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
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
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
Birth and Spirit of God it is Absolute but as it relates to us is limited and conditional and is rather a Possibility of not being deceived than an Impossibility of being deceived He takes occasion to Query Why he or any of us should be ashamed to correct any unsound and unjustifiable words which have dropt from our Mouths or Pens by Human Weakness or Inadvertency or why should any be upbraided and reviled as Apostates and Changelings for so doing To begin then with the last Clause touching being upbraided and reviled as Apostates c. I answer Whether our Charge which he terms Vpbraiding and Reviling against him of Apostacy leans upon so weak a Foundation as he here assigns it and whether we have not proved him so to be I dare commit to the Impartial and Judicious who have read our Books and his and there leave it As to the rest I say our Principle concerning Infallibility which he hath so often vindicated though of late he hath Scoffed at us for it is no other than what himself hath asserted in the Citation above Therefore hath he no need to quarrel with us upon that account nor yet to upbraid and revile us they are his own Terms as he hath done therefore were he with us a sincere Professor of the infallible Guidance and Leadings of the Spirit into all Truth One instance of his taunting at us I shall give out of his Antichrists and Sadducees p. 31. whereupon G. W. his giving relation of a Matter of Fact transacted as himself confesseth about twelve Years ago and using the words if I mistake not he floutingly reflects saying Is this like infallible George Whitehead Did G. W. then pretend to an infallible Memory If not Can he pretend still to believe that the Spirit and infallible Guidance thereof is a standing Gospel-Privilege and yet will he make a Feast to them that are otherwise minded and whose contrary Principles he hath so severely censured of the Doctrine himself maintains like those Vain People that make a Mock of the Spirit 's moving O Shameless Man But what yet adds to his Ephah and augments his Evil himself at the same time was guilty of having ascribed Arguments in his Book of Vniversal Grace to the Evidence and Demonstration of the Spirit of Truth which now p. 15 16. he acknowledgeth his Sin and Error in trusting as he there saith in the Mercy of God for Christ's sake for the Pardon of that and of all his other sins So that had any among us taken the Name of the Lord in vain and fathered upon his Spirit what was the product of our own G. K. of all Men especially if he still believe the Principle and be offended only at the abuse of it was most unfit to throw the first stone while he had not retracted his which yet he hath done to the gratifying of the Loose and Prophane Which Work will be his Burden except he unfeignedly repent § 6 His next attempt is to varnish over a Passage he gives us § 6. out of Imm. Rev. p. 54. thus And though I cite Scriptures and make use of them in Arguing this Point yet I can truly say I have not my Knowledge from them who had said but a Line or two above which he giveth not here I have not fetcht them from my own Wisdom neither hath it taught me them Now he bids us Note He says from them as being the Efficient Cause but he did not deny that he had his Knowledge by them Instrumentally to wit the Doctrinal Knowledge and Faith he had of Gospel Truths and Principles of Christianity for that is abundantly Acknowledged in MANY PLACES saith he but he names not one in that Book Answ Were I to Argue the Point with him Doctrinally and not rather evincing the Man's False Allegations and Pretexts I might query whether the Belief that the Scriptures are true was Communicated to him by themselves or Revealed by the Spirit Immediately But of this a touch is enough Now in order to shew what he meant by the word From which he harps upon I recur to what he said a little above with Respect to his own Wisdom that he had not fetched his Arguments from them so neither from the Scriptures Did he mean that his own Wisdom was not the Efficient but the Instrumental Cause from which he fetched his Knowledge and Faith Nay that he did not For in p. 55. he saiâ—h God Dwelleth in the Light inaccessible the Mortal or Natural Understanding cannot Approach unto him when it stretcheth it self to know him it is Confounded and Dashed more than if the Bodily Eye would set it self to look upon the Sun c. Again in p. 56. he useth the word From in the same manner when he tells us Words spoken from without though the best of Words uttered from Christ in the Days of his Flesh or from any of the Apostles or Prophets and yet recorded in the Scriptures cannot reveal the Father nor the Son neither they point only at that which Reveals c. Where the Intelligent may perceive he in like manner useth from for by for the words were uttered by Christ and his Apostles and so he must intend or as great a Grammarian as he is he must have writ Non-sense As well as that speaking of the Scripture-Record he saith They point only at that which reveals They did not then it seems according to him give the Knowledge give the Revelation but point only or direct to that which gave it Also in p. 57. after having denied that the Words of Moses the Prophets David Isaiah c. could reveal God who had a little before cited that Scripture Matt. 11.27 No Man knoweth the Father but the Son and he to whom the Son reveals him he Queries concerning Christ himself Did his words reveal him or his Father unto them Did they not mistake him for all this and I query Were not those Gospel-Truths which our Lord preached For their Eyes were held were blinded c. Thus far out of G. K. formerly even out of the immediately succeeding Pages wherein I do not widely refer to MANY PLACES I leave the Reader to search the whole Book for it and perhaps all labour lost at last as he doth but give both Page and Passage And now I leave it to the Reader from whence he pretended to have his Knowledge and Faith formerly and whether rather than retract what he then delivered he hath not put a false Gloss upon his words by an evasive Interpretation contrary to his Sense then § 7 His next § is designed to prove from these words of his Imm. Rev. p. 57. Jesus Christ himself who spake to them in the days of his Flesh Face to Face did his words reveal him or his Father unto them That he then as well as now believes there is need of the Internal Revelation to give the Knowledge of Christ and that that Knowledge was needful to all Mens
Salvation either explicitly or implicitly else why should he say That it was needful to be revealed by the Spirits Answ I find no words there of the Knowledge of Christ as he came in the Flesh but only of Christ as God that God filleth all things but is apprehended by nothing but that which cometh from himself is begotten by himself c. p. 55. Adding towards the close of the Page It the Carnal Mind cannot by searching find out God he dwelleth in another Principle c. And in p. 56. he tells us how he is known and revealed viz. by the Son for which he quotes Matt. 11.27 And to manifest that no outward mediate Revelation can do it they are his following words he in that and p. 57. instanceth that the words uttered from Christ as he hath it in the days of his Flesh or from any of the Prophets or Apostles cannot reveal the Father Who in his Gradation descends to this Query saying To come to Jesus Christ himself who spoke to them in the days of his Flesh Did his words reveal him or his Father unto them But what is this to prove that the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh was needful to all Mens Salvation either explicitly or implicitly when as that was no subject of the Argument but only of Scripture words spoken by himself in the days of his Flesh or by others before and since Who when he comes to summ all that is said in this Argument they are his own words p. 70. himself giveth it thus The Knowledge of God he doth not of Christ according to the Flesh being that which is indispensibly necessary to every Believer and true Christian and seeing this cometh only by the Revelation of the Son immediately in the Heart and by receiving it from the Mouth of God himself and from the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost c. hath not one Syllable of the Necessity of the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh but only of the internal immediate Revelation So hardly is the Man put to it neatly to varnish over his Cause and impose an untrue Explication instead of a true one upon his Reader § 8 Yet he will be trying at it once again § 8. where citing out of Imm. Rev. p. 60. his having said Seeing the Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh was not sufficient nor to be rested in but they were to look for a better c. he tells us It will appear from the foregoing and following words in that Book that by the Knowledge of him after the Flesh he did not mean that Knowledge of him as he came in the Flesh but that Knowledge that the Disciples and Apostles had of him by their outward sight and hearing of him or by what they could know of him by the meer actings of the Mind without Internal Revelation Answ Outward sight and hearing by the meer actings of the Mind are foisted in now not mentioned there nor deduceable from thence Yet I observe how he varies in treating upon one and the same Argumenâ— When he speaks of Jesus Christ's speaking Face to Face in the days of his Flesh he applieth it to the Knowledge of him as he came in the Flesh but when he useth the words Knowledge of Christ after the Flesh he did not mean the Knowledge of him as he came in the Flesh but by outward seeing hearing and the meer Actings of the Mind c. Yet all will not help him For having shewed p. 59. That if Christ's Bodily Presence was not sufficient of it self to minister but a MORE GLORIOUS they were to expect then far less the outward Administration of any other Man He in p. 60. adds For if Christ be no more to be known after the Flesh much less any other Man but they were to look for a BETTER a more clear and full Manifestation in themselves to wit a Spiritual Heavenly Mysterious Manifestation in themselves even such a way as the World cannot know him or receive him which made Judas not Iscariot to wonder and question him saying How is it that thou wilt manifest thy self to us and not unto the World By all which it will appear G. K. was not shewing that the Knowledge of Christ as he came in the Flesh was needful to Salvation to all as he alledged § 7. nor yet here treating of the Knowledge received by the meer Actings of the Mind without Internal Revelation but was preferring the inward Manifestation of Christ in Spirit to his bodily Presence in the Flesh representing the outward Coming as noâ— sufficient of it self the other as more Glorious Heavenly full and clear such as the World could not receive So that instead of extolling the outward Coming and setting off the Benefits thereof he was rather magnifying the inward and lessening the other Whereas he adds The true saving Knowledge of Christ is a spiritual Knowledge of him as he came in the Flesh and died for us so as by the inward Revelation of the Spirit 〈◊〉 God the Mystery of his Death and Sufferings is opened to us I answer We deny not the unvailing of any Mystery to be a Spiritual Knowledge nor yet that great Blessing and Benefits were purchased by his Death and Sufferâ—ings but that such who have not had the opportunity and means of the knowledge of what Christ did outwardly and have died without it either are not saved or receive the Knowledge thereof in order to Salvation when dead is what we have detected him as contraâ—ictory to his former Writings in § 9 From these words Imm. Rev. p. 63. The glorious Gospel is not the words the best of Scripture words there he stops referring from p. 55 to 71. he takes occasion § 9. to declare His sense was that the â—ords of Scripture are not principally and chiefly the Gospel â—ot the principal thing of the Gospel but that p. 69. he calls â—he Light the principal thing But as the Scripture words without the inward Life c. is not the Gospel so nor is the Spirit and Light barely and abstractly considered without â—he Words and Doctrine the Gospel in the full and adequate sense of the word Gospel Answ I shall first confront him â—ut of what he hath more fully delivered in p. 63. than â—e hath here given and then consider his References â—n the first place he there saith of the Gospel It is that which the words declare of but not the words themselves which may be read heard and known by the Unbeliever of whom he saith but the Gospel he knows not it is hid from him and his reason is for it is the Power of God unto Salvation it is the Preaching of the glad Tidings of Salvation by Jesus Christ himself IMMEDIATELY in the Heart it is Christ's saying in Man by the powerful Breath of his Spirit Awake thou that sleepest He is the great Preacher of this great and glorious Gospel himself Now Reader what Consistency is there between his sayâ—ng
formerly the Gospel is NOT the Words the Unbeliever hath that but the Gospel he knows not it is â—id from him Christ himself is the great Preacher of that and his now saying that neither the Scriptures nor the Spirit and Light is the Gospel barely and abstractly considered He then said Christ preached it immediately he now tells us a little below It cannot be conceived without some Form of Words and Propositions that consist of words inwardly conceived and cannot be outwardly preached without some Form of Words outwardly expressed whereby he confounds a Declaration of or concerning the Gospel with the Gospel it self quite beside his Sentiments formerly That it was spoken in Man by Christ by the powerful Breath of his Spirit which surely may be without a Form of words as outwardly The one the Unbelievers may read hear and know and yet noâ— know the Gospel But will he say the Gospel was never communicated by the Divine Breath without a Form of Words seeing he now makes the outward Preaching and the thing preached so inseparable to the Gospel that neither of them are Gospel in the abstract And whereas he tells Imm. Rev. p. 213. The Gospel was preached unto Abraham Abel Enoch Noah and to all Believers who lived before Scripture was writ in a Book and that it was spoken into their Hearts by the Spirit of Jesus Christ c. Will he now maintain that they had both the Scripture Words and the Spirit and Light in order to make it Gospel Could not Christ in speaking into their Hearts be conceived without some Form of Words or was it not Gospel till so conceived Nor will his Allegations from p. 55 to 71. and p. 69 stand him in any stead For the first Reference is wide no passage assigned and though I cannot find any thing there to help him off yet I find in p. 56. what makes against him viz. The best of words uttered from Christ himself in the days of his Flesh or from any oâ— the Apostles or Prophets and yet recorded in Scripture cannot reveal the Father nor the Son neither they point only at that which reveals and were spoken and writ for that end that People might come to the Principle of true Knowledge in themselves see also p. 59. Whence I Query Cannot the Gospel which is the Power of God unto Salvation reveal the Father or doth that Gospel point only at that which reveal Or is that which reveals the Father which he saith the best of words cannot do as it is opened in Man by the Son no Gospel till outwardly preached or written Thus for want of Sincerity to retract and by labouring to defend as Congruous what is so Contradictory is the Man entangled and the more he toils the more he is perplext His second Reference instead of doing him any good further lays him open For though he doth there assert the Light as the Principal thing yet not in ordine ad idem not with relation to the Gospel for which end he here adduceth it for there was no Dissertation thereof there His words are these One takes himself to read Commentators to furnish him for the Ministry another to read Hypocrates and Galen to become a Physician while their hands are out from the Light of Christ which gives true Knowledge and Ability to Minister either to the Soul or Body and is the principal thing Mark he doth not say it is the principal thing of the Gospel he was not defining Gospel here but what was the principal thing â—o make a good Minister or Physician nor did he say â—eading of Hypocrates or Galen was Gospel in the abâ—tract but the Light was the principal thing or that â—hey and the Light together make up the Gospel in the â—ull and adequate Sense thereof This I urge to shew â—he Man's Falshood and Deceit who offers so remote â—n Instance and wide from the subject we are treating â—f to prove that to which it had no coherence and all â—o cover himself that the Shame of his Nakedness â—ight not appear which now is so much the more viâ—ble by this fresh Demonstration thereof From hence he sallieth to a Discourse about the Scripâ—ures being called the Word of God That he may ratifie our Adversaries he represents it an unprofitable â—rtful and groundless Contention on our parts especially â—r Friend B. Cool having in a late Book of his said That as they declare the Mind of God with respect to us and are his Commands to us they may in that respect bâ— called the Word or Command of God to us And so saitâ— G. K. all other Professions in Christendom own them and nâ— otherwise Answ Till he be more steady to what himâ—self owns I deem him no fit Voucher for others mucâ— less for all other Professions in Christendom Yet foâ— the sake of such to whom he labours to traduce us 〈◊〉 reply We contend not meerly about Words but aâ— some Men have erred in denying the immediate Internaâ— Revelation is a continuing Gospel-Privilege so havâ— they also in mis-applying what hath been said in thâ— Scriptures concerning the Word of God whence iâ— hath come to pass that as the Jews of Old thought iâ— them to have Eternal Life while not coming to Chrisâ— John 5.39 so these not attending to nor coming tâ— Christ as inwardly revealed have set up the Scripture as their Rule in opposition to an inward Guidance by the Spirit of God in these days assigning to them whaâ— was spoken of the Divine Inshining Words Now tâ— undeceive these and direct them to an inward Prinâ—ciple in themselves our Friends have been led to thiâ— Distinction not in Derogation to the Holy Scriptures nor through an Itch of Contention but as a necessarâ— Medium to six Mens Minds upon that Word which iâ— able to save the Soul and enlighten the Eye which thâ— best of Words could not do without it Yet very unfâ— was G. K. to fling this stone who himself hath botâ— used and defended this very Distinction in his Help iâ— time of Need p. 65. a passage not yet retracted foâ— there he not only tells us Though the Holy Scripâ—tures declare of this Word yet they are not thaâ— Word more than a Map or Description of Rome oâ— London is Rome or London or the Image of Caesar iâ— Caesar or Bread and Wine is the Body and Blood oâ— Christ c. But also allows They may borroâ— the Name and sometimes be so called as the words or Prophecy of Isaiah is called by himself his Vision c. He should therefore have first retracted his own unprofitable hurtful and groundless Contention as he calls it in others before he had bestowed his Censures upon us But the Man's Malice hath run him a-ground who needed not by this repeated instance to have given fresh Evidence of his Instability we having enough to load him with besides and more than he can fairly get from under were he not judiciously infatuated
3.15 but on Mat. 12.50 and Rev. 12.1 5. Answ The tearm Seed of the Woman he must borrow from Gen. not from Mat. 12.50 and Rev. 12.1 5. and also that this Seed should bruise the Serpents Head in the instance above As well as that when he said Way to City of God p. 125. Even at Man's Fall the Seed of the Woman was given not only to bruise the Serâ—pent's Head but also c. he must refer to the Promise made Gen. 3.15 This he called Imm. Rev. p 12. as alledged above in 〈◊〉 § 4 and there Cited by him and observed â—y me to which I refer as himself doth to what himself said in that § which â— there Answered a perfect substantial Birth of an Heavenly and incorruptible Nature the Body Flesh and Blood of Christ and in his Way Cast up p. 96. saith the Saints in all Ages did feed on it And seeing Christ had Flesh and Blood from the beginning he afforteth that he was Man from the beginning for as God simply he cannot have Flesh and Blood for God is â— Spirit therefore it is the Flâ—sh and Blood of Christ as he is Man or the Son of Man for which he Ciâ—es Christ's words unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man c. Again in his Way to the City of God p. 133. he calls it the Heavenly or Divine Substance or Essence of which the Divine Birth was both Conceived in Mary and is INWARDLY Conceived in the Saints And must all this be now turned off as an Allegorical Allusion as impâ—oper c O the inconsistency O the variableâ—ess and unsoundness of this wavering fickle Man Who having lost his Guide is perplext and entangled in Fetters of his own making while insincerely alledging and adducing false pretexts to cover himself with which are too narrow and too short Thus having gone through his first Section and touched the most material passages not designedly overlooking any although he hath omitted several of which I may chance to put him in mind of at the close I come to his second Section containing his Explanations and Emendâ—tions as he calls them of passages in his Book of Universal Free Grace Printed Anno 1671. which how Effectually done I now purpose to Examine Sect. II. § 1 Waving then his Preamble which respects the Title Page and hath been touched upon above § 5. of Sect. I. I begin with his § 1. where he pretends to remain in the same Testimony against that absurd Doctrine of absolute Reprobation rendring Salvation impossible to the greatest part or indeed to any part of Mankind and adds yet an Election even of Persons as well as of the Divine Seed I have owned c. I shall therefore examine whether what he now owns be correspondent to what he then owned seeing he here pretends not to retract any thing Beginning then with p. 107. of Vn Gr. which he widely refers to without giving any Citation thence I observe that to Mens objecting from that Scripture I will have Mercy on whom I will have Mercy that God hath not Mercy upon all but upon â—ome only he Answers These words relate not to Mens first coming into the World but unto a time after when they had despised the much Long-suffering of God extended unto them that after a time of Gracious Visitation though never so small he may have Mercy upon some to give them a longer time and yet not have Mercy upon others to give it them â—he which rather makes against a Personal Election â—an for it say I For if God have Mercy upon all â—ot upon some only it is in order that Election the â—uit of his Mercy should extend to all not to this or â—at Person only or as Persons but as adhering to â—d found in that Divine Seed wherein the Election â—ands So that this makes not for him but against â—n And whereas he now tells us that in p. 108. he â—ows the Common Translation of those words Acts â— 48. And as many as were ordained unto Eternal â—fe believed the Reader will find if he consult the place that he did not allow it for he rendred it who ever believed were ordained unto Eternal Life or ordered or placed into Eternal Life which is both a Transposition and varies the Sense i. e. they were not ordained to believe but the Believers were ordained or ordered into Eternal Life Whereto he there adds Although the Common Translation should be admitted he doth not say he doth admit it but although he should it proves not what they intend And thereupon he grants indeed that as whoever believâ— are ordained to Eternal Life so whoever are ordaineâ— unto Eternal Life do believe and so far G. K. giveâ— in these but what himself thence inferred he gives not viz. which hinders not but that others may havâ— had a Day of Visitation wherein it was possible foâ— them to have believed but God did fore know theâ— would not believe and so he did not predestinaâ— them to Life Which again spoils his late Notion 〈◊〉 Election of Persons as well as the Divine Seed for whicâ— end perhaps it was omitted by him seeing the Electiâ— was not Personal but in the Divine Seed All otheâ— having had as he saith a Day of Visitation whereâ— it was possible for them to have believed then sure 〈◊〉 was possible for them to have been Elected and tâ— Election was not limited to Persons say I To the he adds a third Reference out of p. 109. The objâ—â—ction which he gives not here was this that frâ— John 6.37 All that the Father giveth me shall coâ— some would infer that none but the Elect who are given Christ can come unto him and they all shall To whâ— he Answers There is a more general giving and a mâ— special giving which is only applicable to the Sainâ— who are his Children and cannot but come unto hâ— But what is this to prove an Election of Persons to 〈◊〉 the more special giving is only applicable to the Sainâ— Are Saints and Persons Synonymous tearms Or is â— Saints rather a Qualification Such cannot but come unto him but is that predicable of Persons indefinitely Or only of Persons found in the Divine Seed wherein the Election stands So little doth he help himself out in his vain Essays to Reconcile his late with his former Sentiments The inconsistency whereof I shall further make appear in an instance or two out of his Book of Truth Advanced compared with a passage or two out of Vn Grace Who in p. 105. of Vn Grace having in p. 104. Asigned his Understanding thereof to be given of the Lord by his Spirit thus delivereth himself There are two Seeds one Elect and of God the other Reprobate and of the Devil Who so now cleave to this Elect Seed in the true Faith and persevere so to do are chosen of him before the Foundation of the World as fore-knowing and fore-seeing them in Unity with this
word Gospel is used 〈…〉 the Doctrine of Salvation by the promised 〈…〉 in an instance or 〈…〉 hath over 〈…〉 when Paul speaks 2 Cor. 〈…〉 8 9 of them that preach another Gospel are 〈◊〉 some of the places which upon a diligent Search 〈◊〉 he finds speak of the Doctrine of Salvation by the promised 〈◊〉 Or will he confess that the word Gospel was here used to signifie something else Also when the everlasting Gospel was again to be preachedâ— after the 〈…〉 the word again it had been discontinued to be preached 〈…〉 History of Christs Birth Death c. had not doth that place Râ—â— 14.6 7 mention any thing of the Doctrine of Salvation by the promised Messiah There 〈◊〉 not a word of that 〈◊〉 there but saying with a loud 〈◊〉 Voice Fear God will give Glory unto him c. be in 〈◊〉 preached with Commission from on high is called preaching the everlasting Gospleâ— Did G. K. in his diligent Search â— over-look this 〈◊〉 how could he sayâ— IN ALL PLACES in the New Testament where the word Gospel is used it signifieth the Doctrine of Salvation by the promised Messiah I might also instance in Rom. 1.16 although he refuseth to allow it me now that the Gospel cannot be said to be the Power of God unto Salvation to the Believer in any other Sense than aâ—â— it a powerful energetical inward Principle for as it is barely Historical the Ungodly have that Belief though they went the Power So that as the Power oâ— God is not a Belief or Relation concerning the Power so neither in a strict genuin Sense is the Gospel which is the Power of God unto Salvation either the Relation 〈◊〉 it self or the Historical Belief of what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he further asserts here That whatever Doctrine 〈…〉 or have at any that preached the great subject 〈…〉 not the promised Messiah to wit the crucified Jesus of the main Foundation c. it is not the Gospel in the proper full and adequate Sense and Signification of it as the Scripture useth it observe he doth not say it is not the proper full and adequate Sense and Signification of the â—ord in any wise but it is not the proper c. Sense and Signification of it as the Scripture useth it so loth is he yea to retract any further than an undue Application of a Scripture or two so he adde that Paul in that place Col. 1.23 meant the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ crucified and the Grace and Gift of the Holy Spirit given of God to Men through him and the other Apostles and Evangelists in that clear and bright Dispensation then given c. Answ Paul's words were not so restricted to that clear and bright Dispensation of the Gospel as to go no higher The Gospel he was speaking of was preached to or in every Creature under Heaven This relates to the time past but in the other Sense it was never so preached to all Men living whatever G. K. thinks it may have been to them after they were dead therefore it could not be meant of the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ crucified with respect to that clear and bright Dispensation the Apostles were under but of that Gospel which had been preached to or in EVERY Creature under Heaven This Objection G. K. foresaw therefore adds Though it was not 〈◊〉 that time actually preached to all Men yet it was began 〈◊〉 to be preached and that after the Prophetical Stile that which was to be done is said to be done Answ This will not help him for first where that Prophetical Phrase iâ— or how it is used he assigns not 2ly Neither did the Apostle speak of it as what was then begun to be preached or of what was to be done but of what waâ— preached was done and that not only to a few thoâ—â— the Primitive Christians preached to but to or inâ— every Creature under Heaven It was an Vniversaâ— Gospel universally preached Paul was speaking of 〈◊〉 that G. K's Allegations are unsound One thing I shall take notice of here out of his p. 23 24. relative to this subject which may excuse my hanâ—dling it there where he takes notice that the Gospel oâ— the Kingdom shall be preached in all the World and that thâ— is not the inward Principle only but the Doctrine of Christ's Birth Death c. instancing those words of Christ Where-ever this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached 〈◊〉 also shall be told what this Woman hath done c. Answ This makes against him not for him For Christ did not say Where-ever THE Gospel of the Kingdom but where ever THIS Gospel of the Kingdom shalâ— be preached c. So that the Gospel may be preached where this Gospel giving a Historical Relation of Christ'â— Birth Death c. may not even without contradicting Christ's words And that the glad Tidings brought by them whose-Feet are beautiful upon the Mountains are Gospel in a secondary Sense we deny not Yet so that as the outward and visible things are the Figures oâ— the Inward and Spiritual as G. K. hath asserted Imm. Rev. p. 15. so the name Gospel is more immediately and properly applicable to the Inward Yet in as much as G. K. still shelters himself under the tearms undue Application of some Scriptures and acknowledgeth no Error in Doctrine I shall give a foâ—â— Instances of what he delivered formerly Doctrinally upon this subject in his Book of Vni Gr. who to an Objection that the Gentiles have not had the Gospel preached to them all this time by-past thus answers p. 20. Though the Gospel came not unto them outwardly by the Ministry of Man yet it came unto them inwardly by the Ministry of God himself Again Whereas our Adversaries denied this Manifestation of 〈◊〉 in the Gentiles is the Gospel or any Manifestation of a Saving Nature G. K. argueth thus p. 21. If it were not Evangelical and the VERY GOSPEL IT SELF in an inward Ministration it would quite â—ender the words of the Apostle Impertinent for Paul is here speaking what the Gospel was and what was revealed in it both to the Just and to the Unjust 〈◊〉 that it was not then delivered as a Figurative way of 〈◊〉 dothe according to his last Phrase but the VERY GOSPEL it self or the Apostle must speak Impertiâ—ntly What! Had he not then made a diligent Search â—â—to the Scriptures Or did they tell him one thing â—hen another since But he adds p. 22. By this Manifestation they did see the invisible things of God and his eternal Power and Godhead c. But had â—hey a Revelation of the Manhood of Christ so as to â—ave the Knowledge and Faith of Christ's Birth Death c. either explicitly or implicitly seing it is not the being the Eternal Power and Godhead that makes it â—ospel now with him without the other If he will 〈◊〉 it he must prove it If not Why did he not â—tract this as a