The Monmouth inquirer., 1922-11-09
St. Peters Church,
Freehold and It's RectOrs
BY MAxcr APpLEaATE. sR.


REV. GEORGE KEITH, FOUNDER OF
FREEHohD.
These reasons the Quakers, as hath
been said published in print to show
the world. that it was not without a
mighty cause, that they did not &C
cept q. Keith's summons. Now though
q. Whitehead and VIM. Penn, for the
aforesaid 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 this business. g..
Keith seeing himself thus disappoint-
al IN his Intention, took upon him for
ali that. to defend his charge In the abb
sance of his adversaries, which now he
corild do easily. since nome contradict
ii Rim and he was applauded by the
freauent shoutings of the mob that
were there in great numbers. After the
reasons of non-appearance was read,
Keith signified they were not satis-
factory. by calling them slender, weak
and frivolous, what said he may q
malefactor make this excuse you
shalt not CALI before a Justice with
out NY consent?''
If a man robs me, | may complain
of him as robber, and without lis
consent call him to account But
here is q strange thing: If injuring
men may not be called to account
withoutt 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 DAVIS work, but who would form
( erly ever have thought, that such a
IettIe man as he was, would have
been SO big. 1t looked as if the Quak-
ers were Obliged to appear as malefac-
tors before the pretended judge Keith,
accompanied with bis assistants, the
mob, andI don't known who. And to
keep q. Keith's comparison though a
malefactor may not say, you shall not
calIine before a justice without my
/ consent; yet with some good reason
he might say; You shall not make
yourself Justice; as Keith now did.
4 1t is probable that he was supported
! by some great Churchmen, otherwise
such bold action might easily have
turned to his disadvantage.
My limits do not admit OF a circum-
stantiaI relation Of what was transact
ed ct that time in Turner's Hall, yet to
show briefly how he treated matters,
I'll produce one or two instances, by
VIII ich my reader may know, 'et ux un-
que leonenl, and SO judge of the rest.
He said be would charge the .Quakers
with nothing but what he could prove
from their own writings: and he went
on thus: ] offer to prove that 6.
Whitehead hath denied Christ both to
be God and Man. a strange thing in
ldeed since it was very well known that
G. Whitehead had published a book
Iof about twenty sheets, under this tt
tile.
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
fieshly sufferings and sacrifice for sin
ners, 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
bis narrative; but to maintain his
charge, he appealed to book Of G..
Whiteheads; ;called. The light and Life
of Christ Within; This book George
Whitehead had written in answer to
u.
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? Does 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 unscrip-
tural expressions Of his antagonist
as "Co-creatorp, and implying two
Gods. y and that God had Father
Let the reader judgel Certainly it ap.
pears from this plainly, that G..
Whitehead did not intend anything
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, | and the
Father are one.
Yet &. Keith did not stick to say
G., Whitehead denieth the divinity o.
Christ, and he deceiyes the nation and
the parliament, by telling them. The
Quakers own Christ to be both God
and man, and believe all Of Him that
is recorded in the Holy Scriptures
This he strove to prove by passage
taken out of the afore mentioned bool
which in sense agreed with the former
and speaking in another page Of the
same manner, viz: The Raptists call
ing God the Word Co-creator with thu
Father, as G.. Whitehead answers
thus to it:
(To tell of the Word God Co-creatol
with the Father. is all one as to tell o
God being co-creator with God If th'
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 theil
absurd expressions. denial tina
Christ was God as Keith would have
it? Might it not be asked here
whether the acute wit of Keith wa
now altogether flown away2 But 1
- 4 4 -. i \