« PreviousContinue »
their Hearts.' Of which he says, pag: 175. · I shall prove it in few Words, and first from ! the Words of Christ to Nicodemus, John iii. 3.
Verily, Verily, I say unto thee, except a Man be • born again, be cannot see the Kingdom of God.
Now this Birth cometh not by outward Preach? ing of the Gospel, or Knowledge of Christ, or
Historical Faith in him ; seeing many have
that, and firmly believe it, who are never thus ! renewed. The Apostle Paul also goes so far, · while he commends the Necessity and Excel
lency of this new Creation, as in a certain Respect, to lay aside the outward Knowledge of
Chrift, or the Knowledge of him after the « Flesh in these Words, 2 Cor. v. 16, 17. Wherefore henceforth know we no Man after the Flejb, yea though we have known Christ after the Flesb, • get now benceforth know we him no more. There
fore if any Man be in Christ, he is a new Crea• ture, old Things are passed away, behold all things
are become new. Whence it nianifestly appears, " that he makes the Knowledge of Christ after
the Flesh, but, as it were, the Rudiments < which young Children learn, which after they ( are become better Scholars are of less Use to
them, because they have and possess the very · Substance of those first Precepts in their Minds. • As all Comparisons halt in some Part, so shall · I not affirm this to hold in every Respect ; yet
so far will this hold, that as those that go no « farther than the Rudiments, are never to be ac« counted learned ; and as they grow beyond • these Things, so they have less Use of them ; • even so such, as go no farther than the outward
Knowledge of Christ, shall never inherit the
Kingdom of Heaven. But such as come to • know this new Birth, to be in Christ indeed, ļ to be a New Creature, to bave old Things past
away, and all Things become new, may sately say with the Apostle, Though we have known
Christ after the Fles, yet now benceforth know we « bim no more.
Now this new Creature proceeds from the Work of this Light and Grace in che Heart.
By this, 'tis plain, that what our Opponent calls, a most unchristian Affertion, 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 : Ler him disprove that Part of R. B's Simile, viz. even so 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 some following Pages, is to shew the New cessity of the new Birth, of becoming new Crea. tures, of putting off the old Man with his Deeds, and putting on the new Man which is created af. ter the Iinage of Christ in Righteousness and true Holiness : And that unless this inward and fpitual 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 our opponent's Interpretation of the Text 2 Cor. v. 16. viz. that however it was with the
Apostle before his Conversion to Christianity, - 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 Christ before his Conversion, but was a blind and violent Persecutor of him, and verily thought with bimself, that he ought to do many Things contrary to the Name of Jesus of Nazareth, Acts. xxvi. 9.
S E C T. X.
of the Blood of Christ, and of Remission of
Our Adversary begins his roth Section with this
Quest. · Was it Jelus Christ's outward Blood, < fhed 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 since, were justified,' or received Remission of Sins that are past, upon Repentance, and an holy Conformity to the
Guidance of his Light and Spirit, according to that of the Apostle, If we walk in the Light as he is in the Light, we have Fellowship oue with another, and the Blood of Jesus Christ bis Son cleanseth us from all Sin. i John i. 7. His next Question pag. 131.
«How could 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 Christ'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 effe&ting the Salvation of Men mujt needs be visible and material Blood. To shew the Abfurdity of such reasoning G. W. answers, . Do but mark here what a fad Conse6. quence he has drawn, as if one should reason, o 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, (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 out6 ward material Blood of his Sacrifice of himself 6. upon the Crofs not to be the Subftance or An
<titype, 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 Christ 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 expresly 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 sure I did not, nor « G. Wbitebead neither in his Answer to Burnet, • for he therein both disclaimed these Words by
faying, I do not make S. Eccles Expressions • 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
An ingenuous Adversary, upon reading this, would have made no farther mention of S. E's Saying, much less, would he have insinuated (as in the next Question) that T. E. had attempted to justify it, by a Distinction which is none of his, but S. Eccles own, and which 'T. E. only