THE True Christ Owned, AS HE IS

TRUE AND PERFECTGOD
MAN.

Containing An ANSWER to a late Pam­phlet, having this Title, The Quakers Creed, concerning the Man Christ Jesus, &c. Writ by a Nameless Author.

Which Pamphlet containeth many gross Lies, and wilful Perversions: Beside some other great Mistakes, occasioned by the Author his Ignorance and Blindness.

By George Keith.

Printed in the Year, 1679.

The True Christ Owned, AS He is True and Perfect GOD, AND True and Perfect Man.

Pamphlet.

TRanscribed verbatim out of a Treatise entituled, The way cast up.

Ans.

The false-hood of this shall plainly appear to any who readeth my Book, how that the Author hath Omit­ted many particulars of great Moment, that are necessary, for the Reader to understand the whole, beside the many Arguments, made use of in my Book, to prove the truth of what I have affirmed; which he hath not so much as once named, onely he hath ta­ken notice of some few, wherein he thought he could find any advantage, but that he is therein also disappointed, the following An­swer, I hope shall make sufsiciently apparent.

Pamplet. Animadversion, 1.

The Quakers from hence believe, that Christ had a Man­hood differing in nature, srom the man-hood of all other Men, contrary to Heb. 2. 11.

Ans.

He hath given no answer to my ar­gument [Page 4] from 1 Cor. 15. 45, 46, 47. that proveth that Christ as Man, excelleth all o­ther Men, in Nature and Substance, as the most high Heavens do excel the low Earth; but only to oppose this, he bringeth that Scripture, Heb. 2. 11. which yet doth no­thing oppose what I have affirmed; for gran­ting, that Heb. 2. 11. proveth, that Christ hath the same Nature of all other Men, in respect of all the essentials of Man's Nature, and that he had all belonging to Man's Na­ture, which Adam had, before the Fall, (al­though more is to be understood in Heb. 2. 11.) all this doth not prove, that he hath not somewhat more belonging to his Na­ture, as he is the Heavenly Man, than A­dam had; but indeed, on the contrary, it proveth very clearly, that he had more, which is implyed in these words, He that Sanctifieth; for Christ the Heavenly Man, the Second Adam, doth Sanctify the Earthly Man, or First A­dam, as he believeth in him, and giveth him Life, both to Soul and Body, even Life Im­mortal; and therefore he hath a more ex­cellent Nature, which is Heavenly and Di­vine, than the First Adam had; for that which Sanctifyeth and Quickeneth, is more excel­lent, than that which is Sanctifyed and Quic­kened thereby; but it behoved him to par­take of the true Nature of all other men, [Page 5] in all essentials, which therefore, according­ly he hath done, according unto Heb. 2. 14. for­asmuch then, as the Children are partakers of Flesh and Blood, he also himself took part of the same: and ver. 16. For he took not on him Angels, but the Seed of Abra­ham. But, that more is to be understood also, by these words Of One, Heb. 2. 11. is manifest, because he that Sanctifyeth, and they who are not Sanctifyed, but remain in their Unbelief and Ungodliness, are not said to be Of One. Nor doth Christ call the Unbelievers his Bretheren, but only them that believe, and are Sanctifyed by him: Christ therefore, and true Believers, are Of One, because they are united together by a mutual participation of the Nature of each other; so that as Christ the Heavenly Man, doth partake of the Flesh and Blood of the Children, they also partake of his Flesh and Blood, and become one Flesh with him ac­cording to Eph. 5. 31, 32. And therefore, as he doth partake of the Nature of Men, so these men who do believe in him, are par­takers of his Divine Nature, who is the Heavenly man, and of God through him, according to 2 Pet. 1. 4. compared with 2 Cor. 5. 19. and John 17. 23. Moreover, that the Man Christ Jesus, hath a Nature excelling all other men, as much as the Hea­vens [Page 6] do excel the Earth; See also John 3. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. and compare it with 1 Cor. 15. 45, 47.

Pamphlet. Animad. 2.

They believe from hence, that the Word was made Flesh, or Man, before the Creation of this World, contrary to Gal. 4. 4. 1 Pet. 1. 20.

Ans.

These Scriptures prove nothing con­trary to my assertion, for they are only to be understood of his outward coming, when he took Flesh in the Virgins Womb, and came in the likeness of Sinful Flesh; now I do not say, that he took that outward Flesh from the beginning, but only at that time: but he, namely, the Heavenly Adam himself, was from the beginning, and was the Word made Flesh, and gave unto the Saints srom the beginning, his Flesh to Eat, and his Blood to Drink, otherwise they could not have had Life in them, according to John 6.

Pamphlet, Animadversion 3.

The Quakers have found out another kind of Flesh, besides these four sorts, 1 Cor. 15. 39.

Ans.

Here thou seemest rather to mock, than to argue in good earnest. But what I have affirmed of the Heavenly Flesh and Blood of Christ, which he had from the be­ginning, is no invention, nor fiction of ours, but grounded on the Scriptures Testimony, [Page 7] and also on our own blessed experience: for that Flesh and Blood of Christ, which he had from the beginning, is the Food and Nourishment of our Souls unto Eternal Life, as it was also the Food and Nourishment of the Souls of all that believed in him, from the beginning of the World; for all before, and after his outward coming in that Body of Flesh, did Eat the same Spiritual Meat, and Drink the same Spiritual Drink; for they Drank of the Rock, &c. and that Rock was Christ, 1 Cor. 10. But when the Apostle is speaking of four kinds of Flesh, he is only speaking of the Flesh of Ter­restrial, or Earthly Bodies; but not of the Flesh of Christ that came down from Hea­ven; which indeed, is none of these four Sorts, but hath a more excellent Nature: for all these four Sorts are but Natural and Corruptible, but the Flesh of Christ is Spi­ritual and Incorruptible: And as touching the words of Grotius, cited by thee, Flesh is not understood by the Hebrews, but of the Mortal Body; it is easily answered, by tak­ing the word literally, without any Meta­phor or Figurative Speech; but if we take it Figuratively, it hath other Significations. For how oft is all mankind comprehending both Soul and Body, called Flesh in Scrip­ture, and yet the Soul is not the Mortal [Page 8] Body? But how little hast thou considered, how if thou stand unto the words of Grotius, thou hast given a stone to break thy own Head? for if nothing is to be called Flesh, but the Mortal Body; then the Body of the Resur­rection, namely, both Christ, his Body, & also the Resurrection - Body of the Saints, is not properly Flesh, because not a Mortal Body.

Pamphlet. Animad. 4.

The Apostles fre­quently speak of things to come, as present; as well might the Author say, that Cyrus had a Soul and Body, and did exist in flesh and blood, an Hundred Years before he was born; for he is called by Isaiah, Gods A­nointed, before his Birth, Isaiah 45. 1.

Ans.

If this be not gross Socinianisme, and Samosatenianisme, I leave unto all un­derstanding and sound Christians for to Judg: For both the Socinians now, and Samosa­tenians of old, denyed that Christ was be­fore Mary; and so doth this Author, con­trary to the express. Testimony of many Scriptures cited and opened in my Book called, The Way cast up; to which again, I Refer the Reader: and what a gross and unchristian, yea, Blasphemous comparison is this of the Author, betwixt Cyrus and Christ, as if Christ were no more Gods Anointed before his outward Birth in the Flesh, than Cyrus, was before his birth; and [Page 9] so by this means, all the Saints from the beginning of the World unto the outward birth of Christ, containing near about four Thousand Years, had no Christ, nor no Sa­viour, no Head, no Mediator; nor indeed, no­thing of the Heavenly and Spiritual Anoin­ting or Unction; and so had nothing of the Holy Ghost, which is that Anointing: for how could they have it without Christ, who is Gods Anointed, originally and first of all, and from, and by, and through whom, it cometh down, and is conveyed unto the Saints, even as the Oyl that was poured on Aarons Head, ran down from the Beard unto the skirts of his Garment: Now that David and all the Saints, before Christ came in the flesh, were in measure anoin­ted with the holy Unction, or Anointing; even the same wherewith the Saints are now A­nointed: see Psal. 23. and Psal. 133. 1, 2. And how did they receive this Oyl or A­nointing, but from Christ, who is Gods Anoin­ted first of all, and by whom it descendeth unto them, of whom Aaron the high Priest, was the Figure or Type; & therefore Christ was Gods Anointed from the beginning, not only be­fore Cyrus, but before all other men, ac­cording unto Prov, 8. 23. I was anointed from the beginning, (so the Hebrew word Nissakti, doth signifie, as I have already [Page 10] shewed in my Book) or ever the Earth was.

Moreover, when Paul said, the Fathers of old, drank of the Rock, and that Rock was Christ, was this only a Prophecy of Christ? who, but one so blind and grosly ignorant, as the Author of this Pamphlet, can so affirm? Nor, do thefe Scriptures Ci­ted by thee, Mat. 3. 16. Luk. 4. 1. concer­ning Christ his being anointed with the ho­ly Ghost, after his outward birth, prove, that he was not anointed before: For, in contradiction to thy self, thou grantest, he was Anointed before he was born; as indeed he was both then, and also from the beginning.

The Fifth Animad.

hath nothing in it of Argument, against what I have affirmed; only he perverteth some of my words, as the Reader may fee, by comparing his words and mine together; and this he often ufeth, not willing to suffer my words to stand as they are, but seeking to Vail and darken them, with his perverse minglings and additions.

Pamphlet, Animad. 6.

They believe that the Man Christ, did suffer, was slain, and Crucified, when our first Parents sinned; and doth suffer, is slain, and Crucified, as often as man sins, and Apostatise, contrary to Heb. 9. 26. and 1 Pet. 18. that testifie that the man Christ Jesus, was personally and [Page 11] really slain, Crucified and offered for sin but once; the other is but either in De­cree, Promise, Type, or Metaphor.

Ans.

These Scriptures are only to be un­derstood of Christ, his Sufferings in the bo­dy of flesh; so that he did but once die and suffer for sin, in the outward body, and in his outward person, which doth not hinder, but that he suffered and was slain, inwardly and spiritually, in mens hearts by sin, both before and since he suffer'd in the body of flesh, which was Crucified at Je­rusalem: for the writer to the Hebrews, did tell of those that fell away, that they cru­cify to themselves the Son of God afresh, Heb. 6. 6. And if thou saist, this is but in the Metaphor; I Answer, admitting it in a sense so to be, yet a real suffering is implyed under that Metaphor; as also, when the Spi­rit is said to be quenched, somewhat real is un­derstood under that Metaphor; and so in the present Case, although the slaying and Cruci­fying of Christ, may be said to be a Meta­phor, or Figurative Speech, yet some real suffering analogous in some true respect un­to what he did suffer in the outward, is thereby understood; and that I did acknow­ledge a Metaphor in that expression, is clear by my very words cited by thee, where I say, the measure of the life of the Lamb, came to [Page 12] be slain, as it were in them, by transgref­sion; here the words as it were signifie a Metaphor, which yet hindereth not, that the suffering of this innocent Life of Christ, was real, according unto its own kind and nature.

Pamphlet. Animad. 7.

In Answer to Amos 3. 13. he saith, As well might they say, that God as God hath now, and had then, such Eyes, Ears, Feet, Hands, as we have; for the Scripture speaks of him frequently, after that manner.

Ans.

I no where Read in all the Scrip­ture, that God hath such Eyes, Ears, Feet and Hands, as we have; fo that in this, thou dost grosly pervert the Scripture it self: For, although the Scripture speaketh at times, of Gods Eyes, Ears, Feet and Hands, yet they are not said to be such, as ours; and though these words are meta­phorical, they have also somewhat that is real, understood by them by way of Ana­logy; his Eyes, signifying his infinit Know­ledg; and his Hands, his Power, &c. and although I do also acknowledg, that the words Amos 3. 13. are Metaphorical, yet a real suffering is implyed under them, which is the suffering of the Spirit of Christ, as he is the Heavenly man, & Lamb of God; for, in that respect only, he doth or can suffer, [Page 13] properly; nor is it any contradiction, or inconsistency, as thou seemest to make it, that the same Life; or spirit of Christ, may be alive in it self, and yet Slain or Cruci­fied, as to the sinner, no more than it is any contradiction or inconsistency, that the soul is, as it were, dead unto the dead body, in which it lived; and yet remai­neth alive in it self, even when it is in the body, as it was in the case of Eutichus whom Paul raised from the Dead, Acts 20. 10.

In his Animad. 8.

he bringeth no new matter, but what my former Answer doth give a sufficient Reply unto; for the words, Rom. 6. 9. are to be understood of Christ his being raised from the Dead in that body wherein he suffered; so that he died no more, as in the Head, no, nor yet in ma­ny of the Members; in whom that preci­ous Life of Christ, shall never any more, be slain or quenched: but it cannot be so said of all, seeing some may fall away, and Crucify him afresh, unto themselves.

Pamphlet, Animad. 9.

In Answer to my Arguments from some places of Scripture in the old Testament, thou sayest, By the same way of arguing, Christ did from the beginning, really take upon him Angelical Nature, as well as mans Nature.

Ans.

That Nature which Christ did take from the beginning, did and doth excel in its very being, the Nature, both of all men, and also of all the most glorious An­gels; and yet, according unto the same Na­ture, he is somtimes called Angel, and som­times Man; Angel there, not signifying the common nature of Angels, but only his High Office and Dignity thereof; for An­gel is, as to say, Messenger, or one that is sent: and therefore it doth not follow from this, that Christ took on him the common Nature of Angels, as he did the seed of A­braham, when he was born the son of Da­vid according to the Flesh. And thy other instance concerning the man riding upon a red Horse, is no less impertinent (Zech. 1. 18,) For although some places of Scrip­ture, have only an allegorical sense, it follow­eth not, that none have a proper; and the pro­per sense is to be kept, where nothing doth per­swade unto the contrary; as indeed nothing doth perswade to the contrary, in the present case; but many things concurr together to establish the true and proper sense.

Pamphlet, Animad. 10.

Here he bringeth forth no matter of argument, but onely some queries, which I might altogether wave; yet for the sake of others, I shall say that which may suffice unto any sober enquirer: And to the First, I say, this Life and Spi­rit [Page 15] of the man-hood of Christ, is one with the Holy Ghost, by an oneness of union, even as the man Christ, is one with God; but as the Holy Ghost doth signify the Spi­rit of God, simply considered, the Spirit of Christ, as man, is distinct from the Holy Ghost, as really as the man-hood of Christ, is distinct from the God-head, but not di­vided, or separated there-from. To the Se­cond I answer, that the Spirit of Christ, as he is the Heavenly Man, is not properly a creature, but only as it is taken improperly, & largely, for a Divine Production & Emanation; but properly, it is rather an Emanation or Ge­neration, than a Creation. To the Third I say, a Spiritual Body, can well enough pe­netrate another that is, either, not Spiritu­al; or if Spiritual, yet not in that degree, as the other. Now, when I say, according unto the Scripture, that Christ had Spiritu­al Flesh and Blood from the beginning, where­with he fed the Saints; by that Flesh and Blood, I mean a Spiritual Body, in the high­est degree: and how one Body more Spi­ritual, can penetrate another, in a less de­gree, we have a Figure, or shaddowy re­semblance, in the outward light, that doth easily penetrate, both christal and air. To the Fourth, I say, it is very easiy to con­ceive, how Christ is called the Second A­dam, although, as man, he was before A­dam, [Page 16] who is called the first man: namely, in respect of the outward birth in the flesh, and also, in some respect, in the inward birth, of Christ in us, when we are regene­rated and made new creatures, in him: for commonly, the first birth, which is of the nature of the first Adam, as in the Fall, hath place in men, before Christ the second birth be formed in them; and yet Christ himself and his Spirit, Life and Soul, as he is the Heavenly Man, was and is before Adam and all Creatures, the first and the last; of whom John said, there cometh a man after me, which is preferred unto me, for he was be­fore me: And thus, according to Solomons advice in the Proverbs, I have answered the Fool in his folly, lest he should seem wise in his own Eyes.

Pamphlet. Animad. 11.

Here he bringeth no argument, but only querieth, and seek­eth to ensnare; but I am aware of his ser­pentine cunning, and can easily escape it by the grace of God, which is given unto me: and whereas he laboureth to bring G. F. youn­ger, and me, into a contradiction, his work is vain; for according to G. F. I say, the true Eternal God, is Light, and that Light is in us: But God doth shine in us, in Christ the Heavenly Man, or Second Adam, who is in us; for God was, and still is, in [Page 17] Christ, Reconciling the world unto himself. Again, whereas thou sayst, by way of que­ry, Was the man that appeared frequently to the Patriarches, without the spring of this Soul and life of Christ. I answer, Nay; for that man was Christ, even the same that af­terwards came in the flesh of the Virgin Ma­ry: And whereas thou sayst, let them pro­duce one Scripture, and they shall carry it, where it is said, The man or Man-hood became flesh, it saith, The Word was made Flesh; I answer, these words, The Word was made Flesh, cannot be restricted, or limited to the outward birth of Christ in the Flesh; for the Word was made Flesh from the be­ginning; which Flesh was the Saints food in all Ages; and the Word made Flesh dwelt in them, according to Joh. 1. 14. The word was made Flesh, and dwelt in us; for so the Greek doth bear it, and so was it Translated, by divers of them called the Fathers. But that Christ the Heavenly man, took part of Flesh and Blood with the Children, see Heb. 2. 14. And that this he, who did so partake with men of Flesh and Blood, was not God; separately, and abstractly considered; but God in Union with the Heavenly Man-hood, and Soul of Christ, is clear, from other Scrip­tures, as 1 Cor. 15. 47. Joh. 3. 31. Joh. 6. 38. Now these words, Joh. 6. 38. I came

[Page 18] down from Heaven, not to do mine own will; most clearly signifie, that the Soul of Christ came down from Heaven, to take Flesh; for God simply considered, could not say, I came down from Heaven, not to do my own will, for God always doth his own will, which being most Holy, is a Law, both unto Christ the Heavenly man, and also un­to all others: this Scripture with many o­thers, I did bring, in my book, The way cast up, for proof of what I have affirmed, where­of thou hast taken no notice, so as to give any reply. But lastly, whereas thou sayst, in this Twelve Animadversion, In the next quotation, Mark, he saith, As man he was the Son of God; at which thou art offended: it seemeth there­fore, that this is no part of thy Creed, viz. That Christ as man, was the Son of God, even when born of the Virgin Mary; But if thou denyest this, I ask thee, who was the Father of Christ, as he was man, but God? For if he had another Father, then he was not born of the Virgin: which, if this be not rampant blasphemy, for any called a Christian to affirm, I leave unto all true Christians for to Judge: Or if thou denyest, that Christ was the Son of God before he was born in the Flesh, thou art Guilty of Gross Socinianisme, and contradictest the Scriptures Testimony in many places.

Pamplet, Animad. 12.

They believe that Christ did not become man, when the Vir­gin conceived by the over-shaddowing of the Holy Ghost, but was man before.

Answ.

He was man before, but yet he was not man cloathed with Flesh and Blood, in the likeness of our Flesh, before the Virgin conceived by the over-shaddowing of the Ho­ly Ghost; and therefore we do saithfully be­lieve, that the Man Christ was born of the Virgin, and conceived by the over-shaddow­ing of the Holy Ghost, who was the Son of God, both after he was so born, and also before, even from Everlasting.

Pamplet, Animad. 12.

Thus Christ was ne­ver man, had never a Humane Nature; for as they have said before, The Soul most pro­perly is the man, and Christ never had a Humane Soul, according unto Keith.

Answ.

That Christ was never man, I al­together deny, to follow by any true Conse­quence; from what I have affirmed, and as to his reason, that Christ never had a Hu­mane Soul, according unto Keith, as touch­ing the words, Humane Soul, I do not re­member that I have used that Term at all in my book, The way cast up; for because it is not a Scripture-Term, and of a doubt­full and Equivocous signification, I purpose­ly did pass it by; I say, it is of a doubtfull, [Page 20] or Equivocous signification: because first, it may signifie such a Soul; as hath no substan­tial dignity, or perfection in it, above the Souls of other men; and in this sense, the Soul or Spirit of Christ, as he is the Hea­venly man, is not a Humane Soul, but Di­vine, and Heavenly; for it is more excel­lent, even in the nature of it, than the souls of other men: Or Secondly, it may signifie the true soul of man, having all the Essen­tial Properties of mans soul, and it's whole perfection; and if in this sense, any will say, that Christ hath a Humane Soul, and call the Man-Hood of Christ, his Humanity, there needeth no contention about it; for in the Latine Tongue, we have not a word so proper, as Huma­nitas, to signifie the Man-hood; and if we may say Humanitas in Latine, we may say in English Humanity; that is to say, Man-hood: But then, by the Humanity of Christ, we understand, not only the whole Essen­tial perfection of the souls of Ordinary men, but also some greater and more Excellent perfection, as aforesaid; and therefore, it may be called his Heavenly and Divine Hu­manity, or Man-hood, which took part of Flesh like unto ours, in the womb of the Virgin. And not only the soul of Christ, but also his body of Flesh, in the outward, as it had all the Essential properties, and whole [Page 21] Essential perfection, of our bodies; so it had somewhat more, as being. conceived of a Heavenly and Divine seed, that came down from Heaven; and for this cause, the Hea­venly man Christ Jesus is truely Divine, both in soul and body, being divinely qua­lified in both. And if this offend any, that Christ should be called a Divine man, I desire them to consider; how oft men are called Divines, only for some profession of Divinity; & surely Christ Jesus, as man, hath incomparably more reason to be called Divine, than any of them; And what if I should call all their Divines, Humanes? Is this too mean and low a Terme, whereby to call them? But why is it too mean and low unto them, and yet they give it unto Christ, and call him Hu­mane; his soul, a Humane soul, and his bo­dy a Humane body: Is not this to exalt them­selves above Christ himself, and to take to them­selves a Title, which they will scarce allow unto him, and to give him a Title (as namely Hum­ane) which they think too mean for themselves.

Pamplet, Animad. 12.

So that he is so far from being like to us in all things, that he is not like unto us in any thing; for though he had a body like to ours, yet that body is not informed as ours.

Answ.

He is sufficiently like unto us in all things (sin excepted) that both his soul and his [Page 22] body had all the Essential properties, and whole Essential perfection, that the soul or body of any other men hath; but that he had, and still hath greater, and more ex­cellent perfections, both of soul and body, than all other men, doth not hinder that he was made like unto us, in those which both he and we also have: for was not Adam made in the Similitude or likeness of God? So that by reason of that Similitude, man was like unto God and yet God is infinite­ly more excellent in nature and being, than Man; but yet according unto the reasoning of this Author, either man hath no likeness unto God, is not like unto him in any thing, or then God hath no Substantial or Essenti­al perfection above man; both which are most absurd and contrary unto Scripture. But again, is not man like unto the Beasts in some things, as also unto the Herbs, Plants and Trees of the field? So that as the Herbs, Plants and Trees, have a Vegitable soul or life, and as beasts have a sensitive soul or life; hath not man both the Vegitable and sen­sitive soul, and is he not like unto them in those respects? And yet hath he not a Sub­stantial dignity and excellency of nature a­bove them; But yet again, according unto this mans reasoning, either man is not like unto the Beasts and Trees, in any thing, or [Page 23] else he hath no Essential dignity or perfection; not so much as in his very soul, above them; and therefore it shall follow, at last, that as God is no more excellent in his nature than man; and as man is no more excellent in his nature, than any beast, yea or Tree, that God is no more excellent than any beast or Tree of the field, which is most gross and blasphemous, and yet the Natural and ne­cessary Consequence of this mans Doctrine. When I think upon these and such like gross absurdities, that follow from this mans Do­ctrine, together with his other absurd say­ings, and Malicious perversions, I wonder not, that he hath been either ashamed or afraid to put his Name to his Pam­plet.

Pamplet, Animad. 12.

A Son is not a Son, if he have not the same nature with the Fa­ther and Mother.

Answ.

I grant, for Christ hath the same Nature both of Father and Mother: seeing as I have declared in my book, he is True and perfect God, and True and perfect Man: but that he hath the same Nature with Ma­ry, and all Mankind, as to all the Essentials of soul and body, hindereth not, that he hath also, a more excellent nature; otherwise, thou might as well say, that Christ could not be the Son of Man, and also the Son of God, [Page 24] which is contrary to Scripture.

Pamplet, Animad. 12.

Jesus increased in Wisdome, his Soul was then subject to some kind of ignorance, though not sinfull: it did not know all present or past things.

Answ.

Ey Jesus increasing in Wisdome, may be very well understood, the manifesta­tion of the spirit of Wisdome, that did more and more shew forth it self in him; and that to increase, is not always taken strictly, is clear from the words of John; He, namely Christ, shall increase, but I shall decrease Now, John was not to decrease, as to any Perfection, Grace, or Vertue, where­withall God had endued him. But again, I do readily grant, that Christ, as in re­spect of the Nephesh of his soul, might grow in Wisdome, as other men, as also he did grow in stature: and Lastly, even the Nis­mah, although Omnipercipient of things pre­sent, and Omniscient of things, both past and present, may and did grow in Knowledge; for the Soul of Christ, hath this Omniscien­cy of things past and present, by the Per­ception of the objects, or things, as they dayly appear: and therefore his Soul may grow in experimental Wisdome and Know­ledge, as properly as the soul of any other man; although both his Wisdome and growth [Page 25] therein is incomparably beyond that of all o­ther Men or Angels: But whereas thou sayst, Christs soul was subject to some kind of ignorance, this is too grosly and rudly, yea irreverently spoken: He was nescient of some things that was to come; as namely, of the day and hour of the last Judgement, as he declared himself; but to say he was igno­rant of any thing, is gross and improper; for ignorance signifieth always some defect of that Knowledge which one should have, as blindness, deafness, &c. Signifie a defect of the Natural senses of seeing, hearing, &c.

Pamplet, Animad. 12.

Christ (according to Keigh) when he appeared in Flesh, was more like to the Angels that appeared in Humane shape, in the time of the Old Testament, than like to men.

Answ.

This I altogether deny, for Angels have not real bodies of Flesh and Blood, such as men have; Angels are not born of women as men are, Angels are not crucified and buried, as men are, and as Christ was: and although Christ was called an Angel, yet he had and still hath, a nature more ex­cellent than all the Angels, and when he came in the likeness of our Flesh, he took not hold on Angels, but he took hold on the seed of Abraham.

Pamplet, Animad. 12.

What spirit was that which Christ committed to his Father, when he gave up the Ghost on the Cross?

Answ.

Why not the same excellent spirit or soul, that is above the Nature of all souls of men, and that is Omnipresent; for still the Father is greater than he, and he hath his dependence on the Father, in whose hand or power, he is.

Pamplet, Animad. 12.

And if they are for the pre-existence of the Soul of Christ's Man-hood, why not for the pre-existence of the souls of all other men?

Answ.

I have no time, nor mind to an­swer all thy queries; many of which are altogether unnecessary, others, vain and fri­volous; but if thou thinkest that the pre-ex­istence of the Soul of Christ, doth necessari­ly infer the pre-existence of the souls of all other men, thou shouldest have proved it by a clear Deduction, so to be; which be­cause thou hast not done, I am not con­cerned to answer thy query in this particu­lar: and I advise thee, with Augustine, to be more earnest to know, what shall be the state of thy soul after thou goest out of this world, than what it was before thou camest into it. And if thou repent not from thy heart, for thy so long opposing the Truth, [Page 27] and maliciously perverting the words of Truth, the state of thy soul will be misera­ble after thy departure.

Pamplet, Animad. 13.

I ask, why is not this Man Christ, in all the fallen Angels, as well as fallen men?

Answ.

He is in all the Creatures, for hefil­leth all things, giving being unto every Crea­ture, and upholding the same therein; and Consequently he is in the fallen Angels; as also to Judge and condemn them for their sin; but yet Christ Jesus hath a nearer Re­lation unto fallen men, than unto the fal­len Angels, by reason of the seed of Abra­ham, which he assumed: and therefore the Apostle Paul Preached Christ in fallen men, not only after that general manner of presence, but in way of Grace and Mercy, in order to restore and renew fallen man by Repen­tance according to his Commission, which he received from Christ; which was to turn fallen men from darkness to light: but we read not, that Paul had any such Commission to preach unto the fallen Angels: and as for the fallen Angels, they are reserved in Chains of darkness unto the Judgement of "the great day, and expect not any other thing from Christ but Torment, as they said unto him, when he came in the flesh, and did cast them out of men, What have we to do with

[Page 28] thee, Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to Torment us before the time? So, here, the Devils believe and tremble, for they fear the Judgement of Christ, to whom all power is given; But how could they fear it, if he were not present; and how could he cast them out of those they possessed, if his power (which is one with himself) did not reach unto them?

Pamplet, Animad. 13.

As for the Greek proposition [...], it must necessarily be Transla­ted among in some places, else see what sense you will make.

Answ.

That it must be necessarily trans­lated among, in some places, I do not deny; but in many more places, it must necessari­ly by translated, not among, but in; and in every place, it ought to be translated in, where the sense doth permit it, without any contradiction to truth, or other inconvenien­cy; because it doth most properly and usu­ally signify, in, and not among; but impro­perly, and less usually, whereof many hun­dreds of examples may be given. Now there is no contradiction unto truth, nor any in­conveniency, to understand by the Greek particle 'Ev, it's proper and common Signifi­cation, which is [in] in all these places menti­oned in my Book: And indeed, these very places constrain us to translate the Particle

[Page 29] in, and not barely among: For how was Christ Crucified among the Galatians, but in them? Gal. 3. 1. And how was the Riches of the Glory of the Mistery, which is, Christ, among the Gentiles, but in them? and how could Paul Preach the Unsearchable Riches of Christ among the Gentiles, if nothing of these Riches of Christ was in them, but all without them? And how could so many have been said to have pierced Christ, if he was not in them? For as touching the out­ward piercing of the outward Body of Christ, we only read that some few did that; and therefore, their piercing of Christ, must be meant of his tender Life and Spirit, which both Jews and Gentiles have pierced in their own Hearts, by their Sins, according to Rev. 1. 7.

Pamphlet, Animad. 14.

They believe this man-hood of Christ perceives and knows all things, past and present, of it self and by it self; considered, without any Relation to, or union with the Deity, and that it needs not God, as to the knowledge of any present or past things, but only as to the thing to come.

Answ.

This is a most gross and unreaso­nable perversion and wresting of my words; which any man that, hath the least Sobriety or Candor, must needs acknowledge, by reading my words, even as cited by him:

[Page 30] But if he say, that his gloss doth follow by way of consequence, from my words; I al­together deny it, and in plain contradicti­on to what he hath most perversely and false­ly alleadged to be my assertion: I say, the Man-hood or Soul of Christ, neither know­eth, nor can know, any thing, past, or pre­sent, without the need and necessary help of God; as neither indeed, can we, or any Creature: And Secondly, I affirm, that Christ hath this Omnipercipiency, or Universal know­ledge of things past and present, by Virtue of his Divine Union with God; even as the body hath its perception of some things, by Vertue of its Union with the Soul, to which it is United. And because the Soul of Christ, hath the most excellent, most per­fect and most high, and immediate Union with God; so as that Christ himself is God: therefore he hath this universal perception or knowledge of things past and pre­sent: and therefore also, he hath the most a­bundant knowledge of things to come, by Divine Revelation from the Father, above what the most perfect Angels or men can have; so that what they know by Divine Revelation, they know it by Jesus Christ, who hath it from the Father, according un­to Rev. 1. 1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew [Page 31] unto his servants. Nor can it follow by any just consequence imaginable, that because I say, that Christ hath an Universal sense or Perception of things as they are, that therefore he doth know them without all need of God, or without all Relation unto him, or Union with him; I say, this doth not follow, no more then it follow­eth, that whereas the Author of this Pamphlet hath many Natural Perceptions of Natural Ob­jects, Seeth, Heareth, Smelleth, Tasteth & Feel­eth; many Objects immediately, and know­eth them without immediate Revelation; that therefore he hath no need of God, or of his help, whereby to make them known: Whereas indeed, according to his manner of reasoning, either he himself, Heareth, Seeth, Smelleth, Tasteth, Feeleth all Natural things by immediate Revelation; and all his Na­tural knowledge of things immediately Re­vealed unto him by God; or then he know­eth them all without any need of God, and without all Relation unto God, so much as unto a Creator: both which, how absurd they are, and yet how the Natural Consequence of his own reasoning, I leave unto every understanding man sor to Judge.

But I cannot but wonder at his blindness and inconsiderateness that doth not under­stand, how to make a difference betwixt that knowledge, which is by a real sense or per­ception [Page 32] of the Objects in themselves, and that which is by a Divine Revelation, when the Objects themselves are not immediately dis­cerned; for that which I know by a real Per­ception of the things, I need not a Revela­tion to make them known: As for Example, when I hear a man speak, I need not a Divine Revelation to tell me who speaketh unto me, or what is spoken; and yet I need the help of God, in many respects, both to convey the voice unto me, and also to help me to hear; for it is God who maketh the ear to hear, and the eye to see: And thus, according to the aforesaid Example, if Christ Jesus, even he the Man-Christ Jesus, who was Crucified for us, hear our Prayers, when we pray unto him, and unto God through him, doth he not know our Prayers without a Divine Revelation? and if he know them only by a Divine Revelation, he cannot be faid properly to hear them, as I have sufficiently proved in my book, and to which this Trifler, and perverter, hath made no reply: and if he denyeth, that the Man Christ Jesus heareth our prayers, let him declare so much; and then we shall see, how this shall relish unto the ears of true Christi­ans; and who are most denyers or owners of the True Christ, & of his Divine perfections.

Pamplet, Animad. 14.

Whether this is not [Page 33] to constitute a new God in time: Is it not Jehova's Prerogative, what is spoken, Psal. 139. Of possessing the Reins, and being Omniscient.

Answ.

To say that Christ Jesus the Hea­venly man, and Lord from Heaven, is Om­niscient, and hath an Omni-perception, and Universal knowledge of things; is not to constitute a new God in time, for Christ Jesus is God, even the same God, with the Father, by vertue of his most excellent, and most immediate Union with him, which no men nor Angels have, or are capable to have, and Christ Jesus is before all things, and consequently before all times also, the first and the last: Nor doth it follow, be­cause the man-hood of Christ hath an U­niversal knowledge and perception of things, that therefore his man-hood is either equal unto the God-head, or the same; for seeing the man-hood hath his being as well as his knowledge, from the God-head, and is alto­gether dependent from him, the Father is greater then he, as he hath declared him­self: and here what thou talkest of the com­munication of properties, I may afterwards consider, in its proper place, where thou fliest unto it, as thy last refuge, after thou hast finished thy Animadversions.

Pamphlet Animad. 14.

As to the second it is [Page 34] spoke, Now I am no more in the World, and me you have not always: I go away.

Answ.

It is very clear, that he spoke these words, only in respect of his outward and bodily presence of his external person, or outward man; but not in respect of his inward and spiritual presence, even as he is the Son of man, or second Adam, for af­ter the Ascenfion of Christ, John saw one like unto the Son of man, walking in the midst of the Seven Golden Candlesticks, who could this be but the Son of man himself? And how is Christ the second A­dam, the quickning spirit, if he be not pre­sent to quicken those whom he doth quicken? for how can that which is absent from us, alto­gether quicken us, or give us life?

Pamphlet Animad. 15.

As to thy query here, I answer, That Christ was an offering un­to God for sin (when he was Crucified up­on the Cross) both in soul and body; and neither his soul nor body, want any thing that is Essential unto the true and real Na­ture of man; and all that which he had as man, he offered up unto God through the eternal spirit.

Pamphlet Animad. 15.

They believe this second latter body is Ascended, glorified in Heaven, yet remains the same in substance, contrary to their former faith, citing John

[Page 35] Crook, in his book called Counterfeit Convert, when the question is put J. C. viz. whether dost thou believe, that the same bo­dy of man, after the departure of the soul from it, doth rise to life again: he answereth, this query is contrary to Scripture, which saith, a Natural body, &c.

Answ.

This is another manifest perver­sion, for it is plain by J. C. his words here cited by thee, that J. C. doth not speak of the body of Christ, but of the body of an ordinary man, which goeth to dust and corruption, whereas the body of Christ did not corrupt; for it being conceived by the Holy Ghost, and having a Heavenly Origi­nal, it was more excellent then the body of any other man; and therefore seeing it did not corrupt, it was raised again, according to the words of Christ, concerning it, De­stroy this Temple, and after three days I will raise it up: and the same, after fourty days Ascended into Heaven.

Pamphlet Animad. 15.

Yet according unto Keith the Philosopher, though it be the same in substance, it is no more a body of Flesh and Blood.

Answ.

How or in what respect, he calleth me the Philosopher, as whether by way of Derision or not, I am not careful to deter­mine, or inquisitive to understand, for I af­fect [Page 36] no such Title, unlesse it be understood according to the Etimology of the word, to signifie a lover of Wisdome; namely the true Wisdome, and not that falsely so called; and in this sense, every true Christian is a Philosopher; which is to say, a lover of Wisdome; but that Philosophy and vain de­ceit, which the Apostle bids the Colossians be­ware of; that is, after the Tradition of men, after the rudiments of this world, and not after Christ, wherein I have been formerly educated and exercised, before I knew the truth as it is in Jesus, I have renounced, and do here, openly declare my Renounciation thereof, and count it all but loss and dung for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, in whom are hid, all the Treasures of Wisdome and Knowledge; and what I have declared, or given forth in any pub­lick Testimony concerning the truth, I have not received from the Worlds Philosophy, or Wisdom, but from the openings of the spirit of truth, as they livingly fprung up in my heart and inward parts; and unto the same, and to nothing else, I can and do re­commend my Testimony, to be judged in all, who have the same living spring of truth; as it is in the life and light of Jesus, opened in them; and unto the greater measure of the spirit of truth, in any others, I freely can [Page 37] and do submit, any publick Testimony which I have given forth, for the spirit of the Prophets is subject to the Prophets; & what the spirit of truth opens in one, can never be condemned by the same spirit in another.

Pamphlet Animad. 15.

The first Heavenly body of the man-hood of Christ which Keith saith, he had from the beginning, he allows to have Flesh and Blood, and calls it so, and it hath so now, in Heaven, surely ac­cording unto him, yet, the body born of the Virgin, is changed so Etheriall, that you must call it no more Flesh and Blood.

Answ.

I have said nothing concerning the Flesh and Blood of Christ, either before, or after his outward coming in the Flesh, but according unto plain Scripture; nor have I medled to give any other names unto the body of Christ, but what the Scripture giv­eth: for Christ said, the bread from heaven is his Flesh, and of this Bread, or Flesh, all true believers did feed, and thereby had life in them, even from the beginning of the world: and seeing Christ himself gave these names of Flesh and Blood, to that inward, Heavenly, Spiritual, and invisible substance, which refreshes the soul and in­ward man of every one that believeth, Who dare call these names into question, or find fault with them? although, I do freely ac­knowledge, [Page 38] they are Metaphorical and figu­rative; as when Christ called himself the vine, and those that believed in him, the branches; and I ask, was not Christ the vine, even from the beginning, into which all true believers were grafted? and did they not eat the Grapes of this Heavenly Vine-Tree, and drink the Liquor or Juice, or Wine thereof? and what was that but his Flesh & Blood, even as the Grapes of the Vine may be called it's Flesh; and its Wine or Liquor, its Blood; and as it is so called in Scripture, the Blood of the Grape?

But when I say, the body of Christ which was born of the Virgin, and was crucified and rose, and ascended, did not remain a body of Flesh and Blood, I am warranted by the Apostle, who said, Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God: and the body at the last resurrection is raised spiri­tual, conform unto the glorious body of Christ; and therefore it is not Flesh and Blood, in the Vulgar, or common sense; but if any call it so Metaphorically, and spiritual­ly, I shall not contend.

Pamphlet Animad. 15.

If the body of Christ be turned into air, and yet remain the same, in substance, we ask, what it is that identifies and makes it the same in sub­stance, that it was, when Flesh and Blood.

Ans.

Here is another gross abuse and perversion of my words, that he affirmeth: I say the body of Christ is turned into Air. This is a gross lye and perversion; I call it not Air, but a body Etherial and Heavenly; and it is a more excellent body than the purest Air, beyond all comparison; and as to his question, what is that, which Identifies and makes it the same in substance; this is ve­ry easily answered; the substance of the bo­dy it self remaining the same, under these different modes, or manners of being; as when the Soul of a man, is the same for substance, when converted from Earthly, Carnal, and Natural, to Heavenly and Spiritual.

Pamphlet, Animad. 16.

As to the compa­rison that the Author uses, as nothing of the Body of the Sun is here on Earth, but in Heaven; only its light and heat, which are qualities in the Air: So now that light with­in, that these Quakers have made so much stirr about, is nothing else but an accident and quality from the man-hood of Christ, in Heaven, adhering in our Souls, as light and heat, adheres in the Air.

Ans.

Here he passeth by the other exam­ples given by me here, and elsewhere, and only noticeth that of the Light, which ha­ving its center in the Sun, emanates in most abundant Streams into all the World, which [Page 40] emanating light that flows from the body of the Sun, he denieth to be any part of the Suns body, affirming it onely to be an accident or quality: But what reason or prooff giveth he, for his assertion? Surely none at all: But if he thinketh to defend himself by the authority of some called Philosophers; who say the same with him: I can tell him of other Philosophers, so called, more famous; & who speak indeed, more according to the truth, that deny it; and affirm, that the Light of the Sun, that emanates unto us, is a real substance, and hath of the real body of the Sun in it, which is the real Substance of Fire, as it can be proved, by the said Light, when it is con­tracted or gathered together, by the help of a burning Glass, that it burneth, or kind­leth, any ordinary combustible matter, as a­ny other fire doth: But seeing such a de­bate, is more proper for naturalists, and be­longeth to that called natural Phylosophy; I shall not insist thereon: only, I inform the Reader, who is not acquainted, perhaps, with such things, that the opinion which hold­eth light and heat, to have no body, is al­most generally, now rejected, in the Schools, as false; and as a meer old fiction of some old Popish School men, grounded upon some mistaken notions of Aristotle, and upheld by the Jesuits to uphold their absur'd Doctrine of Transubstantiation, when they teach, That [Page 41] the colour, and tast, and smell of the bread & wine, being but meer accidents, do remain without all Substance of the bread and wine, after the consecration; and as absur'd and ridi­culous, is their doctrine who say, that light hath no body, that is proper unto it, but is a meer ac­cident, or quality in the Air: For as well may the Jesuits say; that the colour, smell and tast of the Bread and Wine, having no body, or sub­stance of the Bread and Wine, are only ac­cidents adhering in the Air. But why dost thou not answer to my other examples, brought from Scripture; as namely, how the natural Life and Soul, do principally reside in the head and heart, and yet ema­nate into all the members of the body; and how the Sap and Moisture, residing princi­pally in the root of the Tree, goeth forth into all the branches; even so the life and light of Christ, as he is the Heavenly Adam, residing principally in himself; doth ema­nate and stream forth, into all his members, and in some respect, into all things? Is the Sap and Moisture, a meer accident, having no substance? and is not the Soul of Man, substan­tially, in all the bodily Members? although residing, more principally in the heart & head.

Pamphlet, Animad. 17.

They believe this Heavenly man-hood to be a creature, con­trary to John Crooks Counterfeit convert, p. 63. that true light which is called the Life of [Page 42] Christ, John 1. 4, 9. and lighteth every man that cometh into the World, is not a creature; Keith saith, it is a creature.

Ans.

To this I have answered sufficiently above, upon Animad. 8. that the Spirit or Life of Christ, as he is the Heavenly man, is not so properly or strictly a creature. But men have not only the Spirit of Christ in them, as he is Man; but also as he is God, and the Light, Life, and Spirit of Christ, as he is God: or the word simply conside­red in it self, in no sense, can be said to be Created: But the word made Flesh, may in that sense be said to be Created, as it is said to be made; for Made, Created, and Formed, are commonly of one Signification: And that the word was made Flesh from the beginning, I have proved in my book, because the Saints in all Ages, did feed up­on the Word made Flesh, and the Word made Flesh dwelt in them. Now in what sense I understand, that the Heavenly man-hood and Soul of Christ is Created: I ex­plain in my book, in these words, p. 135. ‘Therefore to the end that the word may be ingrafted into us, and we again ingraf­ted into it, the Word must be Incarnate, or made Flesh, as we are; for all men are a sort of Flesh, and so called in Scripture, in comparison of God, that is purely Spirit; [Page 43] and though the Souls of Men are Spirits, yet comparatively, as unto God, they are, as it were, Flesh; and thus the Word is become Flesh; that is to say, hath advanced a Step or degree, neerer unto us, than it was in God before any thing was made; and the Word was first of all made Flesh, to be the root and soundation of all other Cre­ated beings, and for which they are Created; for it is a more noble Creation, than all things else:’ Here by my words quoted at large in my book, it may be seen, how and in what sense, I understand the Heaven­ly man-hood of Christ to be Created, name­ly, as the word is made Flesh: also Christ himself designed by Wisdome, Pro. 8. 24. doth expresly say of himself; when there were no Depths, I was Formed; and again, v. 25. before the Hills, I was Formed: for so doth the Hebrew word Cholalti, most properly signify, and is used elsewhere in Scripture to signify the Creation of other things; so that, Made, Formed, Created, do commonly signify one and the same. Nevertheless, I do ac­knowledge, that Christ the Heavenly Man, is not so properly or strictly to be called a Creature; or Created, Made, or Formed; but rather generated: and he is the Son of God, rather than a Creature of God; even as a Man's Son, is not called his Creature, [Page 44] but his Son; and yet he doth truly and pro­perly partake with the Creatures; otherwise he could not be a perfect Midle, or Media­tor, betwixt God and Men, who are Crea­tures. But seeing this production or bring­ing forth of Christ from God the Father, is so great a Mystery, it is by no means to be curiously disputed about, but simply to be acknowledged, believed and admired; and not to be expressed in words which mans wisdome teacheth, but what the Ho­ly Ghost Teacheth; such as the Scripture words are, which say, The Word was made Flesh; and Christ, the Heavenly man, is the only begotten of the Father, full of Grace and Truth, and the first-born of every Crea­ture: and concerning his wonderful Gene­ration, it is said, Who can declare it? and he is called, the New Man, who is Crea­ted after God, &c. and so to these Scrip­ture Names, I keep close; where I am safe, and where the malicious accusations of the adversaries of truth cannot reach unto me. And by what is said, the reader may easily understand, that there is no real con­tradiction, betwixt John Crook and me; for whither J. C. mean by the true Light, which is the Life of Christ, the Light of the Word simply considered, or the Word made Flesh, I am at no contradiction with him; for ac­cording [Page 45] to the first, That Light, can in no sense be called a Created Light: and accor­ding to the second, namely, As the Word made Flesh, or as the Spirit of Christ as man, it is not properly Created, nor in that strict and narrow sense, is it to be so cal­led, as the other Creatures are.

Pamphlet, Animad. 17.

That Scripture, in Heb. 9. 11. Not of this Building; is grosly corrupted by the Author, &c. [...] here, is rightly translated building or structure: It is not always taken, for the Act of God, in framing something out of nothing; nor the effect of Gods so Acting; but it is taken in another sense, in some places, as 1 Pet. 2. 13.

Ans.

That Scripture, Heb. 9. 11. Is not at all corrupted, but truely translated, and the sense of it truely given; nor doth thy weak and frivolous reasoning prove the contrary: for as the Greek word doth not always signify a strict Creation; so no more doth the word Creation, in English; and that the word is sometimes applyed to an Humane work, or constitution; proveth not that it is so to be understood here: For the Writer to the Hebrews is not com­paring Heaven with the Tabernacle made by mens hands, (as thou alleadgest) in that verse: neither doth he call Heaven, that grea­ter [Page 46] and more perfect Tabernacle; for he saith not so; but thus: Christ being come, an high Priest of good things to come; by a greater and more perfect Tabernacle, &c. entered in once, into the holy place: The greater and more perfect Tabernacle: There­fore, is Christ himself, who hath gone into Heaven: And this Tabernacle, is more ex­cellent, than that outward figurative Ta­bernacle was; because that Tabernacle, could not remove it self from one place unto ano­ther; but as it was carried by the hands of men: neither could it go into Heaven, be­cause it was of a meer earthly creation; but Christ Jesus by a greater, and more perfect Tabernacle, namely, by himself, did go into Heaven; for he came down from Heaven, and is Heavenly; and not of such a mean, and Earthly Creation, as that outward Ta­bernacle was: and therefore, he doth com­pare Christ with the Figurative Tabernacle; not so much as to its structure or building with mens hands; for that were but a mean and low comparison, seeing the beasts Skins that covered the Tabernacle, and the blood that sprinkled it; as also, the substance of the wood, and other materials, were not made with mens hands, but only the artificial struc­ture, or form of the Tabernable, was the work of mens hands. But Christ Jesus, this [Page 47] greater and more perfect Tabernacle, doth excel the Typical and figurative Tabernacle, in regard of the very substance of which it is made; as being of an Heavenly Nature, and not of this creation, with the outward Ta­bernacle, as to the very substance; although for our sakes, he did partake with us of the Earthly creation, yet he himself is wholly and altogether Heavenly; if this be not the True and real sense of those words, Heb. 9. 11. I leave unto the spiritual for to Judge.

Pamphlet Animad. 17.

Let the Quakers re­member, that this creation, of which he saith, this Man-Hood is not, but of another; was not by hands.

Answ.

That it was not the work of mens hands, I confess; but this giveth thee no advantage; nor doth it in the least, weaken my Argument; for this Earthly and corrup­tible creation, although it is not the work of mens hands, yet by a Metaphorical and figurative speech, it is said to be [...], made with hands; to signifie the weakness and corruptibility of it; and for a clear proof of this, see, 2 Cor. 5. 1, 2. Where the A­postle compareth the earthly house of this Tabernacle of our Mortal Flesh, with our house from Heaven: and calleth this last by way of Antithesis, an house not made with [Page 48] hands; as if the Mortal body, which is our earthly house, were made with hands, al­though not with the hands of men; which is a figurative expression, as holding forth the meanness and weakness of all that which is earthly and Mortal, which the Learned a­mong the Hebrews, on that account, call in Hebrew, Asiah, as to say, in English, manu­faction, or a making with hands: but besides this visible and corruptible world, of Hea­ven and earth, which they call Asiah, or faction; they understand that there is ano­ther more excellent world, or creation, in­visible unto our outward eyes; and this they call Jezirah, as to say in English, formation; and besides this, yet a more excellent, which they call Briah, in English, creation; namely that which is strictly and properly so cal­led, (the other two, although commonly named, Creations, yet not so properly or strictly) for which distinction of three Worlds, they Alledge Isaiah, 43. 7. where all these three Hebrew words are used; and be­sides all these, yet one most excellent of all, and which doth in the Nature thereof, approach nearest unto God himself, and this high­est and most Noble production, above all things Created, Visible, or Invisible, they call Azi­luth, which is to say, in English, Emanation. Nor are these distinctions of Worlds and [Page 49] Creations, idle fictions of latter Jews, but real things; the Truth whereof is war­ranted, by clear and express Testimonies of Scripture, both of the old and new Testa­ment: for doth not the Scripture speak of Hea­vens in the Plural number, and of Heavens of Heavens? Also, doth it not say, that God made all things both visible and invisible by Jesus Christ, and certainly these invisible things are a more excellent Creation, as God created them, than the visible; also it is said, That God by his Son made the Worlds, or Ages; which cannot meerly relate unto the times, but also, and more especially unto the things themselves, made in those times.

Pamphlet, Animad. 17.

Some of them think fit to call this man-hood an Emanation, rather than a creation; you see they are at a losse, what name to give this child of their own begetting, and breeding, in the imaginati­on.

Answ.

This is another gross abuse, and perversion of my words; as if by these, some who think fit, rather to call the Hea­venly man, an Emanation, than a Creation; I did understand some of my friends, called in scorn, Quakers, and as if we were at va­riance among our selves, how to name it; which is a grosse untruth and false hood: for [Page 50] by that same, I did understand some He­brew Doctors, or Teachers, who call this Heavenly Man Aziluth, which is to say, in English, Emanation; as also they do call him, the Heavenly Adam, the great High­priest, the Bridegroom and Husband of the Church: and they say plainly, if this man were not, the world could not confist: and who is this but Christ Jesus, although they do not express these names. And certainly, it might be a great help whereby to con­vince the Jews, and to gain them to believe in Christ Jesus, as he was born and suffered in the Flesh, and Rose and Ascended into Heaven, to make use of those Testimo­nies, which are in their own books, unto Christ, although under other names; some whereof are very proper, and according unto Scripture, in our reasoning with them, in order to their conversion; which way, if used in the Wisdom of God, and direction of his Holy Spirit, I doubt not, but the Lord would bless; for even Paul, when he preached unto the Gentiles, at times, made use of some Testimonies out of their writers, whereby to bring them to acknowledge the Truth. But whereas thou art not affraid, nor ashamed, to call this Heavenly Man, Christ Jesus, a Child of our own Begetting, and Breeding in the Imagination; thou open­ly [Page 51] shewest thy gross Ignorance of the Scrip­tures, and thy great Unbelief, and want of True Faith in Christ; and that thou art a greater Infidel, in some Respect, than ma­ny of the Jews are: Some whereof, in words, do Acknowledge him, as he is the Heavenly-Adam, as Spiritually present with his Church in all Ages; although they do not believe his outward Coming, and Birth in the Flesh, which is a great Sin unto them: But thine, and their Sin is greater, who, al­though in words ye Confess unto his outward Birth in the Flesh; yet Deny his real Spi­titual Presence in the Church, either before, or since his outward Coming, and Birth in the Flesh. And surely, thy Blasphemy is no less, to call the True Christ of God, as he was and is in all Ages, even from the Be­ginning, a Child of our own Begetting, than the Blasphemy of those Jews was; who, when he came in the Flesh, called him the Carpen­ter's Son.

Pamphlet.

Can Flesh and Blood, and an Human Soul, be said to Ray and Beam from God, who is a Free and Simple Spi­rit?

Answ.

Christ's Soul is Heavenly, Divine, and Spiritual; and so is that Flesh and Blood of his, whereof I speak, which he had from the Beginning: And it may properly and [Page] safely enough be called, an Emanation from God the Father, according unto Christ's own Words, who said, He did proceed, and come forth from the Father; and whose Go­ings - forth have been from of Old, or from the Age. But then, Emanation (in this Sense) doth not signifie, That the Thing which doth so Emanate, is belonging to the very Es­sence of that from which it doth so Ema­nate: For these who call it an Emanation, do acknowledg, that it is a Distinct Being, or Production of a Thing distinct from the Godhead; although next unto it, and most nearly united with the same; as so indeed, the Heavenly Manhood of Christ is.

Pamphlet.

Therefore, you shall hear, he hath denyed it again, in the next Quotati­on.

Answ.

This is another gross Abuse, and Perversion! For, I have not denyed, that Christ his Heavenly Manhood, may be said to Emanate from the Godhead; as one Be­ing, or Essence, may be said to Emanate from another Being or Essence, distinct there­from: Only, I say, That the Godhead it self hath no such distinct Parts, within its own Essence or Being, as Center, or Rayes; but rather, is all Center, according to that no­ted Saying of H. Trismegistus: ‘Whereas the Soul of Christ hath its Center and [Page 53] Rayes distinct, by way of Emanation; and yet, that which Emanates, is of the real Being and Essence of the Soul, as tru­ly as the Center.’

Pamphlet. Animad. 18.

This then, may as fitly be spoke of them, as of the Man Christ Jesus; that in G. K. and J. C. dwells all the Fulness of the Godhead bodily, Col. 2. 9. How doth the Christian savour this? Is it not Rampant Blasphemy? See Pisca­tor, and he Translates the Word [...], in Col. 2. 9. Essentialiter, Essentially: And Calvin likewise upon the Scripture, saith, That God hath in Christ, Essentially appeared unto us.

Answ.

I altogether deny the Consequence; That, because the Essence of God is in us, that therefore, the Fulness of the Godhead can be said to dwell in us bodily: for that is only proper unto Christ, who is the Me­diator betwixt God and Us; in whom that Fulness dwelleth immediately, and to which it is immediately united. And forasmuch, as we cannot contain the Fulness of Christ, but only a Measure of him; therefore, the Fulness of the Godhead cannot be said to dwell in us: and yet we must partake of that Fulness which dwelleth in Christ, be­cause we partake of Christ, in whom the Fulness is. And this is no Blasphemy, but [Page 54] words of Truth and Soberness, and cannot but savour well and comfortably unto every true Christian; namely, that God dwelleth in us in Christ, according to Christ his own Words, unto the Father, Joh. 17. 23. Thou in Me, and I in Them; and according unto John, He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also, 1 Joh. 2. 23. And as for Pisca­tor, his Translation of the word [...], Es­sentially, it doth nothing hinder, but rather helpeth to consirm the Truth of what I af­firm: For, if the Fulness of the Godhead dwell in Christ Essentially, or in its true Es­sence; then it is clear, that if any Mea­sure of Christ dwell in us, that a Measure of that Fulness of God himself, dwelleth in us: for no Measure, or Part of Christ, is empty of God. Which Fulness of the God­head, as also, the Measures of it, are not to be understood Simply, as in God himself; who properly hath no Parts, nor Measures, but in respect of his Appearance and Ma­nifestation towards us; which Appearance or Manifestation of God, hath its Fulness in Christ, and its Measures in us, according to the Measure of the Gift of Christ, received by us. For concerning Christ, it is said; That God gave not the Spirit by Measure un­to him: But to every one of us, the Grace or Gift (namely, of the Holy Spirit) is [Page 55] given, according to the Measure of the Gift of Christ. And thus we see, that the Scrip­ture holdeth forth Measures of the Spirit given unto us, through what we receive of the Measure of Christ: But Christ hath that Spirit in Fulness, or without Measure: And the Spirit of God, both in Christ, and in Us, s of the same Essence with God.

Again, As to the Words of Calvin, cited by thee; they do also confirm the same Truth, and over-turn thy gross Assertion: For, if God hath appeared unto us Essential­ly, in Christ, and that we are Partakers of Christ himself, by a real Participation of him as Calvin doth else-where acknow­ledge; then, together with Christ, we are also Partakers of God: for God revealeth himself in Christ Essentially, and Christ revea­leth himself in us.

Pamphlet.

Whosoever then hath God Es­sentially in him, hath the whole Deity in him; for the Essence is the whole Dei­ty.

Answ.

The Essence of the Deity (as I have said) hath not Measures properly in it self; but yet the Scripture alloweth us to speak of the Measures of the Spirit of God, which is one Essence, or Being with God: Which Measures in Us, and Fulness in Christ, are to be understood, in respect of Manifestati­on. [Page 56] And according to this Distinction of fulness and measures, that is warranted by the Scriptures, I deny thy Assertion; that who ever hath any measure of the Essence of God, hath the Whole or Ful­ness; and the plain tendency of all thy work against us, is not only to rob the Saints of Christ, the Heavenly Man, but al­so of the Holy Ghost, and consequentially of God; and then finally, of all Goodness, Vertue and Grace: And indeed, this is the real and naked tendency of the Doctrine of all those, who contend so earnestly against the real and proper in-being, or in-dwelling of Christ, in the Saints, as he is the Hea­venly Man, and second Adam; to bring us at last, if they could, to deny that we have either God in us, or the Holy Ghost; for if the Essence of God, dwell only in Christ, and that Christ dwell not in us, then in­deed it should follow, that we have nothing of God, and so nothing of the Holy Spirit, which is one Essence with him: and the end of this is plain down-right Atheisme; for if God himself be not present in men, nor the Holy Ghost, (which is one Essence with him) nor Christ, how can any thing that is truly Good be in us, who can work it; or being wrought, who can preserve it if God and Christ be absent? Surely nothing appeareth [Page 57] unto me, more rampant Blasphemy, nor more gross Atheism, than to deny, that God is really present in all Men, and in all Things: For, how is God omni-present, if he be not really present, in and with all his Creatures? And if God be present in all his Creatures, then Christ is also present, because the ful­ness of the Godhead dwelleth in Christ. But seeing thou wilt not allow Christ, to have any further reach or extent, than the hu­mane soul and body of any ordinary Man; and that the Fulness of the Godhead is con­tained within that bounds of the ordinary stature of a mans body, and that essentially? is not this to limit the infinite God into a narrower place, or room, than the Souls of many brute beasts, which have larger bodies, manifold times, than the greatest body of any earthly man, and to confine him within the humane figure and shape of a man? yea, nothing is more plain, which is gross Anthro­pomorphitisme, and the blasphemous Doc­trine of Lodowick Muggleton. But further, I enquire, seeing thou affirmest, That the Es­sence of God is only in Christ, and that whole Christ is contained within the or­dinary dimensions of mans Body; and that Christ had neither Soul nor Body before Mary; Where was the Essence of God, from the beginning of the World un­til [Page 58] that time? For either it was somewhere, or no where; to say it was no where, no not in the Highest Heavens, is absurd; see­ing God is said to dwell in the Heavens; and they are called Gods Throne; and Christ Taught his Disciples to Pray, Our Father which art in Heaven, &c. But again, on the other hand, if thou shalt grant, That the Essence of God was in Heaven, then that Heaven is as personally uni­ted unto God, (by thy Doctrine) as ever Christ Jesus; and may as truly, and in the same sense be called God, the Son of God, God-man; the Creator of the World, and is the Object of Divine Worship. This, I say, is the necessary and infallible consequence of thy Doctrine, because thou sayest expresly, who ever hath the Essence of God in him, is as personally united unto God, as Jesus Christ; and may as truly, and in the same sense be called God, &c.

Pamphlet, Animad. 18.

Yet observe, the Author will not have the center of the Hea­venly Man hood of Christ dwell in us, but allows here, the Essence of the Deity to dwell in us: Is not this a preferring the Man­hood above the Deity?

Ans.

By no means: but it is an infallible indication, That the Deity is infinitely a more excellent being than the Man-hood of [Page 59] Christ simply considered; for it is a greater perfection to be all center; and that the center be every where, then only in some place. As for Example, if the Light of the outward Sun were all center, and that the center of the Suns Light were every where in the whole Firmament, that Light should be a much greater, and a more glorious and excellent Light, than the Light of the Sun, as it is now at present, is: And although I say, that the center of the Soul and Spirit of Christ, as Man, is not in us; yet the true Essence of the Soul and Spirit of Christ, in measure, is in us; for that emanation, or flow­ing forth, and ray of his Life and Light, is truly efsential unto him, and is not any meer quality or accident, or operation, as some have supposed.

Pamphlet, Animad. 19.

They believe, that there is a Nephesh, and a Nishamah, in this Heavenly Soul of the man-hood of Christ, one more gross, the other more refined.

Answ.

This is a gross abuse and perver­sion: for although I speak of a Nephesh, and Nishamah, in the Soul of Christ, yet I did not call the one more gross, the other more refined, although the one doth excel the o­ther; yet none of them are either to be cal­led, or understood to be gross, as having a­ny mixture of refuse, or superfluity, as the word gross doth import.

Pamphlet.

But there is a secret not yet to be revealed by this Rabbi; whether these two be one Soul, or two Souls of different kinds; or whither two faculties, or parts of one and the same Soul?

Answ.

This is another abuse, for I do not state the question so; as whether one Soul or two Souls; but thus: whither two princi­ples really distinct, or two faculties or po­wers of one only principle, which I found no necessity to determine, as neither I yet do, whatever be my Judgment and Perswa­sion in the case. Now, admitting or giving that they were two principles, yea although three, or four; or more Principles, were ac­knowledged to be in the Soul of man, as constituent thereof; it is still but one Soul, in the compleat and intire notion of the Soul; as the Body of man, is still but one body, although consisting, · not only of many Mem­bers, but also of many Principles; as name­ly, the Elements of Water, Earth, Air, Fire; and certainly, he that understands the na­ture of any ordinary man, and what man is, inwardly and outwardly, in Soul and Bo­dy, must needs acknowledge that every' man hath many principles in him; yea the prin­ciples of the whole Creation, reduced by a wonderful order, into a certain Epitome or Compend; and for this cause, not only [Page 61] these called Philosophers of old, but also these called the Fathers, have called Man, the Mi­crocosme, or little World, as having all the principles of it, in him; namely, the prin­ciples of the outward and visible World, in his body and outward man; and the princi­ples of the inward and invisible Worlds, in his inward man; and these words, Isaiah 43. 7. Every one that is called in my name, and unto my Glory, I have Created him, I have Formed him, I have Made him. The learned among the Hebrews understand them, in respect of the three Worlds aforesaid; so that out of each of these three Worlds, Man is Made, or Created; and yet he still but one man; his Soul, one Soul; and his Body, one Body; although consisting of many prin­ciples; Even as a speech, or discourse, is but one speech, or discourse, although that speech, consist of many sentences, and eve­ry sentence of many words; every word commonly of divers syllables, and every syl­lable of divers letters; and the letters which are the first principles of speech, of divers kinds and natures; and for this cause, and with a respect unto this, some have called man, Logos, i. e. a Speech, as being the Si­militude of that more excellent and princi­pal Logos, which is Christ, the essential speech or Word of God. But because every be­ing, [Page 62] the nearer that it is in nature unto God, doth the more resemble him; and that God himself, is a most simple unmixed being, without all composition of parts or princi­ples, and is one in the highest and most per­fect sense, (which yet his being three, only in manner or property of being, doth no­thing hinder); and that Christ, the Heavenly man, of all things, is nearest unto God, and his most perfect Image; therefore it is ma­nifest, that he hath least of that which may, or can be called a composition, or mixture of principles: But whatever perfection, vir­tue, power, or operation, the creatures have in their various compositions, he hath them all virtually and eminently in himself, after a more perfect, and simple manner: But see­ing he took hold on the Seed of Abraham, and did partake of Flesh and Blood like unto ours, to the end that he might be yet more like unto us, that he might make us like unto him, yet more abundantly, whether it behoved not that he was to partake with us, of all the principles, both inward and out­ward, that belong to the essential constitu­tion of any man, is a thing worthy of con­sideration; as also, admitting that he did par­take of all these Principles, whether he did assume, or partake of them, at one and the same Moment of time; And what I have [Page 63] here written, is enough I hope, to them who have a Spiritual understanding, to dis­cern, and perceive my Judgement in the present case; as whether the Nephesh and Neshamah in Christ, be distinct Principles, yea or Nay; or whether more, then these two: but as for others who are Carnal, and cannot reach unto these things, if never so plainly told them, I am not concerned to give them a further answer; and I had rather that I might be instrumental in the hand of the Lord, to bring the Soul of any man or woman, to the Feeling and Tasting of the precious Life of Christ in their hearts, than to fill their understandings with the soun­dest Conceptions of words about Christ: and I can and do say it, in the presence of the Lord, the life and power of Christ Je­sus, as I feel it in the least measure, to move and operate in my Soul, to conform and Leaven me into the Image of Christ, in righ­teousness and holiness, is more to me, then all the soundest Conceptions of words about Christ; But yet, because, in the Light of the Lord, I see clearly, how false and ab­surd, yea how Blasphemous, and Atheisti­cal Notions and conceptions of Christ, and al­so of God, many men have, I have been earnestly and fervently moved, and am at this present time, in the Zeal and Love of [Page 64] God, and in true compassion and good will towards Man-kind, to declare what God hath made manifest unto me, of this and other things, and to open the Scriptures of Truth con­cerning them, as God by his Holy Spirit hath opened them plainly to my under­standing: Wherefore, let every one that is Spiritual, and hath a Spiritual discerning, read me, and feel my Testimony, and that from which it comes; for it is not of man, but of the Lord: although, at times, to gain the reader, as Paul did in his day, I find freedome to make use of Testimonies of other men; and what ever True Testimony to the Truth, I find in any man, be he Jew, or Gentile, Scythian or Barbarian, so called, it is precious and comfortable unto me; And to declare it unto others, as the Lord giveth me true freedome, may and shall have its Service; for Truth is one in all, and its Testimony is one; And something of Truth by Vertue of that Divine illumina­tion of Jesus Christ, the Light of the World, that doth inlighten every man, that cometh in­to the World, is made manifest for a Testimo­ny among all Nations and sorts of people; and in every Nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him: And what if some hold the Truth in Unrighteousnesse? What if wicked [Page 65] men at times, confesse unto Christ, as the Devils formerly did? We must not therefore deny him, but rather make use of their own Testimony against them, unto their further condemnation.

Pamphlet Animad. 20.

I query here, whe­ther, besides this Nishma, Adam had a Ra­tional Soul, which was the Root of his ani­mal Senses, and discursive parts; and whether this that was breathed into Adam, was the Cen­ter of the Soul of Christ or some ray only; it should be the Center, in that Nishma, is the excellency (the Author saith) of this Soul?

Answ.

The darkness and perversness of Spi­rit that is in this Author of the Pam­phlet, causeth him to ask many unnecessary questions, which a Child of an ordinary clear understanding, might resolve, accor­ding to the Principles laid down in my book: and although I have condescended in free­dom, to answer many of his questions, espe­cially, such as have any weight in them, for further clearing the Truth, yet diverse others, I purposely forbear to answer, seeing they neither tend to edification, nor serve to clear the Truth: But to these at present mentioned by me, as above, I answer briefly, Adam (beside that Divine Nishma, or Soul of Christ) had also, a Rational Soul, as we also have, and all men; but the Center of the Divine Nish­ma, [Page 66] or Soul of Christ, was not breathed into Adam, nor into any man, besides Christ him­self; nor doth it follow, that it should be the Center, which was breathed into him, because the Nishma is the excellency of his Soul a­bove ours: I say, this reason doth not hold, for not only the Center, but also that ema­nation or ray of the Divine Soul of Christ, that is in us, is exceedingly more excellent, than our Souls.

Moreover, whereas he argueth, that if Adam had a proper Nephefh, that then he was a more compleat man, then Jesus Christ of Nazareth; I deny the confequence, for Christ hath all the Essential perfection of mans whole Soul and Body, elther Virtually or formally, even as man hath Virtually or formally all the Essentials, resembling the Sensitive Soul of a Beast, that belong to per­fect it, as an animal, or living Creature; but yet he hath some what more: all which proveth not, that a beast is a more com­pleat animal, or living Creature, than a man.

Pamphlet.

Its True he saith, the Soul or Spirit of Christ hath an immediate and won­derfull manner of Union with the Deity, as no other Soul or Spirit of men were par­takers of. But what Union the body of Christ that was taken of the Virgin, had [Page 67] with the Logos, which any of the Quakers have not, I cannot yet learn.

Answ.

That is also plainly enough insinu­ated in my book, where I expresly say, that Christ was a most wonderfull Vessel, both as concerning his Soul and Body; and that, in that very body, born of the Virgin, the Center of his Soul did reside; which could not be without an Union of such a Nature as no other body could have, seeing no o­ther man, ever had the center in him, but he.

Pamphlet,

I query what difference, be­twixt the Nishmah of his Soul, and the Center of it?

Answ.

As great as betwixt the Spring and the Stream, and the life and vertue that is in the Root, and a measure of the same in the Branches; so great is the difference, be­twixt the Center of that Nishmah, and the ray or emanation of it into us; which yet is one and the same Substance or Essence with it.

Pamphlet.

Look into Buxtorfs Lexicon, you that are Schollars, and there you will see, that this curious distinction of Nephesh and Nishmah, is ground less—and a little after, for the same word is used of the beasts and fouls, and creeping thing, that were de­stroyed by the Flood Gen. 7. 22.

Answ.

That the word, Nishmath, or Nish­mah, [Page 68] at times, is used indifferently, or com­monly, to signifie the breath or life of any living Creature; doth not hinder, but that at other times, and that more fre­quently, it hath a peculiar and singular signification, even as the word Ruach, sig­nifieth, at times, indifferently, any ordina­ry Spirit, good or bad, as also the wind; and so doth [...] in Greek, Spiritus in Latine, and Spirit in English; and yet also, it hath a peculiar signification, at other times, to signifie the Divine Spirit of God, and Christ: and thus also many other words have both a common and peculiar signification; as the words, El, Elohim, Bara; and others. And unto Buxtorfs Authority, I oppose the Testimony of others better skilled, and namely the Author of the Apparatus in Librum, Zohar, part, 1. p. 542, and p. 600. And that which is of more Authority then all Humane Testimonies, I oppose unto him the Scriptures Testimony, in diverse places, which I have Cited in my book; as name­ly, Gen. 2. 7. Prov. 20. 27. To which I shall adde, Job 32 8. The Inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding; where the same Hebrew Word, Nishmah or Nishmath, is used, that is in Gen. 2. 7. And surely, whoever shall duely con­sider that Scripture, Gen, 2. 7. How [Page 69] that-the Lord God breathed in Adam, the breath of Life, and he became a living Soul; and shall compare it with 1 Cor. 15. 45. The first man Adam, was made a living Soul; the second, or last Adam was made a quickening Spirit; If he have the least sense of that quickening life of Christ Jesus, that made the first Adam a living Soul, cannot but acknowledge, that that breath, or inspiration of life, which made Adam a living Soul, was something more excel­lent and living, then his own Soul, which he received from Christ Jesus the second Adam, who is the image of the invisible God, after whom he was made; for it was this breathing in, or inspiration of Life, that made him a living Soul; Namely living un­to God: Whereas he was a Soul afterwards when he Transgressed, but not such a living Soul; for in the day he did eat of the for­bidden fruit, he dyed, and remained no more a living Soul unto God, in Holiness and Righteousness, after the image of him that crea­ted him. And indeed, that this breath or in­spiration of Life, was not Adams own Soul, but a Divine substance; diverse of those cal­led Fathers, of great Note, do earnestly contend. Hilarius, saith, on Psal. 118. expounding these Words: And he breathed into him, the breath, or Spirit of life, and man [Page 70] was made a living Soul, Inspirationi ergo huic Preparatus sive formatus est, per quam Natura Animae & Corporis in vita perfectio­nem, quodam inspirati Spiritus foedere conti­neretur. Scit in se beatus Paulus, duplicem esse Naturam, cum Secundum interiorem Ho­minem delectatur in Lege, &c.

In English thus; Man therefore, being prepared, or formed, unto this inspiration, by which the Nature of the Soul and body should be contained within a crtain Covenant (or bond) of the inspired Spirit. Blessed Paul knoweth that there is a Twofold Nature in him, when according to the inward man, he delighteth in the Law of God. Again, Cyril­lus Alexandrinus on 9. John saith expresly, that the breath of life, which God breathed into Adam, was not the Soul of Adam, but a Divine substance. Non est igitur factum divinae Substantiae Spiraculum, anima hominis, sed animato potius homini, & proprietati Na­turae utris (que) (anima dico atquae corpore) Con­sumatae quasi Sigillum. Naturae suae Creator Spiraculum vitae, id est, Spiritum Sanctum in­fixit, &c. Which is in English thus: The breath of the Divine substance, was not made the Soul of man; but rather man be­ing already indued with a Soul, and the pro­perty of his Nature being consummated both in Soul and Body, the Creator fixed [Page 71] in him, as it were the Seal of his own Na­ture; That is, the Holy Spirit. The which Holy Spirit, he also calleth the Spirit of the Son, and the Divine Nature; and indeed, without all doubt, God breathed into Adam, the Holy Spirit; but this Holy Spirit being one Essence or being with God, dwelleth in the fulness of it, in Christ the second Adam; and therefore Adam could not be a par­taker of the Holy Spirit, but as he was also a partaker of the second Adam, whose Nish­mah, or Soul, hath the Holy Spirit in it, as being its most immediate Temple, or house; and therefore the fulness of the God-head is said to dwel bodily in Christ, because Christ is as the body or house, that most immediately receives that fulness to Commu­nicate of the various measures of it unto others; for the Greek word [...], which sig­nifieth Body, is said to be derived from a word, which signifieth a House, or Lodging, or Habitation, [...], quasi [...]; so that the ful­ness of the God-head, dwelling in Christ, as in its most immediate, and proper Habita­tion (as the Soul of a man dwelleth in its body) no man can partake of God, but as he partakes of Christ, in whom that fulness dwelleth.

Pamphlet, Animad. 20.

I desire the Schol­lars to call to mind, how this Notion of the [Page 72] Soul of Christ in all, suits with Platoe's of the anima mundi.

Answ.

Cyrillus Alexandrinus and others do Judge, that Plato, by his anima mundi, did understand that which the Scripture calleth the Holy Ghost; for as the Scripture speaketh of three that bear record in Heaven, the Fa­ther, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: Plato like­wise spoke of three, namely, the good, the mind, and the Soul: and the Good he calleth the one, and the Father; the Mind, he calleth the Son, as being generate of the Father: both which answer unto the Father and the Son, which the Scriptures Testifie of, and therefore they conclude, that by that he cal­led the Soul, he did understand, the Holy Ghost; And that Plato had learned this myste­ry of the Three from the Egyptians, who had learned it from Moses; But that he had wrong­ly understood it himself, for he seemeth to call them Three Gods, as being distinct, in a threefold being, or substance: And the first greatest of all, the second less than the first, but greater than the Third; so that Plato his Doctrine of this Mystery was unsound, and imperfect, although it seemeth that he aimed at the Truth. Now, whereas we believe that the Holy Ghost, is one and the same Essence with God; and that the Hea­venly Man-hood or Nishmah of the Soul of [Page 73] Christ, is distinct in essence or substance from the God-head, although by a most excellent and wonderful union united with the same for ever, and yet is not any third essence, as Plato calleth his Anima Mundi. It is very manifest, that Plato his Anima Mundi, can­not at all be acknowledged to be the Soul of Christ. Again, Plato calleth it the Soul of the World, as Judging the World it self to be an Animal or living creature compo­sed of Soul and Body: But this doth by no means agree unto the Soul of Christ, for if it did, then the world should be Christ, and the body of every beast, fish, foul, tree, or stone, and also the earth it self, should be the real body of Christ; all which is false and absur'd, and therefore Plato's Anima Mundi cannot be the Soul of Christ.

Pamphlet. Animad. 21.

I Query whether this Soul of Christ can be the Holy Ghost?

Answ.

This query is altogether needless, seeing in my book called, The Way cast up, I have expresly declared, that the Soul of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, simply consi­dered, are distinct beings; but because the Holy Ghost dwelleth in Christ, the Heaven­ly Man, and by him only is conveyed unto us, and that they are wonderfully united one unto another, we cannot understand them as separate; and therefore, as Christ, the Se­cond [Page 74] Adam, in Scripture is called the quic­kening Spirit, and the Lord is the Spirit; so he may also be called, the Paracletus, or Advocate, as he is expresly called, 1 John 2. 1. And if any man Sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righte­ous: and this same advocate or paracletus, is but one; it is clear, that sometimes Christ himself, is called the Holy Ghost, in Scrip­ture; for the words Holy Ghost, as well as the word Spirit, have different significa­tions in Scripture; for God is said to be a Spirit, also Christ is called the Lord that Spirit, and the Second Adam, the quic­kening Spirit. And thus the words, Holy Ghost, and Spirit, do sometimes signify more generally, and sometimes they have a more particular, and peculiar signification.

Pamphlet. Animad. 21.

Why then the Christian hath a great advantage of a Qua­ker, in that his Sanctification is of another, and better nature, than that of the Quakers, in that it is the Holy Ghost, who is God, who mystically dwells in them.

Answ.

Here thou dost commit Three great abuses. 1. To distinguish betwixt the Chri­stian and the Quaker; whereas every true Christian is a Quaker, namely, one that trem­bles at the Word of God; and every true Quaker, is a Christian, and we desire to be [Page 75] called by no other name, than that of true Christians: 2. That thou dost insinuate, as if we did not believe, that the Holy Ghost, who is God, did dwell in us, but only Christ; which is a gross perversion, and false calum­ny; yea so false, that thou givest thy sels ma­nifestly and openly the lie; in the next ci­tation. 3. Thou dost grosly again contra­dict thy self, that thou sayest the Holy Ghost dwells mystically in every true Christian, and yet thou deniest that the essence of God dwelleth in any Christian, although the Ho­ly Ghost be one essence with God: Nor will thy term, mystically, save thee; for if by mystically, thou understandest not a re­al indwelling of the Holy Ghost, as he is one essence with God, then the Quaker is in a better condition, and hath a great advan­tage of thy supposed Christian; that accor­ding unto us, every true Christian and Quaker, hath the Holy Ghost, who is one essence with God, really, or essentially dwel­ling in him, through Christ, who is also in him; and this according unto 1 Cor. 14 25. God is in you, [...]; which being rightly tran­slated, is essentially, from the word [...]. which signifieth being, or essence.

Pamphlet. Animad. 21.

But they under­stand the Holy Ghost, who is God, is not se­parated from this Body & Soul of Christ: but [Page 76] why then did they not express themselves so?

Answ.

Thou seest Reader, how openly he giveth the lie unto himself, in this cita­tion; by acknowledging that we understand the Holy Ghost is not separated from this Bo­dy and Soul of Christ; and yet a few lines before, he did alleadge, that according to our principle, the Holy Ghost did not dwell in us: and whereas he saith, why then did they not express themselves so? I answer, first, how couldest thou know our understanding, or mind, if the thing had not been expres­sed? But Secondly, I say, that I have suf­ficiently expressed the same in my book, called The way cast up, in several places, particularly in p. 114. where I say expresly: For, because the Fullness dwelt in him; and that he was immediately, and most intimate­ly united with the God-head, so as no Man nor Angels are, but only the Man Jesus, he is only the true Christ. And because he it is a­lone, who in an immediate way, and origi­nally, is Gods Anointed, who hath Anoin­ted him with his Holy Spirit; and all other men, even the most Holy, but mediately u­nited with God through him, receiving the Anointing, or Holy Spirit: Therefore all other men are not Christ, but Christians; not being immediately Anointed of the Fa­ther, but by the means of Jesus Christ. Nor are they otherwise partakers of the Anoin­ting [Page 77] or Holy Ghost, but as they are parta­kers of Christ. Thus Reader, thou feest how clearly I have expressed this very thing; and how faulty the Author of this Pamphlet is, and how far he hath fallen short of his promise, to give the World a true account of our Faith, concerning the Man Christ Je­sus; who is guilty of so many false insinua­tions, gross perversions, self - belyings and contradiction, as I have sufficiently demon­strated.

Pamphlet. Animad. 22.

They believe this humane nature is divine: farewell that dis­tinction then, yet 'tis inferior to the God-head. But this Author thinks that omnipre­sency, and omnisciency, may be attributed to the Man-hood; yet the man hood not being consounded with, or equalized to the God-head, contrary to the Doctrine Taught by our Christian Divines.

Answ.

Mark Reader, the great ignorance and partiality of this Author, who is so much offended, because I call the Nature of the Man-Hood of Christ, Heavenly and Divine; as if because the name Divine is given to the Man-Hood of Christ, that therefore I con­sound the Man Hood with the God-Head, and equalize it thereunto; and yet within three or four lines, he calleth these of his bre­thren, who profess to teach of Divine things, Christian Divines; he will therefore have [Page 78] men that Teach, or profess to teach Divine things, to be called Divine; but he will not allow Christ, the Heavenly-man to be called Divine: This is a plain exalting themselves above Christ. But again, if to be called Divine, is to be equal unto God; then by his Doctrine, he and his brethren whom he calleth Christian Divines, are equal unto God: see what Blasphemies his ignorance and rashness, doth precipitate and hurry him into.

Pamphlet Animad. 22.

That there are At­tributes of God not communicable to the Creature; and among them are these two, Omnisciency and Omnipresency; these can­not be Communicated to any Creature, but it immediately becomes God.

Answ.

That Christ Jesus is not to be called a Creature in that strict and narrow sense, as the other Creatures are, I have above de­clared; and yet he doth partake with the Creatures, having taken part of Flesh and Blood with us. And be it so, that Omnipre­sency and Omnipercipiency, being communi­cated unto Christ, that he is God; In what is this contrary to Christian Doctrine? Is not Christ God? Do not all true Christians be­lieve that he is both God and Man, and yet but one Christ? But according unto thy Doctrine, because Christ is neither Omni­scient [Page 79] nor Omnipresent, he is not God, but a meer Creature. This is gross Socinianisme, and Arianisme both, that Christ is not God, but a meer creature. Now, although I say and believe, with other true Christians, that Christ is God; yet I do not say, the Man-hood of Christ is his God-head, nor yet equal thereunto; for the God-head is still greater then the Man-hood, and hath its Attributes, or Di­vine properties, that are incommunicable unto the Man-hood, simply considered; for the God-head is absolute and independent, and hath not its being from the Man-hood: But the Man-hood is dependent, and hath its being from the God-head. Again, these Attributes of Omnipresence and Omniscience, as they are in the God-head, and belong unto the same, are indeed, incommunicable unto the Man-hood; for the Omnipresence and Omni­science of the Man-hood of Christ, are of a far inferiour Nature and condition, in re­spect of the Omnipresence and Omniscience of the God-head: And first, as to the Omni­presence of the God-head, it is centrally e­very where, and is no where circumscribed, as I have already cited out of Hermes Tris­megistus, in my book; But the Man-hood or Nishmah of Christs Soul, is not so Omni­present, for its center is not every where; so that, here is a manifest difference, betwixt [Page 80] the manner of Gods Omnipresence, and the Omnipresence of Christ, as man; Again, as to the Omnisciency of Christ as man, it is not of the same Nature with the Omnisci­ency of God, but inferiour unto the same; for the Omnisciency of Christ as man, or of his Man-hood, is by a certain influence, or impression, or touch, which the Objects, known, make upon him; and therefore, the Objects themselves are in some sort the in­strumental cause, or occasion to excite his knowledge, in respect of the Creatures which he doth know, past, or present; and as for his knowledge of things to come, by Divine Revelation, that also differeth from the man­ner of Gods Knowledge, who knoweth all things, past, present, and to come, immedi­ately in himself, without dependance on any other, or without receiving any influ­ence or impression, from the Creatures, which he doth know; nor are the Objects any cause, so much as instrumental in the least, of the knowledge which Christ hath as God, or of his God head: and thus I have very plainly and clearly demonstrated, that the manner and sort of the Omnipre­sence and Omniscience of Christ as God, is very differing from his Omnipresence and Omniscience, as man; These two Attri­butes, or properties, as they belong to [Page 81] his Man-hood, being of a very inferior Na­ture and kind; and yet true Omnipresence, and Omniscience, in their kind and sort, and such as are altogether necessary for him that is to be a Mediator betwixt God and Man, and our High-Priest with God; namely, that he can be touched with the Feeling of our Infirmities; and that he be present both to hear us, and also, to help and succour us, in all Straits and Wants. And here again, thou fallest into a gross Contradiction, to assert, That God only is Omni-present, and not Christ, as Man; and yet to affirm, That the Essence of God is only present in the Manhood of Christ, which is a manifest and palpable Contradiction. Again; I ask thee, Is Omni-presence Essential unto God, or only an Accident? If an Essential Attribute, then it followeth, That God's Essence is every­where: If it be only an Accident, then thou asserts contrary to Scripture, and to thy own Divines, as thou callest them, That there are Accidents in God, and that He is Changeable, which is gross Cajetanisme, and Vorstianisme; namely, the Heresie of Caje­tanus and Vorstius, that is greatly Condemned, and that generally by all Christians.

Pamphlet. Animad. 22.

Let it be considered likewise, there is thought by Judicious Di­vines, that there is an Infinite Space beyond [Page 82] this Globe of the Heaven and Earth: I que­ry, Whether this Manhood, if Omni-pre­sent, must not be there? And a little af­ter, he saith; And if present there through­out, this is Immensity; and then, the Uni­verse is but as a Drop of the Bucket, to the Man-hood of Christ: Is it not then e­qual to God, and confounded with God? And after, in p. 15: l. 1. he calleth this Infi­nite Space, Infinite Imaginary Space!

Answ.

They who affirm, That there are such Infinite Imaginary Spaces, may rather be truly called Unjudicious Humanes, than Judicious Divines; seeing, by thy own Confession, they are meerly Imaginary, and are not a­ny Part of the Universe, and are neither God nor Christ; and yet are Infinite, and have Immensity: Then which, there can be sup­posed nothing that is a greater Contradicti­on; namely, to say, There is an Infinite I­maginary Space, having Immensity that is not any real Thing or Being: That is, nei­ther God nor Christ, nor Angel, nor any Spirit, nor Body, nor any Created Thing, but meer Imaginary; and yet it is greater than Christ, the Heavenly Man: for it is Infinite, and hath Immensity. But, to dis­cover yet more abundantly thy Confusion and Contradiction, I ask thee; Why may not Christ, as Man, have the same Infinit­ness [Page 83] and Immensity, that this Imaginary Space hath? Why then, according to thy own Words, the Manhood of Christ should be equal unto God, and confounded with God. By this then, it clearly followeth from thy own Doctrine, That this Infinite Imaginary Space, having Immensity, is Equal unto God, and Confounded with God; and so, is grea­ter and better than Christ, and that Infinit­ly; and yet, it is neither God nor Christ, nor any Creature, or Part of the Universe of Created Beings. Is not this a strange new Deity of thy own devising, and a most abo­minable Idol? But, seeing this Space is only Imaginary, and is nothing but a Child of thine, and thy Bretheren's Imagination; and yet, because it hath Immensity, and is Infinite by thy Doctrine, it must be Equal unto God: It followeth from thy Doctrine, that the Brat of thine own Imagination, is Equal unto God: Which, if it be not the grossest Idolatry, that ever any Man was Guilty of, I leave unto all Men of a true Understanding for to judge; yea, if it be not the Height of Atheisme. But again, sup­posing, (but not at all granting) that there were such Infinite wast Places, having no Creatures in them, I ask thee; If God should fill them all with Creatures, (as he could well do, because he is Omnipotent) should [Page 84] these Creatures, taken in the whole Com­plex, be Equal unto God, and have the same Immensity, or Infinitness, with him? Surely, thou must needs say, Not: And therefore, Christ, the Heavenly Man, al­though he should also be in all these Places, is still inferiour to the Godhead: For what­ever any Man, or Creature, can conceive of Places, or Spaces of the greatest Extent Imaginable, God is still infinitly Greater; and all the Creatures, Visible and Invisible, are unto Him but as the Drop of the Bucket, and Dust of the Ballance. And here, if a­ny should ask me, because I deny all such Imaginary Spaces, as idle Fictions of foolish and Ignorant Men, What is beyond this Vi­sible World of Heaven and Earth? I do easily and readily answer; That not only God and Christ, but also real Parts of the Creation, which are true real beings, Crea­ted of God, are beyond this Visible World of Heaven and Earth; whose Greatness and Number, no Humane, nor (indeed) any Created Understanding can fathome, or com­prehend; but God alone, the most High; and Christ Jesus, by whom all Things are created and made, Visible and Invisible: For Solomon said truly; We cannot find out the Works of God, from the Beginning unto the End. And thus we have no need to run [Page 85] into these Fictions of Imaginary Spaces, to find a Place beyond this Visible World; see­ing the Things which God hath made, are Greater, and more Numerous, than we can conceive, or imagine: And therefore, are really Infinite and Immense, or Immeasura­ble, unto our Understanding; although they are well known unto God, in Number, Weight, and Measure; and are, in compa­rison as Nothing, and as the Prophet speak­eth, Even less than Nothing.

Pamphlet. Animad. 23.

And thus he layes the Ground and Foundation of the Angels Worship, upon the Excellency of the Na­ture of the Manhood, barely considered in it self: I query solemnly, If it be not great Idolatry, for Men or Angels to worship any Creature; and that Creature, though never so Excellent, be not in Personal Union with God, and the Worship terminated upon the Godhead? Christ is God and Man; Christi­ans worshipping him, terminate the Wor­ship upon the Godhead. See, if Keith hath not made the Angels Idolaters?

Answ.

That he saith, I lay the Foundati­on of the Angels Worship upon the Excel­lency of the Nature of the Manhood, barely considered in it self, is a gross Abuse and Per­version, and a most palpable Lye and Contra­diction to my Words: As also, that he in­sinuates, [Page 86] that Men or Angels are to worfhip the Man Christ, without a Respect unto that Union he hath with God; So that, by Ver­tue of the said Union, he is God: This al­so is another gross Lye and Perversion. And 3dly. That he alledgeth, that in our worshipping the Man Christ Jesus, we do not terminate our Worship upon the God-head, but only upon the Manhood, and that also barely considered in it self: All which Three Assertions of the Author, are gross Lies, and most groundless Calumnies: For I no where, in all my Book, use any such Words as he alledgeth. And that I have no such Meaning as his Words import; my Words that stand upon Record in my Book, do sufficiently clear me: As namely, where I say expresly, p. 82. That the Man Christ, is God, by reason of that most wonderful U­nion betwixt the Two Natures: And a little after, I say; The Godhead and Manhood of Christ, are but one Christ.—And the God-head of Christ is no Inferiour Divinity, or Deity; but the very same Godhead of the Father. Again, as concerning this most won­derful and singular Union, (whereby the Godhead and Manhood of Christ, are one Christ) I say, p. 83. Christ as Man, hath a true and real Soul, distinct from the God-head; yet for ever united with the same, [Page 87] in a most immediate and wonderful manner: Of which Union, no other Soul or Spirit of Men or Angels, ever were, or shall be Par­takers.

And thus Reader, thou mayest clearly see, that I lay not the Foundation of Men and Angels, their worshipping Christ, upon the Excellency of the Nature of the Manhood barely considered; as if he were not God, by reason of his most rare and singular Uni­on with God: But, on the contrary, I do very plainly affirm the said Union, and that because thereof, Christ is God. And there­fore also, I do further say, That the Wor­ship which Men and Angels give unto the Man Christ, doth not terminate, (which is as much as to say, in more plain English) doth not rest nor end upon the Manhood; but ascendeth through the Manhood of Christ, unto the Godhead, where it doth terminate, or rest: And therefore, the Saints in Scrip­ture, are said to praise God through Jesus Christ; and by Him, to offer up unto God continual Sacrifices of Thanksgiving: And so much doth the word Mediator import; which signifieth a Middle Man betwixt God and Us: So that, although our Prayers, our Thanksgivings, and whole Worship, be di­rected unto Christ; yet not unto Him a­lone, but also unto God htrough Him. Nor [Page 88] do my Words cited by thee, give thee the least Ground to say, That I lay the Foun­dation of the Angels Worship upon the Na­ture of the Manhood barely considered in it self; because I say, That the Man Christ Jesus, is a Great and Mighty, and most Ex­cellent Being, far above All, and excelling all Men and Angels: For doth not the Man Christ Jesus, excell all Men and Angels, by reason of his Union with the Godhead, such as none else are Partakers of? Is not this Union of his with the Godhead, most Ex­cellent? And doth it not cause him to Ex­cel all other Beings, that have no such Uni­on? By thy Doctrine, indeed, it addeth no Excellency unto him; and consequently, by the same Doctrine of thine, (although in Contradiction to thy self) the Man Christ, is to be worshipped, as barely considered in himself, without any respect of his Union with the Godhead: For, according unto thy Doctrine, that Union addeth no Excellency unto him, and maketh him not one whit more Excellent. And thus, now, I desire all Men of Understanding, to see and consider, whether the Author of this Pamphlet, (and not I) hath not made the Angels Idolaters. And here, Reader, I desire thee also to consi­der, how this Author of this Pamphlet, seek­eth to lurk in the Dark: and giveth us no [Page 89] express Account, whether he believeth, that the Man Christ Jesus, is to be worshipped; only telleth, that all true Christians do ter­minate the Worship upon the Godhead; which we also do: But this hindreth not, that the Man Christ, as Mediator, is also to be worshipped, and God through him; which can be no Idolatry, because he is God, by Vertue of his most wonderful Union with him, which no Men nor Angels, are Par­takers of, or ever shall be. And, if the Man Christ, is to be worshipped, my Argument holdeth still good; that therefore he is re­ally Present, as Man: To which Argument, although most convincing and demonstrating, he hath made no Shaddow of Answer; and therefore, I return it upon him, or them who take any part with him. As also, I return all the other Arguments in my Book, which are many, that he hath not so much as once named, far less, answered: And particularly, where I argue from what he and they do generally acknowledge, of the Devil; his being every where present, in all Evil Men, at least, which are more nu­merous than the Good; and yet they will not acknowledg, that Christ, the Heavenly Man, is every where Present in all Good Men. And thus they make the Devil greater than He: And which is more, seeing he hold­eth, [Page 90] That the whole Essence of the God-head is contained within the Body of Christ; which, as he saith, is of no greater Extent, than the ordinary Body of one Man; and will not acknowledge, that God himself is any where, but in that one only, Human Body: and yet the Devil possesseth really, the Souls and Bodies of many Men and Women. He doth make the Devil not on­ly greater, and more largely or universally present in the World, than Christ; but al­so, (with Fear and Reverence be it spoken) than the very Godhead it self; which is in­deed, the greatest Blasphemy and Impiety of Words, that ever I heard formerly, in all my Life; and yet the plain, down-right Language of his Doctrine, and vain Impious Scribling against us.

And thus Reader, having answered suf­ficiently unto every one of his Animadver­sions; which I have done some-what more fully and largely, than was either needful unto him, or then (indeed) he was worthy of: yet for the sake of others, who might be desirous to have some Things further o­pened and cleared, I have found Freedom so to do. And now I shall take some No­tice of what he addeth by way of Conclu­sion; [Page 91] and reply also, there-unto, so far as is needful.

Pamphlet. p. 14.

He proposeth three ge­nerall Considerations, which he thinketh will Answer my whole Book. 1. That the Pro­phets spoke of many Things to come, as if they were present.

Answ.

To this I have sufficiently answered above; and I have proved, how absurd and contrary to Truth, the Opinion of the Au­thor is, that Christ was no more Christ, before his birth in the Flesh, than Cyrus was God's Anointed, of whom Isaiah pro­phecyed many Years before he was Born.

Where-as, although the Prophets prophe­cyed of Christ's Coming, and Birth in the Flesh, as a thing to come; yet they did still understand, that Christ himself was present, in and with the Church, in all Ages; as I have already proved in my Book, at large. And this was also the Testimony of the A­postle; and particularly, of Paul, who said expresly, That by Jesus Christ, all Things were Created; and, He is the same Yester-day, To-day, and for Ever. Also, Paul said, The Fathers did Eat the same Spiritual Meat, and Drink the same Spiritual Drink: For they drank of the Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. And if they did eat the same Spiritual Meat, and drink the [Page 92] same Spiritual Drink, then they did eat the Flesh of Christ, and drink his Blood; other­wise, as Christ taught him self, They could not have Life.

Pamphlet. p. 14.

His Second Consideration is, That Christ acted, in his Mediatorship, in all Things before his Incarnation, in refe­rence still to his Incarnation, which was to be in the Fulness of Time.

Answ.

That Christ acted in his Mediator­ship, in all Things before he was Born in the Flesh of the Virgin Mary, in reference still to his Birth in the Flesh, which was to be in the Fulness of Time; and also, in re­ference to his Sufferings, Death, Resurrecti­on, Ascention, &c. I do readily grant. But what saith this against any thing that I have affirmed in my Book? Or, What doth it infer against the Real Being and Existence of Christ, in all Ages, from the Beginning? Surely, nothing at all, but on the contrary, if thou stand to thy own words, they do prove ma­nifestly, that Christ, as he is the Heavenly man, was from the beginning; for how could he Act in his mediatorship, if he was not mediator from the beginning? How can Mediatorship be without a Mediator? Sure­ly, not at all, more than Kingship can be without a King, or Lordship without a Lord; or any other Office, without him that doth [Page 93] bear it. And if Christ was Mediator from the Beginning, it followeth most clearly, that he was Man from the Beginning: For it is the Man Christ Jesus, who is the Mediator be­twixt God and Man, as Paul hath expressly declared, 1 Tim. 2. 5. For Christ as God, simply considered without his Manhood, can­not be Mediator; even as Man, simply con­sidered without the Godhead, he cannot ei­ther: for the Nature of a Mediator is such, that he must have the Nature both of God and man, united together, after the most excellent and singuler manner, so as, by reason of that Union, he is true and perfect God, and true and perfect Man; and therefore seeing he was Mediator from the beginning, and acted in his Mediatorship, or mediatory Office, as King, Priest and Prophet, and as Head of his Body the Church, he was Man from the beginning, al­though not Man cloathed with flesh and blood, in the likeness of our Flesh, un­til the fullness of time was come, that He was Born of the Virgin Mary.

Pamphlet.

Pag. 14. His third considera­tion is, that many things in Scripture, are spoken of Christ, by that figurative speech, of the communication of properties, when that which is proper to one nature only, is [Page 94] attributed to the other, or to the whole person, &c.

Answ.

Although thou dost betake thy self to this, as thy last refuge; namely, that, called by some, the communication of pro­perties, yet doth it nothing help thy Evil cause, more than the former.

For albeit I grant, that there is such a figurative speech of the communication of names and properties, whereby the Man Christ is called God, and also God is called Man, and God is said to have Shed his Blood, al­though Christ, as God, hath not Blood to Shed, but only as Man; yet by reason of that most rare and wonderful union betwixt the Godhead and Manhood; the Blood of the Man Christ, is called, the Blood of God, Acts 20. 28. But this communication of names and properties, is not a bare Titular, or Verbal communication, but is grounded upon a real communication, of real Divine Attributes and Properties, which the God­head of Christ, doth communicate unto the manhood; so that the manhood of Christ, by reason of this most rare and excellent, and truly Divine union, it hath with the Godhead, doth by vertue of the same, re­ceive such Divine attributes and perfections, as are communicable unto none else beside him; and the nature of the Manhood of [Page 95] Christ, must be so excellent, so great, and so perfect, and so substantially excelling all Men and Angels, that is capable of such an Union, or of such Divine attributes, pro­perties, and perfections, that are both pro­per and necessary for such an one as is to be Mediator betwixt God and Man, and our High Priest with God; of which Divine at­tributes, omnipresence, and omnipercipience aforesaid, are some, which I call Divine, because of their great excellency; and in re­spect of which, the manhood of Christ is nearest unto the Godhead of all other di­stinct beings, although, as I have already shewed the omnipresence and omni-percipi­ence, or omniscience of Christ, as man, is not the same, nor equal unto these attributes of omniscience, and omni-presence, that be­long to Christ, as God, or unto the God­head: but of a far inferior sort. Moreover, seeing the foresaid communication of names; is grounded upon that so rare and singular union, betwixt the Godhead, and manhood of Christ, it is very manifest from hence, that the said communication of names, could not be from the beginning of the world, unless also the union betwixt the Godhead and Man­hood of Christ (which is the ground of the said communication) had been from the begin­ning; and consequently, also the Manhood of [Page 96] Christ was from the beginning; for two natures cannot be united, before the one of them have any being: again, as the said commu­nication of names and properties, require the Man-hood of Christ to exist, or have a being from the beginning of the World, o­therwise it could not be said that the Man Christ Jesus, was from the beginning, not so much as by that figurative speech of com­munication of properties; so in like man­ner, that communication of properties can­not be allowed; but where, as well as when, the Godhead and Manhood are together u­nited, and existent, and that, for the same reason already given, namely, that the com­munication of the names is grounded upon the union of both existing together, in the same things, places, or persons, as well as in the same times: and therfore, if the Man­hood of Christ, were not omnipresent, in all places, as well as all times: The Man Christ, could not be said to be omni-pre­sent, not so much as by that figurative speech of communication of properties, which is not barely Verbal, or Titular, and Nomi­nal, but Reall and Substantial, according to the manner above expressed. Again, there are many Scriptures which speak of Christ, that must needs be understood of Christ as Man, and not as God, so much as by that [Page 97] figurative Speech of communication of pro­rerties; as when Christ said, John 6. I came down from Heaven, not to do my own Will: this must needs be understood of Christ as Man, as I have already proved, seeing Christ as God always doth his own Will.

What he adds page 14, 15. concerning the sum of the Quakers Doctrine, concerning Christ, it being in great part, a heap of Nonsence and Confusion, and not my words nor meaning, and so far as any part of it is true, being sufficiently answered already, I need not make any new Reply unto it; only, whereas he talketh of two Souls and Bodies of Christ, I would have the Rea­der to Remember, that I have no where in all my Book spoke of two Souls of Christ: and as concerning the two Bodies of Christ, they are also but one body, in the full and intire Notion of a body, consisting of vari­ous parts and members, united into one, so that the manhood of Christ is still but one, in its full and intire Nature. And a­gain, whereas he finds fault with us, for saying, that Christs heavenly body, where­of the Saints are partakers, confisteth of flesh, blood and bones, he may find the same fault with Christ, who spoke os his flesh and blood that came down from Hea­ven, which is the Saints Food: also, he [Page 98] may blame Paul, who said, the Saints were of his flesh and of his bones; But flesh, blood, and bones, here understood, are not to be meant literally, and after a vulgar manner, but spiritually, and figuratively; for his flesh and blood from Heaven, are Spirit and Life: And although the Wisdom of God hath expressed them under these distinct Names, yet originally, they may be but one substance, even as flesh and blood, and bones, of an earthly body, are origi­naly but one substance, which is dust and earth.

And I can and do freely appeal unto all Christians, whom God hath spiritually En­lightned, and given a Spiritual Understanding unto, of the Mystery of God and Christ, whe­ther this be not the True Christ of God, of whom I have declared? And, Whether that described by the Author of this Pamphlet, here Answered by me, is not indeed a False Christ? And also, his God, whom he limit­eth Essentially within the Dimensions of an ordinary Human Body, be not also False? And so, Whether He, and not I, be not guilty of Gross Idolatry, and bringing - in a­nother Gospel, and so is acted by another Spirit; and hath therefore a Curse from the A­postle upon him? Gal. 1. 8, 9.

And lastly, Whereas he laboureth to fix [Page 99] upon me the Heresies of no less than Seven several sorts of Heretical Sects; he but sheweth forth the same Lying Spirit, that hath acted him all along: And therefore, to undeceive the Reader, whom he seeketh so grosly to abuse, I shall very clearly and briefly pass through these Seven Heads; and sufficiently purge my self of every one of them, to any that are Judicious and Impar­tial. 1. He chargeth me with the Heresie of the Macedonians and Valentinians, who said, Christ brought an Heavenly Body from Heaven with him. To this I answer, That was no part of their Heresie; but only that they said, Christ's Body in the whole Sub­stance of it, came down from Heaven, and did not in any part, share or partake of the Substance of the Virgin Mary; but altoge­ther passed through the Virgin, as Light pas­seth through the Air, or purest Christal: But this I do not maintain; for I have suffi­ciently declared, That Christ did really par­take of the Virgins Flesh and Substance; al­though the Body of Christ was not Concei­ved after the manner of Human Concepti­on: And therefore, it was Heavenly in re­spect of its Original, and more Excellent than the Body of any other Man. And that this was reputed no Heresie among the Antients, I prove; because Hilarius, one of the Fathers [Page 100] of great Antiquity, and in high Esteem a­mong these called the Orthodox, was of the same Judgment; namely, That both the Body and Soul of Christ, had a Nature more Excel­lent, than that of all other Men; although they had also, what belonged to the true Na­ture of Man, in all Essentials. 2. He charg­eth me with the Heresie of Apellis, that said, Christ had an Airy Body, and Starry Flesh, that passed through the Virgin. To this I an­swer; That I have no where affirmed any such thing, nor such Words have I any where used: For the Flesh and Blood, whereof I speak, according to Scripture, that came down from Heaven, is neither of the Air nor Stars; but of a more excellent Substance, and that be­yond all Compare: And also, that the Bo­dy which he did take of the Virgin, was a real Body of Flesh and Blood; as I have a­bove declared. 3. He chargeth me with the Heresie of the Manichees, that said, Christ had an Imaginary Body. To this I answer; That I am altogether free of this Charge: For I affirm, That Christ hath no Imaginary Body; for his Body is Real and Substanti­al. Nor doth it prove, that Christ his Hea­venly Body, is Imagińary, because it cannot be seen, or felt, or heard, by the outward Senses, as he reasoneth: For by the same rea­son, God himself should be no Real Being, [Page 101] but only Imaginary; seeing God, who is a Spi­rit, cannot be seen, or felt, by the outward Senses. And thus wee see, what Spirit of Madness acteth this false Accuser; who seek­ing to fix upon me (but falsly) the Error of Manicheisme, salleth head-long himself into the Ditch of Gross Atheisme: For what gros­ser Atheism than this, to say, That God is no real Being, but only Imaginary; which is the Ne­cessary Consequence of his Doctrine. 4. He chargeth me with the Heresie of Apollinarius, who is said to have affirmed, That Christ had no Soul distinct from the Godhead: The con­trary of which, I have manifestly affirmed, and do still affirm. And when I say, The Nis­mah is the Word Incarnate, or Word made Flesh, I do not exclude the Soul of Christ: For if these Words (namely, the Word made Flesh) exclude the Soul of Christ, then by the perverse Reasoning of this Author, he maketh the Apostle John equally Guilty with me, of the Heresie of Apollinarius. And thus we may see, how commonly this Au­thor falleth into the same Ditch, which he hath prepared for another; and sometimes into a worse. 5. He chargeth me with the Heresie of the Nestorians, who said, There were two Persons, as well as two Natures, in Christ. To this I answer; But I have no where said, That there are two Persons in [Page 102] Christ; nor do I say, That there are two Christs, or two Sons of God, as the Nesto­rians affirmed. Moreover, whereas he saith, The Quakers hold, that there are Three Na­tures in Christ, if not Four: I answer, 1. But this was no Part of the Nestorian Heresie, if I had so affirmed: and therefore, instead of proving me a Nestorian, he but proveth him­self a gross Lyar, Perverter, and Calumnia­tor. But, 2. I answer, That I hold only, that there are but two Natures in Christ, Nature being taken (as it ought to be) in its full and intire Concept or Notion: For the Nature of Christ his Manhood, is still but one intire Nature of Man, although consisting of various Principles. And this the Author himself, must needs acknowledge, or then be guilty of his own Accusation: For, is not the Soul and Body of Man of distinct Natures, and yet they make up but one intire Nature of Man? And if he say, they are two distinct Natures, then Christ having these two Natures of Soul and Body; and also, being God, he hath, ac­cording to this Author, three Natures; which was the Accusation where-with he chargeth me, and yet is guilty of the same. 6. He chargeth me with the Heresie of the Eutychi­ans, who gave the Divine Attributes to the Human Nature. To this I answer; That I have abundantly cleared my self of this, a­bove; [Page 103] where I have shewed, that these Di­vine Attributes, of Omni-presence, and Om­ni-science, which belong to the Manhood of Christ, are neither the same, nor yet equal to these of the Godhead; and so, I confound not the Manhood and Godhead of Christ, but ac­knowledge them distinct Natures and Beings, forever inseparably united together, after the most Perfect manner: whereas the Euty­chians are said to have confounded the Man­hood and Godhead into one Nature.—7. He chargeth me with the Heresie of the Ubiquitarians, but whom he meaneth, he doth not express: But for answer, by the Ubiqui­tarians, either he meaneth the Eutichians, or them called Lutherans; if the former, con­cerning them, I have answered already, up­on the 6th. If the latter, namely the Luthe­rans, I have at large, in my Book discove­red, how I do not hold the Ubiquity or Om­nipresence of Christ, after that absurd and gross manner, as they do, but after another way; that is, both according unto Scripture Testimonies, in many places, and is no wise repugnant unto right reason, but very agree­able thereunto: Although in the general, I do acknowledge, that I do agree with the Judgment of Luther, and those that wrote the Liber Concordiae, as touching that parti­cular; and whereas I made use of some ex­cellent [Page 104] testimonies, both out of Luther and Liber Concordiae, for the Ubiquity, and Om­nipresence of Christ, this Author hath not so much as once named them, far less an­swered them.

And thus Reader, I have particularly re­plied unto all his false accusations, and his beast with the Seven Heads, that he hath conjured out of the Sea of his troubled Ima­gination, I have easily slain, with a few easy and simple strokes: and here it were but ve­ry Just, instead of his Counterfeit Creed of his own making, concerning what the Quakers believe of the Man Christ Jesus, to draw up an account of his Atheistical and Blasphe­mous Creed, concerning both God and Christ, which is truly his, and which he must needs own; either as his express words, or as the genuine, and most necessary consequences of his Words and Doctrine; and when I have so done, I should be more Just unto him, than he has been unto me, who hath al­leadged upon me many false things, which are neither my express words, nor the true consequences of my words; no, not after the remotest manner: But at present, I shall spare this pains, and refer the Reader to the places in my answer to his Pamphlet, where I have proved him manifestly guilty of So­cinianisme, [Page 105] Arianisme, Anthropomorphitisme, Muggletonisme, Judaisme, Anti - Christia­nisme; and lastly of gross Atheisme and Im­piety; to which also, I could add Mani­cheisme, Ebionitisme, and Cerinthianisme, withal whom the author of the Pamphlet, falsely called, the Quakers Creed, hath taken part, and for which he is justly reprovea­ble.

‘Some Testimonies out of Hilarius, con­cerning the Manhood of Christ, both as touching the Soul and Body: Who al­though he doth expresly affirm, that Christ hath the true and whole nature, both of God and Man, yet he no less expresly saith as followeth in his own words lib. 10. de Trinitate.’

SUum, rursum panem esse dixit, ut per hoc quod descendens de caelis, panis est, non ex humana conceptione origo esse corporis existi­maretur, dum caeleste esse corpus ostenditur—Et arguere nos solent Heretici quod Christum dicamus natum non nostri corporis atquae animae hominem.—Sed ut per se sibi sumpsit ex Vir­gine corpus, ita ex se sibi animam sumpsit, qua [Page 106] utique nunquam ab homine gignentium, origi­nibus prebetur. Si enim conceptum carnis nisi ex Deo Virgo non habuit, longe magis necesse est, anima corporis nisi ex Deo aliunde non fue­rit—at vero si Dominici corporis sola ista natura sit, ut sua virtute sua anima feratur in humidis & insistat in liquidis, et extructa transcurrat, quid per naturam humani corporis concepta ex Spiritu S. caro Iudicatur? And concerning the Soul of Christ, he further saith. Naturae hujus potestatem, Iam non dico metus, sed nec infernae sedis regio est concludens, quae descendens ad inferos, a paradiso non desit, sic ut & hominis filius loquens in terris, maneat & in Caelo.—Non habet hunc metus corpo­ralis penetrantem quidem inferos, sed ubique Naturae suae virtute distentum & naturam hanc mundi Dominam, ac libertate Spiritualis vir­tutis immensam, non sibi terrore mortis, Gehen­nae chaos vindicat, qua Paradisi deliciae carere non possunt.

In English thus. ‘Again, he said, that he was bread; that by this, that he is bread, coming down from Heaven, the Original of his Body may not be esteemed to be of Humane Conception, while it is shown to be a Heavenly Body—And the Hereticks use to accuse us, because we say, that Christ was born a man, having a Soul and Body not of our kind: but as by himself, he took [Page 107] to himself a Body of the Virgin; so of him­self, he took to himself, a Soul which is never to be acknowledged to have the same Origi­nals of them begotten of Man: for if the Virgin had the Conception of the flesh, not of any other but God, it is much more needfull, that the Soul was not of any but of God.—But indeed, if that be the onely Nature of the Lords body, that by its own vertue, by its Soul it is carried upon the waters, and stan­deth upon the Floods, and being struck at, can pass through; why is the Flesh conceived of the Holy Ghost, judged by the Nature of an Hu­mane Body? And concerning the Soul of Christ, he further saith. ‘The power of this Nature, now I say, not only fear, but the region of the infer­nal seat doth not contain; which descending into the Hells, is not absent from Paradice; so that being the Son of Man speaking in the earth, he doth remain in the Heavens. Bodily fear doth not take hold of him; that doth in­deed penetrate the hells, but is everywhere ex­tended, in the vertue of his own Nature; and the pit of Hell cannot claim to it self by the Terrour of death, this Nature; that is, the La­dy of the world, & immense, or unmeasurable in the liberty of Spiritual vertue; Which the delights of Paradice cannot want,’

Post-script.

SInce I wrote the Answer, aforesaid, to the Pamphlet, set out by a Nameless Author, called the Quakers Creed, &c. I have seen a sheet in print subscribed by William Ha­worth, a sort of Independent Teacher at Hart­ford, which he calls a Winding-sheet for the five Hartford Quakers; and in the said sheet, he refers the Reader to the aforesaid Pam­phlet, called the Quakers Creed, for an an­swer to my Book, The way cast up. This gives me just ground to hold the said William Haworth, either to be the Author of the said Pam­phlet, or at least an approver of it; and there­fore all the Lies and Calumnies, and whatever o­ther gross abuses, weaknesses, and impertinencies, and all the absurd, and blasphemous Assertions, which I have discovered in the said Pamphlet, are Chargeable upon him, and lye at his door. And whereas William Haworth saith, at the end of that fheet aforesaid, that G. Keith saith, Christ never was a man; this I charge upon him, as a most gross, and Notorious lye, and slander: I never spoke, wrote, nor thought, any such thing. It is strange, that the man has so far lost all sense of shame, to publish such a manifest lye in the sight of the world. Now, how truely, and uprightly I own

[Page] and believe, that Christ is both God and Man, my book called, The way cast up, is a sufficient witness; and this other Treatise, writ by me in an­swer to the lying Pamphlet, owned by him, is another. But it seemeth, he doth suppose, that such a Conclusion will follow by way of Consequence from my words, because I have affirmed in my book, that Christ the Heavenly Man, was from the be­ginning, even before Adam, the first Man, which was of the Earth, earthly. But this consequence I altogether deny, as false and unreasonable; for his being before he came in that body, doth no more infer, that he was not man in that body, than it doth infer, that a man ceaseth to be a man, or that the Soul of any Man ceaseth to have a being, when it is not in a Fleshly body: and if the having of a Fleshly Body be so Essential to the being of the Soul, (which is most principally the Man) so as the Soul cannot be, or subsist before the Fleshly Body; the same reason holds as much, that the Soul cannot subsist, or have a being, after the Fleshly Body is put off: and so by W. Haworth his Argument, the Soul of every man dyeth with the body, and hath no immortal Subsistance. Let him see, how he can clear himself of this, and many other ab­surdities, which he runneth himself into, by his foolish and inconsiderate way of reasoning.

And as for other things in that he calleth his Winding Sheet, which he chargeth upon the Qua­kers, as their Doctrines, and then upon some called

[Page] Quakers; as that one should say, that the Soul of man was the Devil, & that the Devil was made an offering for sin; and another should say, that Christ was a bastard: These false, and abominable Ca­lumnies, have been so fully and sufficiently answe­red above, by the said five Hartford Friends; and especially in their last, called the Malice of the Independent Agent again rebuked, that it is to no purpose to give any further reply. Nor is the evidence he giveth by proof of some witnesses, of any more Authority than his own, who hath open­ly in the face of the world, discovered himself to be a lyer, and false accuser; and can it be questioned, but he can find others like to himself, who because of their deep malice, and prejudice against the Truth, make no more conscience than himself, to bear false witness against the innocent?

Moreover, whereas these five Friends of Hart­ford did justly blame W. H. for Charging the whole people called Quakers, with any errour, that some one or other called a Quaker, may be supposed to have writ or asserted, set case any one had so writ, or asserted: And they Query further, Is it just, the Independent party should be charged with the private Opinions of every one of them, because they pretend all to one rule, the Scripture?—The said W. H. giveth only this bare and naked evast­on, in that he calleth his Winding Sheet: Should the Independants (saith he) hold Infallibiliy as you do, then might that party be Charged with

[Page] all the Religious Opinions, that any of them at any time vented. Unto which bare evasion, these Friends of Hartford, have given a sufficient reply, in pag. 13. of their last book: where among other things, they say; Such an absurdity was never the assertion of the people called Quakers, viz. That either every one pretending to be guided by the light within, or distinguished by the name Quaker, is therefore guided by the same light, in all discour­ses, or so to be owned by the said people. This which they have already said, is sufficient to over­turn his evasion; as because the Quakers do all pre­tend an infallible Spirit, that therefore all must be acknowledged to have that infallible Spirit, and to be guided thereby; which doth no more follow, than that because all the Independants so called, pretend to one Rule, the Scripture; that therefore, all that they or any of them speak, write, or do, is according unto the Scripture; which instance of parity, they did bring in their foresaid answer, pag. 13. (Yet do not thereby grant, that any of the people called Quakers, are guilty of any such Blasphemous Doctrines as before cited.) To which W. H. hath made no reply; and therefore, it is returned upon him, as wholly unanswered: as also the whole substance of their last book, which W. H. hath not answered, nor indeed hath not so much as pretended, to give a particular answer, unto the greatest and most Principal part thereof. And therefore, these Friends see it not needful

[Page] to give any further answer, to what he calleth his Winding Sheet, until he give a particular answer to the several parts of their book; and they look upon his sheet, to be no Winding-Sheet for them; but that it is an evidence, he hath spent all his strength, and is as it were a dying man, that is no longer able to hold out in this controversie: and that therefore, it may be more fitly called a Wind­ing-Sheet for VV. Haworth himself▪ than for them.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.