a Metaphor or Allegory for with such Metaphors Allegories and figurative Speeches the Scripture aboundeth in treating of the Spiritual and Divine Refreshments and Enjoyments of the Saints as when they are called Bread Wine Milk c. Answ To this himself shall reply out of p. 14 15. of the same Book where having proved from several Scriptures adduced that the Spiritual discerning is held forth under the names of all the five Senses of Seeing Hearing Tasting Smelling Feeling or Handling he adds But saith the Natural Man such an one as G. K. is now become say I These are only but Metaphors and Figures and then replies Albeit these names be so yet that hinders not but the Spiritual Mysteries represented under them are real and SUBSTANTIAL things as really affecting the Spiritual Senses as the outward Things affect the Natural And indeed these Outward Things are but Figures of the Inward and Spiritual which as far exceed and transcend them in Life Glory Beauty and Excellency as a living Body doth the Shadow so that this whole visible World is but a Shadow in respect of the Spiritual and Inward Thus far G. K. formerly whereby it appears that he then ascribed the Shadow the Metaphor to the Outward the thing shadowed forth to the Inward Now he assigns on â—he contrary the Metaphor Allegory or Figure to the â—nward and the thing shadowed forth to the Outward â—nd yet he is not so Ingenuous as to own a Change in his Judgment but would render his meaning now and formerly the same Nor hath he here only asserted That the Seed was a Substance but also in his Way cast up p. 60. a Book printed Anno 1678 and as yet unretracted hath ranked the contrary Opinion among the great and woful Mistakes and Misconceptions of the Professors of Christianity who in his seventh Argument p. 64. thus hath it The Saints feel it in them as really to be a part or Particle of the very Substance of Heaven viz. Of that Spiritual and Invisible Heavens where the Saints live as they do feel the Body of their Outward Man to be a Part or Particle of the Substance of this Outward World And having described this Divine Birth to be not only a Substance but a composed Substance of Body and Spirit he plainly affirms p. 65. The Spirit is a measure of the Spirit or Soul of Christ the Heavenly Man But if he will not believe what himself said formerly nor yet retract his manifold Contradictions and Absurdities 't is to be hoped the unbyassed and considerate will see him in his proper Colours and that his Covering is but a Fig-leaf Garment But this Allegorical and Figurative Sense as he termeth it of Christ's Flesh and Blood he saith ought not to divert our Minds nor take off our Faith from Christ's Flesh without us c. Answ I readily grant it For the advantage of that Faith as Paul said of Circumcision of old to the Jews is much every way Rom. 3.1 2. Yet this excludeth not the Heathen to whom the History hath not been revealed and who are the Vncircumcision that keepeth the Righteousness of the Law Chap. 2. v. 26. from any Benefit thereby though not an equal This himself seemed sensible of when in his Light of Truth Triumphing printed Anno 1670 and not yet retracted he said As many have suffered Hurt through the Disobedience of the First Man to wit Adam who have not known expresly that ever such a Man was oâ— the manner of his Disobedience so why may not EVEN MANY receive Benefit through the Obeâ—dience of Christ in the outward who have not expresly known his outward Coming and Sufferings otherwise Adam's Disobedience were more effectual for Man's Destruction than the Obedience of Christ were for his Salvation His following Assertion that to believe in Christ as he gave his Body of Flesh outwardly to be broken for us and his Blood outwardly to be shed for the Remission of our Sins is the eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood as well as the inward Enjoyment of his Life in us and that this is clear from John 6.29 35 40 47 48. I must a little compare with what he hath said elsewhere In his Book entituled Rector Corrected Printed Anno 1680 a passage not yet retracted he blames his Adversary p. 19. for saying He would prove that the Flesh and Blood spoken of John 6. are not a spiritual invisible Substance retorting thus Then what must we infer from this Interpretation of thine but that we must eat visible Flesh and drink visible Blood But hear him further ibid. When the Capernaanites understood it of visible Flesh and Blood he told them He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him to signifie that it was an inward and invisible Eating of an inward invisible Substance whereof he did speak For proof of which he then quoted John 61 62 63. at large Again P. 21. he saith Christ's giving his Flesh for the Life of the World is more than to offer up his visible Flesh upon the Cross for he giveth his Flesh to eat and his Blood to drink whereas many that believe Historically that his visible Flesh was offered upon the Cross do not eat his Flesh and drink his Blood for they have not Life in them c. So that with G. K. one while eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood is an inward and invisible eating of an inward and invisible Substance and it is proved to be so out of John 6. and his Adversary branded with Capernaanitism for denying the Flesh and Blood there spoken of to be a spiritual invisible Substance Anon Christ spake there of a Belief in him as his Body of Flesh and Blood was broken and shed outwardly it is not Capernaanitism in him it seems so to assert though it was in the Rector and that very Scripture is referred to for proof that he did so and yet G. K. no Changeling the mean while if ye will believe him who not only acknowledgeth That the Flesh which he said they were to eat and his Blood they were to drink was that which he had before he descended Imm. Rev. p. 228. but also in the foregoing Page hath it That they did eat his Flesh and drink his Blood as TRULY and REALLY in measure before he came in that Body of Flesh which was born of the Virgin Mary as the Saints have done since Again p. 258. This Body of Christ of which we partake is NOT THAT which he took up when he came in the Flesh outwardly but that which he had from the beginning c. See also Way cast up p. 95. And thus referring my Reader to what may further occurr upon this subject when I come to my Sect. 3. § 1. I betake my self to his next Paragraph § 5 Upon his giving us § 5. a Quotation of Imm. Rev. p. 36 37. relating to Infallibility that As it relates to the Seed
the True Ministers and Members from the False but whether it be a remaining Gift to this day So that his varying the Terms from the present time to the time past is a meer Sophistical Shift who when he gives his former words hath it is when he makes his Inference hath it was Whose Sence formerly relating thereto is given Imm. Rev. p. 179 to 183. and p. 188 to 191. which T. E. hath laid before him in his Truth Defended p. 47 to 50. and G. K. hath not yet retracted He in p. 179. thus hath it Whereas they say The Tree may be known by its Fruits and it is so but by what are the Fruits known Two Men may be found doing the same outward Work which hath the same outward Appearance and yet the one a meer Hypocriâ—e the other a sincere Christian Then by what can their Works and Fruits be known These Worâ— which carry in them an appearance to be Good anâ— yet are not Good but dead Works empty withoâ—â— Life though they have a fair shew yet are they roâ—â—tenness within And p. 180. The Works having bâ— the Appearance they are also seen and discerned 〈◊〉 be such and being Evil they cast an evil Savour bâ— which in the Light which begets the discerning theâ— are felt and he can have no Union with them nâ—â— with the Tree on which they grow and this Maâ— discerneth in the Manifestation of the Light both hâ—â— own and his Neighbour's Works of what Nature theâ— are by the tasting and smelling of the Fruit the Treâ— is known And a little lower he adds Hereto I givâ— my Testimony that there is such a thing and I Dâ— WITNESS IT in my measure c. This shoâ— touch is enough to shew what the Man held formerlâ— and pretended to witness in his measure though noâ— being gone from the Light in which the discerning 〈◊〉 received and from that measure he then witnessed 〈◊〉 now wrangleth against it for he saith Whatever inward Sense or Discerning any may pretend 〈◊〉 have of another Man's Spirit being bad yet we find no waâ—â—rant from Scripture to receive an Accusation against anâ— far less a positive Judgment without plain evidence of Maâ—â—ter of Fact against them by credible Witnesses 1 Tim. 5 1â— Answ Accusation implies an Accuser and this respecâ— outward Conversation But what is this to the Instancâ— of a Man's Spirit being bad or to those outwarâ— Works which he said in the Citation above had thâ— same outward Appearance and yet the one might be meer Hypocrite the other a sincere Christian As he theâ— queried By what can their Works and Fruits be known Sâ— may I By what Evidence from without can they be coâ—â—victed when the Charge relates only to the Man's Spâ—â—rit being bad even when his Conversation is not acâ—cused For where Matter of Fact as without is objected the Evidence must be correspondent but where the Fruit and Taste is inward the Evidence and Demonstration is also inward But G. K. upon these false Premises labours to detect the ill Consequences of Mens being judged to be of a wrong Spirit only by the pretended discerning of Spirits Answ If it be only pretended not real this doth not destroy the Doctrine or render it unsound because abused by ill Men any more than pretending the Spirit is the Rule is an unsound Principle in it self because some pretend thereto and act contrary Again How came none of all this to be foreseen and fenced against by himself formerly when he gave Testimony and that even from his own Experience to such a Taste Savour and discerning of the Works that had the same outward Appearance yet the one good the other rotten within Why did he not thus even then distinguish between the Pretence and what was Real to make void the Judgment which is the Product of that Relish of that Dis-union if he thought Men with whom we can have no Vnion they are his own words above ought not to be judged to be of a bad Spirit or that we may not declare we have no Union with them He adds at the close And even to know Men by their Fruits is a Gift of the Spirit and proceedeth from a true Spiritual discerning that is given in some measure Vniversally to all the Faithful though they have not always such due use of it but they may be and are at times mistaken Answ If these Fruits be outward Fruits visibly evil or good Fruits that the very Wicked have a discerning of But if the Fruits be inward perceptible by the inward Senses the most extraordinary Endowments judgeth not without them By their Fruits ye shall know them even them who come in Sheeps clothing but are inwardly ravening Wolves said Christ to the very Apostles Matt. 7.15 16. i. e. Ye shall taste them ye shall savouâ— them ye shall see through the Sheeps clothing the outward Appearance to the inward ravening wolfish Nature That being the way by which alone the most experienced discern the inward State of any As well aâ— to assert formerly an infallible way of discerning thâ— true Ministers and Members from the false is given and now that there is not enough of it given to all the Faithful to keep them out of Mistakes shews how confused the Man is in his present Shiftings and Shufflings § 4 Whereas he had said Imm. Rev. p. 12. This Seed groweth up into a perfect substantial Birth which is Christ formed within the Body of Christ his Flesh and Blood which cometh down from Heaven and giveth Life unto Man which eateth it And it is called the Body and Flesh and Blood of Christ because his eternal Life and Spirit dwelleth in it immediately He here bids us Note By this perfect substantial Birth he did not mean as he now doth not any Substance NEWLY PRODVCED but only a vital Vnion of Substantial Principles formerly existing Answ A Substance then he allows it to be but not newly produced Was that the Matter in debate then Whether the Substance was newly produced or no or Whether it was a Substance or no Or is not this rather an empty Shift that he might seem to reconcile his former with his latter Writings without retracting either Had another committed such a Blunder he had like enough to have been one of the first that would have reflected on him But he now seems to forget what himself said Ex. Narr p. 24. when he undeservedly taunted at W. P. who had administred no occasion crying This is rare Logick and added You know there should be no term or thing of Importance in the Conclusion of any Syllogism or Argument but what should be in the Premises Let him therefore keep to his own Rule better or never pretend to correct others Logick For as is the Man's Cause so is his way of defending it In p. 4. he adds Whereas I did call that inward substantial Birth the Flesh and Blood of Christ I did so call it only by
to Contradict what he had delivered formerly Yet at length speaking of Infants he concludeth they all need that God be merciful unto them for Christ's sake and therein I agree with him but to different Ends For I distinguish between Mercy and Justice the not punishing Infants who have not sinned is a Fruit of his Justice the preserving them from sinning by his Divine Seed is a Fruit of his Mercy And thus I close this Section Sect. III. § 1 He begins his Sect. 3. with a Quotation out of Rector Corrected Printed Anno 1680. p. 22. thus By Christ his giving his Flesh for the Life of the World we understand both the Offering up of his Flesh as his dying for us upon the Cross and also his giving his Flesh to eat and his Blood to drink c. Which distinction I admit viz. that his giving his Flesh for the Life of the World had a twofold signification the one was Propitiatory a Dying for us upon the Cross as he hath it the other his giving his Flesh to eat was Spirit and Life and fed the Soul And herein we agree with him What he adds that he did not place all our Salvation upon the Light within excluding the Man Christ without c. but that he did lay a great weight upon iâ— is not the Matter in Controversie as he hath been often told We both lay a great weight upon Christ's outward coming and do not place all our Salvation upon the Light within exclusive thereof and also have not charged him with what he here seeks to purge himself from any otherwise than as argumentum ad hominem i. e. that we are no otherwise so than himself who hath with us formerly born Testimony to the sufficiency of the Light where the History hath not been revealed distinguishing as himself hath done between the necessity that Christ should come and suffer for all and of the Revelation of the History thereof where the means aâ—e not afforded its being indispensibly necessary to Salvation to such Before I take notice of the Citation he gives out of Rict Corr. p. 26. I shall observe what he saith to that passage of his ibid. p. 25. that by his Flesh and Blood â—ohn 6.50 51. Châ—ist meaneth ONLY Spirit and Life which he holds it needful to retract aâ—d correct as â—e saith yet assigns it as either a Typographical Error 〈◊〉 an Oversight in him for want of due Consideration That it was neither but a Judgment upon deliberation â—d that he hath abtruded a Falshood upon his Reader thus demonstrate first that the Matter in Dispute â—tween him and his Adversary would not be suppoâ—d to be Whether the words spoken by Christ were Spirit â—d Life or no. Christ had expresly affirmed it and â—e Rector doth not deny it and it were idle to suppose â—xcept he had been so presumptuous as to say so in â—idem verbis the Rector would alledge that when â—rist said they were Spirit and Life that he meant â—y were not Spirit and Life But whether they were 〈◊〉 so might admit of Dispute 2dly As Christ had 〈◊〉 It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth noâ—g so G. K. gives us those very words And to his â—ersaries objecting Spiritual Flesh cannot be broken nor â—itual Blood shed which relates to the Spiritual â—h and Blood only for the other might be broken and 〈◊〉 G. K. alledgeth the Scripture speaks of a broken â—it and the Holy Spirit 's being shed Whereas had not G. K. meant that it was only Spirit and Life this instance had been wholly remote and it had been enough to have said it related to both outward and inward Flesh and Blood and that the outward might very well be broken and shed To drive it yet more home I betake my self to his Citation out of p. 26. which shall give more fully than he hath done viz. Although the Saints do not eat the Visible Flesh of Christ he adds here to wit by the Bodily Mouth and drink his Visible Blood yet they partake of the Benefit and Vertue of both his Flesh and his Blood and the Substance of both doth remain which is his glorified Body in Heaven and the Vertue of which doth really extend unto thâ— Saints both in Heaven and on Earth by which they are Spiritually refreshed and nourished as with Meaâ— and Drink and thus we do not divide Christ herâ— G. K. stops with an c. but I go on nor his Fleâ— and Blood although a distinction there is betwiâ— that Flesh which he had from the beginning aâ— which the Saints fed on in all Ages from the begiâ—â—ing and that which he took upon him in the Virgiâ— Womb. From this latter which G. K. would haâ— concealed from us I observe he allowed of a distinctioâ— betwixt the Flesh and Blood Christ had from the bâ—â—ginning and that which he took upon him in the Viâ—â—gins Womb. Let him now tell us therefore what thâ— Flesh which Christ had from the beginning and whiâ— the Saints fed on in all Ages was besides Spirit aâ— Life Again as he gave us not this part of the Ciâ—â—tion which he could not stumble over without soâ— hurt to himself so to what he did give he foists 〈◊〉 the words so wit by the Bodily Mouth and iâ— proves it as an Evidence that the word ONLY was most an Oversight in him that he did not intend that Faithful did not partake of the unspeakable Benefit of Flesh and Blood that was outwardly broken and shed but his sense was they did not eat it with the Bodily Mouth but by Faith and that the Vertue conveyed may be said to be Spirit and Life i. e. had a spiritual sense and signification Aâ—sw What he said above of the Saints feeding could not be an eating visible Flesh either with bodily or spiritual Mouth seing it was a feeding common ro Saints in Heaven and on Earth too Nay the substance of the Flesh and Blood doth remain even according to him and what they feed on is not on the substance even of Christ's glorified Body in Heaven but of the Virtue which extends therefrom And what is this Virtue Is it not only Spirit and Life However seing he is so fond of his addition viz. by the Bodily Mouth I desire to be resolved in one thing as a Point of Philosophy Whether if that which be to be eaten be Bodily any thing but a Bodily Mouth can eat it and whether if the Mouth be not Bodily the Food can be said to be Bodily for that a Corporeal Substance a Substance which is not only Spirit and Life but also Bodily should be fed on by an Incorporeal Mouth is equally as inconceivable by me as that a Corporeal Mouth should seed on an incorporeal Substance If G. K. resolve me this fairly erit mihi magnus Apollo § 2 In p 26. of these Explications for now I trace him by Pages not by §'s he alledgeth for his having brought