Drefs of Darkness, from the many bitter and fcornful Invectives therein used against the Light.

And for the Controverfy itself, he remarks, 1. That the Matters therein charged upon us, are generally the fame that have been charged on us heretofore, by Faldo, Hicks, and other Adverfaries; and always refuted over and over, ⚫ both formerly and of late.

2. That

1697. 2. That the Things they charge on us as Errors and Herefy, are not pretended to be proved by any plain exprefs Pofitions or Affer⚫tions of ours; but from our Adverfaries own perverfe Meanings, and wrefted Constructions of our Words; always denied and rejected by us.

<

3. That the Words and Paffages brought by our Adverfaries for Proof of their Charges ' against us, are not taken out of our Doctrinal Treatifes, or Declarations of Faith and Principles; but (for the most part) out of Controverfial Books; wherein, oft-times, the Scope ' and Aim of the Author is not fo much to 'affert or express his own Principles or Doctrines, as to impugn and expose his Adversary's, by fhewing the Contradictions, Abfurdities, and 'ill Confequences of his Adverfary's Opinions; from whence, pofitively to conclude the Au'thor's own Judgment, is neither fafe nor fair.

4. That however any of our former Adver'faries might have been mifled in their Judgments concerning us, G. Keith who hath now ' moved this Controversy against us, knows full well, that we do not hold thofe Things either generally as a People, or as particular Perfons, which he has charged on us as Errors. As a 'People he has clearly acquitted us from them, ' in his Preface to his Narrative, pag. 6. where he fays, I charge them not, either upon the Generality, far less upon the Universality of all them called Quakers. For particular Perfons, hear what he fays of George Whitehead, one

' of

of the principal Butts he shoots at, Narrative 1697. pag. 16. where having charged him with deny-. ing that Chrift in Heaven has any bodily Exiftence without us, being conscious that G. White' head did not fo hold, but that he had therein "abused him, he immediately adds, If he (G. Whitehead) has faid otherwife in any of his 'late printed Books, I am glad of it. And a Line lower, There is a G. Whitehead orthodox, and a G. Whitehead not orthodox. He is in this and fome other Things, orthodox and not orthodox And a little further, I own it, that I have cited divers Paffages out of his later • Books that are orthodox, to prove him found. 'What can be made of all this, but that G. Whitehead was orthodox and found in his own both Intentions and Expreffions; not orthodox in G. Keith's perverfe and falfe Conftructions? And whereas he harps upon the Word later Books, thereby to infinuate as if G. Whitehead had of late altered his Judgment; he has cut off that alfo in his Narrative, pag. 38. where he gives an Account, That in the Year 1678 (which is eighteen Years ago) fome, whom he 'would not name, questioning him about fome Principles in a Book of his, both G. Whitehead and W. Penn took part with him against them, 'tho' those Principles (as he calls them) which 'he fays he was then questioned about, were of 'the fame Nature with some of those he now charges upon them as Errors. From whence it appears, that he found them then, as well as now, found and orthodox in those Principles.

E e

5. That

1697.

5. That as this Controverfy lies properly ' and directly between G. Keith and us, and 'that he being baffled in it, and driven to a Ne 'plus ultra on his own Part, hath contrived to

carry it on under Difguife, by the Affiftance ' of another, (yet without a Name) who under • Pretence of Indifferency, and being unconcerned 'with or for G. Keith, should drop the Quota'tions I had loaded him with, out of his own 'Books against himself, and thereby free him, if he could, from those pinching Dilemma's ' which lay against him, and draw Dun (as the Proverb fpeaks) out of the Mire he was plung'd into; fo to obviate and disappoint the Defign. • That I may not fuffer myself to be bubbled by fuch artificial Shams, but that the Controverfy may be kept, as much as may be, upon its first Bottom, I have thought fit in 'this Rejoinder fo to order the Matter, as not to let G. Keith flip away (which I perceive he 'would fain do) while I am contending with I 'know not whom in this Quarrel. Therefore as I pafs through the feveral Heads of the Controverfy, I purpose not only to answer the 'moft material Cavils of the prefent Adversary, but withal to repeat (fome at least of) those Paffages that lay fo heavy upon G. Keith, and fettle (not to ufe his own finithing Metaphors ' of clinching and rivetting) them faster on him; to the End that both the Reader may more plainly fee the true Reafon why G. Keith did not himself reply in his own Name, to my Anfwer to his Narrative, and G. Keith may

'know

'know that I expect it from him, and in the 1697. ' mean time look upon him but as a baffled

shifting Adversary.

.

He begins his Epiftle with telling his Reader, that his Reply is fhort in comparison of the Anfwer. Therein he and I agree, but in Words ' rather than in Meaning; for he means in 'Number of Pages, I mean in Truth and fair Dealing, in which I am confident the indif'ferent Reader will find his Reply fhort indeed: ⚫ And even as to Bulk, upon due Confideration, ⚫ the Difproportion is not fo great as he would reprefent it, for his Book is rather more than • half as big as mine, though he replies not to the tenth Part of the Matter contained in mine. He makes nothing of skipping over ten or fifteen Pages at a time, fo nimble heel'd he is.' [And yet this is the Man that caution'd the Quakers, that if they answer'd his Book (Snake, third Edit. pag. 344.). that they would reply diftinctly, and not anfwer a Book as Rats do, by nibbling at fome Corners of the Leaves, fealing through it like Moths, to no other Purpose than to deface fome Words at a venture; who yet could reply thus flightly himself] Nay, in his firft Page he throws off no less than twenty 'five Pages at once, and barely mentioning, in lefs than nine Lines, a few Words contained in fome of them, without a Syllable of Reply thereto, fets in his Margin, Reply to the first twenty three Pages; and yet he hath the Con'fidence to mifcal his Book, and that even in the fame Page, A full Reply (he might better

<

Ee 2

<

' have