though that Book not treating so directly of that Subject hath not so many Instances in it as are in other Books of his In that very Page 47. out of which he takes his first Quotation against G. Whitehead upon Iohn 17.5 And now O Father glorifie me with thine own self with the Glory which I had with thee before the World was G. Whitehead says Was not he the true Christ the Son of God that so prayed unto the Father And in the same Page just after the Words G. Keith carps at upon the Baptist's saying Which Word was God yet he was not a Saviour as he was the Word or Creator of the World c. G. Whitehead replies How then doth He say I am God a Saviour c. And in Page 48. upon the Baptist's saying He was not a Saviour as the Root and Creator of Man but as he was to be the Offspring of Man c. G. Whitehead Answer'd Do but mark the Confusion and Darkness of this Man who hath denyed that God the Word or Creator of Man is a Saviour and Christ as he was the Root and Creator of Man and as He was the Eternal Son of God from the Days of Eternity he hath denied to be a Saviour but as he was the Off-spring of Man Do but Eye the tendency of this Doctrine thus to deny the Son of God to be a Saviour whereas it is through the Son of God that Eternal Life is received Iohn 3.16 And God's Love was manifest in sending his only begotten Son into the World So here the Efficacy of the Son of God and the Eternal Word is proved against the Baptist's false and unscripture like Distinction It was in the Year 1668. that this Book was Printed In the Year 1669. G. Whitehead writ another Book which I mentioned before called The Divinity of Christ and Vnity of the Three that bear Record in Heaven with the blessed End and Effects of Christ's Appearance coming in the Flesh Suffering and Sacrifice for Sinners Confessâ—d and Vindicated by his Followers called Quâ—kers In that Book between the Epistle and the first Chapter giving a brief Account of what we own touchâ—ng the Divinity and Godhead of Christ he says That there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and that these Three are one both in Divinity Divine Substance and Essence not three Gods nor separate Beings That they are called by several Names in Scripture yet they are Eternally One in Nature and Being One Infinite Wisdom one Power one Love one Light and Life c. Then adds We never denied the Divinity of Christ as most injuriously we have been accused by some prejudiced Spirits who prejudicially in their perverse Contests have sought occasion against us as chiefly because when some of us were in Dispute with some Presbyterians we could not own their unscriptural Distinction and Terms The Father's begetting the Son and the Spirit 's being sent we witness to and own Yea the Son of God is the brightness of his Glory and the express Image of his Substance So the Manifestation of the Father of the Son and Holy Spirit we confess to c. And that Iesus Christ being in the Form of God thought it no robbery to be equal with God and yet as a Son was sent of the Father c. So that the Deity or Divinity of Christ in his Eternal Infinite Glorious State we really confess and own In the Book it self p. 18. He says He Christ was equal with God in Glory before the World was Again p. 19. It was never any Design or Plot of ours to endeavour to prejudice the Minds of any against the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost as falsly and blasphemously we are accused by this our prejudiced Opposer Again p. 22. We never disowned the Deity of Christ or Holy Ghost as falsly and injuriously is insinuated against us Again p. 26. Charging us with designing to blast and overthrow the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost upon which Blasphemers and Blasphemy and damnable Speeches are hideously cast upon us but most unjustly and falsly For no such design ever had we as either to blast or overthrow the Deity of Christ or Holy Spirit we having openly professed and declared the contrary both in Words and Writings Again p. 32. That the Divine Essence or Godhead can be but one and this in each of the Three we never denied Again p. 38. I have heard of some beyond the Sea who were accused with denying the Divinity of Christ but I know of none here that either deny the Divinity of Christ or him to be of one Substance with the Father Again p. 41. Christ being the Brightness of the Glory of God and the express Image of his Divine Substance as also truly called the Son of his Love c. Second Part of the same Book p. 3. We never denied the Deity or Divinity of either Father Word or Holy Ghost Again p. 39. His Opponent T. Danson having charged the Quakers with denying Christ to be God G. Whitehead Answers This is an apparent slander cast upon us as our Books and Writings do shew that we never denied Christ to be God or his Divinity c. Again p. 54. As to Socinianism as he calls it we are neither discipled in it nor baptized into Socinus his Name neither do we own him for our Author or Pattern in those things which we believe and testifie nor yet do we own several Principles which I. O. relates as from Socinus and principally that of Christ's being God but not the most High God It was never our Principle for tho' we do confess to his Condescension Humility and Suffering in the Days of his Flesh wherein he appeared in the form of a Servant being made in Fashion as a Man Yet his being in the Form of God and being glorified with the same Glory he had with the Father before the World began and his being God over all blessed for ever These things we professed and believed in the beginning and do the same still it never being in our Hearts in the least to oppose or desert them Again p. 58. As to a great part of his I. O's Book wherein he goes about to prove the Divinity or Deity of Christ c. We are unconcerned therein having never denied Christ's Divinity Here one would think were Instances enough of G. Whitehead's and ours owning and confessing Christ to be God to make G. Keith blush for charging him with denying it But because I know G. Keith hath too far and too long abandoned Modesty and Vertue to be easily drawn to blush I will add some more out of another Book written by G. Whitehead and Printed the same Year 1669. called Christ ascended above the Clouds c. in Answer to one Iohn Newman a Baptist who having it seems asserted that The Word was in the beginning but Christ was in time not till he had taken
of a pretended Contradiction between W. Penn and I. Whitehead is very Idle in it self and wicked in him and the worse for that he urged it formerly in his Book called The true Copy c. And I answered then in mine called Truth Defended p. 131. which he takes no notice of as I did also answer in that Book much of what he hath now urged concerning Christ and his being the promised Seed from p. 113. to p. 123. Where also I gave several Quotations out of G. Keith's Bôoks shewing most plainly that he hath maintained the very same things he now condemns in others and yet will not condemn in himself as particularly in his Book called The Way cast up where Sect. 8. p. 93. In answer to an Adversary's Charge that we deny Jesus the Son of Mary to be the alone true Christ. He first answers This is a false Accusation We own no other Jesus Christ but him that was born of the Virgin Mary who as concerning the Flesh is the Son of Mary and the Son of David and the Seed of Abraham Then adds p. 93. And yet he was the true Christ of God before he took Flesh and before he was the Son of Mary or David or of Abraham For his being Born of the Virgin Mary made him not to be Christ as if he had not been Christ before But he was Christ before even from the beginning as says heâ— I shall prove out of Scripture c. And having brought divers Scriptures and Arguments from p. 93. to p. 99. to prove that Christ Jesus as Man was from the beginning and had from the beginning an Heavenly Manhood and Spiritual Flesh and Blood He there concludes thus This is the promised Seed which God promised to our Parents after the Fall and actually gave unto them even the Seed of the Woman that should bruise the Head of the Serpent And therefore tho' the outward coming of the Man Christ was deferred according to his outward Birth in the Flesh for many Ages yet from the beginning this Heavenly man the promised Seed did inwardly come into the Hearts of those that believed in him and bruised the Head of the Serpent c. Here G. Keith not only asserts that this Heavenly Man Christ was the promised Seed and did from the beginning inwardly come into the Hearts of Believers and bruised the Head of the Serpent but also calls him the Seed of the Woman and says God not only promised him but actually gave him even the Seed of the Woman that should bruise the Serpents Head unto our Parents after the Fall many Ages before his outward Birth in the Flesh. Surely he that writ this had no cause to quarrel with W. Penn for saying Christ's Body strictly considered as such was not the Seed of Promise G. Keith had more need to have reconciled himself to himself if he could in these two opposite Expressions of his viz. That God gave the promised Seed even the Seed of the Woman actually to our Parents after the Fall many Ages before his outward Birth in the Flesh Way cast up p. 99. And That Christ did not become the Seed of the Woman according to the Sense of Gen. 3. Vntil the fulness of time that he was made of a Woman True Copy of a Paper p. 20. And he should have done well to have informed his Reader how God did actually give unto our Parents after the Fall so many Ages before Christ's outward Birth in the Flesh the Seed he promised them Gen. 3. Even the Seed of the Woman And yet Christ not be the Seed of the Woman according to Gen. 3. until so many Ages after he was actually given as the Seed of the Woman This is part of what I said to him in my former Book called Truth Defended p. 117 118. which rather than Answer he chose to cut himself out new work at Turners-Hall He pretends he did not Answer my Books in Print because he had not time to write nor outward Ability to Print I have shewed the Falshood of that pretence in the fore part of this Book yet let me now ask If that had been true why did he not then at his Meeting at Turners-Hall Answer my Books viva voce which then lay at his door unanswered and both Refute them if he could and acquit himself from those many Clinching Quotations I had therein hâ—mpered him with out of his own Books by explaining defending or Retracting them This I think every considerate Person will judge had been more properly his Province than wholly over-looking this to spend his time in impeaching Others by Renewing his old Baffled Charges before he had cleared himself from being guilty of the same Errors as he calls them which he had charged others with For if they whom he hath charged were as bad as he endeavours to make them yet he of all men is not fit to charge them till he has acquitted himself from the Imputation he lies under of being guilty of the same things This is so plain a Case that it may be hoped upon his next Indiction of such a Mock Meeting at Turners-Hall or elsewhere some of his Auditors when they are together will think fit to put him upon this just and necessary Work and I had like to have said hold him to it but that I consider he will be held to nothing However to furnish any such a little further with matter of that kind to invite him to I will not think much to transcribe another Quotation or two of his which I gave him in my former Book p. 119 120. The first is taken out of his Appendix to his Book of Immediate Revelation p. 256. where speaking of the spiritual Generation and Birth of Christ in us he says Thus we become the Mother of Christ in a spiritual sense or according to the Spirit as the Virgin Mary was his Mother after the Flesh. And this Spiritual Mystery Christ himself did teach in the days of his Flesh when he said Whosoever shall do the Will of my Father which is in Heaven the same is my Brother and Sister and Mother Mat. 12.50 And thus says G. Keith Christ according to his spiritual Birth in the Saints is the Seed of the Woman for that the Saints are the Woman that bring him forth after the Spirit and are his Mother as Mary brought him forth after the Flesh and after the Spirit also so that she was the Mother of Iesus in a double respect for as she brought him forth in her Body so she brought him forth in her Soul otherwise he could not have been her Saviour c. Here G. Keith calls Christ the Seed of the Woman according to his spiritual Birth in the Saints and yet quarrels with W. Penn for saying The Seed Christ must be inward and spiritual Again In the Way cast up p. 102. he says For indeed seeing he Christ is called as really Man before his ouâ—ward Birth in the
that way But that which W. Penn reputed absurd was that a Body should be said to be changed from an Earthly or Animal Body to an Heavenly Body and yet after such change continue to be the same Earthly or Animal Body that it was before This is that of which W. Penn said How is it possible that it should be the same and not the same And if a thing can yet be the same and notwithstanding changed for shame let us never much so make stir against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation And indeed as easily may G. Keith defend the one as the other And if among those of the Protestant Parties he now Courts he should miss of the End of his turning from the Quakers it is not altogether unlikely but that he may try what Earnings he can make among them that hold that Doctrine He says It is not Transubstantiation if I say a Saint's Body is the same at the Resurrection for Substance as it was when it went into the Grave leaving the faces or drossie Part of it behind I say that is beside the Question But the Question is Whether a Natural or Carnal Body that is a Body consisting of Flesh Blood and Bones can be raised out of the Grave without Flesh Blood and Bones and yet be properly and truely said to be the same natural or carnal Body that it was while it consisted of Flesh Blood and Bones For if he would argue from the Substance of a Body he should first have defined what the Substance of a Natural or Carnal Body is that it might have been agreed whether the Faces or drossy Part as he calls it by which I understand him to mean the Flesh Blood and Bones be the Substance or any Part of the Substance of a Natural or Carnal Body He seems to hold that it is not For he blames W. Penn for holding that Carniety is essential to a Carnal Body that is that Flesh is essential to a Body of Flesh and he says thereupon see how contrary this is to common Sense and Vnderstanding But sure I think every one that has but common Sense and Understanding may have ground to Question Whether he has not lost his To manifest how contrary it is to common Sense and Understanding and withal to give his Auditors to understand that he is not only a mickle Philosopher but a little Piece of an Hen-Housewife too he says There is no VVoman that sets an Hen to breed Chickens but knows the contrary You know says he the Substance of the Egg the VVhite and Yolk by the force and heat of the Hen sitting on the Egg is changed into a Chicken Is here sâ—â—s he any Transubstantiation First observe he grants the White and the Yolk to be the Substance of the Egg. Next that this Substance of the Egg the VVhite and the Yolk is changed into a Chicken Now unless he will affirm that the Substance of a Chicken after it comes to be a Chicken is the VVhite and Yolk I see not how he will avoid a Transubstantiation that is a changing of the Substance of the Egg which was VVhite and Yolk into the Substance of a Chicken which of all the Chicken I have eaten of I always took to be Flesh Blood and Bones If he thinks otherwise and it should ever happen that he and I should be Fâ—llow-Commoners at a Chicken let him but let me have what I call the Substance of it and I will readily resign all the rest to him even the VVhite and the Yolk if he can find it and in requital of his Courtesie some part and the most solid of that which I call the Substance too which will not be unsuitable to a Cynical Philosopher But whereas he makes himself a little sport with VV. Penn's Philosophy he might have considered that what VV. Penn writ on that subject was not to entertain the Schools but to inform common and vulgar Capacities and therefore he handled it Scripturally not Philosophically using the Terms he writ in according to the ordinary Signification and common Acceptation of them What he says of a Chymical Operation I take to be but a Chymical VVhimsie in his Head or a Chimera which he pleases viz. That a gross Body of Herbs or other Substance can by Chymical Operation be made so subtile volatile and spiritual without any Transubstantiation or Change of the Substance that a Glass can scarce confine or hold it I don't think many have that understanding that he pretends to have of Chymical Operations That a subtile volatile spirituous Substance may by Chymical Operation be extracted from a gross Substance or Body of Herbs is easily apprehensible And that which is so extracted is usually called the Spirit of that Body out of which it is drawn not the Body it self But that the gross Body it self of Herbs or other Substance can be made so subtile and volatile as scarce to be contained in a Glass requires better Proof to gain belief than his bare saying it Besides if the gross Body be made so subtile and volatile as he says how is the Faeces or drossy part left behind as he says But that which must make his Chymical Conceit bear any right Parallel with that Notion of the Resurrection which VV. Penn opposed must be that this gross Body of Herbs which he says may be made so subtile and volatile must still remain the same gross Body of Herbs that it was before notwithstanding it s almost unconfinable subtility by Chymical Operation as they hold the Body that dies and is laid in the Grave to be changed in the Resurrection and yet to be the same Body after the Resurrection as it was when it died and was laid in the Grave This is that which VV. Penn compared to the Absurdity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Folly of which Doctrine not to meddle here with the Impiety of it lies in this that the Patrons of that Opinion affirm the very Substance of the Bread and VVine after the Words of Consecration as they call them are spoken to be really changed into the very Substance of Christ's Body and yet the Accidents of the Bread and Wine enforce the Senses to confess that the Substance of the Bread and VVine remains in them as before I perceive he has done and that quickly with his Third Head about the Resurrection Which as he has stated it he needed not at all have attempted to prove our denial of For it is a known thing that as we have always asserted a Resurrection of Bodies so we have always denied the Body which shall be raised to be the same Body that died with respect to Grosness and Carniety and that 1. From the Principles of our Opposers about it who hold that it is wonderfully changed and therefore it is a wonder it should be the very same 2. From the Reason and Nature of the thing which will not admit a Natural Carnal Body to be a suitable
some of the principal Books he picks his Cavils out of against G. Whitehead and W. Penn. Now let us see how G. Keith deals with G. Whitehead in the Quotation he brings against him Observe that first he says See what is here said by G. Whitehead That there is not an outward Coming of Christ to Iudge the Quick and Dead therefore look well to his Quotation and mind to find those words in it He begins the Quotation thus Moreover Christ said the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his Angels c. There G. Keith stops with an c. Citing Mat. 1â— 27 28 Luke 9.26 27. But leaves out the remaining words in those Scriptures which in Matthew follow thus And then he shall Reward every Man according to his Works Verily I say unto you There be some standing here which shall not taste of Death till they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom Why G. Keith left out these words I may shew anon Now he goes on with G. Whitehead's words thus Now what is that Glory of the Father in which his Coming is Is it Visible to the Carnal Eye And when was that coming to be Is it now to be looked for outwardly But farther we do acknowledge the several comings of Christ according to the Scriptures both that in the Flesh and that in the Spirit which is Manifest in several degrees as there is a growing from Glory to Glory But three Comings of Christ not only that in the Flesh at Ierusalem and that in the Spirit but also another coming in the Flesh yet to be expected we do not Read of but a Second Coming without Sin unto Salvation which in the Apostles Days was looked for this latter Clause he cited before in his Gross Errror p. 2. Now Reader observe First That those words G. Keith charges to be here said by G. Whitehead viz That there is not an outward Coming of Christ to judge the Quick and the Dead are not here That 's but an Inference of G. Keith's own making though he unfairly pretended G. VVhitehead said it Next he left out those words in the Text Mat. 16.28 Verily I say unto you There are some standing here which shall not taste of Death until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom Upon which words those Questions of G. Whitehead were grounded When was that coming to be Is it now to be looked for outwardly For that coming there spoken of by Christ Mat. 16.27 could not be meant of his coming at the end of the World because it was to begin in that very Age some then living and present with him were to see it before they died There are some standing here which shall not taste of Death until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom By his Kingdom saith Beza is to be understood the Glory of his Ascension and what followeth thereof Ephes. 4.10 or the Preaching of the Gospel In the latter part of the Quotation G. Whitehead had respect to the Baptists Notion of an Outward Personal Coming of Christ in a Fleshly Appearance to reign on Earth a thousand years And it is with relation to such a manner of coming in an outward Body of Flesh to reign Personally on Earth for a certain time as an Outward King that he there said after he had acknowledged the several Comings of Christ according to the Scriptures both that in the Flesh and that in the Spirit But three Comings of Christ not only that in the Flesh at Ierusalem and that in the Spirit but also another coming in the Flesh yet to be expected we do not read of And indeed how should he if G. Keith says true Way cast up p. 131. that That Body which was crucified on the Cross at Ierusalem and is now ascended and glorified in Heaven is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure ethereal or heavenly Body But that G. Whitehead's words there related to such a Coming of Christ in an outward Body of outward Flesh visible to Carnal Eyes therein to reign as an outward King after an outward manner a thousand years on Earth which some Baptists call the Personal Reign of Christ may be gather'd also from another Book of G. Whitehead's called Christ Ascended written near the same time in Answer to Iohn Newman a Baptist where having in p. 22. treated of Christs coming so as that his Appearance shall be universally seen both to the Joy of the Righteous and universal Conviction and Condemnation of the wicked c. he speaks p. 23. of the disappointment of them who are expecting that Christs second Coming or Appearance to Salvation will be a Personal Coming and his Reign a Personal Reign which word Personal they add to the Scripture and do they not herein shew their Carnal Expectations said he G. Keith has another Cavil in this page which also he had in p. 3. of his Gross Error against G. Whitehead about 1 Thes. 4.17 which he says G. Whitehead denies to be meant of his Personal Coming G. Whitehead then it seems did not deny it to be meant of Christs Coming and of his Coming to Iudgment but that which he excepted against was such a Carnal sort of Personal Coming as the Baptists expected him to come in and as is mentioned before To shew the Baptists the folly of which he asks them from those words of the Apostle both in the 15th and 17th Verses We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord if they did live and remain to a Personal Coming of Christ in the Clouds yea or nay Which G. Keith sophistically calls a Sophism to wrest it to his inward Coming Whereas G. Whitehead did not turn it to his inward Coming nor did he use the word inward in that place at all But he shewed by the Description Iohn gave of him when he saw him in the midst of the Seven Golden Candlesticks that such an outward Coming as the Baptists looked for him in in such a Personal Appearance as should be visible to the carnal Eye was not suitable to him But whereas G. Keith says both in his gross Error p. 5. and here also The Apostle's using the word we there we that remain is an Enallage Personae putting we for They like that of Iames Therewith bless we God and therewith curse we Men Iames 3 9. Though he delivers it positively and like a Dictator yet I see not why he must needs be believed Why might not the Apostle speak in the first Person we as supposing that great and extraordinary Appearance and Coming of Christ the certain time of which no Man knew Mat. 24.36 was so near at hand that it might probably fall out in his Life-time For as the Apostles accounted the Times they lived in the Last Days or Last Times and ordinarily called them so Heb. 1.2 and 9.26 1 Pet. 1.20 1 Iohn 2.18 so they thought the End of
said he produced those Manuscripts as a Nip for his conceited Folly asked in a Parenthesis What means he by above six Does he mean six and a half For if they had been seven or eight he might as well have said so as above six This he calls my way of Quibbling which I think was suitable enough to his way of Scribbling Why should such a conceited Philosopher play the Fool and not be told of it He says I tell him he is guilty of Forgery in saying the Yearly Meeting censured any Expressions in his Manuscripts But because he repeats this over and over in the following part of his Narrative I say nothing to it here intending to speak to it once for all when he is got past his Manuscripts which he now says are seven or eight it seems he does not yet know whether however it is more than six and an half and not quite so uncertain as above six Yet I find not that he produced any more than two and those but private Letters from one Man and out of them he read but a piece of each and how truly and fairly he read those Pieces I know not having no Copy to prove them thereby for when they were read at the Yearly Meeting he mentions we could not obtain a Copy of them from him and we have seen but lately how unfair and unjust he was in giving a Passage out of G. Whitehead's Book The Letters he mentions go under the Name of one Iohn Humphreys and the substance of that part he read out of the first Letter is 1. A blaming them that divide Christ and put asunder what God hath joyned together by making such a distinction between Christ within and Christ without as divides Christs Body from his Spirit 2. A censuring G. Keith 's Ten Articles of Faith as relishing too much of Carnality And then says I am grieved to hear some say They did expect to be justified by that Blood that was shed at Ierusalem When G. Keith had read what he thought would serve his purpose he gave over and said I have not read the whole Letter but an intire Paragraph of it And thereupon says So farewel Christ without You divide Christ if you mention Christ without I think he wrongs the Man in the Inference for I take his meaning to be not that the bare mentioning Christ without is a Dividing of Christ but that so to distinguish between Christ within and Christ without as to make two distinct Christs of them whereas Christ within and Christ without is but one Christ this is to divide Christ and this I take to be that which Io. Humphreys did there blame But I would fain know why G. Keith did not read the whole Letter For though I would not be over-confident upon my own Memory of a thing I never heard read but once and that more than two years ago yet I am strongly perswaded there were other Passages in that Letter which was read in the Yearly Meeting that did explain I. Humphreys his meaning in these And I cannot think why G. Keith who is prolix enough at other times should pick out a piece of a Letter only and conceal the rest if he had not found something in the rest that he thought would take off the edge of his Objection against that he took As for those pieces of I. Humphreys Letters which G. Keith hath exposed in his Narrative though I do not hold my self nor the People called Quakers accountable for them or for every thing that particular Persons may write in private Letters yet I charitably hope though I know not the Man that wherein he hath erred it hath rather been in the Expression of his Mind than in his real Intent and Meaning For in that passage of his first Letter wherein he says I am grieved to hear some say they did expect to be justified by that Blood that was shed at Ierusalem I take these words to depend upon that complaint which he had made before of Dividing Christ by that kind of Distinction which some had made between Christ within and Christ without whereby they attributed at least he thought they did that to one part only as distinct and divided from the other which ought in a right sence to be ascribed to both joyntly I am the rather induced to believe this was his meaning from that Passage which G. Keith hath given out of his second Letter which seems to have been written on this occasion wherein he says the word Only should have been put in and that the leaving it out was the Omission of his Pen. Now had that word been in as it seems he intended it should have been the Sentence would have been thus I am grieved to hear some say They did expect to be justified by that Blood Only thaâ— was shed at Ierusalem And then I suppose G. Keith would not have quarrelled with it And though I. Humphreys when he saw how his Meaning was wrested in his first Letter did in his second Letter after he had declared the word Only should have been in and that that was his meaning in contempt of the deceitful and malicious workings of the Adversaries seemed indifferent whether they put in the word only or no saying as G. Keith cites him But however Let Deceit and Malice have its full force and scope upon it and that word only taken off the Conclusion of my Paper c. Yet it seems he did this not as intending thereby to exclude the Blood shed at Ierusalem from having any share or part in our Justification but as believing from his before declared Sense that Christ and consequently his Sacrifice ought not to be divided but taken joyntly that it would appear his Words had the force and import of the Word only and that that was his Meaning though the Word only was through inadvertency left out And therefore he refers to the Words of Christ Iohn 6.63 Which saying says he of our Saviour himself will clear me of your Aspersion So that even from what G. Keith hath thought fit to give of his second Letter it appears that their wresting the Words in his former Letter and inferring therefrom that he wholly excluded the Blood shed at Jerusalem from being concerned in our Iustification he took to be an Aspersion upon him and so called it Now the Words of our Saviour which he referr'd to in Iohn 6.63 are these It is the Spirit that quickeneth the Flesh profiteth nothing In which Words it may not be supposed our Saviour meant that his Flesh or Body as it was in Conjunction with his Spirit and Soul and contained that Divine Life which dwelt in it and was offered up together a compleat Sacrifice to the Father did profit nothing did avail nothing did contribute nothing to the Benefit and Advantage of Man But that the Flesh or Body considered simply of it self and by it self without that Divine Life Soul and Spirit that was in