a Persecuter but as he received the Commandment within by the Spirit and Power of God or his Light within he saw sin exceeding sinful But further in flat contradiction to his opposing the Light within or the Quakers Christ as he scornfully stiles it he confesseth That the Grace of God received in the work of Regeneration and Reconciliation doth so principle the heart with an enmity to sin and begets an hatred to it and love to Righteousness 1 Thess. 1.5 6 7. so that it is from the Principle within together with the observation of the Rule without that the soul is made to gather Sanctity and Holiness he saith Answ. Then the Grace within which works such a good effect in the soul must needs be saving for that it removes the sin which is the cause of condemnation and works sanctity and holiness through which is acceptance with the Lord and why then is the Quakers Christ within so much despised and scorned in many places throughout his Book And as for the Word together with the Spirit cleansing and sanctifying The Word and Spirit are one and he that hath the Word of God abiding in him hath the Spirit of God in him and this with its blessed effects we certainly know and therefore cannot slight the Scriptures of Truth or Words of God therein which he calls the written Words because they proceeded from the Spirit And whereas he would not give any ground of jealousie that he should judge that the written word and spirit in any man as abstracted from Christ in the titest and most uniform obedience doth cleanse or that our obedience is any cause either of Justification or Sanctification Answ. If this our Opposer deems that the Spirit in any is abstracted from Christ and that any obey the Spirit without Christ It 's none of our belief for they are not divided and we know that there is no condemnation to them that walk after the Spirit for they are in Christ and have life in the Son of God 2. Whereas our obedience to the Spirit is denyed as being any cause either of our Justification or Sanctification This is a denying of the Apostles Doctrine and is repugnant to the spiritual-obedience which is both acceptable to God and through the Spirit and the obedience of the Spirit the true Believers mortified the deeds of the flesh and purified their souls Rom. 8.13 1 Pet. 1.22 Besides the obedience and works of the living Faith which is not a self-righteousness are attended with Justification and some cause thereof for was not Abraham justified by works when he offered up Isaac Jam. 2.21 And the Saints were sanctified and justified by the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 6.11 But then if our obedience in this case must be wholly excluded as not any cause either of Justification or Sanctification how comes the suffering and Blood of Christ so often to be tendred and applied upon believing Is believing no part of the creatures obedience What ignorance and contradiction is in this W. Burnet's Religion what sayes he to this see how he comes off in the following words Bapt. I do believe that our Justification comes in by no other way or means or name under Heaven but by Jesus Christ which is so far true But further he adds and that by shedding of that Blood and offering of that Sacrifice upon the Cross Heb. 9.22 1 Pet. 1.19 and that our Justification is the real cause of our Sanctification Answ. If so and that our obedience be not any cause thereof as before then are all men in a justified state for whom he died and he was offered and dyed for all as is confessed by this our Opposer and others of them from which state men's not obeying or disobeying can be no hindrance if their obedience contribute nothing to it or be no cause of either Justification or Sanctification so their believing or not believing can neither further nor hinder by this account But then if it should be denyed that all men are justified by the sufferings and blood of Christ without I ask Why are not all It 's answered readily Because all do not believe Then it 's because they do not obey But what if they do not if their obedience of the Spirit or Light within be no cause of their Sanctification or Justification are they not therefore justified but then whence is this power of believing and obedience derived if not from the Light and Spirit of Christ within but as to Justification being laid one while upon the name of Jesus another while upon the shedding of that Blood without another while by the Offering or Sacrifice upon the Cross What confusion is here and how is this man put to it to patch up his own principles Christ's name is Everlasting it is called The Word of God who by one Offering hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified Where doth the Scripture say that Justification is the real cause of Sanctification or that men are justified in an unsanctified or disobedient state and if some be justified in that state only by the Offering and Blood of Christ without as is supposed and not all that are in the same state does not this render God partial and unjust if he withhold that from men which is both merited and purchased for them as these our Opposers affirm whilst their obedience is so little set by or esteemed that it 's deemed no cause of either Justification or Sanctification But then as to the shedding of Christ's Blood without which so much stress is laid upon whose work was that but a wicked mans after he was put to death and where is that Blood is it in being yea or nay or did it sink into the ground and corrupt as some of you have confessed and in P. 40. that Blood that was shed is not in being saith W. B. How then does it cleanse sanctifie justifie redeem save c. as he would have us beleive whereas in that 1 Pet. 1. cited by this our opposer it s said we are not redeemed by corruptible things but by the precious Blood of Christ Therefore that Blood which redeems is in being and not corruptible no more then his Flesh that saw no corruption but bears record with the Spirit But this is a mystery vailed from all such carnal contenders as carnally look upon things according to the outward appearance and no further Nor can they in that state see thorow the Vail unto the heavenly things themselves nor unto the perfect Tabernacle which Jesus Christ is the High-Priest and Minister of And another Testimony upon which W. Burnet scoffs and carps against the Light within is Humph. Smiths viz. That there is no other rule or means or name by which a man shall ever come to walk with God but that which is manifest of God even the Light of the Son of God the Light of him who saith I am the Light c. But how does W. B. assay to confute
contradiction he saith Christ hath redeemed man by his death and blood shedding at his death he should have said It was shed after his death and then Let every ones expectation be from that Christ c Indeed our expectation is from no other Christ for two Christs we do not preach But mark how one while W.B. makes that blood and the shedding of it his Justifier Redeemer c. which he has confessed is not in being Another while People must seek their Saviour above the Clouds and Firmament pag. 33. contrary to the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 10.6 Another while they must look to Jerusalem for Justification to the blood that was there shed pag. 24. contrary to Deut. 30.13 14. and Rom. 10. And if men should look to Jerusalem for that blood it is not there to be found for it 's not in being sayes W. B. What confusion what a Laborynth and uncertainty is he in and does he bring his Hearers into But as to these things sufficient is said before and the Mystery of Christ's sufferings and blood as revealed by his Spirit owned by us according to the Scriptures of Truth Their vain Confusions they shall die and cease But Light and Truth within they shall increase Some Heads of the Controversies and Disputes that were between Geo. Whitehead and the Baptists at Chertsey and Horn in Surry on the 16 th and 17 th dayes of the fourth month 1668. THat one of you Quakers hath writ that Christ was never seen with a carnal eye which we can prove he was G. W. Christ said unto Philip He that seeth me seeth my Father also which could not be with a carnal eye And was not he the true Christ a Saviour that said Before Abraham was I am and it 's said he took part of the same that the Children had to wit flesh and blood was not that he the true Christ W. B. That Body of Christ that suffered on the Cross and was buried in the Sepulchre was Christ the Saviour of the World G. W. That Body was called the Body of Jesus when Joseph of Arimathea begged it of Pilate for that Body was prepared for Jesus it is not said He begged the Jesus of Jesus but the Body of Jesus Jer. Jves That Body without the Spirit when it was dead was but an empty Trunk G. W. But so is not Christ the Saviour of the World who was before Abraham was W. B. Christ as he was God before he assumed the Body that suffered could not break the Serpents head nor was he capable of being a Saviour without a Body because he had nothing to offer as he was God c. G. W. Herein Will. Burnet hath denied the power of God and its sufficiency and hath spoken no less than blasphemy to say God could not break the Serpents Head whereas God is often said to be a Saviour as in Hosea I am God a Saviour besides me there is none other c. with many other places J. J. W.B. Is the same Body of Christ that suffered on the Cross in Heaven yea or nay G.W. The Body of Christ in Heaven is not Carnal but Spiritual J. J. W. B. But what became of that Body that suffered is it in Heaven yea or nay G. W. I do not read that he is in Heaven with a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones it was changed Jer. Ives As for the question of the Blood wee 'l pass that by Is the same Body of flesh and bones in Heaven G. W. Would you have me answer your Question herein when you dare not assert it to be the same in all the Ingredients to wit as having the Blood in it What say you to it Is it in Heaven without the Blood in it Christ after his Resurrection appeared in divers Forms as one while his appearance to Thomas was to be touched at another time he said Touch me not I am not yet ascended and he appeared among them the Doors being shut and once also he vanished out of their sight Mark he vanished out of their sight and in what manner his Body was changed or what trasmutation it had I shall not go about to demonstrate for I would not go about to make my self wise above what is written in this matter Jer. Ives What change or alteration Christs Body might have we cannot determine nor what glory he is in for to inquire with what Body the the dead are raised is absurd and that which should not be G. W. Why then do you obtrude a Question upon me which you dare not plainly assert or which you are unlearned in your selves W. B. You deny the shedding of the Blood upon the Cross that was let out by vertue of the Spear being thrust into his side to be meritorious or the meritorious cause of mans Justification This W. B. held in the Affirmative G. W. The shedding of that Blood let out by the Spear was an act of a wicked man and the Spear an instrument of cruelty which to lay the meritorious cause or stress of Justification upon is false Doctrine for there is a great difference between Christ's offering up himself by the Eternal Spirit a Lamb without spot to God and the acts of wicked men inflicted upon him as it 's said by wicked hands they put him to death Jer. Ives You must not stand upon the Grammatical sence of his words but take his meaning my brother Burnet meant Christs Passion and not the Act of wicked men or not the Souldiers act of shedding Christs Blood Brother Burnet was not that your meaning W. B. Yes brother yet it is proper to say It was Christs Act to shed his blood as it was Sauls Act to kill himself when he bid his Armour-bearer thrust him through G. W. This is a gross Instance and Comparison thus to instance a murderer in this case of Christs suffering thus to bring a murderer to prove it Christs Act to shed his Blood when he suffered neither doth it hold parallel for Christ did not bid the Souldier thrust his Spear into his side it was done after he was Crucified and put to death Jer. Ives But whether or no that Blood that was shed upon the Cross was a meritorious cause of Justification I am justified and purged by it G. W. Whether or no that Blood which purgeth cleanseth and justifieth is still in being seeing it is the Blood of Christ that cleanseth them from all sin who walk in the Light as God is in the Light and that there are three that bear Record in the Earth the Spirit the Water and the Blood and these three agree in one But to this Question Whether the blood that cleanseth beareth Record in the Earth be still in being no answer they gave Now the Principal Heads of the Controversie were more briefly collected as followeth Together with Matt. Caffin's Contradictions against them Jer. Ives THE Blood
as his words import Then it follows from his other words that the life of Christ is not in being and this would render him a dead Christ whereas the life that he laid down he had power to take up again and he said I lay it down of my self and no man taketh it from me and he gave himself a ransome for all And now whereas S. Eccles in pag. 41. is accused of little less than blasphemy about a Letter chiefly of a passage concerning the blood in these words viz. The Blood that was forced out of him by the Souldiers after he was dead who before that bowed his head to the Father and gave up the Ghost I did say that was no more than the blood of another Saint c. Thus far S. E. Now to these words viz. No more than the blood of another Saint his intent was as to Papists and you whose minds are carnal who oppose the Light within and also simply as to the essence of the Blood which you dare not say is still in being but not as to the spiritual virtue and testimony which is still in being This S. E. owned to be his intention And in his Letter in the preceding words did highly speak in esteem of the Blood of Christ and New Covenant as more excellent and living and holy and precious than is able to be uttered c. which might have satisfied any spiritual or unbyassed mind And what difference is there between VV. B. his saying that the blood that was shed is not in being or comparing it with a price that is lost pag. 40. and S. E. his saying then It was no more than the blood of another Saint the one being not of continuance no more than the other By this may not VV. B. as well be thought guilty of little less than blasphemy as S. E. though I do not so judge either therein And seeing that the Children had flâ—sh and blood and Christ took part of the same if the same how was it more or another simply as to the matter of blood And if the Jews had drunk the blood that was shed on the Cross do you Baptists think it would have cleansed them from sin And yet I do not make S. E. his expressions therein especially as construed by our Adversaries to be an Article of our Faith for I own that in one sence the blood shed was more than that of another Saint though not in the matter of it as to the visible more in that it had a peculiar signification and Christ the one offering was the man peculiarly ordained or appointed of God both to bear the sins of many to end the many offerings under the Law and in all his example and sufferings that were permitted to be laid on him he both answered fulfilled and ended the outward part and administration of the Law and Shadows and performed the Father's Will therein and was particularly eyed and prophesied of accordingly by the Holy Prophets and through all his sufferings in the flesh he gave an universal testimony and consecrated a new and living way even through the Vail that is to say his flesh that the way into the most Holy might be manifest Bapt. Neither did I ever read that it was the blood or life in Christ or the life of Christ in his People that we are justified by c. page 42. Answ. The Spirit of Christ which is Life doth both quicken sanctifie and justifie the true Believers John 6.63 1 Cor. 6. and that Blood and Water that 's said to cleanse is not of another kind but agrees in one with the Spirit all which is known within and the effects thereof Bapt. All things under the Law in the Type was purged with blood and this blood was material blood and not mystical And that blood that Christ shed in order to the effecting the Salvation of man must needs be visible and material blood Answ. Do but mark here what a sad consequence he has drawn as if one should reason that because the Type was material visible and not mystical therefore the antitype or substance must needs be material and not mystical by this all Mysteries or Divine things are excluded from being either Spiritual Antitype or Substance whereas it was the Heavenly things themselves that are in Christ in which consists the substance and end of Types and Shadows But to say that material blood was a Type of that which was material this is to give the substance no preheminence above the Type especially if neither of them be mystical nor in being or like as if one should say one Type was a Type of another as to say because Circumcision which was a Type was material or outward therefore the Circumcision of the Spirit which is the Antitype of it must needs be outward too and not mystical which would be sad Doctrine and thus he might as well reason touching all other Types and Shadows under the Law and the Heavenly or good things to come prefigured or shadowed by them That because the Priests under the Law at the outward Tabernacle and Temple were Ministers of outward or temporal things carnal Ordinances Shadows c. therefore those good things to come those Heavenly things which Christ was said to be the High Priest of must needs be temporal and not mystical which were absurd to assert whereas both the Heavenly and more perfect Tabernacle and Altar with the Heavenly things are all a Mystery and Spiritual the offering and living Sacrifices are Spiritual the Passeover Spiritual the Seed Spiritual the Bread the Fruit of the Vine the Oyl the Flesh and the Blood which give life to the Soul yea the Water and Blood which washeth and sprinkleth the Conscience are all Spiritual and Mysterious as the New Covenant it self is which they belong to and these things known in and this is the new and living Way which Christ set open through the Vail of his Flesh Heb. 10. Let them receive this who can And this may answer that Question Where ever did God attribute the name of Blood to a Spirit Whereupon I may ask as well if the name of Water was never attributed to the Spirit see John 7.38 39. And whether the Blood of God and of the New Covenant be not Spiritual If not How is it called his own Blood Acts 20.28 And is not the New Covenant Spiritual viz. the Law written in the Heart and the Spirit in the inward parts If it be surely the Blood of it must be spiritual too Again compare the Articles of W. B. his Faith about the Blood shed without the Gates c. pag. 42. By which he saith we are justified Another while It is the means or cause of Justification and yet 't is neither Spirit nor the Life by his own confession nor is it in being but lost pag. 40. whereas we are justified by the Spirit and saved by his Life 1 Cor. 6.11 Rom. 5.10 chap. 4.25 And yet In
and believe And people it is as you have been taught and believed So let us leave this to the people to judge of c. G. W. There is something more to be said to what thou hast alleadged from Job 19. of seeing God with these eyes which thou wouldst make people believe are these bodily eyes This supposes that God is not a Spirit nor invisible c. for no object or thing is obvious or visible to the Carnal or outward eye but what is visible and outward that is a bodily and outward Substance for these bodily eyes cannot see a Spirit or that which is invisible M. C. These Eyes shall be glorified and made Spiritual for as now they are mortal and corruptible they cannot see God but as they are made immortal and glorified they shall see God G. W. Job after said to God I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear but now mine eye seeth thee Job last Chap. This was a Spiritual eye and not his bodily eyes but to tell of these bodily eyes to be made spiritual and then of seeing God with them that they must be made so spiritual and be the same they are for matter and substance This is strange Doctrine and that which we could never hear demonstrated from any Maxime in Divinity nor yet from any general Rule or Reason in Philosophy Le ts hear how thou wilt demonstrate that these carnal or bodily eyes shall be made so spiritual as to see God who is invisible and yet they be the same in substance that they are but M. Caffin did not at all assay to demonstrate this his Assertion nor to clear himself of his absurdities M. C. Let us go on to the next Question and leave this to the judgment of the people G. VV. It 's here before this Auditory evident and manifest that thou M. C. art confounded in thy work and put to a non-plus not being able to manage thy Assertion nor to clear thy self of the absurdities justly charged upon thee from thy own Words and Arguments wherefore be ingenious and confess thy error and that thou art confounded and not able to maintain the controversie in this matter Thou hast come off very faintly I advise thee as thou wilt answer it before the great God who will judge the secrets of men by Christ according to the Gospel that thou dost not wrong nor go to out-face thy own Conscience before this people as if thou wert not confounded but deal plainly and ingeniously and confess and acknowledge thou art at a loss and confounded who for proof tells the people It is thy belief and what thou hast affirmed is true As much as to say It is true because it is true or people must believe it because M. Caffin sayes it and then they must receive it upon an implicit Faith as believing he is infallible but M. C. hath no such authority with us for we see him fallible in error and in confusion as particularly about the same Wheat growing again and seeing God with these bodily eyes With many more errors and falshoods which M. Caffin was detected for which we have more at large upon record A POST-SCRIPT THese Baptists who have been thus wrangling querying and contend about the Resurrection of the same flesh blood and bones have manifested their carnal fleshly minds wherein they are puffed up as Intruders into things they have not seen and their Gospel to consist more of imaginations about flesh blood which cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15.50 than of any real knowledge of the true and saving Gospel which consists of Spirit Divine Power Life and Light the knowledge of which doth afford true satisfaction to them that enjoy it without such vain and carnal contentions of Baptists and questioning how the dead are raised and with what Body like those whom the Apostle reproved as fools 1 Cor. 15.35 36 37. As also like the Devil his disputing or contending with Michael the Arch-Angel about the Body of Moses Jude 9. They have appeared in these their carnal contests to darken peoples minds from the true Light and Life within And such have been the products of flesh and darkness against the breakings forth of Truth in its Light and Power which is and will be exalted over all these oppositions and Clouds of ignorance that rise up against it THE END Reader Thou art desired to amend such Errors as have escaped the Press whether Words or Points PAge 8. line 3. for yet is not read yet it is not p. 30. l. 3. f. computure r. composure p. 32. l. 22. f. had a knowledge r. had not a knowledge p. 33. l. 26. f. be the rule r. be not the rule p. 36. l. 18. f. this r· their p. 38. l. 19. f. has r. he has p. 50. l. 1. f. denies r. deems p. 63. l. 29. f. trasmutation r. transmutation p. 27. l. 1. f. W. B. his false Aspertions r. and its sufficiency * Where are these tearms in Scripture but that God was in Christ God manifest in flesh c. †Act and suffering are two things the Act was wicked mens but the suffering Christs Will. Burnet Jer. Ives * The accusation †To this they would not answer * Here he flatly contradicted his Bro. Burnet †Blasphemy * What a Body is that without Blood in it †Of which absurdity divers of you Baptists are guilty as M. Câ—ffin others †Here one Brother contradicted the other * Note he meant by a wicked mans actions Christ's passion †See how the Question is altered 1. If the shedding the blood c. 2. If that blood 3. Is the meritorious cause 4. Is a meritorious cause †That which cleanseth must needs be still in being if cleansing be a real work and that is spiritual * What holy Place and with what Blood * What a Babel are you Baptists building
the true Christ was before Abraham but the Body was not before Abraham was therefore not the true Christ. To this I say and add That he has minced our words Howbeit the Scripture distinguisheth in several places touching Christ and the Body of Christ of Jesus and the Body of Jesus Mat. 27.58 Heb. 10.5 10. But this Argument W. B. omits to answer in this place he saith 2. Argument from John 6.41 I am the Bread that came down from Heaven Now saith the Quaker If Christ be Bread and this Bread came down from Heaven then the Body could not be Christ because that came not down from Heaven I add He was truly Christ as he came down from Heaven and proceeded from the Father for he was his only begotten Son and not divided from his Body 3. Argument From Ephes. 4.10 Now he that is ascended is also the same that descended Now say they If he that ascended be the same that descended and he that descended be the Christ then the Body could not be the Christ because that did not descend but was taken in the Womb of the Virgin I add If he means by Body that which consists of flesh and blood and bones such a one was prepared for him Heb. 10. But that he viz. Christ did not consist of that which was mortal neither did his flesh which is the Bread from above see corruption 4. Argument From John 17.5 And now O Father glorifie me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before â—he World was Then the Body could not be the Christ because that was not till many hundred years after the World was The Body which he saith was taken in the Womb of the Virgin Was it in that capacity before the World was And was not he the true Christ the Son of God that so prayed unto the Father Now I do grant that the Scriptures mentioned in these Arguments we have urged and argued from them against Baptists though not altogether in those expressions against all which W. B. gives his judgment in these words viz. These with many other such like Arguments they use to blind the eyes of the simple Which indeed is a very easie way of answering thus to condemn them all by the lump for I do not find any particular answer or confutation in the following matter to any one of those Arguments before recited but rather a confirmation where he goes on in these words viz. The Scripture giveth this Character of Jesus Christ that he should be called Immanuel Mat. 1.23 that is to say God with us or God in flesh And in Isa. 9.6 He is called the Mighty God And so John 1.1 He is called the Word which was with God and was God and that he was the Root and Creator of Man and that Word or Eternal Spirit took flesh c. But he further adds as followeth Bapt. Now 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 sence came down from Heaven Rep. What nonsence 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 Bapt. Which Word was God yet he was not a Saviour as he was the Word or Creator of the World any otherwise than he was held forth in the Promise Rep. How then doth he say I am God a Saviour besides me there 's none other And what is his saving his People from but from sin And was not this Gods real work throughout all the Generations of the Righteous And did not God say Surely they are my People Children that will not lie and so was he their Saviour Isa. 63.8 And did not God say Look unto me all ye ends of the Earth and be ye saved for I am God And was it not God that in Christ was reconciling the World and that established them in Christ and anointed them 2 Cor. 1.21 ch 5.19 What confusion and huddle-muddle has this our Opposer made about Salvation who further adds Bâ—pt He was not a Saviour as the Root and Creator of Man but as he was to be the Off-spring of man for as he from the dayes of Eternity was with the Father and was his delight he most properly derived that title of being the Son of God pag. 34. Answ. Do but mark the confusion and darkness of this man who hath denyed that God the Word or Creator of Man is a Saviour and Christ as he was the Root and Creator of Man and as he was the Eternal Son of God or from the dayes of Eternity he hath denyed to be a Saviour but as he was the Off-spring of Man Do but eye the tendency of this Doctrine thus to deny the Son of God to be a Saviour and how blind and ignorant this man is of the true Christ and Saviour and what has he done less than set the Flesh above the Spirit for he grants that the Word or Eternal Spirit took Flesh but denies that he was a Saviour as he was the Word or the Son of God whereas it is through the Son of God that Eternal Life is received John 3.16 and Gods love was manifest in sending his onely begotten Son into the World that whosoever believes on him might not perish but have everlasting Life and the ingrafted Word is able to save the Soul the Word of Grace is able to build up and to give an inheritance among them that are sanctified So here the efficacy of the Son of God and the Eternal Word is proved against the Baptists false and unscripture-like distinction And touching those Scriptures That God by his own Blood purchased to himself a Church Acts 20.28 Now God hath neither Blood nor suffered saith VV. B. Which chargeth the Apostle with untruths and that of John 3. No man hath ascended up to Heaven but he which come down from Heaven even the Son of Man which is in Heaven VV. B. saith pag. 35. Now according to his Manhood or Flesh he was not in Heaven By which he hath rather justified the former four Arguments than otherwise But his telling As he was very God-man so the Manhood suffered and the act was ascribed to the God-head This is confusion and contradiction to the former that God did not suffer but such kind of muddlement our Opposer is willing to please himself with And then he adds That he giveth that to the one which belongeth to the other the same is spoken of our Salvation sometimes it 's attributed to one thing and sometimes to another sometimes it is imputed to the act of Christs Suffering another while the very effects of our Salvation is put for the cause Where do the Scriptures make such distinctions or such Rhetorick And where proves he that Faith and Obedience to the Gospel is no
cause of Salvation but the effects And by what rule doth W. B. thus essay to correct the Scriptures which he counts his rule or thus detect the sayings of Chiist as being so improper as giving that to one thing which belongs to another in such a high concernment And has not he herein in effect accused the Scriptures and God with the same thing or as great offence as he has accused us withal as giving that to one thing which belongs to another as our attributing Salvation and Justification to God or Christ as the Eternal Word which he would lay all upon the Off-spring of man or upon the Body of Christ that suffered death upon the Cross and sometimes upon the shedding the Blood out of it denying Christ as the Word and Son of God to be the Saviour contrary to plain Scriptures as before is shewn Bapt. Christs ascribing and attributing that to the God-head that properly refers to the manhood is a stumbling-stone to this poor people pag. 35. Answ. What is this but to charge Christ with improper Doctrine or impertinent speaking wherein W. B. makes himself wiser than Christ and a Corrector of Christ's sayings 'T is no marvel that he hath so much accused us feignedly calling us poor People when he hath done no less to Christ as one not consenting to the wholesom words or sayings of Christ but in effect denies them improper in the case mentioned and then makes that the cause of our stumbling both which are false and wherein we are either accused for saying That God saveth Justifieth or the Eternal Word Redeems Saves c. and that God was in Christ reconciling the World If our Adversary should say this is improper and that it 's an error to ascribe that to God the Eternal Word or to Christ as the Eternal Son of God that properly belongeth to his Manhood as the Son of Mary not as the Son of God c. Has not he accused Christ to the very same purpose with speaking improperly What can we expect from such a one but the like reproaches and contradictions of sinners that Christ Jesus the Captain of our Salvation underwent and yet this proud presumptuous Opposer of Truth will pretend the Scriptures or sayings of Christ to be his Rule but when they please him not hee 'l assay to correct them by his dark confused meanings and corrupt interpretations Who further adds to his corrupt Doctrine as followeth Bapt. But as he was God without being Man or the Root and not the Off-spring he could not save Man for God was the Offended and Man the Offender and it was impossible for the Offended to acquit and clear the Guilty and to discharge the Debt and to imbrace the Offender for no man out of Christ can see God's face and live Answ. Here it appears what he means by saving Man and clearing the Guilty onely a pacifying of God and an acquitting Man from the penalty as he imagines which as he sayes God could not do but something that was not God but the Off-spring of Man as he saith So by this he doth not mean Salvation to be a work wrought in man as a saving and delivering from sin or the offence within but a satisfaction made to God that he may imbrace the Offender and yet he must be in Christ that sees God's face What gross contradiction is this and what falshood blasphemy is it to say God could not save or that it was impossible for him to discharge the debt Where first observe that if Salvation consist in pacifying or satisfying God without any inward work wrought by him in man which were a gross error so to say this is all one to say God cannot please himself but some other must do it and this is to deny that God had infinite love good will and favour in himself as the real cause of his sending his Son into the World And then I ask Who is he that satisfies and appeaseth God dischargeth the Guilty and payes the Debt Bapt. It is the Man Christ Jesus Quest. Whence came he Answ. God gave him Quest. And what is this Man Christ Jesus who can satisfie pacifie an Infinite God Bapt. He is God-man born of a Virgin Rep. How then doth it hold that God could not save and how would this divide God and set him at a distance from himself if that which satisfies be of infinite worth then whence came all these distinctions tending to make a variableness in God whose love is infinite and whose wayes are wayes of Truth and Righteousness Or is it good Doctrine to say That God pacified God when he saw himself angry For sayes the Baptist It was God-man that did it Which is all one as to say God corrected himself and not Man while perfection and freedom from sin is denyed in this life by Baptists and others and then he was Mediator to himself and so a Mediator of One whereas a Mediator is not a Mediator of One but God is One Gal. 3.20 and the cause of his displeasure and of the Law and sentence of death being added was sin which Christ comes to destroy and to put an end to that the Creature may be in him in whom the Face of God is seen in whom there is no sin and in him God is well-pleased and thus we know a Mediator is not a Mediator of One but we have a Mediator betwixt God and Man even the Man Christ Jesus We have an Advocate with the Father Mark we have an Advocate and we have life through the Son of God we know that the Righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in every one that walks after the Spirit And so we can rejoyce in God our Saviour and testifie against all such antichristian spirits as deny his Power and say He could not save as God whereas his Divine Power worketh mightily in the true Believers unto their salvation for he hath wrought all our works in us and it is his Divine Power that giveth unto us all things pertaining to Life and Godliness 2 Pet. 1.2 And how is Redemption purchased by the Son of God if he doth not save as he is the Word seeing it 's confessed he most properly was the Son of God from the dayes of Eternity pag. 34. And how hath he wrought off man's disobedience by his suffering is it wrought off whilest man lives in it and denyes Perfection and Freedom from sin tearm of life and how then doth the Seed of the Woman bruise the Serpents head if the Serpent must have a place and sway in man by leading him into sin the dayes of mans life must not the Serpent's head be bruised within and the Seed be known within which bruiseth it and hath not he that is born of God the Seed in him and is not this Seed Spritual But what is the price so much talk'd on that both satisfies God and saves man Bapt. The sufferings and blood sheding of Christ had in it