without us is the Allegory of his Blood within so his Blood within is the Allegory of Christ's Blood without this is as great Nonsense as who would say as Hagar and Sarah were an Allegory of the Two Covenants so the Two Covenants are an Allegory of Hagar and Sarah And thus G. W. and his Brethren stand justly charged with Allegorizing away Christ's outward Birth Sufferings Blood Atonement by making them the Allegory of his Birth Sufferings Blood Atonement made within Men tho' they deny not Christ's Birth Death Blood without simply as Historically related yet seeing they deny the Merit and Efficacy of his Death and Blood without and of what he did and suffered without us they are justly charg'd to Allegorize it away that is to make no other account of it than of the History of Hagar and Sarah and other Types Symbols and Allegories of the Old Testament Besides If Men will be wilful denyers of the Historical Truth of Christ's outward Birth Death Burial Resurrection Ascension according to G. W.'s and his Brethren's way and method of expounding Scripture we have no way to convince them of their Error If we bring Isaiah 9. 6. to prove that Isaiah Prophesied of Christ's Birth and that the Child that should be Born should be both God and Man and his Mother should be a Virgin according to Isaiah 7. 14. And if we bring Isaiah 53. to prove that Christ should be wounded for our Sins be killed be buried and make his grave with the wicked or That Christ should suffer without the Camp they may Answer All these and the like places are to be meant not of any Birth Death or Burial of a Christ without us but of Christ Born Slain and Buried in Men and for their Proof vouch G. W.'s Authority and his Brethren's to confirm it who as above-quoted have expounded these places of Christ Born Slain Buried within Men. But if G. W. will say these and other the like places have two meanings one Outward and Literal and the other Inward and Spiritual to this I say First G. W. in his Voice of Wisdom pag 21. hath severely blamed his Opponent T. D. for giving two meanings to one place I agree to the most Judicious and Orthodox Expositors of Scripture that the Scriptures have but one sense or meaning properly and strictly speaking viz. That the thing principally and properly intended is but one and what other senses or meanings may be put upon some places of Scripture besides that is rather an Allusion or Allegory than the real meaning which so far as we have Scripture warrant is allowed as Paul's calling Hagar and Sarah an Allegory but otherwise is dangerous and in the present case is most Heretical as in G. W.'s and his Brethrens making Christ's Birth Sufferings Death Burial without Men the Allegory and his Birth Sufferings Death Burial within the Reality and Substance or thing principally intended in these places of Scripture That the Spirit of God with his sanctifying Gifts and Graces is called Water of Life and Living Waters whereby God doth really Purify and Cleanse the Hearts and Consciences of the Faithful and that this Work of Sanctification is Inward and Spiritual in them is no part of the Dispute or Controversie for this is not only granted but earnestly taught and pleaded for against Pelagians and others who deny it or at least the necessity of such an inward and spiritual Operation Therefore G. W. in this as in most of his late Defences doth purposely mistake the true Case to hide his vile Heresie as if the debate betwixt him and his Opponents were only about the inward Operations of the Spirit of God for the cleansing and sanctifying the Hearts of the Faithful but this is his ordinary Fallacy The true state of the Question then is this Whether there is any Inward Blood or Water that Christ Crucified in Men lets out or is pressed out of him crucified within them that is the Blood of Atonement is the Price and Ransom and Meritorious Cause of the Remission of our Sins is the satisfactory and propitiatory Offering for Sin either in whole or in part Also whether any such supposed Blood or Water or Spirit thus flowing from Christ as Crucified and Wounded within Men is the meritorious and procuring Cause either of Men's Justification before God or of the saving and sanctifying Graces of the Holy Spirit and whether the Gift of the Holy Spirit given to Believers with the sanctifying Graces thereof proceeds from Christ Crucified within having made the Atonement and Satisfaction by his Blood shed within Risen and Ascended within Sitting at the Right Hand of God within Men making Intercession for them or from Christ as he was crucified without us having made the Atonement and Satisfaction without us by his Blood shed without us Risen and Ascended and sat down at the Right Hand of God without us and there Interceding for us This is the true state of the Controversie all true Christians say that all this is from Christ without us as outwardly Born Crucified Risen Ascended from him thus only considered as without us all Believers have the free gift of the Remission of Sins free Justification freely by God's Grace being the real effect of Christ's Purchase and of the Merit of his Precious Blood and also the Holy Spirit with the sanctifying Gifts and Graces thereof inwardly to renew and sanctifie them So that the Work of Christ or of the Spirit in Believers is not at all either in whole or in part to suffer for our Sins or to procure by way of Merit the pardon of our Sins and our Peace and Reconcliation with God for that 's wholly and only done by Christ without us but to work the sincere Faith of all that he hath done and suffer'd for us without us and give us the Spiritual Knowledge and Comfort of it in our Hearts and Souls The Plaister and healing Medicine of Christ's Body and Blood was prepared for us when he gave his Precious Body to be broken for us and his Blood to be shed for us this was once done and is no more to be doue again Christ having once dyed dyeth no more by the one Offering of himself once only offered without us his Soul Body and Blood he hath intirely and completely prepared the wholsom Medicine and Food of Life for us But now the work of Christ and his Spirit in us is to apply it effectually to us that is to enable us effectually to apply it to our selves for our Eternal Health and Salvation to give us a Spiritual discovery and sight of that living Food a Hunger and Appetite after it and to teach us spiritually by Faith to receive it and feed upon it to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood not by the bodily Mouth but by the Mouth of the Soul which is Faith a true and living Faith wrought in us by the powerful Operation of Christ in us or his Spirit
George Keith's FOURTH NARRATIVE OF HIS PROCEEDINGS AT TURNERS-HALL 1699. WE whose Names are under written having at Mr. Keith's Request and by the Allowance of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London carefully examin'd the Quotations of this Narrative do testifie the Faithfulness of them and that they exactly agree with the Books out of which they are taken And as we commend his Integrity in retracting publickly his Errors and his Christian Zeal for the reducing of his Brethren who are yet entangled with them so we hope they will follow his Example and discern the Perniciousness of their Ways and be led by the Grace of God to the Acknowledgment of the Truth and to the Communion of the Church Z. Isham D. D. Rector of St. Botolph Bishops-gate W. Bedford D. D. Rector of St. George Botolph-Lane R. Altham B. D. Rector of St. Andrew Vndershaft Will. Whitfield Rector of St. Martins at Ludgate J. Adams Rector of St. Alban Woodstreet George Keith's FOURTH NARRATIVE OF HIS PROCEEDINGS AT TURNERS-HALL Divided into Three Parts Detecting the Quakers Gross Errors Vile Heresies and Antichristian Principles oppugning the Fundamentals of Christianity by clear and evident Proofs in above Two Hundred and Fifty Quotations faithfully taken out of their Books and read at three several Meetings the 11th the 18th and 23d of Jan. 1699. before a great Auditory of Judicious Persons Ministers and others More particularly discovering the Fallacious and Sophistical Defences of George Whitehead Joseph Wyeth and seven Quakers of Colchester in their late Books on all the several Heads contained in the printed Advertisement To which is prefix'd The Attestation of five Ministers of the Church of England to the Truth of the said Quotations And a POSTCRIPT By GEORGE KEITH LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1700. Advertisement THIS is to signifie that it is my purpose God-willing and by his Assistance to be present at Turners-Hall in Philpot-Lane by Fanchurch-Street in London being our ordinary Meeting-place Licensed by Authority on the Eleventh Day of the Eleventh Month called January in the Forenoon there to detect and discover Gross Errors and Anti-christian Principles plainly repugnant to the Fundamentals of Christianity in the Books of the approved Authors and Writers of the People called Quakers by ocular Inspection presenting them in fair and full Quotations to as many as are willing to be present and make Inspection into them And also to lay open the great Fallacy and Sophistry of George Whitehead and Joseph Wyeth and some of their Brethren at Colchester which they have used in their late printed Defences of their Own and their Brethrens most Erronious Passages contained in their Books in order to Cloak and Hide their Antichristian Principles and vile Errors not only to the great Scandal of all true Protestants in this Nation of whom they pretend to be the more refined Part but of all true Christians any where And I do hereby desire George Whitehead and Joseph Wyeth and their Brethren of the Second Days Meeting at London who have approved their late Books to be present at the said Meeting for which I have Permission by Civil Authority or any others who think themselves concerned at the Time and Place above-mentioned to hear and see out of their own Books their Errors and Fallacies detected who if they have any thing to offer in their own or Brethrens Defence shall be fairly heard The particular Errors that I intend God-willing to discover them guilty of out of their Books and Authors are Concerning their Pretences to Infallibility and sinless Perfection Concerning the Scriptures Concerning the Holy Trinity Concerning Christ his Incarnation his Soul and Body and Blood his coming to Judgment at the Last Day Concerning Justification Concerning the Soul Concerning the Light within Concerning the Resurrection Concerning the outward Baptism and the Supper Concerning doing servile Work on the First Day George Keith London 18th 10th Month 1699-1700 A few Words of PREFACE TO THE IMPARTIAL READERS IMpartial Readers I have these few things to acquaint you with and recommend to your Consideration First that I found just and necessary Cause to recite diverse former Quotations given in my former Narratives and in other Books formerly publish'd against the Quakers Errors to detect the fallacious and sophistical Defences that they have made in their late Books in Vindication of those Quotations to cover their vile Errors Secondly Beside the former Quotations above mentioned I have brought many new Quotations which are neither in my former Narratives nor in any other Books that hitherto have been published against them which obviates the cavelling of the Quakers who would be ready to say There is nothing to be expected of new Matter but what is contained in other Books and which hath been already answered by them The contrary whereof will sufficiently appear to any that shall compare this fourth Narrative with any other Books before this published against them Thirdly Whereas the common Objection of the Quakers is That their Books are neither fully nor fairly quoted To remove the Ground of any such Objection I have got the Attestation of Persons of known Integrity and Judgment to the Truth of them as I got the like Attestation from some the former Year to attest to my third Narrative I have given the Quotations as fully and fairly as is requisite to satisfie any reasonable Persons But the Men I have to deal with for all this will I expect renew their unjust Complaint and will tell their Readers This and the other Passage going before or following should have been inserted in the Quotations whereas the not inserting of them makes not their Cause one whit the worse nor the inserting them makes their Cause one whit the better as could be shewed in many Instances and is shewed in their late Books for when so much is quoted out of any Book that gives the full Sense of the Writer whatever is more is superfluous Note for a Proof on the last Head That the Quakers deny the Moral Law or Ten Commandments to be a Rule to the Christian's Life and thereupon do not blame but justifie doing servile Work on the first Day yea and in the Face of a Congregation while the Minister was preaching See p. 28. of this Narrative G. K. George Keith's Fourth Narrative OF HIS Proceedings at Turners-Hall 1699. For the Detecting the QUAKERS ERRORS The first Part giving an Account of his Proofs on the first four Heads contained in his printed Advertisement viz. Concerning I. Their Infallibility II. Their sinless Perfection III. The Scriptures IV. The Holy Trinity Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the first Head concerning their Infallibility 1. GEORGE Fox Great Mystery pag. 105. For who witness these Conditions that they were in that gave forth the Scriptures They witness Infallibility an infallible Spirit which is now possessed and witnessed among those called Quakers Glory to the Highest for
are sprung forth of the corrupt Tree which now is to be burned and its Fruit rejected Now these are all the Books and Catechisms published by any others but themselves Again in p. 23. they say And though some have known him viz. Christ after the Flesh yet henceforth know they him so no more as say the Scriptures of Truth Note Here they pervert the true Sence of Paul's Words as they commonly do in their Books and Preachings giving Paul's Words for a Reason why they do not preach Faith in Christ as he came in the Flesh died and rose again c as necessary to Salvation because say they VVe are no more to know Christ after the Flesh whereas it was the great Subject both of Paul's Preaching and of all the Apostles to wit Jesus Christ as he came in the Flesh died for our Sins and rose again and ascended c. insomuch that they did with one Accord declare That the Gift of the Holy Ghost with all the saving and sanctifying Graces of the Spirit do come to Men by Christ through Faith in him as he came in the Flesh died rose and ascended and that this Faith was wrought in Men by hearing the VVord outwardly preached Again in p. 23. they say Now Children the Scriptures of Truth do declare of God and Christ and the Spirit of Truth which are one but the Scriptures cannot bring you to know God and Christ and the Spirit of Truth And yet they say concerning this Primmer and the Contents of it p. 2. That they are very useful for Children and others to Learn that they may be turned unto the Light which is the Gift of God Here they seem to prefer their Primmer to the Scriptures for they say of the Contents of their Primmer That they are very useful for Children and others to Learn To learn what Surely some Knowledge of God and Christ they will say and yet they will not allow so much to the Scripture and on a diligent Search I find not in all this Primmer one simple Direction to Children and others to read the Scriptures and what they have quoted of Scripture in it is but little and much even of that grosly perverted and misapplied as in p. 44 45. they say They that hear the Light that is in all Men and common to all Men they hear God for God is Light and they that hear God they hear Christ also for God and Christ are one as saith the Scripture and they that hear Christ hear the Author of the true Faith and so hear the Saviour of their Souls and the Light is that Prophet which all that hear not him are to be cut off Here we see how grosly they pervert that Place of Scripture Deut. 18. 15. Acts 3. 22. 7. 37. which is not to be understood of the common Illumination given to all Mankind but of the Man Christ as he outwardly came in the Flesh and did execute his prophetical Office on Earth by preaching and teaching and as he doth now still execute his prophetical Office in his Church by his Word outwardly preached and his Spirit inwardly accompanying it to make it effectual Again p. 82. they run into the same wild Notion that others Familists and mad Enthusiasts run into of the Blood of Christ within them For say they and all wait together in the Light viz. as it is common to all Mankind Infidels Jews Mahumetans Heathens for so they understand it and believe in it that ye may be the Children of the Light and therein watch unto Prayer and one over another and this will beget ye into unfeigned Love and walk in the Light ye will have true Vnity and Fellowship one with another and the Blood which is the Life of Jesus Christ ye will feel cleansing you from all Sin and so ye will come into Vnity with God Note By this it is evident as will more fully appear on a particular Head following that by the Blood which they call the Life of Jesus Christ they meant not his Blood outwardly shed or his Life that he outwardly laid down viz. the Life of his Manhood without us for the Remission of our Sins and cleansing therefrom But according to their usual Cant and Phrase The Blood that is the Life and the Life is the Light within So that they make the Blood the Life and the Light within them to be one and the same thing but neither in this Primmer nor in any other of their Books do I find the least Direction to Faith in the Blood of Christ as it was outwardly shed on the Cross therefore in this Primmer and in their other Books they give Poison to poor Children to suck or receive instead of wholesome Food George Keith's Fourth Narrative OF HIS Proceedings at Turners-Hall 1699. For the Detecting the QUAKERS ERRORS PART II. Containing the Proofs out of the Quakers Books on the fifth Head concerning Christ his Incarnation his Soul Body and Blood And on the sixth Head concerning the Souls of Men. Read at the second Meeting at Turners-Hall January 19. 1699. W. P. in Serious Apology p. 146. saith That the outward Person which suffered was properly the Son of God we utterly deny This is expresly contrary to many Texts of Scripture and to a great Fundamental Article of our Christian Creed yea in a manner it overthrows the whole Christian Creed See the following Scriptures Mat. 16. 13 16. Luke 1. 32. Mat. 14. 33. Mark 1. 1. John 1. 14 34. John 9. 35. 10. 36. Acts 8. 37. Rom. 1. 4. Mat. 27. 54. G.W. in his Truth and Inn. p. 52. excuseth W. P ' s Words thus Here I take him to mean the Son of God in respect to his Divine Being as he is of one Substance with the Father which his Body that suffered Death was not though he was truly the Son of God as he took upon him that Body and as made of a Woman Gal. 4. 4. Being conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary The Fallacy of this is easily detected the Question in Debate betwixt W. P. and his Opponents who were Presbyterian Ministers in Ireland was not whether the Body was the Son of God abstractly considered from the Soul of Christ and his Godhead for no Presbyterian ever held that neither will any Socinian that denyeth the Godhead of Christ say that that meer Body without his created Soul was the Christ or Son of God But the true State of the Question was and is whether he that outwardly suffered Death without the Gates of Jerusalem whom W. P. calls that outward Person in Distinction from the Light within which the Quakers will have to be the whole Christ according to G. Fox's Doctrine was and is not properly the Son of God which all sound Christians say according to Scripture he was and is being both God and Man and yet one Person one Christ one Son of God having his Godhead-Nature and his Manhood-Nature so united as
to constitute one Christ which is by a miraculous and extraordinary Union that no other Creatures neither Angels or Men are dignified with and though Christ as Man was the Son of God miraculously conceived and born in Time and also as God was by a Generation from Eternity before all Worlds and Times yet he is but one Son of God and because of the personal Union of the Word with his Manhood both as God and Man he is properly the Son of God But there is yet another Fallacy in G. W's Words which is that neither the visible Body nor Manhood that was born of the Virgin was any Part of the true Christ or Son of God and first As to that visible Body of Flesh and Bones he denies that Christ consisted of it I distinguish said he between consisting and having Christ had visible Flesh and Bones but he did not consist of them Christian Quaker p. 139 140. This shews us the very Heart of their Heresie In like manner W. P's Rejoinder p. 299 to 307. W. P. argues for 16. Pages in his Rejoinder against Faldo That Christ never died for they will not have any thing properly to be the Christ but his Godhead which they make to be all one identically and essentially with his Heavenly Mandhood consisting of Heavenly Flesh and Blood that he had from all Eternity Here a Quaker called John Whiting opposed in Defence of W. Penn and said W. Penn did not deny that that outward Person was the Son of God I askt him whose Son was he properly He said The Son of Mary I replied Mary was his Mother but who was his Father properly He said He was conceived by the Holy Ghost I again replied But that 's no Answer to my Question who was his Father Every Son must have a Father and seeing Christ had no immediate Father but God then surely he was properly the Son of God as the Scripture plainly testifieth To this he made no Reply but opposed in Defence of G. W. I having said that G. W. denied that visible Body that hung on the Cross to be any Part of the true Christ I replied I have proved it already by the late Quotation here read wherein he says He denies that Christ consisted of Flesh and Bones I distinguish said he between consisting and having Christ had Flesh and Bones but did not consist of them as a Man has a Coat or Garment but doth not consist of it and that outward Person that suffered at Jerusalem was Christ by a Metonimy saith VV. P. of the thing containing having the Name of the thing contained And at this rate VV. P. himself may be called Christ because he hath Christ in him The Excuse That Christ did not Meerly consist of Flesh and Bones signifies nothing for that was no Part of the Question betwixt G.VV. and his Opponent None ever said That Christ did meerly consist of Flesh Blood and Bones no Socinian will so affirm for that were to say Christ was meerly a Body of Flesh and Bones without a rational Soul whatever hath Parts doth consist of those Parts incompleatly of one or more Parts compleatly of them all The Foundation of the Quakers great Error on this Head lieth here That because Christ was before the Body was therefore that Body is no Part of him which is easily answered thus Christ was before that Body was but he was not compleatly and in all Respects fitted to be the anointed Saviour of the World until the Word was made Flesh i. e. until the Word did take our Flesh and whole Nature into a personal Union with himself the which was necessary to the compleat Performance of his Mediatory Offices of King Priest and Prophet and especially of his Priestly Office And not only G. VV. hath denyed Christ to have any created Body whereof he consists but he hath denyed that he hath any created Soul in his Answer to T. Danson ' s Synopsis p. 18. As to T. Danson's telling of the Son of God's Incarnation the Creation of his Body and Soul the Parts of that Nature he subsisted in c. To this I say if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both created doth not this render him a fourth Person For Creation was in Time which contradicts their Doctrine of three distinct increated coeternal coessential Persons in the Deity seeing that which was created was not so But herein whether doth not his and their Ignorance of the only begotten of the Father and their Denial of Christ's Divinity plainly appear yea or nay VVhere doth the Scripture say that his Soul was created For was not he the Brightness of his Father's Glory and the express Image of his Divine Substance But supposing the Soul of Christ was with the Body created in time I ask if from Eternity he was a Person distinct from God and his holy Spirit without either Soul or Body and where doth the Scripture speak of any Person without either Soul or Body T. Elwood to cover this gross Error of G.VV. in his pretended Answer to my first Narrative saith That G. W. only denyed that Christ had a created Soul as God But this was not the State of the Question for neither T. D. nor any other Man were ever so gross as to affirm that Christ as God had a created Soul And the like Evasion doth G. VV. use himself in his Antidote p. 191. This Question saith he is no Determination that it was or was not Christ as God his Soul was increated as Man his Soul or Spirit was not the Deity but formed and assumed by the VVord But it 's Evident that his accusing T. D. and others of Ignorance for saying it was created determines it sufficiently But as is above said G. W. and his Brethren will have only the Godhead to be the Christ which they call The Heavenly Man having Soul and Body Flesh Blood and Bones uncreated and existing from all Eternity which they call The Seed within them the Seed of the Woman that bruiseth the Serpent's Head which G. F. as is above quoted denyeth to be a Creature What the Seed spoke in him he said he spoke it not as a Creature therefore that Heavenly Man or Seed consisting of Heavenly Flesh and Blood which they say is in them not being a Creature must needs in their Sense be from all Eternity and not from the Beginning of the World only This appears yet more fully from R. Hubberthorn When was that Christ created R. Hub. Coll. p. 49 50. which you say must as a Creature judge the World And if in Mary's Time who was Judge of the World till then Was not the Person of Christ Jesus before the World was Note here he owns Christ to be a Person and by G. W's Argument above mentioned he must being a Person have both Soul and Body before the World was And when had the Man Christ Jesus his Beginning If you can declare it how is
Part of God Their Inferences are weak as That Christ is the Bishop of the Soul The Soul is in Transgression in Death The Soul redeemed rejoyceth in God All this doth not prove that George Fox did hold that the Soul of Man in all these Considerations was not a Part of God For according to him the Soul being a Part of God this part rejoyceth in God the Fulness and God or Christ considered as the Fulness is the Bishop of the Soul that is a Part of him the Soul being like a Drop of Water returning into the Ocean so taught the Ranters and that all Creatures were Parts of God who was the Substance of all things and so saith George Fox expresly Great Mistery page 99. and Edward Burrough see the Collection of his Works pag. 827 828. And George Fox denieth That either Christ or Men have a Humane Soul or that Christ hath either a Humane Soul or Body Great Mistery pag. 99 100. His Objection is idle against Humane as signifying Earthly from Humus the Ground which is but a Cloak to cover his gross Eerror None of his Opponents said the Soul was from the Earth He might as much object against the Language of Scripture that calleth Christ the second Adam the Word Adam signifying Red Earth That the Soul is in Transgression in Death proves not that George Fox did not hold it to be a Part of God for he and other Teachers among the Quakers teach That what they call the Seed Christ is crucified in the wicked and is held in Satans Chains and what are these Chains but Sins as is above proved out of Truth 's Def. p. 49. But for a full and clear Evidence that George Fox did hold the Soul of Man to be a Part of God in answer to Magnus Byne his Book called The scornful Quakers answered Great Mistery p. 90. Is not the Soul without Beginning coming from God returning into God again who hath it in his Hand And in Answer to Jonathan Clapham his Book called A Discovery of the Quakers Doctrine Great Mistery page 100. Is not this that cometh out from God which is in God's Hand part of God of God and from God and to God again which Soul Christ is the Bishop of It is to be noted and well observed that this Opposition that George Fox made to those Men and his other Opponents as Richard Baxter and the five Ministers of New Castle about the Soul which they denied to be a Part of God or without Beginning and he affirmed it was By Opposition to them was not about any divine Soul in the Soul that was the Life or Soul of it as George VVhitehead would have it by which he means God or the Holy Ghost for in all Disputes the Subject of the Dispute is one betwixt the Opponent and the Respondent and though sometimes where the Matter is intricate and nice the Subject is hard to find out and the Opponent may mean one thing and the Respondent another yet in a Case that is clear and easie to be understood as this Case is there can be no Difficulty about the Subject of the Dispute as indeed here there is none which Subject of Dispute betwixt George Fox and his Opponents above mentioned was purely and simply the Soul of Man and not any divine Principle in the Soul As to instance from Magnus Byne the Beginning of this Controversie betwixt Magnus Byne and George Fox about the Soul was by a Question that Magnus Byne put to Thomas Lawson a Quaker which was this see in Magnus Byne The scornful Quaker answered page 103. VVhat is the Soul of Man and the Preciousness of it seeing Christ says It is more worth than all the VVorld To this Thomas Lawson the Quaker answers The Ministers of Jesus who come by the Will of God such know the Soul and watch for the Soul Heb. 13. 17. But thy watching is for the Fliece and art querying what the Soul is which lies in Death and State and Condemnation so long as it lives and the false Accuser lives and it the First-born knows not nor the Preciousness of it who prefers the World and obeys it before the Light of Christ and so sells the Soul for the World as thou dost who professest him in thy Lip-talk but denies him in Practice Ways and Conversation though Christ saith The Soul is more worth than all the World To which Magnus Byne his Opponent thus replieth In all this Answer there is not a Tittle unto-the Question here it appears thy perfect knowledge fails thee Here thou guessest that the Soul is Christ for he is the First-born the Scripture mentions and so according to thy Blasphemy Christ it seems may be damned and cast into Hell for so it is said of the Soul Fear him who is able to cast Body and Soul into Hell See how dark thou art in making no Difference between the Soul and Christ the Soul is indeed a precious thing there is a kind of Infiniteness in it which all the World cannot satisfie and therefore the Man was a Fool that said Soul take thine Ease because thy Barns are full and yet notwithstanding this kind of Infiniteness in the Soul as being restless till it return to God yet it cannot be Infiniteness it self it cannot be the First-born for of whole Man it is said whereof the Soul is the more noble Part VVhat is Man that thou art mindful of him Heb. 2. 6 7. Man you see is inferior unto the Angels much more inferior to the Son of God And farther saith he though the Soul be the Seat of Christ and Christ be hid there as a Treasure in a Field even in the innermost Room of the Soul yet the Soul cannot comprehend the infinite Majesty so Christ in his diviner Essence or Being much less can it be Christ who is God over all blessed for evermore And though there be indeed a blessed Union and Fellowship between Christ and an holy Soul yet still there is a vast Difference between the Essence or being of the Soul and Christ the one being still a Creature and the other the Creator of it Next he comes to give his own Definition of it The Soul saith Magnus Byne is a most noble Power a living Being an Essence that quickens the Body and yet dies not sleeps not when the Body dies and sleeps but returns unto God who gave it This Soul is a little Map of the great World and makes Man a little World for in his Soul is comprehended the Life of Plants the Sense of Beasts the Reason of Men and Angels This Soul quickens and makes Man a living Creature a sensitive Creature a rational Creature After he has described the Soul of Man which he expresly calls a Creature as above quoted in its several Powers and Faculties of the Mind Reason Judgment Will Memory Fancy Appetite and Affections to wit the created Soul of Man He saith God is the Life of
Blood of Christ's Humanity but of his Godhead G. W. in his Truth Defended p. 66. quotes C. Wade saying The Lord hath Bought us and Redeemed us with the Precious Blood of his Humanity and saith your imagined Christ viz. their Notion of a Christ whose Blood is shed within them never had any Humane Blood to Redeem you with and to prove it he brings 1 Pet. 1. 19. G. W. Answers That Scripture 1 Pet. 1. hast thou perverted as thou hast done other Scriptures to thy own Destruction for there he witnesses to the Blood of the Lamb which Redeemed them from their vain Conversation but doth not tell them of Humane Blood to Redeem them with for that which is Humane is Earthly but Christ whose Blood is Spiritual is Lord from Heaven and he is not an imagined Spirit but a true Spirit And what say'st thou to this Was that Humane Blood which Christ saith Except a Man drink he hath no Life in him and which cleansed the Saints from all Sin who were Flesh of Christ's Flesh and Bone of his Bone Note Thus we see what Blood G. W. esteems the Precious Blood of Christ not his Humane Blood or Blood of his Humanity and that not only he denyeth that we are Redeemed or Cleansed by any Blood of his Humanity but denyeth that Christ had any Humane Blood or Blood of Humanity and giveth his Reason against it That Humane is Earthly but Christ whose Blood is Spiritual is Lord from Heaven But again For a further evidence of his undervaluing the outward Blood of Christ and denying it to be that Blood by which Christ purchased his Church in his Light and Life p. 56. It is confessed saith he that God by his own Blood purchased to himself a Church Acts 20. 28. Now the Blood of God or that Blood that relates to God must needs be Spiritual he being a Spirit and the Covenant of God is Inward and Spiritual Note This Quotation was lately published in the Printed Sheet call'd An Account from Colchester above-mention'd to which Seven Quakers at Colchester have given a pretended Answer call'd Some Account from Colchester c. In their Answer to this Quotation they quibble Sophistically upon the Word Spiritual We would ask these Men say they if God's own Blood be not Spiritual whether it be Carnal and the Blood of his Covenant such also But was not the Blood that was outwardly shed on the Cross which John said he saw and bare Record real material Blood as really as that of other Men And granting it to be Spiritual as Spiritual signifies Holy as a Holy Man is a Spiritual Man and yet is a Carnal Man with respect to his Body of Flesh yet it was Material and Corporal But G. W. by Spiritual meant inward Blood in Men and Women and so expressed it The Covenant saith he is Inward and Spiritual and so is the Blood of it so that Spiritual and Inward are with him Synonymous But for a further Answer they quote a passage in G. W.'s Antidote p. 233 234. where he grants contrary to his former Doctrine That God purchased his Church by Christ's Natural or Outward Blood but not only by that but principally by the Spiritual Blood or Life of Christ Jesus and this Spiritual Blood he holds to be Inward in Men The Blood is the Life and the Life is the Light of Men as W. Bailie phrased it perverting and confounding two sundry Texts of Scripture But the tenor and tendency of G. W.'s former Arguments were altogether against Redemption or Justification by any natural or outward Blood whatsoever for Humane is Natural but Humane Blood G. W. would by no means admit to be the Blood of Christ by which Men are Redeemed So now he will have God's own Blood to be no less than his own dear Son and the Blood to be both Natural and Outward and Spiritual and Inward by which we are Redeemed meaning by Inward Blood his Life Power and Spirit in Men and Women and yet in contradiction to himself he saith God's sparing not his own Son but delivering him up for us all includes the whole Sacrifice of Christ in Soul and Body which were offered Note If Christ's Soul and Body without us were the whole Sacrifice the outward Blood being a part of his Body then his Spirit Life and Light in us is no part of the Sacrifice and yet in contradiction to this in his Light and Life p. 44. He brings several Arguments and Scriptures but all grosly perverted to prove That Christ in us offers up himself a living Sacrifice refering to W. Burnets Book cap. prim p. 31. Where the words are more largely quoted thus out of W. Smiths Primmer We believe that Christ in us doth offer up himself a living Sacrifice unto God for us by which the Wrath and Justice of God is appeased towards us This layeth the whole stress upon Christ within Men being the offering but now G. W. would seem to give one part to Christ without and another part to Christ within Men to be the offering and to the Blood shed without that was Natural and Outward and to the Blood shed within Men that is Spiritual and Inward But then surely he gives very little to the Blood shed without that was but once and was Natural Blood the Blood of the Humanity but he gives very much to the Inward Blood shed within Men which is a more excellent Blood it is the Blood not of the Humanity but of the Divinity and is shed many Thousands yea Millions of times for it is shed in all Men who have lived in several Ages of the World And thus Christ hath offered up himself Inwardly Millions of times and had his Blood inwardly shed to appease the Wrath and Justice of God but this is directly contrary to the Scripture that saith That Christ by one Offering hath for ever perfected them that are Sanctified and by one Offering Heb. 9. 28. 10. 14. once offered not often offered he hath appeared to put away sin and as was Prophesied of him a Body thou hast prepared me not two Bodies or many Bodies And as Christ had not two Bodies to be offered for our Sins Heb. 8. so nor had he two Bloods the Scripture never mentioneth any Blood of Christ but one we no where read in Scripture of the Bloods of Christ plural but of Blood singular And according to G. W. the Blood of Christ in his former Books is but one and that is the Inward Blood the Blood of his Divinity but not of his Humanity yea he hath denyed the Body of Christ to be any part of him whereof he consisteth as above-quoted and consequently nor was the outward Blood shed on the Cross any part of him But suppose it were allowed to call the Spirit of Christ in Believers or the sanctifying and refreshing Influences thereof his Blood by way of metaphor as Wine is call'd in Scripture the Blood of the Grape
VVade mentions no less than twelve particular Lyes wherewith G. F. had belyed him in matter of fact as to his Quotations all which I have considered and so may others if they have the Books and will find them indeed to be abusive Perversions and Lies of G. F. upon this C. VVade but I shall give only two Instances more that out of the Mouth of two or three Witnesses that is plain matter of fact G. F. is guilty of false Quotations and belying the Innocent and yet these impudent Men will defend his Infallibility one of them is that G. F. in his G. M. p. 246. chargeth C. VVade to say O Luciferian Pride to save Souls to this C. VVade fully and effectually answereth and plainly detects the Lie and Perversion in his second Book where he shews out of the seventh and eighth Page of his Quakery slain that his Words were His crying out against James Milner ' s Luciferian Pride to save Souls as Christ did C. Wade's second Book p. 4. because he pretended himself to be Christ and audaciously took upon him to save Souls as Christ did by his suffering Death and hereupon James Milner did in a juggling manner die and in a juggling inchanting manner with a Knife and a Bason he pretended his Blood was shed to save the Souls of two VVomen this manner of saving Souls only C. Wade blames which G. F. either justifies or renders himself a Lyer by blaming C. Wade See the Places themselves The other Lye and Slander which G. F. is guilty of against C. Wade is that in his G. M. p. 247. he makes C. Wade to say God limits the Supreme Holy One by the inspired Writings of the Apostles but C. Wade's Words were That the Devil limits the Supreme Holy One see C. Wade's second Book p. 5. compared with p. 13. of Quakery slain Note If either the Switch or G. Whitehead could prove the like Perversions and Lies against the Author of the Snake as C. Wade hath here proved against G. F. how would they have sentenced him as indeed they have for things of small moment in comparison of what is here justly proved against their infallible Apostle as they pretend he was G. F But I do not know one Quotation of the Author of the Snake out of their Books wherein he hath in a substantial matter wronged him as G. F. here hath wronged C. Wade not only in these three but many more There yet remains two Quotations out of G. W's own Book called Truth defending the Quakers which he most fallaciously and sophistically endeavours to justifie The Question being put Whether the Quakers did esteem their Speakings to be of as great Authority as any Chapter in the Bible Truth and Inn. p. 16. 'T is answered That which is spoken from the Spirit of Truth in any is of as great Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are and greater This same Quotation is objected in a late printed Sheet called An Account from Colchester where the following Words are set down that G. W. blames the Norfolk Priests for leaving out which he calls the annexed explanatory Words and they are these As Christ's VVords were of greater Authority when he spoke than the Pharises reading the Letter and they in whom that Spirit speaks not are out of the Authority of the Scriptures and their speaking we deny But first These Words are not explanatory but a sophistical Argument to prove the former Assertion for G. VV. argues That because Christ's preaching was of greater Authority than the Pharisees reading the Scriptures that therefore what the Spirit speaks in the Quakers and by them is of greater Authority than the Scriptures which is both a false and foolish Consequence for it supposes that the Spirit of God speaks in the Quakers when they preach or speak in Meetings as it did in Christ and in the Apostles viz. by the same divine Inspiration in kind and manner immediately and infallibly which cannot be granted and the Falsehood of it appears by the many false things that they speak and write contrary to the Scriptures And though he mentions not Quakers yet that he does understand them and none else is clear from his own Words He saith They in whom that Spirit speaks not their speaking we deny This supposeth he grants that the Spirit spoke in some which they did not deny and who were these but the Ministers among the Quakers seeing they deny the Ministry of all others in our Days Next he has an impertinent Question as to the Division of Chapters and Verses Can these Men say that was done by Divine Authority But this is wholly from the purpose Another Evasion is That the Spirit of Truth immediately ministring in Man or by any spiritual Minister is of greater Authority Power or Efficacy than the Chapters are simply considered as without the Spirit But simply considered as without the Spirit is wholly remote from the Question and is no ways to be allowed for any true Vindication because the Spirit doth as truly and frequently accompany the Scriptures when read as when preached or whatever is preached by the Spirit 's Assistance if the Hearers in reading be as sincere as the Hearers in preaching But if the Hearers be careless suppose Men preach by the Spirit it doth not follow that carnal and careless Hearers hear by the Spirit more than that they read or hear what is read by the Spirit But if he will needs have the Words simply and abstractly considered without the Spirit be added to reading let them by the like reason be added to preaching what he adds of Christ and the Apostles living and powerful preaching being of greater Efficacy Power and Authority than the outward Writing or Scripture it self simply or abstractly considered as distinct from the Spirit As it was no Part of the Question nor Answer given by him in Truth 's Defence so it is altogether impertinent But he equivocates upon the Word Authority taking it for the effect it hath on the Hearers but that was not the Sense of the Word Authority in the Question asked but its Sense as it 's generally among all that treat of Scripture Authority above other Writings so taken the Obligation or Right that doth oblige or induce us to believe the Truth of them and that they are of divine Inspiration This is quite another thing than the Effect or Impression that Men feel in reading or hearing them read as well as when preached upon by way of expounding for whether the Effect or Influence and Impression be great or little as it is sometimes great and sometimes little and sometimes perhaps none upon hardned Hearts yet their Authority is still the same neither greater nor less at one time than another The other Quotation is taken out of his Truth defending and is objected against in that called An Account from Colchester to which a pretended Answer is given in that called Some Account from Colchester signed
Body of Adam in Innocency And thus the comparison is made betwixt the First Adam and the Second the first Man even as he was in Innocency is of the Earth Earthly his Body was Created or Made by God Almighty but was neither so wonderfully framed nor endued with such excellent Virtues as our Lord's Body was Tho' the Substance of both was the same in Specie or Kind yet the difference was great both in the manner of Production and the Virtues and Properties wherewith Christ's Body was endued above Adam's Body and chiefly in respect of the Hypostatical and Personal Union betwixt Christ's Body or Flesh and the Eternal Word Eternally Begotten of the Father It was an old Heresie of the Manicheans That Christ's Body that was Born of the Virgin had no part of her Body but did penetrate her Body as the Beams of the Sun penetrate Christal and did entirely come from Heaven which Heresie was reviv'd by Meno a Dutch-man but is effectually and solidly refuted by Calvin in his Institutions lib. 2. c. 13. And as to the Quakers arguing from 1 Cor. 15 47. The first man of the earth earthly the second Man the Lord from heaven that therefore his Body had not an earthly Substance which is the same Argument Manicheus used of old Calvin answereth solidly thus Manicheus aereum fabricatur Corpus quia vocetur Christus secundus Adam de Coelo Coelestis at neque illic essentiam corporis Coelestem inducit Apostolus sed vim spiritualem quaed Christo diffusa nos vivificat Sect. 2. i.e. Manicheus maketh him viz. Christ to have a Body of Air because he is call'd the Second Adam from heaven heavenly But neither doth the Apostle there infer that the Essence of his Body is heavenly but that there is a spiritual Virtue which being diffused from Christ doth quicken us Again Whereas G. W. saith Art 7. of that Paper Our really Believing and Confessing the Lord Jesus Christ his Passion Sufferings Death Atonement and Reconciliation made for us and his Resurrection Ascention and Glorification as without us according to Scripture cannot be to allegorize these away as if only transacted within us as we have been unduly accused for they were really done and transacted without us by our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ tho' our true knowledge of the Power and Effect of his Resurrection and Fellowship of his Sufferings and our being conformable to his Death must be experienc'd within us if ever we live and reign with him And in their Paper annexed Art 2. they say we sincerely Believe and Confess that Jesus of Nazareth who was Born of the Virgin Mary is the true Messiah the very Christ the Son of the Living God to whom all his Prophets gave Witness And we do highly value his Death Sufferings Works Offices and Merits for the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind together with his Laws Doctrine and Ministry Note That all this seemingly fair Confession cannot but be judged extremely Fallacious seeing they will not Retract any of their former assertions expresly contradictory to the same as is in great part already proved out of the above-given Quotations How do they sincerely Confess that Jesus of Nazareth who was Born of the Virgin Mary was the very Christ the Son of the Living God seeing they profess to be of one Faith with W. P. who saith That that Outward Person that Suffered at Jerusalem was properly the Son of God we utterly deny as above-quoted And to be of E. B.'s Faith who denyeth that Christ is in Heaven in our Nature And of G. F.'s Faith who denyeth That Christ's Body was from the Earth But yet more fully to detect their Fallacies Whereas G. W. saith Their really Believing and Confessing Christ's Passion Sufferings Death Atonement and Reconciliation made for us c. cannot be to allegorize these away as if only tranfacted within us as we have been unduly accused To detect his Fallacy here Note I know none that accuse them for holding that Christ's Birth and Death was only transacted within them they grant that a Man call'd Jesus of Nazareth was outwardly Born and Suffered Death but some of the chief of them have said That that Man was not properly the Christ nor Son of God but was by the metonymy of the thing Containing for the thing Contained so called so W. P. as above-quoted Next they make his being outwardly Slain and his Blood outwardly Shed and what was outwardly transacted by him both Actively and Passively a Figure of what he was to do and suffer in Men of his inward Crucifying his Blood inwardly Shed his Burial Resurrection and Ascension within them These outward transactions saith W. P. are so many facile representations of what was to be accomplished in Men as above-quoted and G. W. beside the Proofs already given out of his Books to that Effect he hath lately affirmed in his * Antidote p. 39. Antidote against the Venom of the Snake Printed in the Year 1697 That that Blood of his viz. Christ's outward Blood as well as the Water that came out of his Side with it had an ALLEGORICAL and MYSTERIOUS SIGNIFICATION as well as an Outward and Literal even of the Spiritual Blood and Water of Life which Christ our High Priest Sprinkleth and really Washeth our Hearts and Consciences withal which we hope no sensible Soul will say is an Outward or Literal Sprinkling or Washing but an Inward and Spiritual Note When we charge G. W. and his Brethren with Allegorizing away Christ's Birth Passion Death Burial Resurrection Blood Atonement and Reconciliation made for us c. the sense is obvious which is this That tho' they grant that a Man called Christ was outwardly Born Dyed had his Blood shed c. yet all this was an Allegory and had an Allegorical Signification of Christ truly and really without an Allegory Born within them Crucified and Dead within them his Blood shed within them Buried Risen Ascended within them Atonement Reconciliation made within them Now that this is so we have G. W.'s plain Confession in the Words just now quoted So that according to him Christ's Sufferings without his Blood shed without is the Allegory or Allegorical Signification of Christ's Sufferings within of his Blood shed within the Atonement made within as Hagar and Sarah who were real Women yet as Paul hath declar'd they are an Allegory of the Two Covenants and Types or Figures of them and as far short of the things signified by them as the Type is short of the Substance or thing signified for that is the true definition of an Allegory Where one thing is expressed and another thing is understood Now if Christ's Birth Sufferings Blood c. without Men be an Allegory or Allegorical Signification of Christ's Birth Sufferings Blood shed and sprinkled within Men that Within must be the Reality or Excellent thing signified or typified by the outward but both cannot be the Allegory as to say that as Christ's Blood
G. W. so to charge W. B. and mistate the Controversie between W. B. and him nothing but deceit it self could invent such a forgery in G. W. as this to charge it on W. B. as if he had either said or thought that the Meritorious cause of Man's Justification was laid by him upon the Act of the Soldier that thrust the Spear into our Saviour's Side for neither did he say it nor can it be gathered from his Words by the least shadow of any just Consequence his Words being thus as G. W. cites them The shedding of the Blood upon the Cross that was let out by the Virtue of the Spear being thrust into his Side was the Meritorious cause of Man's Justification See Light and Life p. 64. The shedding of the Blood c. is the true English of the Latin Words Effasio Sanguinis which being A Noun Verbal hath a Passive as well as Active signification and that W. B. meant it in the Passive signification and not in the Active as with respect to the Soldiers Act is evident from the Words both of Jer. Ives and also of W. B. quoted by G. W. Light and Life p. 64. he quotes Jer. Ives saying My Brother Burnet meant Christ's Passion and not the Act of wicked Men. And again G. W. quotes W. B. saying Yes Brother it is proper to say It was Christ's Act to shed his Blood His meaning is obvious to any impartial Reader that it was Christ's Act freely to give his Blood to be shed for the remission of our Sins as he said himself no Man taketh my Life from me I lay down my Life and I take it up again Without all doubt though Christ was not Active to Kill himself by any Bodily Act of violence that he did to himself yet his giving up his Blood to be shed and his Life to be taken away was a most noble act of his Soul and Will who by a most noble act of Obedience and Resignation to the Will of God for the Salvation of Men gave up his Blood to be shed for that the shedding of Christ's Blood was necessary for remission of Men's Sins and their Justification before God is clear from his own words This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood shed for the remission of the Sins of many and as the Scripture saith Without shedding of Blood is no remission so that had not Christ's Blood been shed Men's Sins could not be forgiven and yet what but deceit it self can infer from this That the merit or stress of remission of Sin or Justification is laid upon the act of the wicked Soldier that thrust his Spear into our Saviour's Side Note again Seeing G. W. hath imposed such a Forgery upon W. B. without any just ground as if he had placed the Merit of Men's Justification upon the act of the wicked Man that thrust the Spear into our Saviour's Side By the like forgery he may charge the Church of England with the same absurdity though most unjustly for in the Prayer immediately before Baptism in the Office of Baptism for those of Riper Years she thus Prays Almighty everliving God whose most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our Sins DID SHED OUT of his most precious Side both Water and Blood and gave Commandment c. Here we see it 's said that Christ SHED OUT of his most precious Side both Water and Blood Can therefore G. W. from thence infer that the Church of England believeth that she layeth the Merit of remission of Sin and Justification upon the act of the Soldier or that Christ by any act of Violence killed himself or commanded others to do it and if no just consequence as this can be gathered out of the Church of England's Words nor can they from the Words of W. B. that are of the same importance But it 's no wonder that G. W. will have the shedding of that Blood which came out of Christ's Side when it was pierced to be only the Soldiers act when T. Elwood in his Truth Defended p. 99. denyeth the Blood that came out of Christ's Side and its shedding after he was Dead to have been to compleat the Offering for this he saith and again repeats the same Words and justifies them in his pretended Answer to my first Narrative p 220 221. This offering up himself and giving himself a ransom for all included all his sufferings both inward and outward and made it a compleat and perfect Sacrifice in which his Blood was comprehended and concerned as well as his Flesh before his Side was pierced by the Spear for he had pronounced that great Word Consummatum est it is finished had bowed his Head and given up the Ghost before his Side was pierced with the Spear This is not only contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England as above quoted in the Office of Baptism but of all Orthodox Christians throughout the World who teach according to Scripture That the Water and Blood that came out of our Lord's Side after his Death was a special part of the Offering as well as his Death and the wounds in his Hands and Feet and the Blood that came out of them before his Death which gross Error of T. Elwood is the Error of the Second Days meeting at London who approved his Book and of G. W. who professeth the same Faith with them is deservedly censured and refuted in Satan disrob'd p. 47. His Body pierced and his Blood shed after his Death were truly and properly a part of the Sacrifice as much as what he suffered before he expired As the legal Sacrifice was not compleated by the Death of the Beast but by the Burning of it and offering the Blood afterwards that was shed and those who reject that Blood do mutilate his Sacrifice and render it ineffectual to themselves Note again How neither G. W. nor the Colchester Quakers in their Some Account c. give any answer to what was objected against him out of his Light and Life p. 61. Though quoted by them p. 15. Where he positively asserts That to seek our Saviour above the Clouds and Firmanent i. e. to pray to him as he is in Heaven without us above the Clouds and Firmament is contrary to the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 10. 6. And to look to the Blood that was shed at Jerusalem for Justification is contrary to Deut. 30. 13 14. and Rom. 10. which seeking or looking to Christ and his Blood as is above-quoted and proved was not by any outward or bodily act but by Faith and yet even such seeking or looking is denyed and opposed by G. W. and his Colchester Quaker Brethren But whereas G. W. doth argue so much and so frequently against that Blood that was outwardly shed by the Spear its being the meritorious Cause of Justification because that Blood is not to be found at Jerusalem for it 's not in being says W. B. as G. W. quotes him
Suppose W. B. had positively said as if they had been his words originally That Blood is not in being yet he was far from inferring thence that we are not justified by that Blood this was G. W.'s consequence and not W. B.'s for W. B. did strongly assert that Men are justified by the Blood that was then shed tho' it was not now in being but said he the Efficacy of it is still in being but G. W. did draw a quite contradictory Conclusion to that of W. B. as thus That Blood that was shed by the Spear is not in being saith W. B. therefore G. W. concludes Men are not justified by it which Argument of G. W.'s has equal force against Christ's Death and Bodily pains as well as his Souls Dolours and Griefs they are not now in being therefore Men are not justified by them And his Argument has the like force against Men's being justified or having their Sins pardoned by the Merit of Christ's Blood before Christ came in the Flesh for example David had not the remission of his Sins by the Merit of Christ's Blood because G. W.'s Logick in David's time the Blood was not in being But as I shewed in the Meeting the Words that Blood is not in being were not originally W B's but some Quakers Words or some other that held the like false notions with them which W. B. calls a Cavillation Capital Principles p. 40. Of late saith he I have frequently met with a Query by way of Cavillation Which is whether that Blood spilt upon the Cross run not on the ground c. If so how then can Man be justified by that which is not in being Thus we see W. B. censures the consequence of that Argument to be invalid but G. W. again and again I know not how frequently makes use of it and thinks the Conclusion to be good and I said in the Meeting had G. W. been present I would have asked him what was his Answer to that Question Is the Blood that was shed on the Cross now in being If he happen to reply to this 4th Narative I desire him to give a positive answer to it seeing he makes it the Foundation of his Conclusion that Men are not justified by the Merit of that Blood because that Blood is not in being but seeing I had not G. W. there I asked Dan. Philip who was present and sat near where I stood and is one of the Quakers in the Unity whither that Blood was in being He replied he knew not whither I meant the Blood that was without Christ's Body or within it I told him the Blood that went out of his Body whether that Blood was in being but he gave no reply I asked him again whether he believed that the Blood that was outwardly shed was Meritorious to Justification and that true Believers were justified by it he said he knew not what I meant by the Word Merit or Meritorious I told him it was a shame for him to pretend to be so Ignorant of the signification of the Word that an ordinary School Boy did know seeing he was a Scholar and did not long ago commence Dr. of Physick at Leiden and had there a Latin Oration However I gave him the signification of it that Merit signified that it was of that Worth and Value by way of Atonement and Expiation to make satisfaction to God for the guilt of our Sins He also pretended he knew not what I meant by the Word Atonement I told him it signified reconciling and bringing Men into savour with God I asked again were Believers justified by the Merit of the Blood that was outwardly shed he answered it was a part of the Offering but I asked were Believers justified by it He said that Blood will justifie none that are not Sanctified I replied that was not the question nor is it any part of the Controversie I further asked him what did he mean by the Offering whether Christ only as without us or as within us or both without and within and both by Christ's Blood without us as outwardly shed and by the Blood of his God-Head as inwardly shed in Men as G. W. will have it now at last but to this he gave no positive answer and though in all his answers he gave on this or other heads he greatly foiled himself He is as I am informed so confident that he tells in private how he foiled me But seeing neither he nor any of the Quakers there present offered any answer to that question Is that Blood of Christ that was outwardly shed in being I told them I believed the substance of it was still in being for not the least atome of any Bodily substance was ever annihilated but to enquire where that Blood now was or whether Christ did take it back again into his Body which no doubt he was able to do having all power was a curious and unnecessary question to be resolved And here I brought a saying of B. Burnet whose Name I mentioned with due respect to the same effect in his Exposition on the xxxix Articles of the Church of England and also sometime afterwards at the same Meeting I quoted him in the same Book to show my Agreement with him as I do with all sound Christian Teachers that our Lord has the same Body in substance he had on Earth and that his Body is not changed in substance but in the different Contexture of parts And on this Head also I queried Dan. Philips Whither Christ's Body was the same in Substance now in Heaven that it was on Earth and whether it was when on Earth a terrestrial Body he said He did not know what I meant by Substance I told him the same that others meant who had any true skill in Natural Philosophy and it was a shame to a Dr. of Physick to profess his being ignorant to define a Substance however I told him that a Substance understanding a created Substance was a Being or Thing that did only depend on God Almighty the first Cause and was the subject of certain Accidents that did depend on it and could not be without it He asked whether a Substance could be without Accidents I answer'd him it could be without Accidents of this or that kind and could be wonderfully changed in Accidents and yet remain the same Substance I asked him again Was our Lord's Body earthly when it was on earth He answered it was like ours in all things Sin excepted I again asked but was it earthly when on earth Here he demurred and would not give a positive Answer a Minister that stood by said by his confessing it was like ours he has confessed it was an earthly Body I said to them that are sound in the Faith it is so but not to the Quakers for they will not allow that an earthly Body and an heavenly Body can be the same Body in Substance or that a natural Body and a spiritual Body are the