To call that a Command of God which he hath given them no Command to practise is to set up the Precepts of Men in the room of God's Commandements as the Pharisees did of old and is a taking of his Name in vain for which he will not hold them Guiltless And they can never prove adds he by all their Art and Skill that Water-Baptism is commanded by Christ Matt. 28.18 19. for all God's Commands and Precepts especially of publick Institution relating to the Church are express in so many express words and are not left to be gathered by uncertain and doubtful Consequences This is argumentative and let him get over it if he can and detect the Unsoundness thereof if hâ— dare cope with it In the mean time let us hear wheâ—ther the Reason he now offers and which we may supâ—pose to be his only one and that his talking of Reaâ—sons is a meer Flourish will weigh down this Hâ— saith We no where find in all the Scriptures such a Phrâ—â— or manner of Speech that over any Man but Christ aâ—oâ— who is both God and Man did Baptize with the Holy Ghosâ— or had Power so to do Answ That God and Chriâ—â— gave the Holy Ghost and did baptize with the Holâ— Ghost by the Ministry of Faithful Men both in Preacâ—â—ing Prayer and laying on of Hands himself hath acâ—knowledged Truth Advanced p. 184. printed but Anâ—â— 1694. Therefore what he adds here That this distiâ—â—ction of the Apostles Baptizing not Principally yet Instrâ—â—mentally or Ministerially is as false and unwarrantable to say God created the World principally yet Angels did it instrumentally Christ redeemed the World principally by his Death and Sufferings but the Martyrs redeemed it by their Deaths instrumentally will stand him in no stead except he could prove on behalf of Angels and Martyrs that the former created the World instrumentally and the other redeemed it instrumentally as he hath granted that God and Christ have Baptized by the Ministry of Faithful Men. For although we read the Angels are said to be Ministring Spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be Heirs of Salvation Heb. 1.14 yet we no where read they were instrumental to the Creation for God created the World not only principally but even without Instruments nor was the World so much as instrumentally redeemed by the Death of the Martyrs their Death was not so much as contributary thereto but solely and wholly by Christ the Redemer So that the Cases are not parallel And if this be his topping Reason he may well talk of keeping the rest behind His Reason why the Coming of the Lord mentioned 1 Cor. 11.26 is this outward Coming he deducing from the outward Practice of breaking of Bread in the Supper which I rather take to be that himself might eat Bredd among them who continue the Practice of breaking of Bread naturally leads me to shew the Defectiveness of his Retractation even herein For were he a Sincere not Belly-convert why doth he not retract and enervate what I have offered in my People called Quakers Cleared p. 38 to 41. out of his Rect. Corr. p. 60 to 65 and Tr. Def. p. 9 139 to 142. And why not tell us what he thinks of the Supper as now used as well as of them who use it In his Pres and Ind. Ch. p. 185. he said That which ye now use is neither substantial Dinner nor Supper being only a little Crumb of Bread scarce so big as a Nut and a Spoonful of Wine or two which hath little outward Substance and NO INWARD AND SPIRITUAL SIGNIFICATION unto you as ye use it while ye altogether deny that the Saints are Partakers of the Substance of Christ or that Christ really and substantially dwelleth in his Saints c. Will he say so still For he hath not yet retracted this Or will he now say Theirs is a Supper and that Christ dwelleth not really and substantially but by a Metaphor and Allegory in his Saints Or will he rather take a Mid-way couching himself under general Expression till he sees he can make no longer Friends but of them who repute breaking of Bread to be a continuing Divine Ordinance and of his Flock at Turners-Hall too And whereas he said ibid. p. 184 185. These who altogether are for the outward Baptism and Supper and deny wholly the inward and Spiritual Baptism and Supper of Christ which is only known and received by the Holy Spirits inward Revelation no Charity can be allowed unto them to judge them true Christians in any degree but altogether for the time Hypocrites and Formalists Will he retract or defend this now Or would not himself be willing to be one of these Hypocrites or a worse provided they would receive him and maintain him He saith now p. 30. That it stands well with good reason that what is represented to Mens Hearts of our Lord's Sufferings by their Hearing Sight Smell Tasting and Feeling in the use of these Signs instituted by himself will more effectually affect their Hearts and Souls than what is done alone by the Hearing or Reading c. Whereupon I Query of whom he thus speaketh Of Men or of Children If of Men I must put him in mind that he once spake of and pretended to witness a Preaching and Hearing beyond what could affect the outward Senses even à tast and discerning begotten of the Lord which tasteth Words and Works as the Mouth tasteth Meat Imm. Rev. p. 180. as I have also observed Sect. I. § 3. If of Children viz. of such of whom he said If these who are so Zealous for Water Baptism where cordially Zealous for the Inward and Spiritual Baptism they might be the more borne with as Men bear with Children that use Liknesses and Figures of things that suit most with the Age and State of Children c. See Presh and Ind. Chur. p. 184. then when they become Men they must put away Childish things according to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 13.11 So that take him either way while one of them is unretracted he runs himself upon the Pikes Which had he been sincere and true even to his present Sentiments he might have obviated by a hearty espousing of the one Cause and as heartily renouncing the other But this Laodicean way of neither Hot nor Cold will be Spued out even of Men in time He alledgeth indeed without so much as touching upon what we have offered out of his former Books that God hath given him of late since he found many of the People called Quakers greatly opposed the Faith in Christ Crucified and raised again as a necessary thing to our Christianity and Salvation as he falsly chargeth us a further and clearer sight and a more deep inward Sense and Consideration of the great Benefit and Advantage the Practice of these outward things when duly practised is to the Preserving the Christian Faith and Doctrine in the World But in this he is not
formerly the Gospel is NOT the Words the Unbeliever hath that but the Gospel he knows not it is â—id from him Christ himself is the great Preacher of that and his now saying that neither the Scriptures nor the Spirit and Light is the Gospel barely and abstractly considered He then said Christ preached it immediately he now tells us a little below It cannot be conceived without some Form of Words and Propositions that consist of words inwardly conceived and cannot be outwardly preached without some Form of Words outwardly expressed whereby he confounds a Declaration of or concerning the Gospel with the Gospel it self quite beside his Sentiments formerly That it was spoken in Man by Christ by the powerful Breath of his Spirit which surely may be without a Form of words as outwardly The one the Unbelievers may read hear and know and yet noâ— know the Gospel But will he say the Gospel was never communicated by the Divine Breath without a Form of Words seeing he now makes the outward Preaching and the thing preached so inseparable to the Gospel that neither of them are Gospel in the abstract And whereas he tells Imm. Rev. p. 213. The Gospel was preached unto Abraham Abel Enoch Noah and to all Believers who lived before Scripture was writ in a Book and that it was spoken into their Hearts by the Spirit of Jesus Christ c. Will he now maintain that they had both the Scripture Words and the Spirit and Light in order to make it Gospel Could not Christ in speaking into their Hearts be conceived without some Form of Words or was it not Gospel till so conceived Nor will his Allegations from p. 55 to 71. and p. 69 stand him in any stead For the first Reference is wide no passage assigned and though I cannot find any thing there to help him off yet I find in p. 56. what makes against him viz. The best of words uttered from Christ himself in the days of his Flesh or from any oâ— the Apostles or Prophets and yet recorded in Scripture cannot reveal the Father nor the Son neither they point only at that which reveals and were spoken and writ for that end that People might come to the Principle of true Knowledge in themselves see also p. 59. Whence I Query Cannot the Gospel which is the Power of God unto Salvation reveal the Father or doth that Gospel point only at that which reveal Or is that which reveals the Father which he saith the best of words cannot do as it is opened in Man by the Son no Gospel till outwardly preached or written Thus for want of Sincerity to retract and by labouring to defend as Congruous what is so Contradictory is the Man entangled and the more he toils the more he is perplext His second Reference instead of doing him any good further lays him open For though he doth there assert the Light as the Principal thing yet not in ordine ad idem not with relation to the Gospel for which end he here adduceth it for there was no Dissertation thereof there His words are these One takes himself to read Commentators to furnish him for the Ministry another to read Hypocrates and Galen to become a Physician while their hands are out from the Light of Christ which gives true Knowledge and Ability to Minister either to the Soul or Body and is the principal thing Mark he doth not say it is the principal thing of the Gospel he was not defining Gospel here but what was the principal thing â—o make a good Minister or Physician nor did he say â—eading of Hypocrates or Galen was Gospel in the abâ—tract but the Light was the principal thing or that â—hey and the Light together make up the Gospel in the â—ull and adequate Sense thereof This I urge to shew â—he Man's Falshood and Deceit who offers so remote â—n Instance and wide from the subject we are treating â—f to prove that to which it had no coherence and all â—o cover himself that the Shame of his Nakedness â—ight not appear which now is so much the more viâ—ble by this fresh Demonstration thereof From hence he sallieth to a Discourse about the Scripâ—ures being called the Word of God That he may ratifie our Adversaries he represents it an unprofitable â—rtful and groundless Contention on our parts especially â—r Friend B. Cool having in a late Book of his said That as they declare the Mind of God with respect to us and are his Commands to us they may in that respect bâ— called the Word or Command of God to us And so saitâ— G. K. all other Professions in Christendom own them and nâ— otherwise Answ Till he be more steady to what himâ—self owns I deem him no fit Voucher for others mucâ— less for all other Professions in Christendom Yet foâ— the sake of such to whom he labours to traduce us 〈◊〉 reply We contend not meerly about Words but aâ— some Men have erred in denying the immediate Internaâ— Revelation is a continuing Gospel-Privilege so havâ— they also in mis-applying what hath been said in thâ— Scriptures concerning the Word of God whence iâ— hath come to pass that as the Jews of Old thought iâ— them to have Eternal Life while not coming to Chrisâ— John 5.39 so these not attending to nor coming tâ— Christ as inwardly revealed have set up the Scripture as their Rule in opposition to an inward Guidance by the Spirit of God in these days assigning to them whaâ— was spoken of the Divine Inshining Words Now tâ— undeceive these and direct them to an inward Prinâ—ciple in themselves our Friends have been led to thiâ— Distinction not in Derogation to the Holy Scriptures nor through an Itch of Contention but as a necessarâ— Medium to six Mens Minds upon that Word which iâ— able to save the Soul and enlighten the Eye which thâ— best of Words could not do without it Yet very unfâ— was G. K. to fling this stone who himself hath botâ— used and defended this very Distinction in his Help iâ— time of Need p. 65. a passage not yet retracted foâ— there he not only tells us Though the Holy Scripâ—tures declare of this Word yet they are not thaâ— Word more than a Map or Description of Rome oâ— London is Rome or London or the Image of Caesar iâ— Caesar or Bread and Wine is the Body and Blood oâ— Christ c. But also allows They may borroâ— the Name and sometimes be so called as the words or Prophecy of Isaiah is called by himself his Vision c. He should therefore have first retracted his own unprofitable hurtful and groundless Contention as he calls it in others before he had bestowed his Censures upon us But the Man's Malice hath run him a-ground who needed not by this repeated instance to have given fresh Evidence of his Instability we having enough to load him with besides and more than he can fairly get from under were he not judiciously infatuated
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.
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
Death So foully hath he prevaricated in wresting his words to what they will not bear nor were not designed to bear when given He goes on This was never intended by me to lâ—ssen or obscure that great Truth of the Gospel That the Man Christ is the Promised Seed of Abraham in the true literal Sense and without all Allegory as he was born of the Blessed Virgin and that Promised Seed of the Woman that should bruise the Serpents head Answ What he intended is best interpreted by what he said except he would perswade us that he said one thing meant another I shall not therefore think much to transcribe a Passage or two already given in our former Books and not yet retracted by him In his Way cast up p. 99. he saith Though the outward Coming of the Man Christ was deferred according to his outward Birth in the Flesh for many Ages yet from the Beginning this Heavenly Man the PROMISED SEED did inwardly come into the Hearts of those that believed in him and bruised the Head of the Serpent and destroyed him that had the Power of Death that is the Devil And in Way to the City of God p. 125. Even from the Beginning yea upon Man's Fall God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself and Christ was manifest in the HOLY SEED inwardly and stood in the way to ward off the Wrath of God from the Sinners and Unholy that it might not come upon them to the uttermost during the day of their Visitation For even at Man's Fall the Seed of the Woman was given not only to bruise the Serpent's Head but also to be a Lamb or Sacrifice to attone and pacifie the Wrath of God towards Men. And also p. 128. he Queries Why might not Christ suffer in Men before his outward Coming as he doth now suffer in them long after it Again The Seed hath been the SAME in all Ages and hath had its Sufferings under by and for the Sins of Men in them all for the removing and ABOLISHING of them This I bring not to entertain a strife about words but seeing he absolutely told us what he ever intended I demand the Intent hereof whether he did not then acknowledge Christ's Appearance as a Seed and the Effects thereof both to reconcile attone and pacifie the Wrath of God towards Men and also to bruise the Head of the Serpent was previous to that of his being born of the Blessed Virgin the which he knows to be that which we have all along pinched him with out of his former Writings and which to this day he hath neither retracted nor defended § 13 Whereas he had said Imm. Rev. p. 87. ' The Soul speaks to God in the Son Through him not at a distance but near He now § 13. saith His Sense was not at a discontinued distance but both near and afar off Answ This idle Shift will not help him he is positive he is not a distance but near and adds Where his living Drawings are felt his eternal Power is felt making way for the Soul unto God breaking through all the Powers of Darkness c. And is that Presence wherein the livings Drawings are felt c. at a distance absent not near even within say I Yea Christ is near as Mediator He is Man's Advocate unto God and there is none to intervene or come betwixt God and the Soul but Christ the alone Mediator to whom God speaks in his Son said G. K. but a little above and in p. 88. speaks of the Appearance of Jesus to mediate in Men which could not be spoke of the Body received of the Virgin and now glorified in Heaven for that is at a distance not near but of that Presence which is not at a distance but near even of him who is the high and holy one that inhabits Eternity with him also that is of a contrite and humble Spirit Isa 57.15 Nor will his Notion of a discontinued distance help him but rather shew he is a meer Shuffler First for that it is no Scripture Phrase Yet expresly delivered in the Scriptures in plain express Scripture-terms therefore by his own Rule Truths Defence p. 170 171. should not be required by one sort from another as an Article of Faith or Doctrine or Principle of the Christian Religion 2ly However it may hold in the Mathematical Science with respect to a direct Line which extends from the place near to another remote and afar off yet here Vbiquity being an Attribute not only of the Deity but even of the Man Christ according to his own Assertion Way Cast up p. 130 131. and not yet retracted so that God and Christ are every where not confined or circumscribed to a remoteness as in a direct Line where one part is near the other afar off this distinction will not hold 3ly What he alledges out of Acts 17.27 where Men are bid to seek the Lord if happily they may feel after him and find him reacheth not his purpose viz. That he is not at a discontinued distance It being spoken of the Vnfaithful and even to them God was not afar off however they might be far from him so as to feel and find him For that which may be inwardly felt and found is not far off But hear him again I did not intend in the least saith he by asserting the Mediation and Intercession of the Mediatory Spirit of Christ in the Saints to deny or derogate from Christ's Mediation and Intercession without us in Heaven Answ Neither do we But what doth he retract then if it be still good Doctrine that Christ is Mediator in his inward Appearance in Man as well as in Heaven What hath he been hitherto contending with us about in his several envious Pamphlets Will he give up the Cause at last and cry Peccavi for his fierce opposing and slandering us as denying Christ's Mediatorship upon this very foot rather than retract this Passage Or will he do neither but twist and twine and wriggle in constant Inconstancy and neither plainly renounce nor plainly defend what he hath so plainly asserted formerly § 14 He would perswade us if he could § 14. that by these words Imm. Rev. p. 99. Jesus Christ revealed in Man is the Foundation of the true Church He did not mean only and alone the Light Within but that the true Knowledge and Faith of Christ as he is both God and Man and who as Man died rose and ascended c. is grounded upon him as inwardly revealed c. Answ He was not speaking of Jesus Christ revealed TO Man but of his being revealed IN Man which is the Scope of his Argument from p. 99 to 129. Who in p. 101. saith Christ must be revealed by the Father before he became a Foundation this is that which buildeth which edifieth the effectual Working in every part the Revelation of the Arm of the Lord IN Man's Heart And p. 103. having told us that Whatsoever Church