the Copy of the Letter in p. 28. yet for what Reason I know not whether to perplex the Cause or that he himself was in Confusion and Disorder when he delivered it he interweaves another Matter which takes up wholly his 29th Page and then in p. 30. returns to the Letter saying Now as to the Letter we go on c. But for what end soever he made that Irregular Transition from one thing to another though I might justly step over what he has interposed and follow the Thread of his Discourse upon the Letter yet that it may appear how willing I am to answer all his Cavils I will suspend what is further to be said to his Exceptions about the Letter and go back with him to p. 29. There he sets down Burnet's Words and as a Sign he did not well know what he did he sets them down twice over They were these 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 need be Visible and Material Blood To this G. Whitehead's Answer was ' Do but mark here what a sad Consâ—quence 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 which was the Baptist's Opinion or like as if one should say one Type was 'a Type of another there G. Keith makes a full stop leaving out about half a score Lines of G. Whitehead's Answer without discovering that he did do so I will put them in between two Crochets that the Reader may observe which they were thus 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 absur'd 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 Passover 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 p. 59 60. I would not have transcribed this whole Answer especially having given it at full length before in my former Book but that I observed G. Keith had slily dropt a considerable part of it and I thought he might probably take advantage against me if I should have omitted any of the rest From the whole it appears that G. Whitehead did not so much apply himself in his Answer to overthrow his Opponent's Argument in that one Particular as to shew the general absurdity and mischief of the Consequence of that Argument which reached alike from the other Types in the Old Covenant to the other Antitypes in the New Covenant This G. Keith observed and to help the Baptist off he says VV. Burnet does not express it universally but in this particular Case And G. Whitehead extends it to an universal He says right in the first part VV. Burnet does not express it universally but the Consequence of his Argument has such an universal extent Which G. VVhitehead observing attackt him there not as G. Keith represents it who has the Art of Sophisticating as if all the Types of the Old Testament signified nothing internally and spiritually upon which he says But W. Burnet said no such thing But as if all the Antitypes in the New Testament must be altogether as external and void of Spiritual Mystery as their respective Types in the Old Testament were which the Consequence of VV. Burnet's Argument says G. Keith Notes that by G. VVhitehead's Argument as the New Covenant is spiritual and inward and not outward so the Blood of the New Covenant is Inward and not outward so the Passover is inward which is Christ the Mediator and not outward Now take notice that the Words and not outward in all these three places are not G. Whitehead's nor to be found in his Answer but are added by G. Keith of his own Head And from this Addition of his he makes this Inference This is a plain denyal of the Man Christ without us to be our Mediator our Passover Offering or his Flesh and Blood without us to be concerned in our Salvation otherwise than as the Type Now I do not think this proceeds either from his Ignorance or Oversight but from his Injustice and Malice For he knows that when we speak of Christ we do not put asunder what God hath joyned together but we take his Divinity and Manhood conjointly and united always acknowledging him to be without us as well as within us And as little Iustice as G. Keith shews to us I have so much Charity for G. Keith as to think that when in his VVay cast up p. 157. he said Thus Christ doth declare himself to be the Mediator betwixt God and Man as he is in them he did not intend a plain denyal of the Man Christ without to be our Mediator But he knows if he would or by this Time could be Iust that the great Reason of our so much asserting Christ's Inward Appearance and spiritual Manifestation as a Mediator Sanctifier Justifier and Saviour within has been as to assert the Truth so to counterpoise if I may so speak the contrary Doctrine and Assertion of those who deny him to be with respect to these Offices at all within and shut him wholly out making the Work of Mediation Sanctification Justification and Salvation to be only and altogether outward whereas we acknowledge to the utmost whatever Christ hath done or doth without us
Excellency to distinguish it from other Mysteries called by the Apostle The Mystery of Godliness as being a great part of that great Mystery Yet it is not properly called a Mystery from the Perfection of Holiness that was in him but from the wonderful and miraculous Manner of his Conception c. not easily to be apprehended by humane Understanding In which sense also and for which Reason the spiritual Vnion betwixt Christ and his Church is by the same Apostle called A great Mystery Eph. 5.32 And in 1 Cor. 15.51 The Apostle treating of the Resurrection saith Behold I shew you a Mystery we shall not all sleep but we shall all be changed The Mystery here lay not in the point of Holiness but in the strangeness of the thing that whereas the general Change is made by Death some should be changed without dying We shall not all Sleep that is we shall not all Dye Sleep in this Sense being a Synonima of Death Dan. 12.2 John 11.11 and 14. Acts 7.60 and 13.36 1 Thess. 4.14 but we shall all be changed So that the plain import of W. Penn's Words is but this Seeing the Incarnation of Christ which was his outward Appearance in the World being outwardly born of and brought forth by a Virgin was called a Mystery because of the extraordinary and supernatural Way and Manner of his Conception Much more may the Work of Regeneration Christ's being formed in the Saints Gal. 4.19 So that according to G. Keith himself they are his Mother that bring him forth by a Spiritual and Divine Birth Mat. 12.49 Way cast up p. 111. be called a Mystery seeing it is wholly inward and spiritual in its Operation and consequently more remote from outward Sense and harder to be comprehended by humane Understanding In which W. Penn would not in any respect lessen that great and glorious Work of God in the Incarnation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ But would exalt the glorious Work of Christ in his Saints And as plain also it is that the Scope and Drift of those Words of W. Penn both here and in his Rejoynder to Faldo which I have Answered elsewhere was to perswade People not to rest barely in an historical Belief of Christ's Incarnation and Manifestation in that Body of Flesh wherein he suffered at Ierusalem and obtained Redemption for all them that should lay hold on him by a living Faith But to come to that living Faith that thereby they might experimentally know and witness the great Work of Regeneration to be wrought in them Christ to be spiritually formed in them and to dwell in their Hearts by Faith without which the most exact literal Knowledge of the History of Christ's Incarnation Sufferings Death Resurrection and Ascension will stand them in no stead but add to their Condemnation He taxes VV. Penn with thinking it is a matter of little or no difficulty to believe that God sent Christ to die for Sinners and to reconcile God to Men by his Death How little of difficulty there is in barely and historically believing this the Common Faith of all that part of the World called Christian shews wherein all Professions and the most profligate and prophane in any Profession doth so believe it And though G. Keith talks of a true saving Faith and says Nar. p. 23. None of all the Church of England Men Independents or Presbyterians say the meer Historical Literal Traditional Faith of Christ will save any Yet I think it may without breach of Charity be doubted that too many in some at least of those Professions have no other and certain it is W. Penn's words related chiefly to such For he says in the place quoted by G. Keith At this rate the Lord Lord-Crier is highly priviledged alluding therein to the words of Christ Mat. 7.21 Not every one that saith unto me Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven But he that doth the Will of my Father which is in Heaven From which and his Answer in v. 23. Then will I profess unto them I never knew you depart from me ye that work Iniquity It is evident that these knew not him aright nor had true Faith in him notwithstanding their high pretences of having Prophesied cast out Devils and done many wonderful things in his name v. 22. Again G. Keith says p. 23. The matter is there is a saving Faith of Christ without us there he stops as to saving Faith but too short For Faith of Christ without us i. e. a Belief of all Christ did and suffered in that outward Body which he took of the Virgin without Faith in Christ within i. e. a receiving Christ by Faith into the Heart to cleanse the Heart and by his precious Blood to purge the Conscience from dead works to serve the living God will not prove a saving Faith Then he goes on saying And Christ without us as he is both God and Man the Emanuel as well as his inward Appearance in us is the Object of saving Faith but these Men would not own it If by these Men he means either the Quakers in general or any of those he has traduced by name his Charge is false We own Christ without as he is both God and Man joyntly and together with his inward appearance in the Heart to be the Object of saving Faith to all those to whom the knowledge of his outward Appearance hath come But in asmuch as a great part of Mankind hath not the Knowledge of that outward Appearance of Christ and what he therein did and suffered Christ without with respect to his Manhood and what he did and suffered in that prepared Body cannot be the Object of Faith to such until revealed to them And therefore if G. Keith will yet admit that such have been or may be saved and consequently that they had or may have saving Faith without which none can be saved because Without Faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 he must grant the Object of their Faith to be not that outward Appearance of Christ in the Flesh but his inward Appearance and Manifestation in and by his Divine Light Life Word and Power in their Hearts I say if he will yet admit it because he has of late so turned and wheel'd about from his former Principles that one knows not where to find him In his Way to the City of God p. 125. he said Even at Man's Fall the Seed of the Woman was given not only to bruise the Serpents Head but also to be a Lamb or Sacrifice to attone and pacifie the Wrath of God towards Men. And this is the Lamb that was slain from the beginning of the World And through the coming of Jesus Christ thus in the inward even before he was outwardly come or manifest many were saved and attained unto perfect Peace and Reconciliation with God in their Souls yet not in unholiness but in departing therefrom and becoming Holy and Sanctified unto God In
People that commit evil and so appeasing the Wrath of God by being a Propitiation for them according to 1 Iohn 2.1 2. This one would have thought might have gone down with G. Keith it being so agreeable to his own Doctrine For in his VVay cast up a Book not yet retracted p. 157. he said And thus Christ doth declare himself to be the Mediator betwixt God and Man as he is in them Thou in me and I in them here Christ is the Middle-man or Mediator as being in the Saints Which Confutes the gross and most comfortless Doctrine of the Presbyterians and others who affirm that Christ as Mediator is only without us in Heaven and is not Mediator in us whereas he himself in this place hath declared the contrary And lest G Keith should again Cavil at the Words offereth up himself c. I will remind him that he himself in his Additional Postscript to G. VVhitehead's Book called The Nature of Christianity p. 66. answered his Opponent Gordon thus Because Christ is called the one Offering and that he once offered up his Body c. Thou wouldst exclude him as in us from being one Offering but herein thy VVork is vain for Christ Iesus is the one Offering still and though he offered up his Body outwardly but once upon the Cross yet he remains still an Offering for us within us For he is a Priest for ever and every Priest hath somewhat to offer and he is both the Offering and the Priest who liveth for ever to make Intercession for us This is too good Doctrine still in G. Keith to be retracted by him for though he has mentioned this very Postscript of his in his Narrative yet â—e has not retracted any thing in it though he can condemn the same in others unjust Man as he is Before I leave this place let me put G. Keith in Mind seeing he seem to have forgot it of a necessary Caution he gave in his VVay to the City of God p. 127. thus Therefore we are not too nicely to distinguish betwixt the Influences of his inward and outward Coming and the Effects thereof but rather to take them conjunctly as in a perfect Conjunction having a perfect Influence upon all Mankind for their Reconciliation and Renovation unto God as obtaining that Measure of Light and Grace from God unto all and every one whereby it is possible for them in a Day to be saved And again p. 139. thus But as I said above so I do again repeat it that it may have the more weight viz. that we are not too nicely to make a difference betwixt the Influence and Effects of his Outward and Inward Sufferings but to understand them in a perfect Conjunction c. And so the People called Quakers do say I. Having had a fling at VV. Penn he says Let me come to G. Whitehead again And that he might stir up the People to Lightness he tells them You shall have here a rare Dish of Divinity and then to provide himself some Defence or Excuse after he had done it he adds Not that I would provoke any to Lightness What Hypocrisie is this Then to garnish his rare Dish he says I have read many Books in my Time but I never read such a Book except the Ranters in my Life Popery is Orthodoxy to it no Popish Priest will argue as he has done See how he Banters him Nar. p. 22. The Book he quotes is called The Light and Life of Christ within c. p. 8. where he says G. VVhitehead blames VV. Burnet for saying The Blood shed upon the Cross sprinkles the Conscience Sanctifies Iustifies Redeems us And in p. 18. of his Gross Error where he carps at the same Passage and gives the Quotation more at large but not truly he says Note Here it is plain that G. Whitehead doth altogether deny Iustification by that outward Blood or that it was the meritorious Cause of Salvation But this is a manifest Falshood and Abuse put upon G. VV. For he did neither deny the outward Blood to be the meritorious Cause of Salvation Nor did he there undertake to discuss blame or censure any of Burnet's Doctrines or Assertions That was to be done and with respect to some of them was done in the after part of the Book to which that former Part was but as an Introduction wherein Burnet's Contradictions were collected and exposed and therefore immediately after those Words of Burnets p. 7. partly cited by G. Keith viz. The Blood shed upon the Cross the material Blood meritorious to Salvation sprinkles the Consciences Sanctifies Iustifies Redeems us c. G. VVhitehead added thus But in Contradiction p. 40. That Blood shed is not in being says Burnet but he compares it to a price lost Upon which G. VVhitehead made this Observation p. 8. Observe said he here a twofold stress is laid upon that Blood 1. Merit to Salvation 2. VVork to Sanctification and so he hath set it up above God For God could not save he saith and yet it is not in being this G. Keith in reciting G. VVhitehead's Words left out gross Absurdity VVhereas Sanctification being a real VVork inward that is certainly in being which Effects it This plainly shews that that which G. Whitehead blamed his Opponent for was his Self-contradiction in saying that Blood shed Sprinkles Sanctifies Justifies Redeems which are all of the present Time and yet withal saying that Blood shed is not in being This part G. Keith as I noted concealed and then falls upon G. Whitehead as he had done before Gross Error p. 22. for wronging Burnet in charging him with having said God could not save And he makes as if he would help Burnet out but he quickly pulls in his Horns saying Nar. p. 25. But I wholly wave that Dispute I think it is above Mans capacity Whether antecedently to God's purpose he could have saved us without the Death of his own dear Son Truly I doubted nothing had been above G. Keith's Presumption because I have scarce seen him stick at any thing before how much soever above his Capacity But though he is willing to wave that Dispute yet to help off the Baptist and fall in with other Opposers he says But God having so ordained it consequentially to his purpose it viz. That God could not save may be as safely and truly said as when the Scripture saith God cannot lye Is it any Reflection says he to say God cannot lye and that he cannot contradict his Purpose But I would know of him whether to contradict or to alâ—er ones Purpose be the same thing as to Lye But it is probable G. Keith might borrow this Notion from Io. Owen who in his Book against the Quakers called A Declaration c. has a touch of this kind if I mistake not in p. 178. G. Keith gives another Proof against G. Whitehead out of the same Book called Light and Life p. 38. and having set down the Baptists
in order to our Salvation yet cannot exclude the inward Work And I am perswaded this Consideration which I have now mentioned had some impression on G. Keith's Mind when he writ those Words I last cited of his out of his VVay cast up p. 157. which made him after he had repeated from those Words of Christ Thou in me and I in them here Christ is the Middle-man or Mediator as being in the Saints add these Words viz. Which confutes the gross and most comfortless Doctrine of the Presbyterians and others who affirm that Christ as Mediator is only without us in Heaven and is not Mediator in us whereas he himself in this Place hath declared the contrary Let us go on to his Clinch For he says Now here I clinch the Matter and he attempts it thus G. VVhitehead says he says But to say 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 as if one should say one Type was a Type of another so also Gross Error p. 18. Well this explains it self by those Words in the Parenthesis especially if neither of them be Mystical For those Words shew that he no otherwise opposes the Antitype's being Material than his Adversaries Argument excludes it from being Mystical or Spiritual This also appears to be his Sence from the very Entrance of his Answer where he said 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 which was Burnet's Term 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 And from hence it was that G. VVhitehead said This is to give the Substance no preheminence above the Type when the Substance or Antitype is denied to be Mystical and made only Material because the Type thereof was only Material and not Mystical As to the other part of G. VVhitehead's Words which G. Keith takes into his Clinch viz. Or like as if one should say one Type was a Type of another It appears from the Place in G. VVhitehead's Book that he spake it of those Temporal and Carnal Ordinances which he there mentions and particularly of Circumcision which in the very next Words he joyns to those former thus 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 Wherein perhaps he might give a close Nip to those who hold Circumcision to have been a Type of VVater Baptism and VVater Baptism to be a Type of the Spiritual Baptism thereby making one Type a Type of another But I find G. Keith cannot clinch his Matter until he has made an Argument for G. Whitehead therefore he says Now the Argument lies here If the Sacrifices under the Law were Types of Christ's Blood then that Blood must not be outward Blood but inward Nay nay G. Whitehead said not so He did not say it must not be outward but it must not be only outward It must not be so outward as to destroy its being Inward It is both Inward and outward and hath always been so believed and owned by the Quakers in general and G. Whitehead in particular Whereas therefore G. Keith says This is a false Consequence of G. Whitehead and sheweth that he denie◠Remission of Sin and Iustification by the Blood of Chris◠outwardly shed I say That false Consequence is G. Keith's and shews that he hath renounced honesty and shame For G. Whitehead doth not deny but owns Remission of Sin and Justification so far by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed but not that Justification in the right sense of the Word as it imports a being made Iust or Righteous is wrought only by the shedding of the Blood outwardly without feeling the living Vertue of the Blood inwardly purging the Conscience from dead Works to serve the living God Thus G. Keith's Matter is left unclinched Now let us return to what he says upon S. Eccles's Letter in p. 30. where he begins thus Now as to the Letter says he we go on to what T. Ellwood says He says G. Keith is so unfair he will have it that G. Whitehead owns that the material Blood of Christ is that by which we are justified Of that I have newly spoken and shewed how far and in what Sence that is and ought to be owned But alas Does he call me unfair for this I rather thought he would have called at least have accounted me fair in that Would he therefore rather have G. Whitehead not own than own it only that he might have a spiteful blow at him What an evil Mind is that Yet in that evil Mind he goes on thus But here says he is the Trick G. Whitehead makes a Typical Offering of Christ and an Antitypical the Typical was the Offering of Christ at Jerusalem the Antitypical is the Offering of Christ within This is a Trick indeed an horrible false Trick of G. Keith's own devising So again a little below he says If Christ's Blood outwardly shed was a Type as G. Whitehead affirms it was Where does G. Whitehead affirm so I affirm I never saw that Affirmation yet but since he affirms that G. Whitehead has so affirmed I put him to produce that Affirmation See here then says he their Answer It was queried whether they owned that 〈◊〉 are by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed justified Or that the Blood that was outwardly shed did belong to the Sacrifice G. Whitehead has since of late answered Yea Here says he they have sought to blind all the VVorld Christ adds he as he outwardly suffered was a Sacrifice but a Typical Sacrifice Therefore says he the next Question to be put must be VVhether he was the Antitypical Sacrifice Ay so let it And the Answer to it shall be Yea He was the Antitypical Sacrifice of which the legal Sacrifices were a Type but that he was ever called a Typical Sacrifice I never heard nor saw from any Quaker's Mouth or Pen. Such foul Falshoods and gross Slanders as these neither deserve nor need any other Refutation than a bare denyal He is highly offended with G. Whitehead about S. Eccles's Letter He would have had him blamed and censured it severely and sharply as blasphemous If G. Whitehead had been as hot-headed as G. Keith perhaps he might But Blasphemy is an high Charge and they that understand it aright are not so forward as G. Keith it seems would be to brand Persons with it for every unsound Expression G. Keith is too hot and husty to see aright He can find nothing at all in G. Whitehead's Answer to blame or censure the Letter Yet in p. 31. his Narrative tells us
learnt this Trickling Art from that Apostate as he represents him C. L He compares us to the Arrians and Macedonians some of the worst of Hereticks and in that for which they were more to be condemned than for their Heresies since these might possibly proceed from Ignorance and Mistake that must flow from Hypocrisy and Design I reject his comparison and in plain and sober words deny his Charge as a most abominable Falsehood and Slander In p. 31. he quarrels with G. Whitehead for saying S. Eccles's intent in those words No more than the Blood of another Saint 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 To the first part of this Sentence he says This never was my Quakerism For my belief all along was that Papists and Baptists and all have a benefit by Christ's Death And so was G. Whitehead's too Because his Death being a general Attonement for all that shall believe in and receive him all are thereby put into a Capacity by receiving and believing in him to attain unto Salvation But if any whether Papists Baptists or other being carnally minded which is or brings Death Rom. 8.6 do in their carnal mind Oppose the Light within and continue so to do of what particular benefit to the Salvation of the Soul will the Blood of Christ be to them Therefore G. Keith in this as in almost all places deals unfairly with G. Whitehead neither taking his right sense nor giving his full words For what G. Whitehead delivered as S. E's intent with respect to such Papists and Baptists whose minds are carnal and who Oppose the Light within that G. Keith extends to Papists and Baptists Vniversally and draws his Conclusion accordingly thus Now it is come to this says he That the Blood of Christ is no more to Papists and Baptists than the Blood of another Saint As if all Papists and Baptists quâ tales must of necessity be carnally minded and oppose the Light within In like manner he deals with him in the latter part of that Sentence viz. And also simply as to the essence of the Blood which you dare not say is still in being c. Which plainly appears to have been Spoken ad hominem only upon the Baptists Notion that that Blood which was shed was not in being Yet upon this G. Keith descants alledging what no Quaker that I know of ever denied viz. That it was never defiled with Sin and had a Miraculous Conception but wholly conceals those other words of G. Whitehead's which in his Book immediately follow But not as to the Spiritual Virtue and Testimony which is still in being Which said G. Whitehead S. E. owned to be his Intention And that plainly proves that S. E. owned the Blood shed was more than the Blood of another Saint as to the Spiritual Virtue and Testimony of it But says G. Keith Let us consider these words of S. E. which G. Whitehead saith might satisfy any Spiritual or unbyassed man viz. I do very highly esteem of the Blood of Christ to be more excellent c. There G. Keith stops with an c. which he should not have done For if he had a mind to save the Transcribing those other good Epithets Living Holy Precious which S. E. added to the Blood yet he should not have overppassed those explanatory Words of S. E's which follow viz. I mean the Blood which was offered up in the Eternal Spirit Heb. 9.14 The words of that Scripture are How much more shall the Blood of Christ who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without Spot or fault to God purge your Consciences c. Hence it is evident that by the Blood of Christ which S. E. said he so highly esteemed he meant the Blood that was of and in that Body which was offered up upon the Cross For he refers expresly to this Scripture which Speaks directly of that Offering This G. Keith unfairly but like himself concealed and then cries out Here 's S. E's Fallacy and G. Whitehead's Fallacy also But I think he will not be able to make it out without the help of one of his former Tricks nor even with it Thus he goes on Now you know what Blood they mean and see what Blood G. Whitehead means The Blood is Spiritual and Inward the other is a Type If they know what we mean it is a sign we mean as we speak and write for they could not know our meaning but by our speaking or writing But such as mean to know our meaning aright will do well to take it from our selves not from an unjust and implacable Enemy That the Blood is Spiritual and that it is inward as well as outward and outward as well as inward I grant But that the outward is a Type is not the saying nor meaning of the Quakers but a meaning invented by G. Keith to put a Trick upon us He quotes G. Whitehead's Book Light and Life p. 56. both in his Gross Error p. 17. and here thus It is confessed that God by his own Blood Purchased to himself a Church Acts 20.28 Now the Blood of God or that Blood that relates to God must needs be Spiritual he being a Spirit and the Covenant of God is inward and Spiritual and so is the Blood of it Upon this says G. Keith Nar. p. 31. So you see he doth not allow the Blood outwardly shed to relate to God or to be the Blood of the New Covenant or that God Purchased his Church with that Blood outwardly shed on the Cross. Why so I pray G. Whitehead said nothing against the Blood outwardly shed on the Cross but having to do with a Baptist who would have the Blood to be only outward and not Spiritual and who as G. Whitehead cites him in that 56 p. confessed he was as Ignorant of any such Blood as may be G. Whitehead asserted the Blood of God by which he purchased to himself a Church and the Blood of the New Covenant to be Spiritual not only outward as the Type of it was And will G. Keith say that the Blood of Christ which was outwardly shed had no Spirituality in it nor might in any sense be called Spiritual considering the Miraculous conception of the Body whereof the Blood was a Principal part through the overshadowing of the Power of the Highest G. Keith might have remembred that when he was in The way to the City of God which now he hath turned his Back upon he writ thus p. 131. Even according to that Birth to wit his outward Birth he was the Son of God no less than the Son of Man as having God for his Father as he had the Virgin Mary for his Mother Now the Child we know doth partake an Image or Nature from both Parents and thus did Christ who did partake of the Nature and Image of
next head but being loth to lose a Proof as he calls it he even thrusts it upon them He intends this Proof against VV. Penn but he names not the Book he takes it out of as he did not before upon G. Whitehead which shews he was in haste indeed But giving the words though not the Book which he did not in the other Case I have from the Circumstances of the matter found his Quotation in that Book of W. Penn's called Quakerism a New Nickname for Old Christianity p. 149. It is upon a Passage which I. Faldo had quarrelled with and perverted in a Book of Is. Penington's which G. K. having occasion to speak of makes as if he were so chary of Isaac Penington that he would be loth so much as to mention him and says I charitably think this Passage dropt from him unawares Then adds I wish I could have that ground of Charity to others of them It seems his Charity is very narrow if it can extend to but one and he not living neither But they are in best case that have no need of his Charity as the Quakers have not for it is as kind as the Crocodile's Tears But to his Proof he begins it thus J. Faldo thinks that he has made Is. Penington his own Can outward Blood wash the Conscience p. 29. A plain Denyal says J. Faldo Here is J. Faldo's Commentary on Is. Penington's words Is this Intelligible 'T is a sign by his Confusion he had enough of his work I must be fain to open the Passage and the occasion of it to make sense of his words Isaac Penington amongst many other Questions to Professors who place all upon the outward put this Question Can outward Blood cleanse the Conscience Can outward VVater wash the Soul cleà n This Io. Faldo whom G. Keith no longer ago than in 1692. branded in Print for a most partial and envious Adversary known well enough to be possessed with Prejudice against us Serious Appeal p. 6. and p. 60. catch hold of and made this false Comment upon it A plain denyal of the Efficacy of the Blood of Christ shed on the Cross to cleanse the Soul from the guilt of Sin by its Satisfaction to the Iustice of God What greater perversion could have been made G. Keith probably saw this and that his Auditors might not hear it nor his Reader see it he huddled through it in that Confused manner that rendred it not Intelligible For he gave no more of Is. Penington's words but Can outward Blood wash for cleanse the Conscience And no more of I. Faldo's but a plain Denyal without so much as saying what it was a denyal of He gives W. Penn's Reply some what fuller but not so fully as I think fit to give it For W. Penn having shewed that Is. Penington did not speak of the outward Blood with respect to the taking away the guilt of Sin past but with respect to Purgation and Sanctification of the Soul from the present Acts and Habits of Sin that lodge therein says Is he I. Faldo so Sottish as to make no distinction betwixt being pardoned Sin past and the ground of it and being Renewed and Regenerated in mind and Spirit and the ground of that Conversion Now follow what G. Keith quotes Or else is he so impiously unjust that because we do deny that outward Blood can be brought into the Conscience to perform that inward work which they themselves dare not nay do not hold therefore Is. Penington denies any Efficacy to be in that outward Offering and Blood towards Justification as it respects meer Remission of former Sins and Iniquities There G. Keith stops But W. Penn added We also say That Christ's Blood had an Influence into Justification as he phraseth it Thus far W. Penn. And note that this was spoken plainly and directly of the outward Blood or Blood of the outward Body Now G. Keith having given the Quotation short says So in short I take it thus W. Penn answers That Is. Penington's words are to be understood with reference to Sanctification but not Iustification Yes Justification in one sense but not in every sense Says he Outward Blood cannot be brought into the Conscience to perform that work But even the outward Blood had an Influence to Justification said W. Penn But says G. Keith The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience is by the application of a living Faith in Christ whose Blood it was the Spirit of God working that Faith in me But hath that Application he speaks of of Faith really brought that Blood into his Conscience to perform the work of Sanctification there If not which to be sure it could not Why does he say The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience as if it had been really and materially brought in there He says That Blood is not a Physical but a Moral cause of our Cleansing But did he never know or pretend to know and hold forth to others Christ's Blood as a Physical cause of our Cleansing He says Christ Iesus 1. by his Obedience and Suffering procured the Pardon of my Sins as well as he Sealed it by his Blood And 2. He procured the Spirit to Sanctifie me So then it is the Spirit within not the Blood without to which he himself ascribes the work of Sanctification Christ Jesus by his Obedience and Suffering procured the pardon of my Sins says he as well as he Sealed it by his Blood And 2. He procured the Spirit to Sanctifie me Is it not plain from hence that he makes the Obedience and Sufferings of Christ the cause of the Pardon of Sin and the Blood to be but as the Seal to that Pardon But he attributes the work of Sanctification to neither the one nor the other but expresly to the Spirit which Christ procur'd to Sanctify him And I wish he had given way to it that he might have been Sanctified by it and then we should not have had such unsanctified work the Abuse Wrong and Injustice from him that we have He says I find none say there must be a material Application of that Blood but a Spiritual and Moral and says he we can give Instances that Moral Causes are many times more Effectual Causes than Physical are As says he the Money wherewith we buy the Medicine that cures the Body is not the Physical Cause of Health but a Moral and the Money that we buy Bread with is not the Physical Cause of our Nourishment and Refreshment but a Moral But does he think the Money wherewith the Medicine and Bread is bought is a more Effectual Cause of Health and Nourishment than the Medicine and Bread that is bought therewith I am sure the Medicine and Bread are more proximate and immediate Causes of Health and Nourishment than the Money and if he having Money could have neither Medicine nor Bread for his Money he might perhaps be in as bad a Case as they that