Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyed no less to the Principles of the Christian Doctrin of Christ and Oracles of God which therefore by his Argument being Elements are to be thrown aside As for his other Arguments in those two Treatises against the outward Baptism and the Supper they are no other that I can find but such as are above mentioned in my Reply to those of William Penn and Robert Barclay and therefore one Answer will serve both to them and him PART II. SECT I. The Arguments against the outward Supper examined and Refuted THus having finished my Examination and Refutation of the Arguments of the above mentioned Persons against Water-Baptism and the outward Supper in general I think fit to bring to the like Examination what R.B. hath more particularly Argued against the outward Supper as being not any longer to continue but until Christ's inward coming to arise in their Hearts and give a plain Refutation of the same In the beginning of the Chapter or Head wherein he discourseth concerning the Body and Blood of Christ although he saith truly that the Communion i.e. the Participation thereof is inward and Spiritual yet he was under a great mistake to affirm that the said Body and Blood of Christ whereof true Believers do participate is only inward which he afterwards explains to be that Light and Seed in every Man as he expresseth plainly in several places as p. 61 of the above said Treatise and p. 65 where he saith and that Christ understands the same things here viz. John 6. by his Body Flesh and Blood which is understood John 1. by the light hath enlighteneth every man and the life c. And p. 77. he chargeth it to be an Error to make the Communion or Participation of the Body Flesh and Blood of Christ to relate to that outward Body Vessel or Temple that was Born of the Virgin Mary and walked and Suffered in Judea whereas it should relate to the Spiritual Body Flesh and Blood of Christ even that Heavenly and Celestial Light and Life which was the Food and Nourishment of the Regenerate in all Ages as we have said he already proved Ans In this he was in a great Error to make the Eating or Participation of Christs Flesh and Blood to have no relation to Christ's outward Body of Flesh and Blood that was Born of the Virgin and Suffered Death for our Sins on the Tree of the Cross For the Regeneration of Believers and Justification with all the Spiritual Blessings of Life and Light and inward Divine Virtue and Might wherewith they are inwardly Refreshed and Nourished by Christ hath a most near and immediate Relation to Christ's outward Body and Blood and to his coming in that outward Body because that most Holy and Perfect Obedience of Christ which he performed in that Body and became Obedient to the Death of the Cross was and is the procuring and meritorious Cause of all that inward Grace Virtue Light and Life whereby Regeneration was wrought in any in any Age of the World either before or since Christ came in the Flesh as well as it was and is the procuring and meritorious Cause of their Justification and the Remission of their Sins For Christ Died as well for the Sins of those who lived in the Ages before he came in the Flesh as since and they had the same Benefits by his Death and by his Body and Blood that we have the same inward Grace and Light to Regenerate them as the same Mercy and Favour to Justifie them and give them the Remission of their Sins which they received through Faith in Christ as he was to come in the Flesh without them and whole Christ is the Food of true Believers I mean Christ not only considered as the Word simply but as the Word made Flesh And having taken or assumed the Seed of Abraham and the true Nature of Man into such a high Union as that the Godhead of the Word and the Manhood assumed thereby is but one Christ and as such is the Food of all true Believers both as he outwardly came in the Flesh and as he is inwardly come the Light and the Life in them and Believers Eating of Christ is their Believing in him and by their Faith being United to him and he to them so that he dwells in them and they in him And though it may be owned that Believers Feeding upon Christ's Light and Life Metaphorically and Allegorically speaking that Light and Life may be called according to Scripture Meat and Drink and Flesh and Blood of Christ as it hath many other such Metaphorical Names such as Milk Honey Wine Marrow and Fatness Oyl c. All which Names are given because of Men's Weakness and that they have not proper Words to express Divine Things by yet that ought not to make us reject and lay aside Christ's outward Body of Flesh and Blood from having any Relation to the Saints feeding upon him Nor do the Arguments brought by R.B. here prove in the least what he intends as the following Examination of them will sufficiently I hope manifest He begins with a Quotation out of Augustine in his Tractat Psalm 98. The words which I speak unto you are spirit and life understand spiritually what I have spoken ye shall not eat of this body which ye see and drink this blood which they shall spill that shall crucifie me I am the living bread which have descended from heaven he called himself the bread which descended from heaven exhorting that they might believe in him c. Ans It is evident from these last Words that by Eating Augustine meant in one Sense Corporal Eating and in another Sense Believing as elsewhere Tract 25. ad cap. 6. Johan Hoc est opus Dei ut quid paras dentem ventrem crede manducasti Credere enim in eum hocest comedere panem vinum qui credit in eum manducat eum in English thus why preparest thou thy Teeth and Belly believe and thou hast eat for to believe in him is to eat the Bread and Wine who believeth in him eateth him Both these Quotations are good against the Papists who hold that Believers eat the Body of Christ Corporally with their Mouths but say nothing against this Spiritual Way of Eating Christs Body but plainly confirm it The plain Sense therefore of Augustin's Words Quoted by R.B. is this Ye shall not eat Corporally with the outward Mouth the Body of Christ which ye see but ye shall eat it Spiritually that is believe with a sincere Faith which the Spirit of God worketh in you that Christ shall give his Body that ye see speaking then to the Jews to be broken for you and his Blood even the Blood of that Body to be shed for you And in so Believing ye shall eat my Body and drink my Blood that is ye shall be united to me and I to you that I shall abide in you and
ye shall abide in me which Sense doth evidently agree with our Saviour's Words John 6.29 47. And indeed to Exclude Christ's outward Body of Flesh and Blood from having any Relation to this place of Scripture as no way concerned in the Sense of these Words of it John 6.53 is plainly to Exclude Christ as he outwardly came in that outward Body from being the Object of our Christian Faith for seeing Eating here signifieth Believing by Agustine's Quotation approved by R.B. if this Spiritual Eating which is our Believing respects not the Body of Christ that was outwardly Slain then Christ as he came and Suffered in that Body is no Object of the Christian Faith which is most absurb and none that is in the least acquainted with Augustin's Writings can say it ever was his meaning to deny the Body of Christ that was outwardly Slain to be any wise Concerned in the Christian Faith for Augustine was a most zealous Asserter of the Necessity of Faith in Christ as he came in that Body in order to our Salvation against the Heresie of Pelagius who denied it and Writ many Books against that Heresie now Revived by many of the Quakers Teachers tho what R.B. hath Writ here I impute to his Inadvertency and do not charge him with the Pelagian Heresie for the same because from other Places of his Writings I can prove that he made the Faith of Christ's giving his Body to be Slain for us necessary to our Salvation and a part of the Christian Belief SECT II. AND as Inadvertent and Mistaken as R.B. was in his Quotation of Augustine concerning Christ's Flesh and Blood no less hath W. Penn been p. 314. of his Rejoynder to J. F. in his Quotation of Bishop Jewel in his Sermon upon Jos 6.1 2 3. Who speaking of what Christ was to the Jews in the Wilderness says thus Christ had not yet taken upon him a Natural Body yet they did eat his Body he had not yet shed his Blood yet they drank his Blood St. Paul saith all did eat the same Spiritual Meat that is the Body of Christ all did drink of the same Spiritual Drink that is the Blood of Christ and that as truly as we do now And whosoever did then so Eat lived for ever I think saith W. Penn a Pregnant and Apt Testimony to Christ's being the Christ of God before his coming in the Flesh Ans But this doth not prove that by Christ here B. Jewel meant only the Light within in these Jews and by his Body and Blood only that Light within or Seed or Principle as W. Penn would have it All that are in the least acquainted with the Doctrine of the Church of England of which B. Jewel was a Zealous Defender as in his Apologie for the same appeareth or with B. Jewel's Writings know well that the Sense which W. Penn hath here put on B. Jewel's Words never came into his Remotest Thoughts but it is no wonder that he should so misunderstand and misconstrue B. Jewel's Words when he doth so use the Scriptures themselves B. Jewel's Sense is Obvious Christ had not taken upon him a Natural Body yet they did Eat his Body viz. by Faith believing that in the time appointed of God he would take a Body and give up that Body to be Slain for their Sins he had not yet shed his Blood yet they drank his Blood viz. By faith believing that after he should take flesh and blood in the fulness of time he would give his blood to be shed for the remission of their sins and by this faith all the faithful among them had Christ dwelling in them by his spirit and did know and witness his spirit to regenerate and sanctifie them to quicken and refresh them and nourish them as meat and drink doth refresh and nourish the body of man As for his Quotations out of Joshua Sprig and others its no wonder he doth so Magnifie them seeing its but too evident the Quakers have sucked that Poisonous Milk out of the Breasts of such Men who have been in the same Errors before them But to return to R.B. his Arguments whereby he laboureth but to no purpose to prove that the Flesh there mentioned John 6.53 c. hath no Relation to his outward Flesh First saith he p. 63 because that it is said both that it came down from Heaven yea that it is he that came down from Heaven Now all Christians at present generally acknowledge that the outward Body of Christ came not down from Heaven neither was it that part of Christ which came down from Heaven Ans 1. By Himself that came down from Heaven who is called by Paul the second Adam the Lord from Heaven Heavenly the quickning Spirit cannot be meant the inward Principle of Light in Men abstractly considered from the Fountain of it which dwelt in the Man Christ but chiefly the Light as in him and consequentially that which Men receive out of his Fulness according to their several Measures And as our Regeneration and Salvation have a necessary Dependance on that fulness of Light Life and Grace that dwells in him out of which we receive our several Measures so they have a necessary respect to the Man Christ both Soul and Body in which that Fulness dwelleth because the Soul and Body of Christ even his outward and visible Body was concerned in that great Work of our Redemption in what he did and Suffered for us Therefore God hath Exalted the same Man Jesus Christ both in Soul and Body in Unity with his Godhead to be a Prince and Saviour to give Repentance and Remission of Sin Grace and Glory and all Spiritual Blessings to all that shall be saved This ancient Writers have explained by the Example of a red hot Iron exceedingly burning and shining the Fire and Light in the same answering to the Godhead and the Iron answering to the Manhood Now when this fired Iron burns or lightens any Stick of Wood that is applied to it it is not the Fire only without the Iron nor the Iron only without the Fire but both joyntly that have an Operation upon the Wood to Kindle and Lighten it even so it is the Godhead of Christ in Unity with his Manhood consisting of Soul and Body that wrought that outward Redemption for us and doth inwardly produce in us the blessed Effects of it by his Spirit in Renewing and Sanctifying us Justifying us and giving us Eternal Life and Glory Ans 2. Because Christ's outward Body of Flesh was Miraculously Conceived by the Power of the most High and in that respect had a Heavenly Original as well as that it was really the Woman's Seed and part of the Virgins Substance therefore it may be said to be from Heaven and to be Heavenly as well as Earthly as Wheat and Barly and other Grains that Grow in America which come Originally from England are called English Grain even in America though they are also American
betwixt the Cup of Devils and the Cup of the Lord. Now the Table of Devils and the Cup of Devils were outward things to wit the outward Offerings of Meats and Drinks that the Heathens offered to their Idols and to Devils Therefore also by the Table of the Lord and the Cup of the Lord were meant the outward things of Bread and Wine not barely and simply as such but as Signifying and Exhibiting the Spiritual Things above-mentioned His Arguing against this Institution from the one Bread is answered above Part 1. Sect. 5. Page 87. and 89. He gives a most jejune and strained as well as false Sense upon these Words the Table of the Lord as saith he p. 89. he that esteemeth a Day and placeth Conscience in keeping it was to regard it to the Lord and so it was to him in so far as he was to Dedicate it unto the Lord the Lord's Day he was to do it worthily Ans We find no Day called the Lord's Day upon any such account nor did Paul call the Cup in the Supper the Cup of the Lord on any such Supposition of Men's esteeming it to be commanded when it was not really commanded but it is plainly apparent Paul call'd it the Cup of the Lord because he commanded it as the House of the Lord the Law of the Lord c. and the Command is extant drink ye all of it Matth. 26.26 27. Besides in this he palpably runs into a contradiction to what he had said a little before in p. 83. For there he will not have the Bread and Wine to be the Table of the Lord and Cup of the Lord because wicked Men cannot partake of the Table of the Lord and yet now here he grants they may and thereby Eat and Drink Damnation And as jejune and strained as well as false is the Gloss he puts on these Words he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh his own damnation and is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord as if they signified no more than what these Words import Rom. 14.23 He that doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of faith which had only a Relation to Meats that might lawfully be Eaten but if he that did Eat them did think them forbidden he Sinned and so was Condemn'd in his own Conscience For the Word Damned and Damnation in both places do not signifie any Final Sentence of Damnation but only both being Sins they incurr'd the Guilt of Judgment or Condemnation But doth it therefore follow that the Sin and Guilt is the same in both Cases Is he as Guilty of Damnation that Eats Swines Flesh Doubting 〈◊〉 that Eats and Drinks Unworthily at the Lord's Table We read in James 3.1 of a greater Condemnation the Greek Word is the same in both places viz. James 3.1 and 1 Cor. 11.29 Seeing therefore there is a greater and lesser Damnation it will not follow as ◠B. would have it that the Eating of Meats that are lawful doubtfully is as great a Sin and deserves the same Condemnation that unworthy Eating at the Lord's Table One might argue after the like manner that to make a Lye about a Trifle brings as great Guilt and Condemnation as downright Atheism and denying the Lord that bought us Page 91. We find saith R.B. this Ceremony only mentioned in Scripture in four places to wit Matthew Mark and Luke and by Paul to the Corinthians Matthew and Mark give only an account of the Matter of Fact without any Precept to do so afterwards simply declaring that Jesus at that time did desire them to Eat of the Bread and Drink of the Cap to which Luke adds these Words do this in remembrance of me Ans That he calleth it a Ceremony I know no Warrant he hath the Scripture giveth it no such Name they blame the use of the Word Sacrament because it is not a Scripture Word but to be sure Ceremony is no Scripture Word they who are well Skilled in the Greek Language say that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well enough Translated Sacrament as the vulgar Latin Translates it in that place hoc est magnum Sacramentum They further say there ought to be no prejudice against it because some Heathen Authors had formerly used it for so had they used the Word Mystery and had applied the same to the External Rites and Symbols used by them in their Sacrifices to their Idols When Paul would have himself and other Ministers of Christ to be accounted Stewards of the Mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4.1 They plead that by the Mysteries of God there are to be meant not only the Doctrins of the Christian Faith but the Observation of those Institutions of Christ of Baptism and the Supper which none will deny who believe them to be his Institutions But that he saith Matthew and Mark give only an account of the Matter of Fact without any Precept to do so afterwards Ans Though the Precept is not expressed it is implyed and Luke doth express it plainly intimating they were commanded to do it afterwards And if it were no where to be found but in Luke seeing it is acknowledged that Luke is of the same Authority with the other Evangelists it is sufficient as well as that one place in John 6. concerning the Eating Christ's Flesh and Drinking his Blood that is only expressive of that Mysterie is sufficient to prove the Truth of it Page 92. Now this Act saith he was no singular thing neither any solemn Institution of a Gospel Ordinance because it was a constant Custom among the Jews as Paulus Ricius observes at length in his Celestial Agriculture that when they did Eat the Passover the Master of the Family did take Bread and bless it and breaking of it gave it to the rest and likewise taking Wine did the same c. Ans This Consequence will not follow for it is as Idle and Groundless as if one should argue the Jews in the Time of the Law had their Religious Meetings where Preaching and Prayer were used therefore Religious Meetings and Preaching and Prayer are no Gospel Institutions But as his Consequence is not good so the Antecedent is not true viz. That it was no singular thing for though it was not singular in respect of the Material Part yet it was altogether singular in respect of its Formal Part. None of the Masters of the Families among the Jews said Take Eat this is Christ's Body which is to be broken for you and this Cup is the New Testament in his Blood c. It was the great Love and Wisdom of Christ to establish his Institutions under the Gospel relating to the external part of Religion as near to the Jewish Forms as possible excepting what might seem to favour their Superstitions and other Shadowy Things that were to be Abolished All the moral Part as well as divers things of Instituted Worship that were among the Jews being commanded
is betwixt the Husband and the Wife who are said to be one Flesh This is a great Mystery said Paul but I speak concerning Christ and the Church who according to Paul's Doctrine as they are one Spirit so they are one Flesh And as elsewhere he said we are of his Flesh and of his Bone and forasmuch as the Children were partakers of Flesh and Blood he took part of the same wherefore he is not ashamed to call them Brethren Now in this R.B. was in a great Error that by his thus excluding the Flesh of Christ's outward Body from being any means of the Saints Communion with God he excludes the said Body of Christ from being any necessary part of the Mediator and at this rate of his Arguing only the Divine Light or Seed in Men is the Mediator betwixt God and Men but according to the Doctrine of the Apostle Paul the Mediator of God and Men who is one is the Man Christ Jesus and by the Man Christ Jesus is understood in Scripture not the Spirit only nor the Soul of his Manhood only but the Body also together with the Soul even Jesus Christ made of the Seed of David according to the Flesh And as really as there is a Relative Union betwixt Brethren and near Kindred with respect to their Flesh and Blood on which account it is said Concerning Joseph Gen. 37.27 He is our Brother and our Flesh and 2 Sam. 5.1 The Tribes of Israel said unto David behold we are thy Bone and thy Flesh So believing Gentiles as well as believing Jews may say concerning the Man Christ who is the Seed of the Woman of whom to wit Eve we are all descended we are his Bone and Flesh and because he hath taken Flesh and Blood like unto us therefore in that very respect he is compleatly qualified and fitted to be our Mediator and High Priest with God by whom because of the true Nature of Man consisting of a true reasonable Soul and true and real Body of Man which the Eternal Word is united unto we have Communion with God His fourth and last Argument hath the like Defect with the former That which Feedeth upon it shall never Dye but the Bodies of all Men once Dye Ans Men are said in Scripture to Dye though the Soul Dyeth not yet Men are said to Dye because the Vital Union of the Soul with the Body is Dissolved which being but for a Time and that a very small Time as a Moment in respect of Eternity and after that their Bodies shall be raised up again and Vitally be United to their Souls therefore by the contrary Argument by the Flesh of Christ that the Saints Feed upon must be meant in part his outward Body of Flesh now Glorified which is a Glorious Spiritual Body because the Resurrection of Christ's Body is the Ground of the Saints Hope wrought in them by the Spirit of Christ that their Bodies shall be raised up and shall together with their Souls inherit Eternal Life And to conclude this whole Matter when Christ said it is the Spirit that Quickneth the Flesh profits nothing His meaning is that according to their Carnal and Fleshly Sense it doth not profit as if he had said it would profit you nothing to Eat my Flesh as ye imagin by the Bodily Mouth but to Eat it Spiritually and by Faith this doth profit but to take the Words the Flesh profits nothing in the Sense that some take them is most Blasphemous as to say Christ's outward Body of Flesh profits nothing to our Salvation for this would make his Coming and Death for us in the Flesh to have been in vain and also would render our Faith Vain that he did so come yea so necessary was Christ's coming in the Flesh for our Salvation that it is by his Flesh and Soul Constituting his Manhood that we have his Spirit the Man Christ is that Olive Tree consisting of Soul and Body United Personally to the Godhead of the Eternal Word which giveth us the Oyl of the Holy Spirit and poureth it into our Hearts and as in the Natural Olive Tree it is by its Body that we have of its Oyl or Spirit and when we Eat of its Oyl we are said to Eat of the Tree because the Tree yields us its Oyl even as when we Eat of an Apple or Drink the Fruit of it or of the Vine we may be said to Eat of the Apple-Tree and Vine-Tree the Fruit being what the Tree naturally yields so the Man Christ consisting of Soul and Body is that Precious Olive Tree and Vine-Tree that yields us the Oyl and Wine of the Holy Spirit and pours it into our Hearts who Believe in him and Love him and as Effectual as his Soul and Flesh of his Manhood is now to Believers for their receiving the Spirit by the same since he came in the Flesh no less Effectual it was to Believers before he came in the Flesh even from the beginning of the World according to B. Jewel's Words he was not come in the Flesh yet they Eat his Flesh to wit by Faith he had not Shed his Blood yet they Drank his Blood viz. by Faith and both his Flesh and his Blood before it had any visible Being or Existence together with his Soul was Effectual to Believers in all Ages for their Reception of the Spirit and all Spiritual Blessings of Justification and Sanctification c. as well before he came in the Flesh as since And thus he was the Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World whose Death was of the same Efficacy from the beginning and will be to the end of the World to all that believe in him And as God is the giver of the Spirit and of all the Graces of the Spirit so he giveth it to Believers by and through Christ even the Man Christ who is both the Procurer and Dispenser of all that Grace that God giveth unto them and though Men most properly Eat the Meat and Drink the Drink that is bought with Money yet in ordinary Speech by a common Metonymy they are said to Eat and Drink the Money that buyeth it as the Poor Widows two Mites were called her Living so after some sort though the inward Life and Spirit of Christ be the most immediate Food of the Souls of Believers Yet because the Flesh of Christ as it was broken for us and his Blood as it was Shed for us is the Price and Purchase Money which hath procured to us the inward Life and Spirit of Christ with the various Graces and Gifts thereof therefore we are said to Eat his Flesh and Drink his Blood by the Like Metonymy But there is much more in this Great Mystery than can be demonstrated by these Similitudes and Examples or any others of the like Nature SECT IV. P. 77. R.B. chargeth it as another Error which he calleth a General Error wherein he saith they all agree viz. both Papists and
under the Gospel That of Christ's washing the Disciples Feet which he insisteth on for several Pages is fully Answered to in the first Part. As also that of Anointing the Sick with Oyl so that no more needs be said to it here As for these Objections that he raiseth about the Time of the natural Day when this Institution should be practised as why not at Night and what sort of Bread whether Leavened or Unleavened and whether other Drink may not be used as well as Wine which he calls Difficulties out of which it is impossible he saith p. 101. to extricate themselves but by laying it aside another of which Difficulties is to understand as he alledgeth that these Words Take Bless and Break the Bread and give it to others are to the Clergy meaning the Pastors but to the Laity only meaning the People Take Eat c. Ans I do not find that he proveth in the least any such Difficulties they may be all easily extricated much more than in many other Cases where far greater Difficulties occur But this is too Rash and Preposterous because of some seeming Difficulties therefore to lay aside a Divine Institution or to conclude it is no such thing This is to cut the Knot instead of loosing it and to Kill instead of Curing At this rate because in Paul's Epistles and in many other places of Scripture there are things hard to be understood and resolved therefore all such places of Scripture are to be rejected Who doth not see the Impertinency of such Consequences And the like may be said in Answer to his Objection from the great Contentions that have hapned betwixt Papists and Protestants about the Supper and betwixt the Protestants one with another and the much Blood that hath been shed occasioned by these Controversies All which say nothing against the Institution it self more than against Christ and his Gospel about which more Blood has been spilt than about that He should have better considered the distinction betwixt a causa per se and causa per accidens and the use of a thing and the abuse of it SECT VI. PAge 104. For would they take it as it lies it would import no more than that Jesus Christ at that time did thereby signifie unto them that his Body and Blood was to be offered for them and desired them that whensoever they did eat or drink they might do it in remembrance of him or with a regard to him whose Blood was shed for them Ans If this Supposition be true as he would have it that whensoever they did eat or drink they were to do it in remembrance of him then why hath he pleaded so much for the ceasing of it Surely if they were to do it whensoever they did Eat or Drink they were to do it to the end of the World because as long as the World continues Eating and Drinking will continue But we do not find that our Saviour's Words import any such Sense he doth not say whensoever ye eat or drink c. But as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup where the Word this Imports it to be another Eating than their common Eating and the like is Imported by these Words let a man examine himself and so let him eat c. whoso eateth this bread unworthily c. 1 Cor. 11.28 27. But to this Sense that he hath given I find a Passage a little after p 111. that as I judge is a plain Contradiction to the former He saith there the Apostles Words For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come Imports no more a command than to say As oft as thou goest to Rome see the Capitol will infer a Command to me to go thither Now if they were to obey this Institution whensoever they did Eat or Drink then surely they were to do it very often and that by a Command which plainly contradicts this last Assertion of his butth Words As seen as thou goest to Rome see the Capitol implie neither a Command nor any frequent Practice of going therefore this Example is very improper and impertinent in this respect as well as in others Page 110 111. As to that passage 1 Cor. 11. from 23. to 27. He saith There is no Command in this place but only an account of matter of Fact He saith not I received of the Lord that as he took Bread so I should Command it to you to do so also there is nothing like this in the place Ans Be it so that there was no new Command given in the Case either to Paul or by him to the Corinthians It sufficed to Paul to give an account of the matter of Fact as it was delivered to him from the Lord by Divine Revelation as he plainly affirmed That saith he which I received of the Lord that also I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed c. Now as all Divine Revelations are for some great end we may safely argue that since what the Lord did that night was Revealed to him by the Lord it was not an indifferent thing either to be Believed or Practised since it had a Command in it This do in remembrance of me Here was a positive Command that Christ gave unto his Apostles alledged both by Paul 1 Cor. 11.24 And also by Luke 22.19 There was no need of renewing the same Commandments as the Law of the Ten Commandments once given at Mount Zinai did oblige the twelve Tribes of Israel without any other giving them though what was then given them was oft taught them both by Moses and the succeeeding Prophets so what Christ the great Law-giver under the New Testament gave forth to be his Command wherever that Command is made known to any People Nation or Country it ought to be obeyed without the requiring or expecting any new Sanction And to shew a little further how improper his Example of one saying As often as thou goest to Rome See the Capitol is to the present Case If one that has the Command of another should first say go to Rome and then add As often as thou goest to Rome go to the Capitol this would imply a Command Now Christ said first to his Disciples This do in remembrance of me as both Luke and Paul testifie and then Paul adds further v. 25. As oft as ye drink it this do in remembrance of me and v. 26. for as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated ye shew may be translated ye declare or ye preach for so is the same word translated Acts 15.26 Acts 13.38 Acts 17.13 which signifieth some Publick way of shewing it forth in Religious Meetings that proveth it was not Mens private Eatings which may oft happen when they are alone and for this and the
by that Pretence he did throw down the Institutions of Christ leading many thousands into the Ditch with him So by the same pretended Authority he set up outward Orders and Ordinances of his own particularly that of Women's Meetings giving them Rule and Government in the Church and appointing all Marriages to come before the Women's Meetings before they could pass or be allowed by the Community which hath no Footstep or Warrant from the Holy Scripture And when it could not be proved from Scripture though Essayed by him and others miserably straining the Scriptures contrary to their true Sense the Result was that it was commanded by G. Fox and whoever did not Obey were judged by him and his Followers Apostates and Enemies to Truth In the next place I shall bring some clear Proofs from Scripture shewing that outward Baptism and the Supper are the Institutions of Christ under the Gospel And first as to Baptism with Water That is an Institution of Christ which he did command his Apostles and their Successors to Practise to the end of the World But he commanded them to Practise Baptism with Water c. Therefore That he commanded them to Practise Baptism with Water is proved from Matth. 28.19 And from what is above Discoursed in Answer to their Objections it is apparent that Water-Baptism is there meant And that the Apostles and all the Churches of Christ did understand that Water-Baptism was an Institution of Christ is clear from the universal Practice of Believers in the Apostles Days so that it cannot be instanced where any came under the Profession of Faith in Christ but they received Baptism with Water either by the Apostles or other Ministers of Christ Again That which is declared in Scripture to be a means of Grace and Salvation and which hath Gospel Promises annexed to it is a Divine Institution But so is Baptism with Water as the following Scriptures prove Mark 16.16 Acts 2.38 Acts 22.16 Rom. 6.3 Gal. 3.27 Col. 2.12 1 Pet. 3.21 And though these Quakers will not allow that the Scriptures above-mentioned are to be understood of Baptism with Water yet by what is above Discoursed in Answer to their Objections it is evident that they are to be understood of Baptism with Water the Sign being accompanied with the thing signified in all that duly received it Again That which is made a Ground of Unity among the Faithful together with Faith and Hope and Calling is a Divine Institution but one Baptism as well as one Faith one Hope one Calling is made a Ground of Unity among the Faithful Eph. 4.5 And that the one Baptism there is the Baptism with Water the thing signified going along with the Sign is above proved in the Answer to the foregoing Objections And thus much briefly for Proof of Water-Baptism its being an Institution of Christ under the Gospel to continue to the end of the World because he promised to be with his Ministers to the end of the World in their doing what he commanded them Next That the Supper by breaking of Bread and the use of the Cup is an Institution of Christ until his last coming is proved by the like Arguments that Water-Baptism is proved to be an Institution of Christ for first it was commanded by Christ Do this in remembrance of me as oft as you Eat this Bread and Drink this Cup ye shew forth the Lord's Death till he come And that this is his outward coming to Judge the World is above proved Secondly it is a Means of Grace the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Lord's Body The Cup which we bless is it not the Communion of his Blood That is are they not both Signs and Means exhibiting to us the Communion of his Body and Blood and the Spiritual Blessings that come to Believers thereby For indeed all the Signs that ever God appointed to his People were Means of Grace and not bare Signs or Symbols Thirdly the Bread and Wine in the Supper is made a ground of Unity among the Faithful as well as Baptism we being many are one Bread and all are made partakers of that one Bread The Objections made against the Sense of these and the like Scriptures are above fully Answered so that I see no occasion to say any more at present by way of Argument on this Subject An APPENDIX Containing some Observations upon some Passages in a Book of W. Penn call'd A Caveat against Popery and on some Passages of a Book of John Pennington call'd The Fig-Leaf Covering Discovered IN a Book of W. Penn called A Seasonable Caveat against Popery Printed in the Year 1670. I find the following Passage p. 18. But if there be some Virtue signified by the Wine more than by the Bread it is horrid Sacriledge to Rob the Sign much more the thing signified It is a Supper and at Supper there should be to Drink as well as to Eat there can be no Body without Blood and the Drinking of his Blood shews a Shedding of his Blood for the World and a Participation of it Besides the Sign is incompleat and the end of that Sacrament or Sign not fully Answered but plainly maimed and what God hath put together they have put asunder so that the Falseness and Inscriptural Practice of these Men are very manifest Obs Reader Wouldest thou not think by these Words that W. Penn was in good earnest Pleading for the Sacrament as he calls it or Sign of the Supper And hadst thou not known that W. Penn was the Author of that Book would'st thou not have concluded whoever was the Author was rightly Principl'd for the Supper compleatly Administred under both Signs by the Arguments he brings for it as first If there be some Virtue signified by the Wine more than by the Bread it is horrid Sacriledge to Rob the Sign c. The Antecedent is true by W. Penn otherwise his Argument is vain and therefore the Consequence must be true which is this It is horrid Sacriledge to Rob the Sign Now if it be horrid Sacriledge in the Popish Priests and Teachers to Rob the Sign of Wine in the Supper is it not as horrid or rather more horrid Sacriledge in W. Penn and the rest of the Teachers of the Quakers to have Robb'd both the Signs the Bread as well as the Wine and under the Guilt of this Robbery and Sacriledge they still continue I wish they may Repent of it that they may find Mercy and Forgiveness His second Argument is this It is a Supper and at Supper there should be to Drink as well as to Eat But how is it a Supper when there is neither to Eat nor to Drink If the Popish Teachers have maimed the Supper which he blames them for how much more is he and his Brethren Blameworthy who have quite Abolished it His third Argument for the Cup is the Drinking of his Blood shews a Shedding of his Blood but how doth it shew it
is it not sufficient to prove the truth of it And we find but one Text of Scripture and that is in John 6. that mentions the eating of Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood in order to eternal Life is not that one place enough to prove that Truth Another Argument he useth is p. 110. Reas c. That the Gentile Spirit hath troden them under foot so long being part of that outward Court of Religion given to them which were left out at the measuring of the Evangelical Temple of God Rev. 11.1 2. Ans It was not the outward Court but the Holy City that the Gentiles did tread under feet The outward Court indeed is with respect to that time was not to be measured but left unmeasured towit during the time of the great Apostacy But this argueth there was an utter Court the not Measuring of it seems to signifie that it was short and defective of the just Measure that was originally belonging to it as it was in the Apostles dayes and for a long time afterwards until the great Apostacy began at least for the space of three Hundred Years and upwards from our Saviours Resurrection But this is so far from proving that outward Baptsme and the Supper suppose they were a part of the outward Court were no Institutions of Christ under the Gospel that it proves they were for the outward Court was a part of the Temple under the Law and signified that the Church of God under the Gospel was to have that which by way of Analogie answered to it as accordingly it had till the great Apostacy came in that made it to be for a time to be left unmeasured But we find that in Ezekiel the Temple there described Chap 42 is described with its outer Court and is measured which Temple there described it not any material Temple but the Church of God as it shall be raised up after the Apostasie which shall have her outward Court in its just measure and seeing the Quakers take themselves to be the Church come out of the Wilderness and got free from the Apostasie and that Water-Baptisme and the Supper belongs to the outer Court as W. Penn will have it by the same or like Argument they ought to restore the true and due practice of them But why may not their Ecclesiastick Discipline be reckoned as much belonging to the outer Court as Water-Baptisme and the Supper and if so why have they set up that that is as much outward as Baptisme and the Supper and not the other which has far less show of warrant than the other SECT X. THE last Argument W. Penn useth or at least the last that I shall bring and I think I have omitted none either of his or of R. Barclay that I could find that seem'd to require an Answer is taken from Christ's washing his Disciples Feet and commanding them to wash one anothers Feet and James commanding to anoint the Sick with Oyl and the Apostles commanding to abstain from blood and things strangled and that the believers sold their Possessions and had all things common p. 111. Reason against Railing from which he infers that seeing they who plead for the continuance of Water-Baptism and the Supper do not practise those things therefore nor should they practise the other And the like Reasoning doth R.B. use in the above said Treatise called by his Son Baptism and the Supper substantially asserted insisting upon that of Christ's washing the Disciples Feet in several Pages of that Treatise from p. 94 to 99 and on that of anointing with Oyl p. 115. Ans Upon a due consideration of things this last Argument will have as little force as any of the former against the outward Baptism and the Supper That Christ commanded the Disciples to wash one anothers Feet giving them an Example from his own Practice as it was an Act of great Love and Humility in him so to do by his Example he did enjoyn to his Disciples to practise the like Acts of Love and Humility one to another so that what was here enjoyned the Disciples by Christ was not any commemorative Sign of his Death and Sufferings but a real Act of Love and Humility which is not tyed or confined to that particular Action that was peculiar to that County and an ordinary practice among the People of that Country for the Country being hot they used Sandals on their Feet by occasion of which their Feet who used to Travel as Christ and his Apostles frequently did needed washing not only for making them clean but for refreshment and when they came to lodge or stay at a place after Travel it was usual for Travellers to have Water brought and their Feet to be washed as in Gen. 18. and 19. and what was done to them in bringing Water and having their Feet washed was a real Act of Love and Kindness in them that received them into their Houses though they performed not that Office themselves but caused it to be done by their Servants which was a servile Act and more usual to Servants than to Masters But if done by the Master of the House or by one that was not a Servant was an extraordinary Act of Love and Humility so here was nothing in all this of Ceremony Sign or Figure but all a real Act and Office of excessive Love and most profound Humility in our Blessed Lord towards his Disciples and by this exemplary Act of his he both taught and commanded them to perform both that and also other the like Acts and Offices of Love and Humility towards one another which they were to do simply as Acts of singular Virtue after his Example and not as any Symbolical or Commemorative Sign of Christ's Death and Passion and accordingly we find it numbred among the Virtuous Acts of ancient Christian Widows and Matrons 1 Tim. 5.10 If she have washed the Saints Feet And the like was that Custom of giving a Cup of cold Water or of cold as the word is best Translated to Travellers which was a great Act of Kindness and Hospitality in those hot Countries but none of these Actions the one of washing the Feet the other of giving a Cup of cold is any ordinary Act of Friendship Love or Humility here-away in cold Countries where there is either no such ordinary occasion or usual Custom For to do any such thing hereaway would be rather a Ceremony than any substantial Act of either Love or Humility But in all cases when occasion is found for one Christian to perform the equivalent Acts of Love and Humility towards another or others the Command of Christ is no doubt obligatory But to make a Ceremony of that which was then no Ceremony but a substantial Act of Love and Humility were altogether improper and impertinent Next as that in James recommending the Anointing the Sick with Oyl nor was this commanded to be done as any symbolical Act or commemorative Sign but as a mean
Teachers and Leaders now bearing great Sway among them as a thing not only not very necessary but contrary to the Apostles Doctrin Rom. 10. Witness some very express Passages in a Book of G. Whitehead's and George Fox the younger called Truth defending the Quakers and their Principles Writ say they from the Spirit of Truth in G. Whitehead and G. Fox the younger Judge Christian Reader if these Men have not belyed the Spirit of Truth to father such gross Untruth and Antichristian Sayings upon the Spirit of Truth as are contained in these Passages hereafter to be quoted and many others of the like nature that might be produced out of that vile Pamphlet above named Printed at London for Tho. Sâ—mmons at the Bull and Mouth near Aldersgate 1659. In p. 65 of that Book they bring in one Christopher Wade saying Christopher Wade affirmeth that our blessed Saviour doth instruct Men to lay fast hold of and to abide in such a Faith which confideth in himself being without Men To this they answer Ans That 's contrary to the Apostles Doctrin who Preached the Word of Faith that was in their Hearts and the Saints Faith stood in the Power of God which was in them Note Reader this Assertion of C. Wade blamed by them as being contrary to the Apostles Doctrin is so far from being contrary thereunto that there can be nothing more agreeable as appeareth in the words of the Apostle Paul in the very next verse following where after mentioning the word of Faith in Verse 8 which was nigh in the Mouth and in the Heart he adds in the 9th and 10th verses That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation Again They bring in C. Wade see there page 66 saying C. Wade p. 14. hath affirmed that the Lord hath bought us and Redeemed us with the precious Blood of his Humanity and saith your imagined Christ being a mere Spirit never had any Humane Blood to Redeem you with and to prove it he brings 1 Pet. 1.19 now see their Answer Ans That Scripture 1 Pet. 1. Hast thou perverted as thou hast done other Scriptures to thy own destruction for there he witnessed to the blood of the Lamb which redeemed them from their vain conversation but doth not tell of humane Blood to Redeem them with For that which is Humane is Earthly but Christ whose Blood is Spiritual is Lord from Heaven and he is not an imagined Spirit but a true Spirit And what say'st thou to this Was that Humane Blood which Christ saith except a man drink he hath no life in him and which cleansed the Saints from all Sin who were Flesh of Christ's Flesh and Bone of his Bone Note Any intelligent Reader cannot but know that Christopher Wade by the Blood of Christ's Humanity meant the Blood of the Man Christ that was born of the Virgin and by the Humanity he meant the Manhood of Christ which of late years G. Whitehead hath in Print owned even the words Humanity of Christ and yet never to this day hath retracted his vile Doctrin in this and other his Books whereof I have given some account in my first and second Narrative c. at Turners-Hall Nay it is below him to retract any Errors that would reflect upon his Infallibility he is not changed as God is the same and Truth is the same so the Quakers are the same and by consequence so is G. Whitehead the same as John Pennington hath affirmed in one of his late Prints Again In p. 23. of that above mentioned Book they answer a Question thus Q. 43. When you tell us that you have Faith in Christ do you mean Christ whose Person is now ascended into Heaven above the Clouds or do you mean only a Christ within you Ans Here thou wouldst make two Christ's a Christ whose Person is above the Clouds and a Christ within but how provest thou two such Christs We have Faith in that Christ that descended from the Father who is the same that ascended far above all Heavens that he might fill all things and this Christ we witness in us who is not divided Note I need not make any Commentary on these words the Man that asked the Question did not in the least insinuate that there were two Christ's but 't is plain it was G. Whitehead's Sense that to own Christ whose Person is now Ascended unto Heaven above the Clouds and to own Christ within is to make two Christs But seeing there is but one Christ that is only according to G. Whitehead's Notion within and not a Person now Ascended above the Clouds it is plain he doth not own any such Person Ascended into Heaven above the Clouds nor Faith in any such Person and no wonder that he oppose Faith in Christ's Person without us when he opposeth the Being of any such Person for the object of Faith being destroyed or denyed the Act of Faith must be destroyed or denyed also both which we see he hath plainly done in this Book and if in some of his latter Books he seems to be of a better Faith yet who can believe him to be sincere until he retract and comdemn the vile Errors in this and other of his former Books which have infected thousands of the poor ignorant People called Quakers whom he hath led into this Ditch of Unbelief and yet for danger of loosing his Reputation of Infallibility and of being sound from the beginning he will not do any thing to confess his former Ignorance and Unbelief which might be a great means to lead that poor People out of that Ditch into which he had formerly led them And how he will answer it at the great Day of Judgment for this great Sin and Neglect to make amendment so as to correct his former gross Errors and labour to undeceive those whom he had formerly deceived he has great need to consider it and I sincerely wish that a Heart may be given him to do it and that by true Repentance he may be humbled before the Lord and obtain forgiveness But he hath given us a very late Instance that he is not changed really in his false Faith and Persuasion from what he was when he wrote that Book near 40 years past which instance is this He hath blamed G. K. for undervaluing the Light within as not sufficient to Salvation or not sufficient without something else that is Christ Jesus without us Suffering and Dying outwardly for us as in his late Antidote Printed 1697. p. 28. compared with p. 27. ad finem Judge Reader of what little necessity or value he makes of the Man Christ without us and of his Death and Sufferings Resurrection and Intercession in Heaven by this most unsound Notion of his for which he
that Christ was to offer up himself in no other Body but that which was without all Sin 7. Why was it Prophecied of Christ a Body hast thou prepared me why not Bodies many if he offer up himself in the Bodies of all the Saints 8. Is not this to make the Sacrifice of Christ of less Value and Efficacie in his own Body than his Sacrifice in W. Penn's Body because the Sacrifice of Christ in that Body that was offered at Jerusalem was the Type this in W. Penn's Body the Anti-type That the History This the Mystery 9. Doth not this strengthen the Papists in their false Faith that Christ is daily offered in the Mass an unbloody Sacrifice I desire that W. Penn and G. Whitehead will give a positive Answer to these Queries and shew wherein my Arguments against their Notion of Christ's being offered a Sacrifice in Men are not so strong against them as W. Penn's Arguments are against the Papist's Notion that Christ is offered up daily in the Mass I. Note Reader Whereas my Adversaries Tho. Elwood and J. Pennington in their Books against me have brought several Quotations out of some of my former Books particularly The Way cast up p. 99. and The Way to the City of God p. 125. on purpose to prove that I was of the same Mind and Persuasion with W. Penn and George Whitehead concerning Christ being a real Sacrifice for Sin in Men to Appease the Wrath and Justice of God and his being the Seed of the Woman in them having Flesh and Blood c. to be understood without any Metaphor or Allegory or other Figurative Speech is what I altogether deny can be inferred from my Words for as I have shewed in my Book of Immed Revel p. 14.15 16. which John Pennington hath perversly applyed in his Book called The Figg-Leaf Covering p. 5.4 The Spiritual Discerning of the Saints in Scripture is held forth under the Names of all the five Senses In like manner the things of God themselves are held forth in Scripture under the Names of sensible things and which are most Taking Pleasant and Refreshing unto the Senses as Light Fire Water Oyl Wine Oyntment Honey Marrow and Fatness Bread Manna and many other such like Names which I expresly grant are Metaphors yet that hinders not said I but that the Spiritual Mysteries Represented under them and signified by them are real and substantial things to wit God's Power and Virtue Spirit Light and Life and the wondrous sweet and precious Workings and Influences thereof which I expresly mention p. 14. and indeed these outward things are but Figures of the Inward and Spiritual which as far exceed and transcend them in Life Glory Beauty and Excellency as a living Body doth the Shadow Now all this I still firmly hold and believe as much as formerly when I Writ those Words for indeed because we have not proper Words whereby to signifie Spiritual and Divine Enjoyments and Refreshments in the Souls of the Faithful therefore Words are borrowed and transferred from their common Signification to a Metaphorical and Allegorical whereby to signifie the Spiritual Enjoyments and Refreshments of the Saints from what they Witness and Experience of the Power Vertue Light Life and Love of God and Christ in them So that I still say the outward Light of Sun Moon Star or Candle is but a Shadow or Figure campared with the Divine Light of God and Christ within the outward Bread Wine Flesh though ever so excellent that the outward Man tasts of is but a Figure and Shadow being compared with that inward Bread of Life inward Wine and Flesh Oyl and Honey that is inwardly tasted and received by the inward Man But behold the wretched perversion that my Prejudiced Adversary John Pennington puts upon my sound Words and the wretched Conclusion that he draws from thence as if therefore I did hold then that the outward Death of Christ was but a Shadow or Sign of the inward Death of Christ in Men and his outward Sacrifice and Blood outwardly Shed was but a Figure and Shadow of his being a Sacrifice within Men and his Blood inwardly Shed which as it hath no Shadow of Consequence from any Words so it never came into my Thoughts so to imagine for in that place of my Book of Immed Rev. above quoted by him I did not compare Christ's Death without and his Death within or his Blood without to his Blood within making That the Shadow and Figure and This the Substance as they do But I was comparing the outward Meats and Drinks as Bread Flesh Wine Marrow and Fatness with the Divine Enjoyments of the Saints which borrow the Names of these outward things and whereof they are but Figures and Shadows II. And when I said in some of my former Books that Christ was the Seed of the Woman that bruised the Serpents Head in the Faithful in all Ages I did not mean that Christ as he was born of the Virgin Mary was a Figure or Allegory of Christ's Birth or Formation in the Saints But on the contrary Christ inwardly Formed is the Allegory and Metaphor yet so that Christ inwardly enjoyed in the Saints is a real Divine Substantial Enjoyment and Participation of Christ his Life Grace and Virtue in measure which they receive out of the Fulness of the Glorified Man Christ Jesus in Heaven for though to Call Christ inwardly the Seed Born or Crucified is Metaphorical yet the inward Life of Christ is Real and Substantial that the Saints Enjoy and being a Measure out of the Fulness that is in the Glorified Man Christ Jesus in Heaven it is of the same Nature therewith and it is one and the same Mediatory Spirit and Life of Christ in him the Head dwelling in Fulness and in them in Measure as Paul said to every one of us is Grace given according to the Measure of the Gift of Christ And whereas he quotes me in his 55th p. saying This is the promised Seed which God promised to our Parents after the Fall and actually gave unto them even the Seed of the Woman that should bruise the Head of the Serpent But doth this prove that Christ being inwardly Formed in the Saints was more properly and without all Allegory Metaphor or Synecdoche the Seed of the Woman than as he was Born of the Virgin I say nay though he would strain my Words to this to bring me into the same Ditch with him and his Brethren who make Christ without the Type and History and Christ within the Substance and Mystery That the promised Seed was actually given to Believers immediately after the Fall hath this plain Orthodox Sense That the Power of Christ's Godhead or the Eternal Word that was in the beginning and which was in the Fulness of Time to take Flesh and Blood like unto the Children did actually break the Power of Sin and Satan in the Faithful and this Power was the real Power of the Seed of
Man Christ and because the Fulness is not in us and never was or shall be in any Man but in the Man Christ Jesus alone that was Born of the Virgin therefore he and he only because of the Fulness of Grace and Truth that was and is in him was Ordained and Appointed to be the Great and only and alone Sacrifice for the Sins of the World being the Head of the Body which is his Church it was only proper that the Sufferings that should be in the Head only should be that compleat only and alone Satisfactory and Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of Men As the Arguments above mentioned in my Queries to G. Whitehead and W. Penn do plainly demonstrate And though in Christ when he Suffered for the Sins of the World at his Death his Godhead did not Suffer yet all that was in him the Godhead excepted did Suffer Note again Reader That although I find no cause to give an Answer to the Book of John Pennington above-mentioned called The Fig-Leaf Covering c. Because I had said in my second Narrative p. 33. that very Book being a pretended Answer to my Book of Explications and Retractations is such a plain and evident Discovery of his Unjust and Unfair Proceedings against me whereof the whole second Days Meeting who hath approved his Book is Guilty and of his Ignorance and Perversness of Spirit in Perverting my Words that I see no need to give any other Answer to him or direct to any other Answer either to his Fig-Leaf c. or his Book Keith against Keith or any other his Books but his own very Book and Books compared fairly with my Books Quoted by him and particularly that of my Explications and Retractations yet because I find divers Passages in that Book of his plainly prove him and his Brethren of the second Days Meeting extreamly Erroneous in the great things of the Christian Doctrin some of them being Fundamental therefore I shall take notice of the following Passages partly to give the Reader a tast of his Unfair Dealing towards me and partly to shew his being still Erroneous in some great Fundamentals of the Christian Faith together with his Brethren of the second Days Meeting who have approved his Fig-Leaf In his 19 and 20 Pages he will needs fasten a Contradiction on me That one time by the Flesh of Christ John 6. I mean an inward invisible Substance and the Eating an inward invisible Eating But now in my Retractations I Assert that to believe in Christ as he gave his Body of Flesh outwardly to be broken for us is the Eating of his Flesh as well as the inward Enjoyment of his Life in us And to confirm the Contradiction he Quotes me saying Immed Revel p. 258. This Body of Christ of which we partake is not that which he took up when he came in the Flesh outwardly but that which he had from the beginning Ans First It is no Contradiction to say the Eating of Christ's Flesh John 6. is to believe not by a bare Historical Belief but by a living sincere Faith Wrought in us by the Spirit of Christ that Christ gave his outward Body to be broken for us and also that it is the inward Enjoyment of his Life in us as it is no Contradiction to say Christ is our Intire and compleat Saviour both as he came outwardly in the Flesh Dyed and Rose again c. And as he cometh inwardly by his Spirit into our Hearts and dwelleth in us by Faith And as concerning that Quotation Immed Rev. p. 258. by this Body in that place I did mean that which is only Allegorically called his Body to wit that Middle of Communication above mentioned that is indeed a Spiritual and invisible Substance owned by R.B. as well as by me and many others And I say still this invisible Spiritual Substance in the Saints is not that visible Body of Christ which he assumed when he came in the Flesh outwardly yet this is not to make two Bodies of Christ because the one is called his Body only in a Metaphorical Sense Ans 2. In my Book of Retractations p. 25. I had plainly Retracted and Corrected that Passage in p. 25. Recor. Corr. That by Christ's Flesh and Blood John 6.50 51. He meaneth only Spirit and Life acknowledging that it was at most an Oversight in me but how doth this prove me a Changling in an Article of Faith As he infers very Injurously May not a Man change his Judgment concerning the Sense of a particular place of Scripture without changing an Article of Faith That such a Change may be without a Change in an Article of Faith is acknowledged by all Sober Writers and Expositors of Scripture Yea there are many places of Scripture that some understand one way and others not that way but another and others a third way and yet all have one Faith in point of Doctrin Ans 3. What a Man Retracts in one Book or part of a Book he ought to be understood to Retract the same Passage where it can be found in another Part or Book of his nor ought he to be Charged with Contradiction in what he hath Retracted For as I have formerly said in Print they are only Chargable with Contradictions that without Retractation holds Contradictory Assertions simul semel i. e. both together Page 22. He will not permit me to use that Distinction to say I had not my Knowledge from them viz. The Scriptures as being the efficient Cause but I did not deny that I had my Knowledge by them Instrumentally to wit the Doctrinal Knowledge and Faith I had of Gospel Truths he Quibbles upon the Word from as if it could not signifie sometimes the efficient Cause and sometimes the Instrumental whereas a School Boy knoweth that it hath these several Significations and more also And seeing what I then Writ in my Book of Immed Rev. was owned by the Quakers it plainly followeth That according to J.P. the Words of Scripture are not a Means so much as Instrumentally to our Knowledge of the Truths of Christian Doctrin But how will he Reconcile this to W. Penn who doth acknowledge that the Scriptures are a Means to know God Christ and our selves See his Rejoynder p. 115. where he expresly saith We never denied the Scriptures to be a means in God's Hand to Convince Instruct or Confirm By we its plain W. P. meant all the Quakers and consequently G. K. being then owned to be one of them Page 39. He will not allow that what I have Quoted out of my Immed Revel p. 243. to p. 247. proves that I did then hold the Man Christ without us in Heaven to be the Object of our Faith though he grants my Words that I said The Man Christ who Suffered in the Flesh at Jerusalem is the Spring out of which all the living Streams flow into our Souls and that he is to be Prayed unto which he saith none of us