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.
of Christ the One Offering come to be revealed by which One Offering he hath for Ever perfected them that are sanctified as in Truth Advanced p. 71. I have opposed to his saying Way to City of God p. 125. that through the coming of Jesus Christ in the inward even before he was outwardly come or manifest many were saved and attained unto PERFECT Peace and Reconciliation with God in their Souls And to what he alledged in Vni Gr. p. 8. c. that the Gospel lay hid within the Law as within the Vail that Christ Jesus was in the Law and under it that universally in ALL Men both Jews and Gentiles there hath been both Moses and the Prophets in Spirit and also Christ See my Keith against Keith p. 4 12 13 c. Nor yet have we blamed his saying None were justified by the Law or first Ministration of the Spirit or Light within or their Obedience thereunto but thro' Faith in Christ which yet are not delivered as deduced by us out of him but shewed what he meant by Faith in Christ then viz. a believing in the Light nor is the outward Name that which saveth but the inward Nature Vertue and Power which was made manifest in them said he Vni Gr. p. 30. who had said p. 29. That in diverse of these Gentiles the Seed was raised which is that Divine Nature or Birth by which they did the things contained in the Law and SO were JUSTIFIED by him Also in his Postscript to G. W. â—is Nature of Christianity p. 65 and 70. Cited by me Keith against Keith p. 11. and not yet retracted God was in Christ reconciling Men to himself ever since the Fall in all Ages both before and since Christ suffered in the outward having given them or put in them the Word of Reconciliation by which they who became renewed thereby were reconciled and justified in all Ages blaming R. G. his Doctrine that no Men were justified nor reconciled until Christ suffered Death in the outward because then and not till then his Adversary had said was Reconciliation and Justification wrought c. to whom also he assigns as an Error the asserting That Obedience to the Light within in the Conscience is buâ— the work of the first Covenant and Righteousnesâ— thereof and that no Man is justified thereby By aâ— which the Reader may perceive G. K. hath not fairlâ— stated what we objected to him out of his Books as weâ— as that he had no cause to say as he doth here p. 19. â— That upon a diligent search into his Books and an impartiâ— examination of all the places Cited by us to prove it he caâ— find no such thing as that he had formerly asserted Mâ— might be justified and saved without all Knowledge aâ— Faith of Christ without us as he was Crucified c. Foâ— what I have here laid before him of which I havâ— Treated more at large in my People called Quakers cleaâ—ed p. 26 to 31. out of his Book of Vni Gr. p. 28 29 3â— 34 35 36 56 57 58 115 117 and 120. are sufficieâ—â— to shew both what he formerly called Faith in Chrisâ— and what Faith justified even the Gentiles before Chriâ— was Crucified even a belief in the inward Manifestatioâ— in the Word nigh in the Mouth and Heart as Vni Gâ— p. 34 35. and abundantly elsewhere However there is a blunder of his behind p. 18 which having slipt over I now return to where 〈◊〉 saith no Justification is by that Law whether it be understâ— of Moses his outward Ministration or the same Ministrâ—â—tion of Moses in Spirit where the Law is writ but in Tabâ— of Stone till the Seed be raised c. Upon which I Qâ—ry Whether the Ministration of Moses in Spirit was writ in Tables of Stone or the fleshy Tables of the Heart If upon the former where were these Tables to be found Who had the keeping of them And who wrote them there He had need have recourse to his Metaphorical Allusion again and even that will not help him But it is just with God that such as Fight against his Wrath and are Bladder-blown with their own Learning should expose themselves that others may see if they will not that Pride goeth before Destruction and a haughty Look before a Fall Prov. 16.18 Yet in as much as in the Citation above out of Vni Gr. p. 29. I have shewed that he then allow'd that in diverse of the Gentiles the Seed was raised and they were justified by Christ In as much also as he here recurrs to his late distinction of Express and Implicit Knowledge and Faith for which he widely referrs to his Book of Anti. and Sadd. Detected without either assignâ—ng Page or Passage or observing that I have Answered him even with respect to that very distinction â—n my Keith against Keith p. 62 to 71. which seems to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Universal Heal-all of G. K's Languishing Cause brought in at every turn to stop a gap with whether applicable or no I shall tell him He that affirmeth must prove and if he will affirm those Gentiles had an Implicit Faith and Knowledge that Christ was outwardly to be Born Suffer Die and Rise again â—n order to their Justification he must not barely alâ—edge but demonstrate that they had it either explicitly or implicitly which I have more than once put him upon and he hath not yet attempted to do as well â—s that I have shewed that even then several of the Citations given out of him while unretracted block â—p his way Which I again press upon him to do whatever comes short hereof being meer Trifling § 4 G. K. having so severely as well as unjustly reflected upon G. W. Ex. Narr p. 39 40. as having Allegorized away Christ's Birth Death Resurrection Ascension and coming to Judgment it might reasonably have been expected himself should not have exceeded therein or at least that he would have corrected and retracted his own before he found fault with another Yet when his own Allegories or Metaphorical Allusions as he now tearms them lay at his Door unretracted hath he been casting the first Stone at another so unjust is he The instance before me and which aâ— length G. K. endeavours here to palliate in his § 4. is in Vni Gr. p. 9. where alluding to Moses his putting a Vail before his Face he saith The Word became Flesh and dwelt in us said John And this inward Appearance of Christ in Flesh is his Appearance iâ— Weakness as Natural and yet Spiritual the Mystery hid within the Vail of Flesh or Natural Spirit Again This is the Body of Christ that is indeed Spiritual but for our Cause descendeth into a Natural Form or Appearance Thus it is sown Natural but is raised Spiritual and thus also we become changed thereby both in the Soul and Body so as being sowâ— Natural we come to be raised Spiritual And indeed there was
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
a Metaphor or Allegory for with such Metaphors Allegories and figurative Speeches the Scripture aboundeth in treating of the Spiritual and Divine Refreshments and Enjoyments of the Saints as when they are called Bread Wine Milk c. Answ To this himself shall reply out of p. 14 15. of the same Book where having proved from several Scriptures adduced that the Spiritual discerning is held forth under the names of all the five Senses of Seeing Hearing Tasting Smelling Feeling or Handling he adds But saith the Natural Man such an one as G. K. is now become say I These are only but Metaphors and Figures and then replies Albeit these names be so yet that hinders not but the Spiritual Mysteries represented under them are real and SUBSTANTIAL things as really affecting the Spiritual Senses as the outward Things affect the Natural And indeed these Outward Things are but Figures of the Inward and Spiritual which as far exceed and transcend them in Life Glory Beauty and Excellency as a living Body doth the Shadow so that this whole visible World is but a Shadow in respect of the Spiritual and Inward Thus far G. K. formerly whereby it appears that he then ascribed the Shadow the Metaphor to the Outward the thing shadowed forth to the Inward Now he assigns on â—he contrary the Metaphor Allegory or Figure to the â—nward and the thing shadowed forth to the Outward â—nd yet he is not so Ingenuous as to own a Change in his Judgment but would render his meaning now and formerly the same Nor hath he here only asserted That the Seed was a Substance but also in his Way cast up p. 60. a Book printed Anno 1678 and as yet unretracted hath ranked the contrary Opinion among the great and woful Mistakes and Misconceptions of the Professors of Christianity who in his seventh Argument p. 64. thus hath it The Saints feel it in them as really to be a part or Particle of the very Substance of Heaven viz. Of that Spiritual and Invisible Heavens where the Saints live as they do feel the Body of their Outward Man to be a Part or Particle of the Substance of this Outward World And having described this Divine Birth to be not only a Substance but a composed Substance of Body and Spirit he plainly affirms p. 65. The Spirit is a measure of the Spirit or Soul of Christ the Heavenly Man But if he will not believe what himself said formerly nor yet retract his manifold Contradictions and Absurdities 't is to be hoped the unbyassed and considerate will see him in his proper Colours and that his Covering is but a Fig-leaf Garment But this Allegorical and Figurative Sense as he termeth it of Christ's Flesh and Blood he saith ought not to divert our Minds nor take off our Faith from Christ's Flesh without us c. Answ I readily grant it For the advantage of that Faith as Paul said of Circumcision of old to the Jews is much every way Rom. 3.1 2. Yet this excludeth not the Heathen to whom the History hath not been revealed and who are the Vncircumcision that keepeth the Righteousness of the Law Chap. 2. v. 26. from any Benefit thereby though not an equal This himself seemed sensible of when in his Light of Truth Triumphing printed Anno 1670 and not yet retracted he said As many have suffered Hurt through the Disobedience of the First Man to wit Adam who have not known expresly that ever such a Man was oâ— the manner of his Disobedience so why may not EVEN MANY receive Benefit through the Obeâ—dience of Christ in the outward who have not expresly known his outward Coming and Sufferings otherwise Adam's Disobedience were more effectual for Man's Destruction than the Obedience of Christ were for his Salvation His following Assertion that to believe in Christ as he gave his Body of Flesh outwardly to be broken for us and his Blood outwardly to be shed for the Remission of our Sins is the eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood as well as the inward Enjoyment of his Life in us and that this is clear from John 6.29 35 40 47 48. I must a little compare with what he hath said elsewhere In his Book entituled Rector Corrected Printed Anno 1680 a passage not yet retracted he blames his Adversary p. 19. for saying He would prove that the Flesh and Blood spoken of John 6. are not a spiritual invisible Substance retorting thus Then what must we infer from this Interpretation of thine but that we must eat visible Flesh and drink visible Blood But hear him further ibid. When the Capernaanites understood it of visible Flesh and Blood he told them He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him to signifie that it was an inward and invisible Eating of an inward invisible Substance whereof he did speak For proof of which he then quoted John 61 62 63. at large Again P. 21. he saith Christ's giving his Flesh for the Life of the World is more than to offer up his visible Flesh upon the Cross for he giveth his Flesh to eat and his Blood to drink whereas many that believe Historically that his visible Flesh was offered upon the Cross do not eat his Flesh and drink his Blood for they have not Life in them c. So that with G. K. one while eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood is an inward and invisible eating of an inward and invisible Substance and it is proved to be so out of John 6. and his Adversary branded with Capernaanitism for denying the Flesh and Blood there spoken of to be a spiritual invisible Substance Anon Christ spake there of a Belief in him as his Body of Flesh and Blood was broken and shed outwardly it is not Capernaanitism in him it seems so to assert though it was in the Rector and that very Scripture is referred to for proof that he did so and yet G. K. no Changeling the mean while if ye will believe him who not only acknowledgeth That the Flesh which he said they were to eat and his Blood they were to drink was that which he had before he descended Imm. Rev. p. 228. but also in the foregoing Page hath it That they did eat his Flesh and drink his Blood as TRULY and REALLY in measure before he came in that Body of Flesh which was born of the Virgin Mary as the Saints have done since Again p. 258. This Body of Christ of which we partake is NOT THAT which he took up when he came in the Flesh outwardly but that which he had from the beginning c. See also Way cast up p. 95. And thus referring my Reader to what may further occurr upon this subject when I come to my Sect. 3. § 1. I betake my self to his next Paragraph § 5 Upon his giving us § 5. a Quotation of Imm. Rev. p. 36 37. relating to Infallibility that As it relates to the Seed
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
Rect. Corr. p. 29. the words of Hilarius that it was to excuse G. F. and not that he did not believe that Christ had the true Nature of Man consisting of a true reasonable created Soul and a true Body for that he aid always believe that he did partake of Mary 's substance c. Answ He hath not fairly stated the Matter in Controversie as well as that he assigns not where our Charge is to be found That he had the true Nature of Man as we our selves acknowledge so have not objected it against G. K. but whether Christ who partook of the Nature and Image of Man from the Seed of Mary did not partake of a Nature and Image much more Excellent than that of Man in its greatest Glory from God and his Seed who did really sow a most Divine and Heavenly Seed in the Virgins Womb which as it supplied the Males Seed so it had much more in it and brought forth a Birth that as it had the true and whole Nature of Man so it had a Perfection above it not only in accidental qualities but even in Substance and Essence they are his own words in Way to City of God p. 131. and not yet retracted And again whether in as much that after Death it was not subject to Corruption the Name Human be not too mean a Title whereby to express it far less that it should be called so now when it is glorified and is altogether Heavenly and Spiritual the Scripture no where giving unto his Body such a Name as Human but that the first Man is of the Earth earthly the Second Adam the Lord from Heaven 1 Cor. 15. Heavenly as himsâ—lf declares Rect. Corr. p. 27. is that which we have of late laid before him in opposition to his late Carnal tearms of Human Humanity and imposing them upon us Who have therefore blamed the Word Human Humanity and Humane Nature as applicable to Christ because we did believe his Manhood Nature as G. K. saith was more Excellent than that of other Men So that his Judgment given formerly of G. F. and others and which he here repeateth as it was truly stated then so is it the same still although he now chargeth it without proof upon divers Quakers indefinitely without naming any that they have used the terms Humanity and Humane with reference to Christ which till he be more particular who have so done and where as well as how whether Controversially keeping to their Adversaries tearms or as declaraâ—ive of their Faith and approving of those tearms deâ—erves not my further notice But he never thought he pretends that any of them â—enied him as Man to be a Creature or to have been proâ—uced by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in â—â—ary as some of them have he saith but who these some are nor where they have so said he declareth not but after his wonted manner accuseth without offering proof A blind way sure of Answering of Books for â—s such he gives out this Book in his Title Page Yet â—hat Christ was Born of the Virgin and that that Body was Created and consequently a Creature we deny not although that he was produced by Coagulation or by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary a Notion started by R. Cobbet answered to by St. Crisp renewed by G. K. in his True Copy p. 22. and replied to by T. E. in his Truth Defended p. 134 c. a Book G. K. is still Debtor to is what we do indeed deny â—s even G. K. hath done formerly Who in Rect. Corr. p. 27. besides what have offered even now with respect to the Word Human thus hath it Even the outward visible Flesh which he took of the Virgin seing it was not PRODUCED or formed by HUMAN GENERATION then not from the Properties of Man in Mary say I but by a Divine Conception through the over shadowing of the Holy Ghost and did far excel the Flesh of all other Men that ever were since the Name Human is but too mean a Title c. Again p. 29. he quotes Hilarius that Jesus Christ was not formed by the Nature of Humane Conception and that the Original of his Body which he affirmed to be an Heavenly Body yet had of the Virgins Substance in it is not of an Human Conception that both the Soul and Body of Christ are of a more Excellent Nature than these of other Men although having all that belong to the true Essence of Man either in Soul or Body And saith further Why is the Flesh Conceived of tâ—â— Holy Ghost judged by the Nature of an Humane Body Thus far G. K. out of Hilarius which how reconcilâ—able it is to that Notion that Christ was produced 〈◊〉 Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mâ— which to be sure is Human I leave to the Reader tâ— judge in the mean time shall observe what he faith 〈◊〉 his Way to the City of God which also gives Evidence â—â—gainst him He begins p. 131. thus Even accordinâ— to that Birth he was the Son of God no less than tâ—â— Son of Man as having God for his Father as he haâ— the Virgin Mary for his Mother Is this an Humâ—â— Generation then a Generation produced of and froâ— the Properties of Man in Mary or a Divine one Thâ—â— it is not Humane not produced by Human Generation or Human Conception he hath told us above in tâ—â— Instances there given and in Way to City of God p. 13â— 133. after having described this Birth to be a certaâ—â— middle Nature Substance or Being betwixt thâ— Godhead and Mankind transcending even the Naâ—ture of Angels he calleth it the Heavenly or Diâ—vine Substance or Essence which was both Conceiveâ— in Mary and is inwardly Conceived in the Saints Are then the Properties of Man in Mary and this middle Nature this Super-Angelical Nature this Heavenly and Divine Substance relatives Or do they signifiâ— the same thing That what is predicable of the one iâ— also of the other Or is it not rather manifest thaâ— G. K. is in Confusion and Darkness Self-contradictory and yet not Candid enough to own it and as loth to retract it He Queries If Christ's Humanity be not a Creature oâ— Created what is it Answ Himself hath said Way Casâ— up p. 104. not yet retracted Let all the Scriptures be searched and it shall not be found that Christ became Man and took to himself the Soul of Man at his Conception in the Womb of the Virgin Mary but only that he took Flesh and was the Son of Mary David and Abraham according to the Flesh but according to his Heavenly Nature even as Man he was the Son of God whose Name is Wonderfull Counseller the Mighty God the Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace Thus much of his Holy Manhood but that which was born of the Virgin he calleth ibid. p. 113 14. That Vessel and Temple that Suffered at Jerusalem in