and as concerning Colos 2.17 The things there mentioned are called shadows of things to come such as the Types of the Mosaical Law were but Water-Baptisme and the Supper which the Christians were enjoyned to practice were simply not shadows of things to come but are commemorative Signs of Christ as he hath already come in the Body that was prepared for him and of his Body and Blood which he hath given for us together with the spiritual blessings of Grace Life and Light that we have by him to make us comformable to him in holiness as well as to give us the pardon of our Sins and to justifie us and give us a right to eternal Life But it bewrayeth still great in consideration in W. Penn to argue against the outward Baptisme and Supper as he doth in his Defence of his Key above-mentioned p. 154. They that personally saith he enjoy their dearest Friends will not repair to their Pictures though drawn never so much to the life to quicken their remembrance of them His similitude of a Picture to which he compareth the outward Baptisme and Supper is a good Argument against him the Saints on Earth have not the Man Christ personally present with them they have not his Body that suffered Death for them and rose again a present object to their outward sight therefore did he in his great love appoint these outward Signs to be a Memorial of him until they should have himself Personally present with them as they will certainly have in the time appointed and to as little purpose is his arguing in that same page That the true Believers were come to Mount Zion Heb. 12.22 and sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus which must be an attainment above signs of invisible grace being the life and substance of Religion and so the Period and Consummation of Types Shadows and such sort of Signs or Significations as are in question Answer It is a great Misrepresentation of the State of the Question in W. Penn so to place it as well as a weak Argument as because true Believers are come to Spiritual Attainments above Signs of invisible Grace that therefore there is no use of Signs in Religious Matters Why then doth he speak and writ so much in Religious Matters for all his Words and Writings are but Signs and he thinketh that his Brethren are come to higher Attainments than these Signs yea why doth he kneel in Prayer and discover his Head when he Prayeth what are these but Signs And why so much strife and contention about G. Fox's Papers of Church Orders and Womens Dresses Are not his Brethren come to higher Attainments than these outward things But it is an observation of many that after G. Fox had taught his Followers to throw down the outward Institutions of Christ he set up among them his own and so did persuade them to exalt them that whoever did not comply therewith were to be judged by his zealous Admirers to be Apostates thus Pharisee like setting up Humane Traditions above Divine Precepts and in so doing W. Penn has had no small share who hath as eagerly promoted G. Fox's Institutions about outward things as he hath laboured to throw down the Institutions of Christ SECT VII TO avoid the Argument for Water-Baptism it being an Institution of Christ from Matt. 28.19 Go teach all Nations Baptizing them into the name c. he saith but no water is mentioned page 106. Reason against Railing and therefore he concludes in the next p. that Christ commanded the Apostles to Baptize with the Holy Ghost and the like evasions is made by R.B. in the abovesaid Treatise p. 26. where he putteth them who understand it of Water-Baptisme to prove that Water is here meant since the Text is silent of it Ans As Water is not mentioned so nor is Baptizing with the Holy Ghost mentioned and at this rate of arguing used by them nor must Baptizing with the Holy Ghost be understood which yet they so inconsiderately affirm must be meant here But R.B. thinks to prove that Baptisme with the Holy Ghost is here meant arguing from the literal signification of the Text which we ought not to go from except some urgent necessity force us thereunto but no such urgent necessity forceth us thereunto Ans The literal signification of the Text is not Baptizing with the Holy Ghost but on the contrary the word Baptizing literally signifieth to Wash with Water or Dip into Water Yea R.B. grants p. 49. If the etymology of the word should be tenaciously adhered to it would militate as well against most of their Adversaries as the Quakers When it is transferred from the literal signification to a Metaphorical as to signifie the Inward and Spiritual Baptisme with the Holy Spirit it is never when so transferred applied to Men as having any command so to Baptize but wholly and only to God and Christ I challenge any Man to give but one instance in all the Scripture where Baptizing with the Spirit is ever referred to Men either by way of Precept or Practise as if ever any Man but the Man Christ did Baptize with the Holy Spirit or were commanded so to do the quibble from the Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is answered and refuted above as also his arguing from the word one Baptisme and whereas he saith the Name of the Lord is often taken in Scripture for some thing else than a bare sound of words or literal expression even for his Virtue and Power I answer and so is it oft taken otherwise as the Name of God in Scripture signifieth himself so the Name of Christ signifieth Christ and that both considered as he is God and Man and yet one Christ and that to be Baptized into the Name of the Lord Jesus did not signifie the Baptisme of the Holy Ghost I have proved already out of Acts 8.16 Besides the Name of the Father is not the Holy Ghost as neither is the Name of the Son for as the Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost so nor is the Name of the Father nor the Name of the Son the Name of the Holy Ghost as they are distinguished by their relative properties so by these Names though the Name God belongeth to each of them and who are one only God blessed for ever But that he further contends that the Baptisme commanded here in Matth. 28.19 is Christ's own Baptisme I answer Christ's own Baptisme whereof John makes mention and of which he is the author and giver is indeed the Baptism with the Holy Ghost which he promised unto the Apostles to give them and accordingly did perform but we no where find that ever he promised to give them Power to give it to others or commanded them to give it that is wholly an unscriptural Phrase and scandalous if not Blasphemous to say that poor mortal Men hoever so Holy could give the Baptisme of the Spirit this is to give to them what
the sort of Bread and Wine to be used c. Answered SECT VI. Sheweth R.B. his Mistake that the Eating in these Words Take Eat c. do this in remembrance of me was their common Eating The continuance of the Supper Argued from 1. Cor. 11.23 c. That the coming of Christ meant in these Words until he come is his outward and last coming at the end of the World SECT VII Containeth three Reasons That by his coming 1 Cor. 11.26 is meant his outward coming SECT VIII Containeth three other Reasons for the same R.B. his Argument from the Syriack Translation in 1. Cor. 11.26 c. Answered SECT IX Containeth R.B. his last Argument against the outward Baptism and Supper Answered respecting the Power to Administer them as whether Mediate or Immediate The Collective Body of the Protestant Churches may by Allusion or an Hypothesis besaid to answer to the Church of Sardis which was not blamed for Idolatry but otherwayes An Advice to all sincere Christians agreeing in Fundamentals to own one another as Brethren SECT X. Sheweth that many in the Protestant Churches can give greater Evidence of their true inward Call to the Ministry than many of the Teachers among the Quakers Want of due Administrators no Argument against Baptism and the Supper An Advertisement concerning W. Del's Book against Baptism Good Advice to the Quakers concerning those Institutions SECT XI Containeth some Arguments of G. Fox and Humphry Norton with their Answers and some dreadful Words of Humphry Norton against our Saviour's last coming though the Man was highly commended by E. Burrough and F. Howgil Great Teachers among the Qaukers SECT XII Containeth some Scripture Proofs shewing that Baptism and the Supper are Institions of Christ PART I. SECT I. An Impartial Examination and Refutation of their Arguments against Water-Baptisme IN a Book of George Whitehead's whose Title is The Authority of the true Ministry in Baptizing with the Spirit and the Idolatry of such Men as are doting about Shadows and Carnal Ordinances here note his severe Charge p. 13. he bringeth three Reasons or Arguments to prove that in the Commission which Christ gave to his Discipless in Matth. 29.19 Mark 16.18 Water-Baptisme was not intended but the Baptisme of the Spirit His first Argument is If the Baptisme which Christ commanded in Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.16 was a Baptisme without which a Man cannot be saved then it was not the Baptisme of outward Water for Water-Baptisme is not of necessity to Salvation neither is there any stress for Salvation laid upon is but it was that Baptisme without which Men cannot be saved which Christ commanded Matth. 28. therefore not Water-Baptisme I prove saith he the Minor Proposition thus No man can be saved without being Baptized into the Name of God and his Son Christ Jesus for his Name is the Word of God by which Salvation comes and by no other Name and the Lord is one and his Name one and it was into his Name that the Disciples were commanded to Baptize People Ans Here G. Whitehead would appear to be some body in Logick though it is judged by many of his Brethren to be little better than a piece of the black Art but he has in this sufficiently discovered his Ignorance both in true Divinity and true Logick The Fallacy of his Argument is in this apparent that in his supposed Proof of that he calleth the Minor Proposition he confoundeth Baptisme into the Name and the Name it self for saith he his Name is the word of God by which Salvation comes But though Salvation cometh by the word of God and none can be saved without that Word yet it doth not follow that none can be saved without such a Baptisme as the Apostles did Baptize with into the Name of that Word for as they were to Baptize into the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Name of the Father c. So they were to Teach in that Name but this proves not that they were not to teach outwardly and they were to work Miracles in that Name it doth not therefore follow that they were not to work outward Miracles visible to Men's outward sight Again G. Whitehead useth the Name word of God in a too narrow and limited Sense for the full Name of Christ is not the word only but the word made Flesh or the word having assumed the true Nature of Man and that by the Name of Christ here is understood the Name of the Man Christ who was Crucified is clear from Paul's words to the Corinthians Was Paul Crucified for you or were ye Baptized into the Name of Paul Signifying that they were Baptized into the Name of Christ Crucified which hath a necessary Relation to the Man Christ and to Christ considered as truly as Man as God and thought the word is a Name proper to the Son yet it is not the Name either of the Father or of the Holy Ghost for that were to confound and wholly to destroy the distinction of the Relative Properties of Father Son and Holy Ghost which was the Sabellian Heresie The Minor thereof of his Argument is Fallaciously proved by him and his Assertion is false viz. That the Baptisme without which Men cannot be saved was the Baptisme which Christ Commanded to the Apostles if by the words cannot be saved he means absolutely impossible for he hath not in the least proved that it was not Water-Baptisme which Christ Commanded but whereas his Argument seemeth to depend on this that becomes Water-Baptisme is not absolutely necessary to Salvation therefore Christ did not Command it But he should learn better to distinguish things absolutely necessary to Salvation and things necessary in some respect and very profitable though not of absolute necessity and the like distinction G. Whitehead must allow with respect to his and his Brethrens Ministry Preaching and Writing which they suppose Christ has Commanded them and yet he will not say his and their Ministry Preaching and Writing is absolutely necessary to any Man's Salvation Besides it doth absolutely contradict G. Whitehead's declared Principle concerning the Sufficiency of the Light within every Man to Salvation without any thing else to affirm that Men could not be saved unless the Apostles had Baptized them according to Christ's Command even supposing it had been the Baptisme of the Spirit which the Apostles had been Commanded to Administer for this World have made the Salvation of Men depend upon the Ministry of Apostles and their Successors in the outward Exercise of their Spiritual Gift of Preaching and Prayer now before the Apostles Administred this Baptisme suppose it be that of the Spirit the Men to whom they were sent had the Light in them which was sufficient to Salvation without any thing else according to G. Whitehead's Doctrine and consequently without all Ministry of the Apostles and had they never heard or seen the Apostles or any other Men had they given due Attendance and Obedience to
useful when the signification of them is understood for Example Water in Baptisme hath a nearer resemblance to the thing signified by it than any words whatsoever for words signifie only by humane Institution but visible Signs that are not words bear some Similitude and Analogy to the things signified and are as it were so many Hieroglyphicks of Divine Mysteries In short the difference betwixt the Judaick and the Christian Dispensation stands not as W. Penn would have it that the Judaick Dispensation was an outward Figurative and Shadowy Worship and Religion and that the Gospel hath nothing of outward in it nothing of Figure Sign or Shadowy for in both these Descriptions he is under a great mistake the Judaick Religion had Substance Life and Vertue and an inward Glory belonging to it as really as the Christian yea the very same in Nature and therefore it is not a fit Definition he gives of the Judaick Dispensation and Religion that it was an outward Figurative and Shadowy Worship and Religion the outward part of it was the Shell and Cabinet but it had an inward part that was as the Kirnel and Jewel as all the Faithful did know who were under that Dispensation while it stood in force Again it is as really an Error on the other hand to define the Christian Dispensation to be all inward all Life and Spirit and Substance that is too Chymical and Subtile and no wise Saits with a mortal State at least for as our natural Bodies cannot Eat and Drink all Spirit but require a Food more Bodily so our Christian Religion requireth a Bodily part as well as a Spiritual And such who through an ignorant Presumption throw away the Bodily part of the Christian Religion lose the Spiritual or rather never find it but in place of the true Spirit of Christianity embrace an inward Shadow and Imagination and oft an Antichristian Spirit and such I have known who had been once very Zealous in the Quakers way who upon such ignorant Presumption would come to no Meetings hear no outward Teaching nor joyn in any External Act of Worship alledging all was inward and they needed no outward thing and God was only to be Worshipped in the inward which are the true and proper Consequences of W. Penn's Reasonings here His Distinction of Prenunciative and Commemorative Signs I have above examined and shewed that Water-Baptisme and the outward Supper are not meerly Prenunciative but Commemorative as commanded to be practised after Christ's Resurrection The true distinction betwixt the Judaick and Christian Dispensation and Religion consists in these following Particulars That the Judaick Dispensation and Religion had much more of outward Figurative and Shadowy things than the Christian the former had much as best suited to that Time and State the latter had but little in comparison to the former As for Example the Figures and Shadows of the Law were indeed many perhaps some hundreds there were of the Mosaical Laws commonly called Ceremonial relating to Meats and Drinks Washings or Baptisms Persons Places and Times as Days Weeks Months and Years but the Symbols and Signs under the Gospel are but few as Water in Baptisme and Bread and Wine in the Supper kneeling or standing up in Prayers and the Men uncovering their Heads may be called Decent Religious Signs of our Worship Secondly The Typical and Mosaical Precepts were not only many but considerably chargeable and painful the multitude of their Sacrifices were a great charge and the Males coming there every year to Jerusalem very Laborious Circumcision of the Male Children painful but Water-Baptisme and the Supper very easie and with very little charge and little or no pain which chargeable and painful Service of the Law among other things occasioned Peter to call it a Yoak which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear Acts 15.10 And God in his wisdom saw it meet to put that yoak upon them as suiting to that legal and typical state and our deliverance from that Yoak is a great blessing of God Thirdly These Signs and Shadows of the Law did not near so clearly and plainly hold forth Christ and the Spiritual Blessings of Remission of Sins Justification Adoption Sanctification and Glorification through Christ as these few plain Signs and Symbols of Water in Baptisme and Bread and Wine in the Supper do the words in the Form of Baptisme do plainly express that Great Mystery of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and how these three are concerned in the things signified by the outward Baptisme as namely in the Pardon of our Sins the Father giveth it the Son purchaseth it the Holy Spirit in our Hearts persuadeth us of it Again the form of words in the Institution of the Supper take eat this is my body c. and this cup is the new Testament in my blood shed for the remission of the sins of many drink ye all of it There are no such plain and clear Forms of Speech holding forth Christ and the spiritual Blessings we have by him that were annexed to or used with any of the Figures and Shadows of the Law Fourthly The Figures and Shadows of the Law in the use of them had not that Plenty of Grace and Divine and Spiritual Influence of the Holy Ghost accompanying them generally to Believers under the Law as doth generally accompany Believers under the Gospel for as Paul declareth it was reserved unto the days that were to come after the Judaical Dispensation was ended wherein God was to show the exceeding Riches of his Grace and in the latter Days viz. under the Gospel the Spirit was to be poured forth as was accordingly fulfilled and on these Accounts especially the two last it is that Baptisme with Water and the outward Supper ought not to be numbred among the Carnal Ordinances of the Judaick Dispensation for though the material things in some part be the same yet the manner so differing and the Grace and Spirit more plentiful abundantly as is above declared gives just cause that the outward Baptisme and the Supper when duly Administred as they ought to be and were in the Apostles Days should not be numbred among the Carnal Ordinances nor yet so called but rather Spiritual for things receive their denomination from the greater and better part Holy Men in Scripture are called Spiritual though having Bodies of Flesh and why may not things be called Holy and Spiritual that are used and practised by Holy Men wholly for a Holy End although the things themselves be Material and External All which being considered it will plainly appear how weakly and rawly both W. Penn and R.B. have argued in this Point and what an Impertinent Consequence W. Penn hath made to infer that to allow Water-Baptisme and the outward Supper to belong to the Gospel is to make the Gospel a State of Figures Types and Shadows which doth no more truly follow than to allow that because W. Penn hath a Body of Flesh
Whitehead in the very first instant art of Baptizing they confessed their Sins and neither before nor after But that there was a Divine and Spiritual Baptisme that attended their Ministry to some will not prove that they did Baptize them with the Divine and Spiritual Baptisme which was the Work of God and of Christ and promised by Christ to the Apostles and other Believers but was never commanded them to give it to others His Third Argument is from Gal. 3.2 Received ye the spirit by the works of the law or by hearing of faith c. he therefore that ministreth to you the spirit and worketh miracles among you doth he it by the works of the law or by the preaching of faith Ans He taketh it for granted that by him that worketh Miracles among them and Ministreth the Spirit unto them is to be understood Paul or some other Man by whom they were Converted But Paul it could not be for the words being in the Present Tense implyeth a present Ministration of the Spirit when Paul wrote that Epistle unto them but Paul was then at Rome as the end of the Epistle sheweth nor was it any other Man because they were already Converted and had received the Spirit before he writ that Epistle unto them Therefore it is most proper to understand this he to be Christ who is the only furnisher and supplyer of the Spirit together with God unto the Faithful the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Prebens Suppeditans by Pasor and doth properly signifie the Principal Efficient from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dux chori the Captain of the Chorus but this is Christ who supplyeth and giveth the Spirit to the Saints and neither Paul nor any other Man And that the Apostles were Ministers of the Spirit doth not signifie that they gave the Spirit or Baptized with the Spirit but that they were assisted and guided by the Spirit in their Ministry and that God accompanied their Ministry with his not their giving the Spirit unto such who believed their Doctrine SECT V. I Proceed in the next place to examine all the other Arguments I find used by W. Penn and R. Barclay against these Divine Institutions that seem to have any shadow of weight The First Argument I find used by W. Penn in his Reason against Railing in p. 107. is first saith he we know and they confess that they were in the beginning used as Figures and Shadows of a more hidden and Spiritual Substance 2. That they were to endure no longer than till the Substance was come Now the time of the Baptisme of the Holy Ghost Christ's only Baptisme therefore called the one Baptisme has been long since come consequently the other which was John 's was fulfilled and as becomes a forerunner ought to cease the like may be said of the Bread and Wine for as there is but one Baptisme so there is but one Bread This same Argument for Matter but in different words is used by R.B. in the above said Treatise p. 7.8 Answ The Conclusion they both draw viz. that John's Baptisme is ceased may be granted and yet it will not follow that Water-Baptisme as it was practised by the Apostles and other Ministers after Christ's Resurrection and Ascension is ceased seeing there is great ground to distinguish betwixt John's water-Baptisme and the Apostles in divers weighty respects as first the Man Christ after he rose from the Dead having all Power given him in Heaven and in Earth Commissioned the Apostles to Baptize and that with Water as shall be afterwards proved more fully but John had not his Commission from the Man Christ c. 2. John did only Baptize them of his own Nation and was only sent to Israel but the Apostles Commission reached to all Nations 3. John though he taught them to believe in him who was to come to wit Christ yet he required not Faith in Christ as any condition to qualifie his Disciples to receive his Baptisme but the Apostles required Faith in Christ Jesus in all the Men and Women as a condition qualifying them to receive their Baptisme 4. We do not find that the Holy Ghost was given or promised to them who received John's Baptisme but the promise of the Holy Ghost was given to such as did duly and worthily receive the Apostles Baptisme therefore John's Baptisme was called the Baptisme of Repentance 5. It seems greatly probable that some who had received John's Baptisme were again Baptized with the Apostles Baptisme Acts 19.3.4 5 6. But whereas they both argue from John's Words I must decrease but he must increase it hath a further understanding than barely as in relation to John's Baptisme for it is said John 4.12 that Jesus made and Baptized more Disciples than John tho' Jesus himself Baptized not but his Disciples thus John decreased and Christ increased when both Water-Baptismes were in force that Christ had more Disciples than John even when John was living at which he rejoyced and as the number of Christ's Disciples increased above the number of Johns before John's decease so still after and will encrease and so will the Glory and Honour of Christ encrease above John to the end of the World But whereas they both argue as they think so strongly both against Water-Baptisme and the outward Supper because of the Scripture Phrase one Baptisme and one Bread which I confess did formerly carry some weight with me and I have so argued in some of my former Books but I have sufficiently seen the weakness of that Argument as well as other Arguments brought both by them and me against these Divine Institutions But let it be considered how things are said to be one in divers senses and acceptations God is one in the highest sense yet this doth not infer that there is no distinction of the Father Son and Holy Ghost in their relative Properties which are incommunicable and Christ is one and yet this doth not prove that Christ hath not two Natures one of the Godhead another of the Manhood most gloriously united 3. Faith is one yet there are divers true significations of Faith in Scripture as 1. the saving Faith 2. the Faith of Miracles which every one had not who had the saving Faith 3. Faith objectively taken for the Doctrine of Faith either as it is outwardly Preached or Professed as in Rom. 1.5 Gal. 3.2 Acts 24.24 Now if one should argue because the Scripture saith there is one Faith Eph. 4.5 that consequently there is but one Faith and that is the Doctrine of Faith outwardly Preached and Professed and consequently deny Faith as it is an inward Grace and Virtue of the Spirit in the Hearts of true Believers his Argument would be false so on the other hand if another should argue true saving Faith that is of absolute necessity to Salvation is an inward Grace or Vertue of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of true Believers and therefore there is no Doctrine
of Faith to be Preached or Professed his Argument should be also false and as false is this way of reasoning that because the Baptisme is one therefore that one Baptisme is only the inward of the Spirit excluding the outward Baptisme of Water or as to say therefore it is only the outward Baptisme of Water excluding the inward Baptisme of the Spirit Now as the one Faith mentioned Ephes 4.5 Suppose is meant the inward Grace or Virtue of Faith in the hearts of all True Believers doth not exclude the Doctrine of Faith outwardly Preached and Professed so nor doth the inward Baptisme of the Spirit suppose there meant Eph. 4.5 exclude the outward Baptisme of Water both being true and one in their kind as the inward Grace of Faith is specifically one in all true Believers but numerically manifold even as manifold as there are numbers of Believers so the Doctrine of Faith is one in its kind though consisting of many parts therefore to argue as W. Penn doth that Baptisme is one in the same sense as God is one is very inconsiderate which would infer that though God is one in specie yet that there are as many Gods numerically as Believers And notwithstanding that in Ephes 4.5 it is said there is one Baptisme yet it is not said there or elsewhere that there is but one Baptisme for another place of Scripture mentions Baptismes in the Plural Number Heb. 6.2 And indeed as weak as their Argument against Water-Baptisme is from the Scripture words one Baptisme no less weak is their Argument against the outward Supper practised with Bread and Wine in commemoration of our Lord's Death because of the Scripture words one Bread 1 Cor. 10.17 for in that same verse Paul tells of one Bread in a very different signification even as far as the Church of Christ is not Christ we said he being many are one Bread but doth it therefore follow that there is no other Bread than the Church nay for they are all partakers of that one Bread which is Christ and there is a third Bread that he mentions in the same Chapter which is neither the one nor the other one Bread and that is the outward Bread that they did eat v. 16. the bread which we break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ Even as Christ said concerning the outward Bread that it was his Body to wit Figuratively so by the like Figure it was the Communion of his Body but not the Body it self which too many have been so foolish as to imagine that the outward Bread was Converted into Christ's real Body and as if Paul had foreseen that many would become so foolish and unwise as so to imagine therefore to caution against any such folly he had said I speak as to wise Men judge ye what I say But whereas many of the People called Quakers by Bread in that part of the Verse the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Lord's Body Will have to be meant not the outward Elementary Bread but the Body of Christ it self in this they are under a great mistake for that would render the words to have a most absur'd Sense as to say the Body of Christ is the Communion of his Body but the Body is one thing and the Communion of that Body is another and it were as little sense to understand it thus the Body of Christ is a Figure of the Communion of his Body therefore the true sense of the words is the outward Bread which we break is a Figure or Sign of the Communion of the Lord's Body But these Men are under another great Mistake as if by the Lord's Body here were not meant his outward Body that was Crucified and Raised again but the Life which is the Light in them and in every Man whether Believer or Unbeliever But of this great Error I shall have occasion hereafter to take notice only at present let it be remembred that by the Body of Christ in these above-mentioned words is to be understood the Body of Christ that was outwardly Crucified Dyed and rose again and is a living Glorious Body which is the Body of the second Adam the quickning Spirit of the Virtue of which all true Believers partake and by their having the Communion of his Body whether when eating the outward Bread so that they eat with true Faith or when they do not eat yet believing for the Communion of his Body is not confined to the outward eating they have the Communion of his Spirit also and enjoy of the manifold Spiritual Blessings of Grace Life and Light sent and conveyed into their Hearts by and through the glorified Man Christ Jesus who hath a Glorified Body and though this Communion of Christ's Body is hard to be expressed or to be demonstrated to Man's reasonable understanding yet by Faith it is certainly felt and witnessed with the blessed Effects of it causing an encrease in Holiness and Divine Knowledge and Experience in all true Believers nor is there any thing in this Mystery or any other Mystery of the Christian Religion that is contradictory to our reasonable understanding But yet a little further to let them see the folly of that Argument from the Scripture Phrase one Baptisme and one Body when Paul saith Eph. 4.4 There is one Body and one Spirit it doth not bear this Sense as if the Church were but one numerical Body or one single Man or as if there were no Body of the Man Christ in Heaven though some of their Teachers have so falsely argued that because the Body of Christ is one therefore Christ has no Body but his Church and as false should their Arguing be there is but one Spirit and that Spirit is the Holy Ghost therefore the Man Christ hath no Soul or Spirit of Man in him and therefore Believers have no Spirits or Souls of Men in them that are Created Rational Spirits both which are most false and foolish consequences also when the Scripture saith there is one Father and one is your Father it would be a very false consequence to infer that therefore we have never had any outward or visible Fathers and as false a consequence it is from one invisible Baptisme of the Spirit to argue against any outward and visible Baptisme or from the outward visible Baptisme being one in its kind to argue against the invisible and inward Baptisme which is one in its kind also this is an Error called by Logicians a Transition from one kind to another as because there is one kind of Animal on Earth called a Dog therefore there was not any thing else so called whereas there is a Fish that hath the same Name as also a Star in Heaven SECT VI. BUT whereas W. Penn in his above mentioned Argument saith first we know and they confess that they were in the beginning used as Figures and Shadows of a more hidden Spiritual Substance Ans In this
was proper only to God and Christ why did John say he that comes after me shall Baptize with the Holy Ghost he did not say they who should come after me but he intimating none had that Power and Dignity but Christ who was God as well as Man and as he was God had this power belonging to him and which did belong to no Men nor Creature whatsoever and thus indeed the Baptisme with the Spirit is Christ's Baptisme not which he commanded Men to do but which he promised to do altho' the Water-Baptisme which he commanded his Apostles to practise in his Name is also his in a secondary sense as the Apostles teaching is his because commanded by him yet when we speak of Gods teaching according to the sense of that Scripture they shall all be taught of God it is not meant the outward teaching of Men but Gods inward teaching in Mens hearts As touching his third Reason to prove that Baptisme with the Holy Ghost is meant Matth. 28.19 The Baptisme which Christ commanded his Apostles was such that as many as were therewith baptized therewith did put on Christ but this is not true of Water-Baptisme Ans As concerning that place of Scripture Gal. 3.7 from which this Argument seems to be taken the place it self restricts it to the believing Galatians as v. 26. For yee are all the Children of God by faith in Christ Jesus and all such as beings Baptized with outward Water put him on by a publick Profession so by true Faith they inwardly put him on To make a publick Profession of Christ by Baptisme of Water is to put him on in a common Phrase of speech as when a Man is said to put on the Souldier the Magistrate by putting on the Garment of a Souldier or Magistrate in which sense Jerome said Romae Christum indui i.e. at Rome I put on Christ signifying that he was there baptized and it is to be noticed how Paul generally in his Epistles to the Churches he wrot to calls them Saints they being so by profession though there might have been Hypocrites among them and as by outward profession Men are said to be Saints so they may be said to have put on Christ when nothing by Word or Deed can appear to the contrary in a judgment of Charity As to his 4th Argument that Baptisme with Water was John's Baptisme I have above shewn that John's Water-Baptisme and the Water-Baptisme commanded to and practised by the Apostles after Christ's Resurrection diflered in many respects and tho' both required Repentance as a condition in order to receive the Water-Baptisme yet the later required Faith in Christ Crucified and Raised again as a condition in order to receive Baptisme but the former did not require that Faith Again his arguing from their not using that form of Baptism In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost who did Baptize with Water in those days of the Apostles is as defective as his otherways of arguing on this Head But how doth he prove that they used not this Form Why because in all these places where Baptizing with Water is mentioned there is not a word of this Form and in two places Acts 8.16 and 19.5 that it is said of some that they were Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus But it ought to be considered that oft in the Scriptures what is not exprest is understood yea that very Form expressed 8.16 is comprehensive of the other and if no more be expressed by him that is the Administrator if he be sound in the Faith and that the person to be Baptized hath a sound Faith that Form is sufficient it is not exprest that the Eunuch gave any other confession of his Faith before he was Baptized but that Jesus Christ is the Son of God but will it therefore follow that he believed no other Article of the Christian Faith but that and confessed no other In his further Essay to defend his assertion that Christ commanded the Apostles to Baptize with the Spirit he saith Baptisme with the Spirit tho' not wrought without Christ and his Grace is instrumentally done by men fitted of God for that purpose and therefore no absurdity follows that Baptisme with the Spirit should be expressed as the action of the Apostles for tho' it be Christ by his Grace that gives Spiritual Gifts yet the Apostle Rom. 1.11 speaks of his imparting to them Spiritual Gifts and he tells the Corinthians that he had begotten them thro' the Gospel 1 Cor. 4.15 To convert the heart is properly the work of Christ and yet the Scripture oftentimes ascribes it unto Men as being the Instruments and Paul 's commission was to turn Men from Darkness to Light Ans I acknowledge such like answers I had formerly given in some of my former Books to the like Objection but I am come to see the weakness and defect of it in order therefore to detect the fallacy of this assertion that the Apostles might be as well said to Baptize with the Spirit as to Beget to Convert to Impart some Spiritual Gift c. Let it be considered that Baptisme with the Holy Spirit is not only another thing than Conversion or imparting some Spiritual Gift c. that it is incomparably greater for Baptisme with the Spirit is equivalent to the mission of the Spirit and his Inhabitation in Believers and his being given to them all Spiritual Gifts of Faith Conversion Regeneration however so true and real are but works and effects of the Spirit with whom Men may be said Instrumentally to work but the giving the Holy Spirit to which Baptisme with the Holy Spirit is equivalent is of a higher Nature than any or all these Spiritual Gifts differing as much as the Giver differs from his Gifts For as to Create is only proper to God and Christ and the Holy Ghost to Redeem by way of Ransome and Satisfaction to Divine Justice is only proper to Christ without any concurrence of Men or Angels so to Baptize with the Holy Ghost or endue therewith or give or send the Holy Ghost is only proper to God or Christ and not to Men so much as Instrumentally there is no such Phrase to be found in all the Scripture as that any Man did Baptize with the Holy Ghost in any case or sense we ought not to allow such odd Phrases so forrain to Scripture otherwise the greatest absurdities might follow and a Power of Creating and Redeeming might be given to Men at this rate by adding the word Instrumentally but as we are to allow no Instrumental Creators or Redeemers so no Instrumental giver of the Holy Ghost or Baptizers with the same The Holy Ghost is God himself and it is too arrogant and wild to say that Men who in respect of God are as Worms can give their Creator and Maker The Scripture indeed tells us that the Holy Ghost was given thro' the laying on of the Apostles
deny And yet with the same Breath as it were he denyeth it for if the Man Christ is to be Prayed unto being the Spring out of which all the living Streams flow unto our Souls surely as such he is the Object of our Faith for how can we Pray to an Object in whom we believe not But seeing he will not allow me that I then owned the Man Christ without us to be the Object of Faith wherein he is most unjust unto me and that I Writ then as a Quaker and my Doctrin was the Quakers Doctrin It is evident that according to him it was not the Quakers Doctrin that the Man Christ without us is in any Part or Respect the Object of our Faith why then doth he and many others Accuse me that I Bely them for saying they hold it not necessary to our Salvation that we believe in the Man Christ without us And it is either great Ignorance or Insincerity in him to say that none of them deny that the Man Christ without us in Heaven is to be Prayed unto Seeing a Quaker of great Note among them William Shewen hath Printed it in his Book of Thoughts p. 37. Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary Saint or Angel but to God the Father all Worship Honour and Glory is to be given through Jesus Christ c. This c. cannot be Jesus the Son of Abraham but some other Jesus as suppose the Light within otherwise there would be a Contradiction in his Words so here he Asserts two Jesus's with a witness what saith J. Pennington to this Page 41. In Opposition to my Christian Assertion that the believing Jews before Christ came in the Flesh did believe in Christ as he was to be Born Suffer Death Rise and Ascend and so the Man Christ even before he was Conceived Born c. was the Object of their Faith He thus most Ignorantly and Erroneously Argueth Could that be the Object of theirs viz. The believing Gentiles or of the Jews Faith which our Lord had not yet received of the Virgin which was not Conceived nor Born much less Ascended Ans Yes That can be an Object of Faith and Hope which has not a present Existence but is quid ' futurum something to come though nothing can be an Object of our Bodily Sight or other Bodily Senses but what is in Being and hath a real Existence in the present Time But so Stupid and Gross is he that he cannot understand this that the Faith of the Saints could have a future Object in any Part or Respect this is to make Faith as low and weak a thing as Bodily Sense Is it not generally acknowledged through all Christendom that the Saints of old as Abraham Moses David believed in Christ the Promised Seed as he was to come and be Born and Suffer Death for the Sins of the World according to our Saviours Words Abraham saw my Day and was glad which is generally understood by Expositors that as he saw Christ inwardly in Spirit so he saw that he was to come ' outwardly and be his Son according to the Flesh and by what Eye did he see this but by the Eye of Faith And that Eye of Faith had Christ to come in the Flesh to be Born c. for its Object as a thing to come And in the same Page 41. He Quoteth me falsly saying Immed Rev. p. 132. agreeing with both Papists and Protestants That God speaking in Men is the Formal Object of Faith This Quotation is False in Matter of Fact as well as his Inference from it is False and Ignorant I said in that p. 132. That both Papists and Protestants agree in this That the Formal Object of Faith is God speaking but quoth the Papist it is the Speaking in the Church of Rome no quoth the Protestant God Speaking in the Scriptures is the Formal Object of Faith Here I plainly shew the difference of Papists and Protestants about the Formal Object of Faith though they agree in one Part that it is God Speaking yet in the other Part they differ the Papists making it God Speaking in the Church that is not in every Believer but in the Pope and his Counsel And there in that and some following Pages I Plead for Internal Revelation of the Spirit not only Subjectively but Objectively Working in the Souls of Believers to which Testimony I still Adhere But what then Doth this prove that Christ without us is no Object of our Faith Will he meddle with School Terms and yet understand them no more than a Fool Doth neither he nor his quondam Tutor T. Ellwood understand that the res credendae i. e. The things to be believed are Ingredients in the Material Object of Faith as not only that Christ came in the Flesh was Born of a Virgin but all the Doctrins and Doctrinal Propositions set forth in Scripture concerning God and Christ and all the Articles of Faith are the Material Object of our Faith but the Formal Object of Faith is the inward Testimony of the Spirit moving our Understandings and Hearts to believe and close with the Truth of them All which are well consistent and owned by me Page 43. He Rejects my Exposition of the Parable concerning the lost piece of Money in my late Retractation of my former Mistake p. 15. Sect. 1. p. 10. That by the lost piece of Money is to be understood the Souls of Men as by the lost Sheep and the lost Prodigal To this he most Ignorantly and Falsly opposeth by saying First The Lord can find the Soul without lighting a Candle in it I Answer By finding here is meant Converting the Soul thus the Father of the Prodigal found him when he Converted him to himself this my Son was lost and is found i. e. was departed from God but now is Converted Luke 15.32 And ver 6. I have found the Sheep that was lost Now can this be wrought or doth God Work this Work of Conversion in a lost Soul without his Lighting a Candle in it Secondly He saith the very design of the Parable was to set forth not what God had lost but what Man had lost the Candle being used by Man who needed it not by God and Christ who needed it not How Ignorantly and Stupidly doth he here Argue How can Man use the Candle unless God light it in his Heart and doth not God use it in order to bring or Convert Man to himself It 's true though there were no Candle lighted in Man's Heart God seeth where the Soul is even when it is involved in the greatest Darkness but in order to the Souls Conversion which is principally God's Act it is God that lights the Candle in it and causes his Light to Shine in it And whereas I have said they who Expound the lost Piece of Money to be the Light within will find difficulty to shew what the nine Pieces are which are not lost His Answer to