6

away, and all Things become new, may sately fay with the Apostle, Though we have known * Christ after the Flesh, yet now henceforth know we bim no more. Now this new Creature proceeds • from the Work of this Light and Grace in • the Heart.

By this, 'tis plain, that what our Opponent calls, a most unchristian Assertion, is only R. B's Deduction from the Words of the Apostle; and the Comparison he makes, he does not insist on as holding in every Respect; but that Part of his Words wherein he shews how far it will hold, our Adversary wholly leaves out: Let him difprove that Part of R. B's Simile, viz. even fo fuch, as go no farther than the outward Knowledge of Christ, shall never inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, 'tis probable the Consciousness of his Inability to do that, led him to conceal the Passage. The Purport of R. B's Discourse in these, and fome following Pages, is to shew the Neceffity of the new Birth, of becoming new Creatures, of putting off the old Man with his Deeds, and putting on the new Man which is created after the Image of Chrift in Righteousness and true Holiness: And that unless this inward and spitual Work of Regeneration be wrought in the Hearts of Men, all outward Knowledge and historical Faith will be insufficient for their Salvation. This is Christian and Scriptural Doctrine, and is not the less so, for being, as he calls it, the very Heart of Quakerilm. Nor do they in the leaft undervalue the Death and Sufferings of Christ in the Flesh thereby, since 'tis by them they acknowledge the Grace to be purchased, by and from which this new Birth proceeds, and the Work of Regeneration is accomplished.

BUT

6

,

But our Opponent's Interpretation of the Text 2 Cor. v. 16. viz. that however it was with the Apostle before his Converfion to Chriftianity, ' he had then a more spiritual Knowledge of • Christ, and of the Reason and End of his out• ward Coming and Sufferings in the Flesh, p. 130. seems very foreign, since we do not perceive that he had any real Knowledge of Chrift before his Converfion, but was a blind and violent Perfecutor of him, and verily thought with himself, that he ought to do many Things contrary to the Name of Jesus of Nazareth, Acts. xxvi. 9.

SECT. Χ.

Of the Blood of Christ, and of Remission of Sins thereby.

OUR Adversary begins his 10th Section with

this

Quest. • Was it Jesus Christ's outward Blood, • shed outwardly on the Cross that was so highly • meritorious in the Sight of God, as to be the • Atonement for our Sins, and to cleanse us • from all Sin? 1 John i. 7.

Rom. V. 11.'

To this he answers, Yes: Nor does he cite any Quaker opposing him; for they readily acknowledge, as himself expresses it, • That it • was only by his [Christ's] meritorious Sacrifice • of himself upon the Cross, of which all the Sa⚫ crifices under the Law were Types, that the • Faithful before, as well as fince, were justified,' or received Remission of Sins that are past, upon Repentance, and an holy Conformity to the Guidance Guidance of his Light and Spirit, according to that of the Apostle, If we walk in the Light as be is in the Light, we have Fellowship oue with another, and the Blood of Jesus Christ bis Son cleanseth us from all Sin. 1 John i. 7.

6

'How could

His next Question pag. 131. one outward Thing be properly the Figure • and Representation of another outward Thing? • Or the material Blood of the legal Sacrifices be • the Type of the material Blood of Chrift's Sa

crifice; for this is to give the Substance no • Preeminence above the Type, or to make one Type, the Type of another, is a meer Mifrepresentation of a Passage in G. W's Light and Life, p. 59, 60. The true State of which is,

AN Opponent of G. W's had, as he there quotes him, argued, that because all Things under the Law in the Type were purged with Blood, and that Blood was material, therefore, that Blood that Christ shed in Order to effecting the Salvation of Men must needs be visible and material Blood. To shew the Abfurdity of fuch reasoning G. W. anfwers, • Do but mark here what a fad Confe

quence he has drawn, as if one should reason, * that because the Type was material, visible, and • not mystical, therefore the Antitype or Sub• stance must needs be material and not mystical, ⚫ by this all Mysteries or divine Things are ex• cluded from being either Spiritual, Antitype,

6

or Substance.

THUS does G.W. rationally demonstrate the Weakness of his Opposer's Argument; but to infer from thence, that he makes Christ's out• ward material Blood of his Sacrifice of himself upon the Cross not to be the Substance or Antitype,

titype, whereof the legal Sacrifices were a • Type, but that it self is a Type, that is, of the • imaginary mystical Blood of his Godhead, or • heavenly Manhood shed inwardly within them, • and that his outward material Blood of his

Humanity without them, had no Pre-eminence • above that of Bullocks or Goats, is an Injustice would have furprized us, had not our Adversary's frequent Practice made Instances of this kind familiar.

Pag. 132. he queries, Was the Blood of Chrift 'any more than the Blood of another Saint.' And cites Solomon Eccles Letter to John Porter.

HERE he would charge upon the Quakers an Expression, which, if he has ever read what he next quotes, viz. Thomas Ellwood's Answer to G. K's Narrative, pag. 117. he cannot but know they have exprefly disowned, for T. E. having recited that Passage, adds, • Which I know no • Quaker did ever approve, much less undertook

to justify or defend: I am fure I did not, nor • G. Wbitehead neither in his Answer to Burnet, ⚫ for he therein both disclaimed these Words by • saying, I do not make S. Eccles Expreffions • therein an Article of our Faith, and also for • himself declared, that he did own the Blood • shed, to be more than the Blood of another * Saint. Light and Life, P. 59. And I called ⚫ those Words of S. Eccles an unjustifiable Ex• pression.

An ingenuous Adversary, upon reading this, would have made no farther mention of S. E's Saying, much less, would he have infinuated (as in the next Question) that T. E. had attempted to justify it, by a Diftinction which is none of his, but S. Eccles own, and which T. E. only produces

produces to shew that G. K. had not done candidly in taking no Notice of it; but our Opponent is yet less candid, who only takes Notice of it to fix it on another Man.

Pag. 133. He proposes this Question, Was 'th e outward Blood of Christ that was outward

ly shed, the Blood of God, by which be purcha' fed his Church. Acts xx. 28. For 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, ' and so is the Blood of it?" For which he cites G. W's Light and Life, p. 36.

To this he answers,

• Now this shews the

true State of the Question between us and the • Quakers, that it is about the Virtue and Eff

cacy of Christ's outward Blood shed, whether • before or after his Death; seeing they plainly • exclude the outward Blood of Chrift from be

ing the Blood of the new Covenant, and make the Blood of the new Covenant to be only in• ward and spiritual Blood, whatever they mean

by it; whereas our Saviour says of the Cup, ⚫ that is, of the Wine therein, that they were to • drink in his Supper, that it was the Blood of the • New Testament or Covenant, that is, the Sign • and Memorial of that Blood that he was to • shed outwardly on the Cross, for establishing ' and confirming the new Covenant between God • and us, Luke (I suppose it should be Matthew) 'xxvi. 28. And the true Blood of God, was ' that outward Blood of his Humanity, shed outwardly on the Cross; which is not there• fore called the Blood of his Godhead, but the Blood of God, because he whose Blood it was,

6

was