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
without Examination And yet pretends in the Title Page hereof that these may at present suffice for a Reply to T. E's and my former and latter Books At this rate it is easie Answering whole Volumes However if the Reader be disposed to see what I have affirmed out of him upon this Subject he may find it in My People called Quakers cleared p. 17 to 22. and Keith against Keith p. 69 to 71. I Answered what he then had offered in Ant. and Sadd. with relation to his distinction of Explicit and Implicit though he having now vamped a new one upon it I have touched upon none but that here and for the old ones refer as above But he adds upon Supposition that any such thing can be found in my Books I retract and renounce it which is Childish all over Can a Man retract or renounce a Passage upon Supposition and not know what the Passage is Or can we suppose him sincere and that he would renounce or retract it if he knew it when he takes so overtly notice of and conceals from his Reader the Passages from whence we have deduced his former Sense with respect to the Knowledge of the History and of the Mystery Again if it be sufficient to say upon Supposition any such thing can be found I retract and renounce it without assigning the Citations given methinks he need not have been these 18 Months poring at it but a few Lines by way of Advertisement with respect to the many Contradictions and Absurdities objected against him out of his Books That upon Supposition they are to be found he retracts and renounceth them might have served For this is the length and breadth of G. K. his Retractation here § 19 His mis-paging a Place in Imm. Rev. hath led him to invert the number of his Paragraphs I shall therefore following the due order of the Pages begin with his § 20. G. K. had said p. 253 254. When the Vital Energy and Influence of the Life of Christ is suspended upon the Soul of a Man and ceaseth to act or operate so as to give any sensible refreshment or enjoyment of it self unto the Soul this is as proper a Death as when a Man dieth for when a Man dieth his Soul dieth not in it self but unto that Fellowship it had with the Body This I have given more largely than G. K. hath done in these who began only from the words This is as proper a Death after having acknowledged not that the passage is unsound for when did he ever say so But that it is unsafely worded he retracts it he saith and instead of that now averrs the unio◠betwixt Body and Soul being broken is more properly a Death the other he takes to be understood rather figuratively than proper And his Reason is the Soul doth wholly cease to act in that Body while it is dead but Christ ceaseth not oft-times to act in a dead Soul by sharp Reproof Conviction for Sin and fresh Visitations in order to quicken and renew it Answ Were I to Argue the Point with him I might tell him what he brings is not in ordine ad idem The Soul 's dying as to its Fellowship with the Body are the tearms of a Position whence it is said to be dead so in like manner its Fellowship with the Life of Christ being broken is that which denominates it spiritually dead But what is this to Christ his acting in it who is not dead whatever the Soul be by Reproof Conviction or renewed Visitations which yet may be for ought that he hath offered to the contrary by even renewed Vivifications or Enlivenings This shews he states not the Matter fair However as an Evidence of the Man 's Mutability and Self-inconsistency and present Darkness I observe that he who so lately unjustly Charged G. W. with Allegorizing away the Birth Death and Sufferings of Christ in the outward would do the like to the inward rendring the breaking of the Union betwixt Soul and Body to be more properly a Death than the other which he now takes to be understood rather figuratively than proper Whereas himself in the instance I gave above § 4. out of Imm. Rev. p. 15 16. to the natural Man as he there calls him his objecting that these the outward Senses of Seeing Hearing c. are only but Figures and Metaphors asserts That the 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 a shadow and concludeth that this whole Visible World with all the Glory in it is but a shadow in respect of the spiritual and inward And will he now say the Name the Denomination is more properly applicable to the Shadow than to the Substance to the Figure than to the thing figured Which yet is the natural tendency of his late halting Retractation so bewildred is the Man in his Undertakings and driven to his shifts to patch up his late Notions without an effectual disclaiming of his former Writings § 20 So having given us a Citation out of Imm. Rev. p. 256. where he had said Christ according to his Spiritual Birth in the Saints is the Seed of the Woman which yet of late he will not allow us to say he betakes himself to this silly shift that he did understand it but Allegorically and by way of Allusion and never intended that Christ was not the Seed of the Woman in the true and proper sense of the words without all Allegory as he was Made of a Woman and Born of the Virgin Mary c. Answ But what then will become of his saying Way Cast up p. 99. Jesus Christ is the same Yesterday to Day and for Ever Was he so only Allegorically by way of Allusion and not really and properly so Or was he Born of the Virgin Mary from the beginning He told us then Yesterday is from the Beginning to Day at present and for Ever in all Ages to come and added 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 though the outward coming of the Man of 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 c. And must all this be turned off as only Allegorical and by way of Allusion Were not himself under a Delusion he would say otherwise Having told us his present and former Belief that by Gen. 3.14 Christ's Birth after the Flesh was really intended which we question not for one Scripture may have a Literal and Mystical Sense both real both proper as this hath he adds But this Allegorical Allusion of Christ's Birth in the Saints I did not ground on Gen.
no other way that we could be made Spiritual who were Natural but that Christ Jesus who was and is Spiritual should become so to speak Natural Hence he is called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e the Word Innaturalized c. This I have given more largely than G. K. hath done in this § and leave it to the Reader to judge whether the Allegory be not stretched upon the Tenters Yet hence he bids uâ— note Though he deny not the Flesh of Christ in the inward in an Allegorical and Metaphorical Sense but he once owned it to be a perfect substantial Birth Imm. Rev p. 12. as I have observed already yet he freely acknowledgeth he hath unduly and improperly applied that place John 1.14 and 1 Tim. 3.16 to the Flesh of Christ in the inward both here and in Way cast up p. 133 134. And that though he might possibly excuse it to be only said by way of Allusion yet even in that respect he retracts it as improper he will not say unsound it seems Answ But doth he also remember that before he had pretended to retract it that he had blamed another though without a cause for what himself it seems by this Concession was culpable of Was he then rectus in Curiâ fit to impeach others if they had deserved it while himself an Offender in that which he charged others with Or is it not hence plain that he was more quick-sighted abroad than at home Fastning that as a Deduction from others allegorizing of Scripture viz. an allegorizing AWAY Christ's Birth Death c. which he would be loath should be imputed to him as the Consequence of his own So injurious a Detracter is he § 5 Now from his saying Vni Gr. p. 9. This is sown Natural to which he addeth in a Parenthesis viz. the Divine Seed while he omits what he had said of our being changed thereby both in Soul and BODY so as being sown Natural to be raised Spiritual but is raised Spiritual he bids us Note § 5. This is but an Allusion and was no wise intended in prejudice of the Resurrection of the Body for in this same Book p. 70. I plainly assert the Resurrection of the Body as a thing not yet attained by the deceased Saints Answ Although he hath been so far from granting it to us in the like case but branded us as Atheists Antichrists and Sadducees upon this very account yet I do allow that as there are Celestial Bodies and Bodies Terrestrial 1 Cor. 15 40. So that the asserting the raised Bodies to be Spiritual is not in prejudice of a bodily Resurrection Yet I find it is not enough for him to say in his own behalf that because Allusions in many cases are not safe he wisheth he had not used it in this case but he must tag a Slander at the end of it viz. That some great Preachers among a sort of Quakers that are turned his Adversaries do WHOLLY apply ALL that is said 1 Cor. 15. of the Resurrection to the inward rising of the Soul or Seed within And that one of their Ministers whom he names not could not be persuaded by him that it was meant of the Resurrection of the Body after Death To all which I say I less question his Malice than his Veracity a Story supported only by the Allegation of a professed Adversary Therefore if he would be believed he must both name the Persons and bring a better Voucher For I will assure him he having so often laid to our Charge what we never so much as thought of and that even after our denying it and putting him upon the Proof that I shrewdly suspect he hath done no better by them whom he would fasten this Accusation upon § 6 To what he had said Vni Gr. p. 20. That by that which may be known of God Rom. 1.19 is meant the Gospel he in § 6. tells us he still holds that in a figurative way of Synecdoche it may be called Gospel or as the word Gospel may be extended to a more general Signification than is commonly used in Scripture he will not deny Answ A figurative way of Synecdoche Why what way of Synecdoche doth he know that is not Figurative as much as he pretends to Learning He would have paid us off I trow if we had committed such a Blunder Again he doth not here deny that the word Gospel may not be extended to a more general Signification than iâ— commonly used in Scripture So then the Debate iâ— not it seems whether by that which may be know 〈◊〉 of God be understood the Gospel but whether thaâ— Signification be not more than what is commonly maâ—â— he doth not say always but commonly used in Scripture And so it is the common Acceptation only of the word aâ— used in Scripture that this Legomachist or Word pecker is contending about who yet scorns to admit he is any way doctrinally unsound but only with respect an undue application of a Scripture or two now and then will afford to emit a Retractation or Correction And even of them he is very chary After the same manner he in what follows retracts his undue application of these places of Scripture viz. Rom. 1.16 Col. 1.23 1 Tim. 3.16 for he names no other here to the inward Principle as to what it did or doth discover and reveal universally in all Men and particularly in such of the Gentiles to whom the Gospel was not outwardly preached Which still relates to and is bounded by the words undue application but whether the Gospel hath not been preached to the Gentiles who have not been under any outward Administration of the Gospel which is a Doctrinal Point he resolves us not as if he designed nothing less than Plainness Therefore I shall give a touch of what he hath formerly delivered argumentatively upon this subject out of Vni Gr. p. 28 29. and not yet retracted Who having said it is evident that this inward Principle was the very Principle of the Gospel in them enforceth it thus If the Gentiles shall be judged according to the Gospel then the Gospel behoeved in some measure to be manifest unto them for no Man shall be judged according to that which is not made manifest This is solid Reasoning beyond an 〈◊〉 Application of a Scripture or two of which more I shall offer at the close of this § Now he tells us Vpon a diligent Search into the Holy Scriptures he finds that in all places in the New Testament where the word Gospel is used it signifieth the Doctrine of Salvation by the promised Messiah that was outwardly TO COME of which the inward Principle is but a part Answ Here he is out again for the New Testament being written not when Christ was outwardly TO COME but after he was outwardly come the word Gospel there when it signifieth the Doctrine of Salâ— by the plentiful 〈…〉 come not as 〈…〉 so positive that in 〈…〉 where the
Expressions might not be so much from his own Experience as his Master Plato 's Writings or allowing he might have some true Experience of a Divine Contact or Vnion it was in some transient way like a glance or slash of Lightning Answ If G. K. will allow Plato to have had the Divine Spiritual Contact Union c. himself must prove beyond probabilities and may-be's that Plato had Faith in Christ yea even in Christ Crucified and Raised again to wit such a degree of Faith as was accompanied with a Divine Union such an Union which in the Quotation given out of Ant. and Sadd above he denies to have been given to the Pious Gentiles or to Cornelius who had not that Faith And if that could be done and Plato could be proved to be more than a Speculative Philosopher is it not pretty fair that G. K. even when denying that Cornelius of whom the Holy Scripture give so large a Character as a Devout Man one that feared God whose Prayer and Alms were come up as a Memorial before God Acts 10.24 had the Holy Ghost in his Gentile state should admit Plato might have it and that by Union Was Plato a better Man than Cornelius Or is not G. K. worse than either A very Changeling in Religion And yet stiff in defending he is not so Nay Plotinus himself a Writer against Christians shall have so much of G. K's good word though Cornelius go without it as that he will not deny he had not this Union at least in a transient way A sign that they who write against Christians a Work himself hath lately taken in hand have more of his Favour than the Pious Gentiles But he hath not spun his Thread fine enough yet so that if the word Union will not fetch him off but he be hampered there in p. 36. he will riveit it with the words permanent and lasting inward residence abiding and then he vaunts saying It is great Ignorance in his late Opposers not to understand how the Spirit of God who is holy may work in the Hearts of the Gentiles and Vnbelievers but we were speaking not of Gentiles and Unbelievers indefinitely but of Cornelius and the Pious Gentiles yet hath no inward residence or abiding Vnion or Communion with them but such only who have Faith in Christ Answ The words fore-cited viz. MOST INWARD UNION AND COMMUNION cut the Nerves of this New Exposition for what can be so if not that which is a permanent lasting abiding Residence and that in the Pious Gentiles But to mislead his Reader as he adds so also he substracts at pleasure yet gives it as our Inference For besides the word Pious which he left out as if the Debate had been only of the Vnbelieving Gentiles he here speaks of Faith in Christ not of Faith in Christ Crucified his own tearms when he denied Cornelius to have had that Holy Ghost as if there had been two Holy Ghosts which was a peculiar Gift to Believers in Christ Crucified and Raised again and not to every Believer in Christ indefinitely to whom the History thereof had not been revealed All which shews the Man is a meer Shuffler seeking to reconcile his former with his latter Sentiments instead of retracting either by indirect means adding to and taking from the Premises at pleasure and yet giving them as if they were even so stated what we had alledged to him A Work ill becoming a Scholar to such Illiterate Antagonists as â—e would render us But his Cause and Management are a kin § 10 Waving then any Doctrinal Discussing of the Point for the Matter before me is a Consideration of the Incongruity and Incoherence of his Contradictory Assertions and the Defectiveness of his false Covers instead of shewing wherein the Scriptures alledged by him do not answer his purpose I come to consider the next trifling Objection as he also calls it we have made but where he saith not I had in my Keith against Keith p. 107 108. quoting him out of Presb and Ind. Chur. p. 111 112. shewed this Notion there that Men who had not the express Knowledge and Faith of Christ Crucified WHEN LIVING might have it at or after Death to wit in their passing through the Valley of shadow of Death favoured that of Purgatory as in my People called Quakers Cleared c. p. 31 to 33. and else where I proved what he held with respect to that of the Transmigration of Souls Now to obviate both these he alledgeth a passage out of his Pretended Antidote p. 115 116. which Book I know not how to come by That all that go to Christ in Heaven after Death must have an express Knowledge of Christ in Heaven Whence he Queries both whether the Souls now in Heaven can be without all Knowledge of Christ and whether the Souls of Plato and Socrates whom farr be it from him he saith to suppose they are not in Heaven are still without all express Knowledge of Christ Answ If the Faith the Gentiles have will carry them to Christ in Heaven they are well enough We doubt not but their Knowledge there will be compleat nor do we think when they are once there they will be sent back again for want of an express Knowledge before they came thither However I thought before this great Philosopher arose that the Faith and Knowledge that carried me to Christ in Heaven was Saving Knowledge and that if I had not my Saving Faith and Knowledge here I should never come thither Thus to extricate himself from an Imputation of holding the Notion of a Purgatory on which he was like to be stranded he alledgeth another as unsound i. e. They shall have their express Knowledge of Christ in Heaven the tendency of which as it is a Procrastination a putting off the day of Salvation so it contradicts the Scriptures which say TO DAY if ye will hear his voice harden not yâ—â— hearts Heb. 3.7 8. NOW is the day of Salvation 2 Cor 6.2 Thus he shews his unsoundness in what follows his Malice by insinuating if some of his Opposers whom he names not think there is no Christ in Heaven having any bodily Existence it 's no wonder they think the Saints in Heaven have no knowledge of him In which he is both Injurious and Detractive as well as Self-inconsistent in his malitious Charge once vented by his Brother Apostate Chr. Lodowick who then defended that it was not true and quoted a Book of G. W's called Malice of Ind. Agent p. 17. and another written by some Friends called Testimony for the Man Christ Jesus which p. 4. cited W. P. on that behalf wherein both G. W. W. P. and those Friends assert the Man Christ's Existence in his glorified Body in Heaven see G. K. his Christ Faith p. 12 13. as he is also in suggesting we think the Saints have no knowledge of Christ in Heaven which I remember not to have heard from him before and is
Death So foully hath he prevaricated in wresting his words to what they will not bear nor were not designed to bear when given He goes on This was never intended by me to lâ—ssen or obscure that great Truth of the Gospel That the Man Christ is the Promised Seed of Abraham in the true literal Sense and without all Allegory as he was born of the Blessed Virgin and that Promised Seed of the Woman that should bruise the Serpents head Answ What he intended is best interpreted by what he said except he would perswade us that he said one thing meant another I shall not therefore think much to transcribe a Passage or two already given in our former Books and not yet retracted by him In his Way cast up p. 99. he saith Though 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 and destroyed him that had the Power of Death that is the Devil And in Way to the City of God p. 125. Even from the Beginning yea upon Man's Fall God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself and Christ was manifest in the HOLY SEED inwardly and stood in the way to ward off the Wrath of God from the Sinners and Unholy that it might not come upon them to the uttermost during the day of their Visitation For even at Man's Fall the Seed of the Woman was given not only to bruise the Serpent's Head but also to be a Lamb or Sacrifice to attone and pacifie the Wrath of God towards Men. And also p. 128. he Queries Why might not Christ suffer in Men before his outward Coming as he doth now suffer in them long after it Again The Seed hath been the SAME in all Ages and hath had its Sufferings under by and for the Sins of Men in them all for the removing and ABOLISHING of them This I bring not to entertain a strife about words but seeing he absolutely told us what he ever intended I demand the Intent hereof whether he did not then acknowledge Christ's Appearance as a Seed and the Effects thereof both to reconcile attone and pacifie the Wrath of God towards Men and also to bruise the Head of the Serpent was previous to that of his being born of the Blessed Virgin the which he knows to be that which we have all along pinched him with out of his former Writings and which to this day he hath neither retracted nor defended § 13 Whereas he had said Imm. Rev. p. 87. ' The Soul speaks to God in the Son Through him not at a distance but near He now § 13. saith His Sense was not at a discontinued distance but both near and afar off Answ This idle Shift will not help him he is positive he is not a distance but near and adds Where his living Drawings are felt his eternal Power is felt making way for the Soul unto God breaking through all the Powers of Darkness c. And is that Presence wherein the livings Drawings are felt c. at a distance absent not near even within say I Yea Christ is near as Mediator He is Man's Advocate unto God and there is none to intervene or come betwixt God and the Soul but Christ the alone Mediator to whom God speaks in his Son said G. K. but a little above and in p. 88. speaks of the Appearance of Jesus to mediate in Men which could not be spoke of the Body received of the Virgin and now glorified in Heaven for that is at a distance not near but of that Presence which is not at a distance but near even of him who is the high and holy one that inhabits Eternity with him also that is of a contrite and humble Spirit Isa 57.15 Nor will his Notion of a discontinued distance help him but rather shew he is a meer Shuffler First for that it is no Scripture Phrase Yet expresly delivered in the Scriptures in plain express Scripture-terms therefore by his own Rule Truths Defence p. 170 171. should not be required by one sort from another as an Article of Faith or Doctrine or Principle of the Christian Religion 2ly However it may hold in the Mathematical Science with respect to a direct Line which extends from the place near to another remote and afar off yet here Vbiquity being an Attribute not only of the Deity but even of the Man Christ according to his own Assertion Way Cast up p. 130 131. and not yet retracted so that God and Christ are every where not confined or circumscribed to a remoteness as in a direct Line where one part is near the other afar off this distinction will not hold 3ly What he alledges out of Acts 17.27 where Men are bid to seek the Lord if happily they may feel after him and find him reacheth not his purpose viz. That he is not at a discontinued distance It being spoken of the Vnfaithful and even to them God was not afar off however they might be far from him so as to feel and find him For that which may be inwardly felt and found is not far off But hear him again I did not intend in the least saith he by asserting the Mediation and Intercession of the Mediatory Spirit of Christ in the Saints to deny or derogate from Christ's Mediation and Intercession without us in Heaven Answ Neither do we But what doth he retract then if it be still good Doctrine that Christ is Mediator in his inward Appearance in Man as well as in Heaven What hath he been hitherto contending with us about in his several envious Pamphlets Will he give up the Cause at last and cry Peccavi for his fierce opposing and slandering us as denying Christ's Mediatorship upon this very foot rather than retract this Passage Or will he do neither but twist and twine and wriggle in constant Inconstancy and neither plainly renounce nor plainly defend what he hath so plainly asserted formerly § 14 He would perswade us if he could § 14. that by these words Imm. Rev. p. 99. Jesus Christ revealed in Man is the Foundation of the true Church He did not mean only and alone the Light Within but that the true Knowledge and Faith of Christ as he is both God and Man and who as Man died rose and ascended c. is grounded upon him as inwardly revealed c. Answ He was not speaking of Jesus Christ revealed TO Man but of his being revealed IN Man which is the Scope of his Argument from p. 99 to 129. Who in p. 101. saith Christ must be revealed by the Father before he became a Foundation this is that which buildeth which edifieth the effectual Working in every part the Revelation of the Arm of the Lord IN Man's Heart And p. 103. having told us that Whatsoever Church