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
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
in his envious Undertakings as a just Recompence from the Just God for his Bitterness and Apostacy § 10 His tenth § is spent upon a Typographical Error and a groundless Reflection upon and calumniating his Adversaries which was so inconsiderable in it self viz. those Prophets for that Prophet and so obvious to any intelligent Reader as well as that it was never objected against him that I know of that I am perswaded he having slid over so many more considerable ones which were his own not the Printers he would never have touched upon this but to usher in a Slander For after having told us Divers Typographical Errors are to be found in many or most of his former Books which yet are obvious enough to the Judicious and Vnprejudiced Why then did he not give an account of them as well as of this when his hand was in say I he chargeth his Adversaries with making that a Typographical Error in some of their own Books which is plainly obvious to be no such thing But what proof doth he bring What is that Error And in what Book is it to be found Must the Reader take all upon trust from him both that his are obvious to be Typographical Errors and that ours are not so upon his single Evidence on his own behalf and against us And at the very same time that he was bespeaking his Reader to believe him will he tell him he must not believe us and shew no Reason but a Malicious Charge Such Readers indeed his bad Cause stands in need of but they will not help him However this Outcry I take to be levelled particularly against T. E. for I know of none other assigned in any our Books who in Truth Defended p. 108. gave notice of a Typographical Error in a Book of G. W's viz. to instead of for which he found Corrected by a Pen ready to his Hand and also shewed by the sense that the mistake must needs be in the Printer Yet hath G. K. been ever and anon harping at it that it was the Author's calling it Postscript to Gross Errors a dull silly Juggle and in his Ex. Narr p. 27. a Trick of T. E's so sordidly would he impose what there is no ground to suppose were not an Error more acceptable to him than a Correction But this being again replied to by T. E. in his Answer to G. K. his Narr p. 112. I refer thither § 11 He had said Imm. Rev. p. 74. Now the Bowels of the Father's Love stirred in Compassion to the Work of his Hands that of the pure Creation in Man which tho shut up in Death yet it remained and perished not as to its Being and this is the lost which God sent his Son into the World to save c. Now in § 11. he explains himself to have meant thereby the Soul of Man that is a Created Being and that he called it that of the pure Creation not that it had not been defiled by sin but by reason of its great worth in respect of its Original and Primitive State and its near capacity to be cleansed and purified Answ I might here shew that this is Doctrinally unsound that Man's Body was Created pure as well as his Soul that sin defiled both the whole Creation not the Souls only groaning and travailing in pain together that the Creature it self also shall be delivered from the Bondage of Corruption into the Glorious Liberty of the Sons of God Rom. 8.21 22. So that as Man's Sin destroys both Soul and Body Matt. 10.28 the Restoration affects both but I chuse after this transient Touch to oppose G. K. to G. K. and shew what he then meant by the Lost and that he did not intend the Soul of Man as he here suggests For in p. 71. he saith When God created Man he created him in his own Image he put his Image Christ the express Image of himself in Man and he breathed in him the Breath or Spirit of Life then did Man live indeed he was a living Soul By which it appears he did not then mean by living Soul that which he now calls a created Being but the Soul of that Soul Christ God's Image put in Men who there adds And the Light of Men was his Life lived in him c. Again p. 75. after having declared what is not to be saved viz. The Old Adam the Birth of the Serpent's begetting he saith That which Christ came to save is that of God which proceeded from him the Seed of God in Man whereof Abraham's old decayed Body and Sarah's barren Womb was a Type So that here 's no mention of Bodies nor of Souls but of the Birth of the Serpent and the Seed of God And as what was spoken of the Birth of the Serpents begetting is not applicable to the Body so neither is what was said of the Seed of God in Man applicable to the Soul of Man although in his next § he would fain perswade us to be so imposed upon § 12 Where citing the passage I gave above out of p. 75. he bids us note He calls the Elected Souls of Men the Seed of God upon which I Query Were the elected Souls of Men the Seed of Abraham for it was of the Seed of Abraham he was speaking but he goes on The Hebrew hath it Seed of God see the Margin and that I call it the Seed of Abraham is only by an Allegorical Allusion to the spiritual and divine Birth in the Faithfull Answ He should rather have termed it an Allegorical Delusion or delusive Allegory or evasive Shift rather For it is plain he was speaking of the two Seeds or Births that of the Serpent and the spiritual and divine Birth even of that Seed of Abraham whereof Abraham and Sarah were a Figure of that Seed which in the same Page he tells us Christ causeth to fructifie and bring forth Isaac the Seed of Promise So that he was not speaking of the Soul of Man nor of Isaac the Begotten but of the Seed the Begetter the Fructifier which he terms ibid. The Pure Principle of the Life of the Lamb which died not could not die as to its self but Man died from it and it ceased to live in him somewhat of a Divine Extraction in Man whose Centre is not the Earthly Principle but the Heavenly and Divine c. And in p. 76. The Body of Sin is a Burden to it and so the Light shineth forth in the Darkness to visit the Seed shut up therein By all which it is obvious what he intended by the Lost God sent Christ to save viz. That Seed Man had lost Man had slain as to himself and that by the Pure Creation in Man which though shut up in Death yet remained and perished not he meant somewhat of a more noble Extraction in Man to which the Body of Sin is a Burden and not the Soul to whom it is no Burden while it is shut up in
had its Object yea and it was a saving Faith too The Jews and People of Israel who lived in Moses's time and were SAVED it was through Faith in this Word said G. K. Imm. Rev. p. 107. forecited Let him then reconcile these Passages to his late Noâ—ion that Faith in Christ as he died for us and rose again is indispensibly necessary to all Further Discovery p. 16. or never pretend that we pervert his words when we shew he once asserted the inward Manifestation as the Object of SAVING Faith even where the outward hath not been revealed And there it is the only one § 15 That Scripture Luke 15.8 9. concerning the lost piece of Money he freely confesseth § 15. is one of those places of Scripture he hath through weakness of Vnderstanding misunderstood and unduly applied to prove a Truth Answ Here is no retracting this which is the first shew of Retractation I have hitherto met with as unsound as untrue No it was only misunderstood by him anâ— unduly applied but it was to prove a Truth he pretends Let us hear then what he hath next to say for himself Why it seems in construing the lost piece of Money menâ—tioned in this place to be the Light Within he was too mucâ— swayed by the Quakers Authority But what Man of Seâ—â— was he to be so imposed upon in the mean while say I However now he is sufficiently convinced he saith Chriâ— did not mean the Light Within but the lost Souls of Men and he plainly now understands that by the lost Sheep 〈◊〉 piece of Money and the lost Son is understood men or tâ— souls of men Answ He plainly understands amiss boâ— in confounding those three Parables together for tâ—â— lost Sheep was lost out of the Wilderness Luke 15 â— the lost Son came back of his own accord v. 18. anâ— the lost piece of Money was found in the same Hoâ— where it was lost v. 8. and also in understanding 〈◊〉 the lost piece of Money the Souls of Men. Yet â— enforce it he adds They who expound the lost piece â— money to be the Light Within will find difficulty to shâ— what the nine pieces are which are not lost whereas to undeâ—â—stand it of the Souls of men there is no difficulty in 〈◊〉 Answ As Similies seldom go on all four so neithâ—â— must Parables be pursued too far yet hence I taâ— occasion to demand of him Whether there be no difficulty to find who the Woman is that had ten Souls kept nine and lost one or has the same Woman lighted the Candle swept the House sought and found one of her Souls in the House and what that House was where she found the Soul she had lost Surely Absurdities will grow upon him thick and three-fold as the Saying is if we come to examine him throughout However he endeavours to prove his Assertion That by the lost piece of Money is meant the Souls of Men not the Light Within from the Womans lighting the Candle to seek the lost piece of money which plainly signifieth saith he that the way that the Lord useth to find the lost Soul is by lighting a Candle in it and inwardly enlightning it to see its lost Condition Answ First The Lord can find the Soul without lighting a Candle in it but he lights a Candle in it that by the Light thereof it may find him in and through that Gift of his Light Spirit or Grace which he had put into it and which it by departing therefrom is said to have left Which if the Creature had totally lost so that its day of Visitation were over there had been no remaining spark in the Soul to seek it nor had it received that degree of renewed Light whereby to light the Candle and both seek and find the lost piece Secondly The very design of the Parable was to set forth not what God had lost but what Man had lost the Candle being used by Man who needed it not by God and Christ who needed it not Man was the loser he was to sweep his own House in order to find what he had lost which was primarily the Divine Gift which God had given him and his Soul or rather the Life of his Soul but consequently of that And indeed G. K. himself more nearly hits the Scope of the Parable in the Explication he here gives of what he had said Imm. Rev. p. 125. the which he tells us T. Hicks imposed a perverse Gloss upon viz. That God had not lost himself nor Christ had not lost Christ but men had lost both by their Sins So little doth he mend the matter by his present Exposition of the Parable Yet to that degree is the Man infatuated that what most deserved notice viz. His many flat Doctrinal Contradictions he can glibly slide over this which himself said above was a misunderstanding an undue application of Scripture and yet to prove a Truth comes very frankly from him as if he longed to expose his Folly and Unsoundness which he had given but too great Demonstration of before § 16 His next § is designed to correct his Correction of our Translation and that with respect to two Scriptures positively That place 1 Cor. 2.2 where our Translation hath it among you he had rendred in you Imm. Rev. p. 126. Now he tells us Though the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can be grammatically translated in you yet they will not ALWAYS admit of the Translation otherwise in many places the Sense would be marred as 1 Cor. 2.2 and that that place and Col. 3.1 He should have said Gal. 3.1 are to be understood of Christ aâ— outwardly Crucifiâ—d and that the true Sense of Paul 's wordâ— related to the outward which included his inward appearance consequentially Answ As I am not entring into a Debate with him of Doctrinals but only to manifestâ— his Incoherence and Instability I apply my self wholly thereto and Query If Paul preached Christ's inward Appearance only by Consequence inclusively why did he but a few Lines back Imm. Rev. p. 125. from Col. 1 26 27 28. infer which here he hath not retracted that Paul preached Christ in them pointed them to him in them him Crucified in them c Was he iâ— them by Consequence only And why did he say alluding to the Mystery in the Gentiles for so it is in thâ— Greek said G. K. then and is he now better skilled in the Greek than then say I This Mystery is Christ the Mystery in them hid in them the Treasure hid and till it be found it is not the Hope in them but in them in whom it was manifested it is the Hope of Glory Will he say otherwise now And will he pretend to demonstrate it For till then this passage unretracted is Evidence against him In what follows he gives out That he freely acknowledgeth his Weakness in Vnderstanding in straining these and some other places of Scripture which he names not to
of Christ the One Offering come to be revealed by which One Offering he hath for Ever perfected them that are sanctified as in Truth Advanced p. 71. I have opposed to his saying Way to City of God p. 125. that through the coming of Jesus Christ 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 And to what he alledged in Vni Gr. p. 8. c. that the Gospel lay hid within the Law as within the Vail that Christ Jesus was in the Law and under it that universally in ALL Men both Jews and Gentiles there hath been both Moses and the Prophets in Spirit and also Christ See my Keith against Keith p. 4 12 13 c. Nor yet have we blamed his saying None were justified by the Law or first Ministration of the Spirit or Light within or their Obedience thereunto but thro' Faith in Christ which yet are not delivered as deduced by us out of him but shewed what he meant by Faith in Christ then viz. a believing in the Light nor is the outward Name that which saveth but the inward Nature Vertue and Power which was made manifest in them said he Vni Gr. p. 30. who had said p. 29. That in diverse of these Gentiles the Seed was raised which is that Divine Nature or Birth by which they did the things contained in the Law and SO were JUSTIFIED by him Also in his Postscript to G. W. â—is Nature of Christianity p. 65 and 70. Cited by me Keith against Keith p. 11. and not yet retracted God was in Christ reconciling Men to himself ever since the Fall in all Ages both before and since Christ suffered in the outward having given them or put in them the Word of Reconciliation by which they who became renewed thereby were reconciled and justified in all Ages blaming R. G. his Doctrine that no Men were justified nor reconciled until Christ suffered Death in the outward because then and not till then his Adversary had said was Reconciliation and Justification wrought c. to whom also he assigns as an Error the asserting That Obedience to the Light within in the Conscience is buâ— the work of the first Covenant and Righteousnesâ— thereof and that no Man is justified thereby By aâ— which the Reader may perceive G. K. hath not fairlâ— stated what we objected to him out of his Books as weâ— as that he had no cause to say as he doth here p. 19. â— That upon a diligent search into his Books and an impartiâ— examination of all the places Cited by us to prove it he caâ— find no such thing as that he had formerly asserted Mâ— might be justified and saved without all Knowledge aâ— Faith of Christ without us as he was Crucified c. Foâ— what I have here laid before him of which I havâ— Treated more at large in my People called Quakers cleaâ—ed p. 26 to 31. out of his Book of Vni Gr. p. 28 29 3â— 34 35 36 56 57 58 115 117 and 120. are sufficieâ—â— to shew both what he formerly called Faith in Chrisâ— and what Faith justified even the Gentiles before Chriâ— was Crucified even a belief in the inward Manifestatioâ— in the Word nigh in the Mouth and Heart as Vni Gâ— p. 34 35. and abundantly elsewhere However there is a blunder of his behind p. 18 which having slipt over I now return to where 〈◊〉 saith no Justification is by that Law whether it be understâ— of Moses his outward Ministration or the same Ministrâ—â—tion of Moses in Spirit where the Law is writ but in Tabâ— of Stone till the Seed be raised c. Upon which I Qâ—ry Whether the Ministration of Moses in Spirit was writ in Tables of Stone or the fleshy Tables of the Heart If upon the former where were these Tables to be found Who had the keeping of them And who wrote them there He had need have recourse to his Metaphorical Allusion again and even that will not help him But it is just with God that such as Fight against his Wrath and are Bladder-blown with their own Learning should expose themselves that others may see if they will not that Pride goeth before Destruction and a haughty Look before a Fall Prov. 16.18 Yet in as much as in the Citation above out of Vni Gr. p. 29. I have shewed that he then allow'd that in diverse of the Gentiles the Seed was raised and they were justified by Christ In as much also as he here recurrs to his late distinction of Express and Implicit Knowledge and Faith for which he widely referrs to his Book of Anti. and Sadd. Detected without either assignâ—ng Page or Passage or observing that I have Answered him even with respect to that very distinction â—n my Keith against Keith p. 62 to 71. which seems to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Universal Heal-all of G. K's Languishing Cause brought in at every turn to stop a gap with whether applicable or no I shall tell him He that affirmeth must prove and if he will affirm those Gentiles had an Implicit Faith and Knowledge that Christ was outwardly to be Born Suffer Die and Rise again â—n order to their Justification he must not barely alâ—edge but demonstrate that they had it either explicitly or implicitly which I have more than once put him upon and he hath not yet attempted to do as well â—s that I have shewed that even then several of the Citations given out of him while unretracted block â—p his way Which I again press upon him to do whatever comes short hereof being meer Trifling § 4 G. K. having so severely as well as unjustly reflected upon G. W. Ex. Narr p. 39 40. as having Allegorized away Christ's Birth Death Resurrection Ascension and coming to Judgment it might reasonably have been expected himself should not have exceeded therein or at least that he would have corrected and retracted his own before he found fault with another Yet when his own Allegories or Metaphorical Allusions as he now tearms them lay at his Door unretracted hath he been casting the first Stone at another so unjust is he The instance before me and which aâ— length G. K. endeavours here to palliate in his § 4. is in Vni Gr. p. 9. where alluding to Moses his putting a Vail before his Face he saith The Word became Flesh and dwelt in us said John And this inward Appearance of Christ in Flesh is his Appearance iâ— Weakness as Natural and yet Spiritual the Mystery hid within the Vail of Flesh or Natural Spirit Again This is the Body of Christ that is indeed Spiritual but for our Cause descendeth into a Natural Form or Appearance Thus it is sown Natural but is raised Spiritual and thus also we become changed thereby both in the Soul and Body so as being sowâ— Natural we come to be raised Spiritual And indeed there was