Indeed, if we should say, that Christ took Christ, it would not be good sense; but that a body was prepared him, and Christ came in the flesh, and was put to death as concerning the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, is Scripture language.

Baptist. "The Galatians crucified to themselves Christ afresh, by looking back from Christ, to be justified by their own merits." Gal. iii.

Answer. They crucified Christ, by disobeying the truth, and turning from the Spirit, or Light within, wherein they once begun well; wherefore it was said to them: "Are ye so foolish, having begun in the spirit, are ye now made perfect in the flesh ?" (Gal. iii. 1, 3.) So they that oppose the Light within, and deny the spirit within to save, are but still in the flesh partaking of the same foolishness; and therefore there must be a travail known before Christ be formed in them. And whereas we are accused with "denying that blood let out, to be any way meritorious to salvation." Page 37. I ask, whether any thing is of eternal merit and worth that is not everlasting? And where do the Scriptures use those expressions, and so much vary about the blood of Christ, as one while to say that the shedding that blood outwardly was the meritorious cause of salvation; another while the word "shedding" to be left out, and the stress laid only upon that blood itself, which the soldier shed or let out of his side with a spear, which was after he was put to death. John xix. 33, 34.

But then of what effect were the drops of blood that fell from him in his agony? Another while, it is the body that was crucified, and not the spirit within that saveth; for the Spirit, Light and Word within is denied to be the Saviour, by this our adversary, who does not know how to state his own faith and principles, who in page 39, accuses us with "gross mistake, mere fables, and vain titulations," for saying, "that the blood that sprinkles the conscience, cleanseth from sin, sanctifieth, &c., is the life, or is of the Spirit: and that it is the blood of the Covenant," &c.

Answer. Here is no mistake nor fables proved against us, for the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood agree in one; and by walking in the light is the blood of Christ known to cleanse from all sin. Now the blood that sprinkles the conscience, cleanseth, &c. is as truly spiritual as the water is, which Christ giveth, and by which he washeth his Church through the Word. For we are not to suppose two kinds of Saviours and sanctifiers; that is, both a natural, (which is not in being, as is said of the blood that was shed,) and the Spirit which still liveth. And though Christ, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gates, (Heb. xiii.) I hope it will not be denied but this work of sanctification is wrought and fulfilled within by the Spirit, and that sprinkling and purging the conscience is inward; and then.

where the blood is said to do it, that must needs be spiritual for surely the blood shed outwardly must needs have a spiritual signification, as well as the water and the cross had and the Apostle attributes washing or sanctifying, to water as well as blood.

66

Again, it is confessed, page 85, "that God by his own blood purchased to himself a Church." Acts xx. 28. Now the blood of God, or that blood that relates to God, must needs be spiritual, he being a Spirit; and the covenant of God is inward and spiritual, and so is the blood of it. But our opposer confesses he is as ignorant of any such blood as may be." Page 42. And indeed, so he is like to be while he sets himself to contend against the very mystery of God, and against plain Scripture, telling us, that "God hath not blood," page 35, contrary to Acts xx. 28. Zech. ix. 11.

And now to his 40th page, I query, 1. Whether Christ abolishing and destroying the powers of Satan, and bringing in everlasting righteousness, as is said, be not a work to be fulfilled within, where Satan has ruled?

2. Whether man be discharged of his debt while he lives in disobedience to the Light or Spirit of Christ within?

3. Whether Christ's obedience on the cross will exempt man from his obedience to Christ, or does acquit him in the sight of God, without having the righteousness of the Law fulfilled within him?

4. Whether God be satisfied that the many offences should remain, and yet take the one offering for a full discharge from the penalty?

If you say he is, then, 1. Whether any man's offences can deprive him of his discharge?

2. Or, whether it is but only a selected and chosen number that the debt is payed for, and salvation merited?

3. And then, how did Christ die for all? But if the benefit accrue to man only upon condition of believing ;

4. Then how is man's obedience excluded, as hot any cause of sanctification, justification, or salvation, but an effect only? And then, can there be any true believing without obedience? And further, I find contradictions about the same matter, page 40, for one while the stress is laid upon Christ the one offering, which is still in being, and his flesh and blood partaken of, eat and drank of by the true believers; another while upon the blood that was shed.

Touching which the Baptist says: "Though that blood shed be not in being, yet the efficacy of that blood is still in being." Reply. What efficacy? Is it natural or spiritual? If natural, then how is the blood lost, or not in being? and then, where is

G

the Spirit's work? If the virtue be spiritual that saves and sanctifies, &c. it never dies nor perishes; neither was it derived from that which is not in being, nor was any corruptible thing its original.

Again, If the blood shed "cry afresh, and sound in God's ears for mercy for sinners," as he says, how is God fully satisfied, and man's debt discharged, or his disobedience wrought off, as before? Is mercy still to be cried afresh for, where wrath is appeased, and satisfaction made, as is supposed? This is strange confusion. And can that which is of such infinite worth, as to purchase man's eternal salvation, be corrupted or lost, so as not to be in being? As absurdly he brings a comparison of “a purchase among men, and that which bought the purchase being lost or given away;" as if God should set such a small value on that which purchases man to himself. Oh! gross ignorance and And yet it is confessed, "that Christ is the purchaser, and sinners or salvation the purchase, and the price his life." Page 40.

error.

:

Whereas before, (page 39,) he has contended against that of the blood that sanctifies, "being the life of Christ," but now the price is his life and is not that price which purchases and redeems sinners, that precious blood of the Lamb which is not corruptible, no more than his flesh was? But if William Burnet intends that the blood outwardly shed by wicked hands, was the price and life of Christ, as his words import, then it follows from his other words, that the life of Christ is not in being; and this would render him a dead Christ, whereas the life that he laid down, he had power to take up again; and he said, "I lay it down of myself, and no man taketh it from me; and he gave himself a ransom for all.”

And now, whereas Solomon Eccles, in page 41, is accused of little less than blasphemy, about a letter, chiefly of a passage concerning the blood, in these words, viz. "The blood that was forced out of him by the soldiers after he was dead, who before that bowed his head to the Father, and gave up the ghost, I did say that was no more than the blood of another saint, &c." Thus far Solomon Eccles.

Now to these words, viz. "no more than the blood of another saint," his intent was as to Papists and you, whose minds are carnal, who oppose the Light within, and also simply, as to the essence of the blood, which you dare not say is still in being, but not as to the spiritual virtue and testimony, which is still in being.

This Solomon Eccles owned to be his intention; and in his letter in the preceding words, did highly speak in esteem of the blood. of Christ and new covenant, "as more excellent, and living,

and holy, and precious, than is able to be uttered," &c. which might have satisfied any spiritual or unbiassed mind. And what difference is there between William Burnet saying, that the blood that was shed, is not in being, or comparing it with a price that is lost, (page 40,) and Solomon Eccles saying, then "it was no more than the blood of another saint," the one being not of continuance any more than the other? By this, may not William Burnet as well be thought guilty of little less than blasphemy, as Solomon Eccles, though I do not so judge either therein? And seeing that the children had flesh and blood, and Christ took part of the same; if the same, how was it more, or another, simply as to the matter of blood? And if the Jews had drank the blood that was shed on the cross, do you Baptists think it would have cleansed them from sin? And yet I do not make Solomon Eccles's expressions therein, especially as construed by our adversaries, to be an article of our faith; for I own that in one sense the blood shed was more than that of another saint, though not in the matter of it, as to the visible ;—more, in that it had a peculiar signification; and Christ the one offering was the man peculiarly ordained or appointed of God, both to bear the sins of many, to end the many offerings under the Law, and in all his example and sufferings, that were permitted to be laid on him, he both answered, fulfilled, and ended the outward part and administration of the Law and shadows, and performed the Father's will therein; and was particularly eyed and prophesied of accordingly by the holy prophets; and through all his sufferings in the flesh, he gave an universal testimony, and consecrated a new and living way, even through the veil, that is to say, his flesh, that the way into the most Holy might be manifest.

Baptist. "Neither did I ever read that it was the blood or life in Christ, or the life of Christ in his people, that we are justified by," &c. Page 42.

Answer. The Spirit of Christ, (which is Life) does both quicken, sanctify and justify the true believers, (John vi. 63. 1 Cor. vi.) and that blood and water that is said to cleanse, is not of another kind, but agrees in one with the Spirit, all which is known within, and the effects thereof.

Baptist. All things under the Law, in the type, were purged with blood, and this blood was material blood, and not mystical; and that blood that Christ shed in order to the effecting the salvation of man, must needs be visible and material blood."

Answer. Do but mark here what a sad consequence he has drawn; as if one should reason, that because the type was material, visible, and not mystical, therefore the antitype or substance must needs be material, and not mystical. By this all mysteries or divine things are excluded from being either spiri

tual, antitype, or substance, whereas it was the Heavenly things themselves that are in Christ, in which consists the substance and end of types and shadows. But to say that material blood was a type of that which was material, is to give the substance no preeminence above the type, (especially if neither of them be mystical, nor in being,) or like as if one should say, one type was a type of another; as to say, because circumcision, which was a type, was material or outward, therefore the circumcision of the Spirit, which is the antitype of it, must needs be outward too, and not mystical, which would be sad doctrine. And thus he might as well reason touching all other types and shadows under the Law, and the Heavenly or good things to come, prefigured or shadowed by them, that because the priests under the Law, at the outward tabernacle and temple, were ministers of outward or temporal things, carnal ordinances, shadows, &c. therefore those good things to come, those Heavenly things which Christ was said to be the high priest of, must needs be temporal, and not mystical, which were absurd to assert. Whereas both the heavenly and more perfect tabernacle and altar, with the heavenly things, are all a mystery, and spiritual; the offering and living sacrifices are spiritual; the passover spiritual; the seed spiritual; the bread, the fruit of the vine, the oil, the flesh and the blood, which give life to the soul, yea, the water and blood, which wash and sprinkle the conscience, are all spiritual and mysterious, as the new covenant itself is, which they belong to, and these things known in; and this is the new and living way which Christ set open, through the veil of his flesh. Heb. x. Let them receive this who can.

And this may answer that question, Wherever did God attribute the name of blood to spirit? Whereupon I may ask as well, if the name of water was never attributed to the spirit? See John vii. 38, 39. And whether the blood of God, and of the new covenant, be not spiritual? If not, how is it called his own blood? Acts xx. 28. And is not the new covenant spiritual, viz. the law written in the heart, and the spirit in the inward parts? If it be, surely the blood of it must be spiritual too.

Again, compare the articles of William Burnet's faith about the blood shed without the gates, &c. page 42. "By which," he says, 26 we are justified." Another while, "It is the means or cause of justification ;" and yet it is neither spirit, nor the life, by his own confession: nor is it in being, but lost. Page 40. Whereas we are justified by the Spirit, and saved by his life. 1 Cor. vi. 11. Rom. v. 10. chap. iv. 25. And yet, in contradiction, he says, "Christ has redeemed man by his death, and blood shedding at his death," (he should have said, it was shed after his death); and then, "Let every one's expectation be from that