The ARGUMENTS OF THE QUAKERS More particularly Of George Whitehead William Penn. Robert Barclay John Gratton George Fox Humphry Norton And my own AGAINST Baptism and the Supper Examined and Refuted ALSO Some clear Proofs from Scripture shewing that they are Institutions of Christ under the Gospel WITH An APPENDIX Containing some Observations upon some Passages in a Book of W. Penn called A Caveat against Popery And on some Passages of a Book of John Pennington called The Fig Leaf Covering Discovered By George Keith 1. John 4.1 Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God Chrysost Homil. on Matthew If thou hadst been without a Body God had given the things naked and without a Body but because the Soul is planted in the Body he gives thee intelligible things in things sensible London Printed for C. Brome at the Gun at the West-End of St. Paul's Church-yard 1698. TO THE READER DIvers Weighty Reasons have induced me to this Undertaking One whereof chiefly is that whereas most of these Men have not only run out with bitter Invectives against these Divine Institutions but have Fathered their Bold Opposition to them upon the Holy Spirit as they commonly do their other Gross Errors a Witness whereof is W. Penn in his Book against Thomas Hicks called Reason against Railing who saith in p. 109. concerning these Institutions We can testifie from the same Spirit by which Paul Renounced Circumcision that they are to be rejected as not now required Now if upon due Tryal their Arguments they have used and still use against them are found to be Vain and Invalid Grounded upon gross Wrestings and Perversions of Holy Scripture and that it be proved by sound Arguments that they were and are true Divine Institutions under the pure Gospel Dispensation not only their too Credulous Followers but the Teachers themselves such of them as are alive may have occasion to reflect upon the Spirit which had acted their first Leaders to oppose those things as well as other great Truths of the Gospel and thereby discern that it was not the Spirit of God but a Spirit of Untruth and may judge it forth from among them and be humbled before the Lord for entertaining it Another Reason is which is indeed my chiefest Reason That whereas I had formerly been Swayed and Byassed by the undue Opinion I had of their chief Teachers and Leaders who had Printed Books long before I came among them as being greatly indued with Divine Revelations and Inspirations and that I too Credulously believe their Bold and False Asseverations that what they had said and Printed against the outward Baptism and outward Supper was given forth from the Spirit of Truth in them by means whereof I had been drawn into the same Error as many other well meaning and simple Hearted Persons have been and still are by them to oppose these Divine Institutions and have in some of my Printed Books used some of the same Arguments which they had used I having in a Measure of Sincerity I hope Repented and been humbled before the Lord for that my said Error whereof I have given a Publick Acknowledgment in Print in my late Book called George Keith's Explications and Retractions and wherein I have not only Retracted my Errors in Relation to outward Baptism and the Supper but in Relation also to divers other Particulars therein mentioned but withal holding close to my Testimony in all Principles of Christian Faith and Doctrin delivered by me in any of my former Books I judged it my Duty besides my Publick Acknowledgment and Retracttation of the Error to endeavour according to the Ability given me of God of a better Understanding to undeceive and reduce from the said Error any into whose Hands my Books have come Treating on that Subject who have been deceived or hurt by them For as the Law of God requireth Restitution for any Wrong done to a Neighbour in Worldly Matters so I judge it no less requireth the like in Spirituals And as the Law required an Eye for an Eye the Gospel requireth that whom we have in any degree been accessory to Blind or Misinform their Understandings we should labour to our outmost Ability after we are better Enlightened our selves to Enlighten and duly Inform them so far as God shall be pleased to make us his Instruments in so doing to whom it chiefly belongs Know therefore Friendly Reader that what Arguments I have used in any of my Books against the outward Baptism and Supper particularly in that called Truth 's Defence and in another called The Presbyterian and Independent visible Churches in New England and elsewhere brought to the Test Cap. 10. and in another called The pretended Antidote proved Poison and in another called A Refutation of Pardon Tillinghast who pleadeth for Water-Baptism its being a Gospel Precept As I hereby declare them to be void and null so I do in this following Treatise shew the Nullity and Invalidity of them by answering not only them but divers others of other Persons together with them as above named in the Title Page of this Treatise And so far as the Arguments are the same which both they and I have used one Answer will serve to both though I never was so blind as not to see the Weakness of divers Reasons of some of their Great Authors against these Institutions But the Truth is divers of their Weakest and most Impertinent Arguments I never heard nor read till of late that Providence brought to my hand some of their Books I never heard of before The CONTENTS SECT I. Containeth a Correction of R.B. his great Mistake That the Eating Christ's Flesh John 6. hath no Relation to Christ's outward Flesh The Quotation of Augustine vindicated from his Mistake SECT II. Containeth a Vindication of B Jewel's words on Jos 6.1 2 3. from the Great Misconstruction that W. Penn hath put on them contrary to B. Jewel's intended Sense R.B. his Arguments to prove that the Flesh of Christ John 6.53 hath no Relation to his outward Flesh Answered SECT III. Containeth a Correction of two Unsound Assertions of R.B. concerning Christ's Flesh and Blood SECT IV. Sheweth R. B's Mistake in saying that both Papists and Protestants tye the Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to the outward Sign of Bread c. And his other Mistake that the whole end of the Paschal Lamb was to signifie the Jews and keep them in remembrance of their Deliverance out of Aegypt The true Sense of Paul's words given The Bread which we break c. 1. Cor. 10.16 SECT V. Sheweth R.B. his Mistake as if the Cup of the Lord and Table of the Lord 1. Cor. 10.21 did not signifie the use of Bread and Wine c. His Reasons against it proved invalid His Argument from the Custom of the Jews using Bread and Wine at the Passover Answered His other Arguments from the supposed difficulties about the time of practising it
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
Protestants in tying this Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to that Ceremony used by him with his Disciples in the breaking of Bread c. As if it had only a Relation thereto or were only enjoyed in the use of that Ceremony which it neither hath nor is Ans For any to tye the Participation of Christs Body and Blood to the outward Eating in the Supper as above mentioned is indeed a great Error But it was a great Mistake in him and too rashly charged in general by him upon both Papists and Protestants their being guilty of that Error For it can be shewn that some of the Popish Writers have affirmed the contrary and delivered it as the common Faith of their Church that true Believers partake of Christ's Flesh and Blood although they Dye before they receive the outward Supper for which Lombard Lib. 4. Dist 9. citeth Augustine saying Lib. de med paen Nulli ambigendum est c. No man ought to doubt that any Man is then a partaker of the Body and Blood of the Lord when he is made a Member of Christ nor is he Alienated from the Communion of that Bread and Cup although before he Eat that Bread and Drink the Cup being Constituted in the Unity of the Body of Christ he depart out of this World for he is not deprived of the benefit of that Sacrament when he is found to have that which that Sacrament signifieth And as for the generality of Protestants I know not nor ever knew any that so tyed the Participation of Christs Body to the outward Supper as he mentioneth They say indeed it is a Means of Grace and of our Communion of the Lord's Body but not the only means or so absolutely necessary as without it none have that Communion Another great Mistake I find in R.B. p. 81. of that Treatise where he saith as for the Paschal Lamb the whole end of it is signified particularly Exod. 13.8.9 to wit that the Jews might thereby be kept in remembrance of their Deliverance out of Egypt Ans That is indeed mentioned as an end of it but not the whole end of it for the end of the whole Law was Christ whereof that Command of the Passover was a part but that the Passover was a Type of Christ particularly as he was to be Slain for their Sins is plain out of Paul's Words 1. Cor. 5.7 Let us keep the feast c. for our passover is slain for us Now as the Jews were to Eat the Flesh of the Passover so the Believers in Christ are to Eat his Flesh even that Flesh that was Slain to wit by Faith as is above declared but not by any Corporal Eating and why did John the Evangelist apply these Words of the Passover to Christ's Body a bone of him shall not be broken This plainly proveth that the Passover was a Type of Christ and therefore one great end of it was to hold him forth to their Faith In p. 87. R.B. saith let it be observed that the very express and particular use of it according to the Apostle is to shew forth the Lord's Death c. But to shew forth the Lord's Death and partake of the Flesh and Blood of Christ are different things from whence he infers as his following Words shew that this Practice of the outward Supper hath no inward or immediate Relation to Believers Communicating or Partaking of the Spiritual Body and Blood of Christ or that Spiritual Supper spoken of Rev. 3.20 Ans This Consequence doth not follow that Practice of the outward Supper had not only that end to Commemorate and shew forth the Lord's Death but had other great ends also as another was to signifie their Communion of Christ's Body as not a bare Sign but as a means of that Communion though not the only means or such a means as if the said Communion were tyed thereto another end was to signifie their Union and Communion one with another both which ends are plainly held forth in these Words The bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Lord's Body c. and we being many are one bread and all are made partakers of that one bread And though R.B. denyeth that by Bread in those Words the bread which we break is it not the communion of the Lord's body is to be understood the outward Bread yet I have above proved it to be the outward Bread that was used in the Supper for to understand it of the Lord's Body were to make it Non-sense as to say the Body of Christ is it not the Communion of his Body Whereas the true Sense is Obvious taking it for the outward Bread The Bread which we break is it not a Sign of the Communion of the Lord's Body c. And such a Sign that is a means whereby our Communion of the Lord's Body and of the Spiritual Blessings we have thereby is confirmed to us and an increase of Grace is Exhibited unto us as it is duly Administred and Received SECT V. PAge 83. He puts a very false and strained Sense upon these Words ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and of the table of Devils 1 Cor. 10.21 which shews saith he that he understands not here the using of Bread and Wine because those that do Drink the Cup of Devils and Eat of the Table of Devils yea the Wickedest of Men may partake of the outward Bread and the outward Wine Ans By the Lord's Table is not meant barely and simply the Signs of Bread and Wine but as they do signifie and are Means Exhibitive of the Spiritual Blessings understood thereby The Wickedest of Men may indeed receive the Bread and Wine but they are not to them any Significative or Exhibitive Signs and Means of these Spiritual Blessings which are the things signified and intended and are the Kirnel without which the bare outward Signs are mere Shells and broken Cisterns Again Let us distinguish betwixt what is de jure i.e. of Right and what is de facto i.e. in Fact Wicked Persons though in Fact they may receive the outward Part yet they have no Right to it The manner of Speech used here by Paul is like that of James doth the same fountain send forth sweet water and bitter How then can the same tongue bless God and curse men My brethren these things ought not to be And when as Paul said elsewhere no man can say Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost he may outwardly say the Words but he hath no Right to say them nor can his saying them profit him without the Holy Spirit But that by the Table of the Lord and the Cup of the Lord here are to be meant the outward things of Bread and Wine as above described is evident from the Antithesis or Opposition he makes betwixt the Table of Devils and the Table of the Lord and
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
the filthiness of the Flesh but to signifie the inward washing by the Blood and Spirit of Christ upon the Soul and Conscience the which when so washed is a good Conscience and the effect of that inward washing is the answer of a good Conscience and indeed to me it is evident that Peter in this description of Baptisme first negatively what it is not doth refer by way of comparison to the legal purifyings under Moses Law by Blood and the Ashes of an Heiser with Water sprinkling the Unclean which as the Author to the Hebrews saith sanctified to the purifying the Flesh Heb. 9.13 and yet even this washing was not to cleanse the Body from natural filth but from the legal uncleanness that Men had on divers occasions as when they touched a dead Body they were legally unclean and because of that they were not to come into the Tabernacle until they were cleansed with this Water of purifying sprinkled on them But the Baptisme with Water under the Gospel had not that but a greater signification and being duly received had a greater and more noble effect viz. to signifie the spiritual cleansing by Christ and to be a means of Grace far greater than under the Law Again p. 17. He thus argueth If we take the second and affirmative definition to wit that it is the Answer or Confession of a good Conscience c. then Water-Baptisme is not it since as our Adversaries will not deny Water-Baptisme doth not always imply it neither is it any necessary consequence thereof Answ This Consequence also is not good because though Water-Baptisme in the literal sense strictly taken without any Metonymy is not the answer of a good Conscience as the Lamb was not the Passover but a signification of it yet the Lamb is called in Scripture the Passover by a Metonymy of the Sign put for the thing signified that is very common in Scripture as in other Authors so the Baptisme with Water metonymically may be called the answer of a good Conscience being the thing signified thereby That he saith their Adversaries will not deny that Water-Baptisme doth not always imply it neither is it any necessary consequence thereof in that he was under a mistake for they will say and do say that Water-Baptisme doth always imply it to such as duly and worthily receive it and that it is always a necessary consequence or concomitant thereof upon due and well qualified Receivers And if nothing appear to the contrary by words or actions but that the receivers are duly qualified tho' some of them be not such really yet in the judgment of Charity even according to Scripture rule they are called such as Paul calleth these of the Churches to whom he writ Saints and yet no doubt all were not real Saints in the Churches though by Profession they were such Again whereas pag. 18. he argueth thus Peter calls this here which saveth the Antitypos the Antitype or the thing figured whereas it is usually translated as if the like figure did now save us thereby insinuating that as they were saved by Water in the Ark so are we now by Water-Baptisme but this Interpretation he saith crosseth his sense Answ His Argument from the Greek word used by Peter viz. Antitypos he should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the neuter gender is indeed altogether weak and groundless as if it only signified the thing and could not be understood of the Figure of the thing the contrary whereof appeareth from Heb. 9.24 where the holy Places made with hands are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Antitypes of the true which are truly translated the Figures of the true holy Places made without hands Again whereas he argueth that Water-Baptisme is not meant p. 19. in 1 Pet. 3.21 that the Baptisme there mentioned is said to save us but Protestants deny it to be absolutely necessary to Salvation Answ Nor hath this Argument any force for though it is not absolutely necessary to Salvation yet that it is in God's ordinary way where it can be duely had and by whom it is duely received one of the ordinary means of Salvation it is truly said to save as the Doctrine of the Gospel outwardly Preached by the Ministry of Men is saving by way of means and as the Holy Scriptures are said by Paul to be able to make wise unto Salvation through Faith in Christ Jesus and said Paul to Timothy 1 Tim. 4.16 Take heed unto thy self and unto thy Doctrine continue in them for in doing this thou shalt both save thy self and them that hear thee And as concerning the means of Salvation though all of them when really given of God are very profitable yet all are not alike necessary nor alike given nor afforded unto all some yea many never perhaps heard the Gospel truly Preached unto them by the Voice of Man yet having the Scriptures read unto them that hath proved an outward means of their Salvation the Lord working inwardly by his Grace and Spirit to make the same effectual to them And as at times the Book of the Holy Scriptures supplieth the defect of a Vocal Ministry so at times a Vocal Ministry doth supply the want of the Book of the Scriptures and thus though Baptisme and the Supper outwardly administred are means of Grace and Salvation when duly received yet they are not so necessary as the Doctrine of the Gospel as outwardly delivered by Men and the Books of the Holy Scripture If any shall object that it is better to keep to the literal Sense of the words in Peter than to run to the Metonymy which ought not to be done but in case of necessity I answer what way soever the Baptisme in 1 Pet. 3.32 be taken as suppose for the Baptisme of the Spirit yet such whoso take it must run to a Metonymy for the inward Baptisme of the Holy Spirit is not the Answer or Confession of a good Conscience otherwise than by a Metonymy of the Cause for the effect The Answer or Confession of a good Conscience being the effect of the inward Baptisme and operation of the Spirit and not the inward Baptisme it self And indeed such Figures and Metonymycal Speeches are very frequent in Scripture to which for not well adverting many are drawn into most false Interpretations of Scriptures and most hurtful Errors as the Papists by taking the words of Christ this is my Body in a mere literal Sense without any Metonymy To conclude upon this Argument the most that with any colour or shadow of Reason can be inferred from this place in 1 Pet. 3.21 is that Water-Baptisme alone neither doth or can save any without the inward Baptisme or operation of the Spirit all which is readily granted nor yet doth the inward Baptisme though joyned to the outward save without any thing else but both the inward Baptisme and outward do save us as Peter plainly declareth by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
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
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
places of Scripture are many as Matth. 24.27 This very place G. W. denyeth to be meant of his Outward coming at the Day of Judgment as also 1 Thess 4.15 In his Book called Light and Life in Answer to W. Burnet and Heb. 9.28 Now by the same Method whereby they deny any of these four places now mentioned to be understood of any other coming of Christ than his Inward coming they must deny all other places that mention his coming after his Resurrection to be meant of his Outward coming in the true Nature of Man because they have declared they own no such thing as Christ's being in Heaven without us in a Personal and Bodily Existence and that which is not in Being they cannot believe will come But no such Error I charge as this on R.B. who I know did own that Christ had the true Being and Nature of Man in Heaven and that he would come and appear without us in that Nature to judge the World in Righteousness But to prosecute the Argument that by the words until he come must be understood his Outward coming it has the more force against R.B. because he believed that Christ was Outwardly to come and that there were sufficient proofs of Scripture for it as indeed many there are besides those already named as Acts 1.11 1 Cor. 4.5 Joh. 14.3 Mark 8.38 Luke 12.37 43. 1 Cor. 15.23 24. Jude 14. Rev. 17. 1 Cor. 1.7 1 Thess 2.19 1 Thess 3.13 1. Thess 5.23 2 Thess 2.1 2 Pet. 3.12 1 Pet. 5.4 1 Joh. 2.28 1 Joh. 3.2 Now seing R.B. did believe that all or Many of these places were to be understood of his Outward coming how could he have convinced his unbelieving Brethren that any of these places were to be understood of his Outward coming more than that 1 Cor. 11.26 till he come seeing from the reasons above given as much evidence appeareth that by his coming 1 Cor. 11.26 is meant his Outward coming as from any other places above cited or any that can be brought his Outward coming can be proved And so indiscreetly Zealous have some of their great Teachers been for Christ's Inward coming which is a Truth very great and necessary to be believed rightly and duly understood but ought not to be proved by perversions of Scripture that mean not so whereas sufficient proofs can be brought for it without all such perversions that divers of the Prophecies of the Old Testament concerning Christ's coming in the Flesh they have turned to Christ's Birth within them as that in Isaiah Unto us a Child is born a Son is given And that in Isaiah 53. concerning his Death and Burial without us in his real Body of Flesh He made his grave with the wicked c. Rich. Hubberthorn turns it to Christ's being buried in the wicked contrary both to the true translation as well as to the true sense of that place And thus by this presumptuous Liberty they take to expound the Scriptures falsely contrary to all reason and common Sense they seek to disarm the Christians from bringing proofs out of the Old Testament against the Jews to prove that the promised Messiah is already come in the Flesh or that he hath suffered in the Flesh And though I was so far blinded by them that I did understand 1 Cor. 11.26 till he come of his Inward coming yet I had always a firm Belief both of Christ's being in Heaven in the glorified Nature of Man and that he would come in that glorified Nature of Man to judge the World And now I plainly see that his coming 1 Cor. 11.26 is as really his Outward coming as any where else in all the Scripture and I hope I have sufficiently proved it to all impartial and intelligent Persons who shall read my Reasons I have brought to prove the same Page 113. His Quotation of the Syriack translation doth no ways favour his Sense as that the Eating 1 Cor. 11.26 was only by Indulgence and not by Command The Quotation is this In that concerning which I am about to Command you or Instruct you I Commend you not because ye have not gone forward but are descended into that which is less or of less Consequence From this he infers that Paul judged the Bread and Wine to be beggerly Elements But the Syriack translation saith no such thing he might well have blamed them that they were not gone forward in the Life of Christianity but rather backward because of the corrupt and irregular manner of their practising that Institution that some were drunk surely this was to go back but this is no proof against the regular Practice it self And what he further quotes of the same Syriack Version is as improper and invalid to his purpose v. 20. When then ye meet together ye do not do it as it is just ye should do in the day of the Lord ye eat and drink thereby shewing to them to meet together to Eat and Drink outward Bread and Wine was not the Labour and Work of that Day of the Lord. But nothing appeareth from this that he blamed the regular Practice of it but their undue and corrupt manner of doing it so that their doing of it as they did it was not the Work of the Day And therefore he might well say as it is v. 20. of 1 Cor. 11. When ye come together therefore into one place this is not to eat the Lord's Supper because they had turned it into a prophanation But R. B.'s observation on these Words p. 109. is of no force at all to prove his purpose He saith not this is not the right manner to eat but this is not to eat the Lord's Supper because saith he the Supper of the Lord is Spiritual and a Mystery Ans But the right manner of a thing in many cases is so essential to the thing that the want of the right manner destroys the thing it self As the right manner of a Circle is to have all the straight Lines drawn from the Center to the Circumference equal and if this be wanting the Figure is not a Circle Yea If the right manner of Prayer be wanting so that it be directed to God yet not in true words it is not true Prayer and if not in truth and sincerity of Heart it is not true Prayer His other Arguments from Rom. 14.7 Coloss 2.16 Heb. 9.10 are all answered above sufficiently Part 1. Sect. 6. SECT IX PAge 121. His last Argument is general against both the Outward Baptism and the Supper It remains saith he for our Adversaries to shew us how they come by Power and Authority to Administer them Their Power must be derived from the Apostles either mediately or immediately but they have no mediate Power because of the Interruption made by the Apostacy And for an immediate Power or Command by the Spirit of God to Administer these things none of our Adversaries pretend to it Ans 1. The Argument is unduly worded in the
former part of it for Men may have a Power that is neither from the Apostles mediately nor immediately not mediately as he thinks he has proved nor yet immediately from the Apostles because not their immediate Successors But why may they not have a Power mediately from Christ after some true manner and yet in some sort immediate also If we consider the several significations of the Words mediate and immediate none of which are Scripture words any more or scarce so much as other words they reject because not Scripture words and because of the ambiguous and doubtful signification of the Words mediate and immediate they may be omitted and other Words used to as good or better effect But if we may be allowed to use the words mediate and immediate one Sense of the word immediate is a Call from Christ's Person speaking with an audible Voice to the outward Ear such as the twelve Apostles had and Paul also This I know none now pretends to Another Sense of the word immediate is a Call by the Holy Spirit in the Hearts of them who are so Called in the same way and manner as the Prophets were both taught their Prophecies and called to deliver them and commit them to Writing which was by a Prophetick Spirit that did Infallibly guide them in every Sentence and Word of their Message without the least possibility of Error or Mistake and as so Taught and Called without the need or use of any outward means whatsoever If some of the Teachers among the Quakers have pretended to any such Inward Teaching or Calling as it can be easily proved they have it can be as easily proved that they have not been so taught nor called because in too many things wherein they have pretended to such Teaching and Calling they have Bewrayed themselves miserably and laid themselves open to the Judgment of the weaker sort of Sincere Christians who have been able to prove that in too many things they have delivered as Divine Revelations they have contradicted the Holy Scriptures and so have grosly Erred A Third sort of immediate Teaching and Calling is by taking the Etymologie of the Word immediate to signifie not without all Means but in and with the Means as when it is generally acknowledged that there is an immediate Supernatural Divine Concurrence of the Spirit of God that assisteth the Faithful in all truly holy Actions yea in all holy Thoughts and Desires Words and Works yet not without the use of outward Means but in the due and frequent use of them as in Reading Hearing and Meditating upon what hath been Read or Heard Now this sort of inward Teaching and Calling by the Spirit as it is not without means altogether so is it not without all possibility of Erring or Mistake for though no Error can proceed from the Spirit of God nor can the Spirit Err yet a Man that has the Spirit of God working in his Heart both to illuminate his Understanding and move and incline his Will to good Things may through Humane Weakness and Inadvertency or by some Prejudice of Education or wrong Information of his Teachers misapply and misunderstand the Spirits inward Illuminations and Motions which he is the more likely to do if he do not duly and diligently apply his Mind as to the Spirits inward Illumination so to the Directions and Instructions given to us in the Holy Scriptures to examine and find the agreement of the inward with the outward for certainly if the Persuasions that any Man hath contradict the plain Directions and Institutions given in the Holy Scriptures they are not of the Spirit of God whatever appearance they may seem to have of Power or Evidence the joynt concurrence of the Spirit of Truth within and the instrumental and subordinate help of the Scripture without given us to help our weakness may be compared to the natural Light of the Sun or Candle that we read with in some sort though this and all other Similitudes fall short of a full Illustration for as we cannot Read without the Light though the Book lie open before us so when the Light Shines yet it will not teach us what is in the Book unless we look on it and also be taught to Read in it Even so the Light of the Holy Spirit shining upon the Ideas and Perceptions of our Minds as conveyed to us by what we have heard or read out of the Holy Scriptures opens to us the true hidden Sense and Truth of them with Life and Power and great inward Clearness and Evidence Joy and Satisfaction and thus if we find that the Spirits Illumination worketh in our Hearts and Minds an Assent to the Truth of what is Recorded in the Holy Scriptures we can with all readiness receive it But if what we suppose to be a Divine Illumination discord from the Truth of the Scriptures we ought to reject it and by no means to receive it for it is not Divine but Humane or which is worse Diabolical Now according to this last Sense of the Word immediate i.e. inward Teaching and Call of the Spirit in the use of outward Means and Helps and especially the Holy Scriptures I see not but it may be granted that Men may be found and are to be found that have a true immediate Call from the Spirit of Christ in their Hearts both to Preach and Administer these Divine Institutions of the outward Baptism and Supper and all this well consisting with the mediate orderly Call where there is a Constitute Church though not every way so rightly and duly Constitute as was in the Apostles Days and in the purest Times succeeding the Apostles There is ground to believe that God raised up many such in the beginning of the Reformation from Popery and though since that beginning too many Particulars have rather gone backward than forward yet the Success of the Ministry and excellent Books that have come forth time after time of many Worthy Persons however in some things mistaken and the truly Christian Lives and Conversations of many through all the Protestant Churches though in comparison of the great multitude that are Prophane and Scandalous they are but a few may be a good Ground of Evidence that God is truly among them and doth own the Remnant that are Sincere and their Ministry to whom an Allusion may be made of what was said to the Church of Sardis the Greek Word Sardis is in the Plural Number thou hast a few Names in Sardis who have not Defiled their Garments they shall walk with me in White for they are Worthy I know there are some who do more than make an Allusion in the Case and think that by the Church of Sardis is really meant the collective Body of the Protestant Churches throughout the several Parts of the World which I will not here be positive either to affirm or deny but either by way of Allusion or by Hypothesis let us conceive that the Collective Body
Dead nor need the inward and outward Baptisme be strictly called two Baptisms more than England and a Map of England are called two England's or the Law writ in the Heart and the same writ in Paper are two Laws And thus I hope I have fully examined and answered to the Argument both of G. Whitehead and R.B. from 1 Pet. 3.21 as the impartial intelligent Reader may perceive SECT IV. THE third Argument used by G. Whitehead is the same for Matter that is used by R.B. in the Treatise above cited p. 30. which they bring from Paul's words 1 Cor. 1.17 where Paul said that Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the Gospel The reason of that Consequence saith R. B is undeniable because the Apostle Paul 's Commission was as large as that of any of them And whereas it hath been answered to this by them who holds that Baptisme with Water is a Gospel Institution from Matth. 28.19 that the Sense of Paul's words is that he was not sent principally to Baptize not that he was not sent at all as where it is said Hos 6.6 I desired mercy and not sacrifice But this parity R.B. doth except against because this place is abundantly explained by the following words and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings But there is no such words added in that of Paul And against this manner of interpreting Paul's words he thus argueth else we might interpret by the same rule all other places of Scriptures the same way as where the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 2.5 That your faith might not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God it might be understood it shall not stand principally so How might the Gospel by this liberty of interpretation be perverted Ans As we are not to Interpret all other Places of the like Phrase so else great harm would follow in giving false Interpretations of Scripture so we ought to Interpret diverse places of Scripture so to wit by adding the word only or more or principally otherwise the like harm would follow as where it is said 1. John 3.18 Let us not love in word nor in tongue but indeed and in truth and Rom. 2.13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God c. John 14.24 The word which you hear is not mine but the Fathers which sent me Matth. 15.24 I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel John 4.42 We believe not because of thy saying Matth. 10.20 It is not ye that speak c. In these and diverse the like places of Scripture the word principally or more or rather though not expressed is understood and there is a good Rule whereby to know when any such word when not expressed is necessarily understood as when without any such word understood or implyed when not expressed it would contradict some other place of Scriptures or any true consequence from Scripture or true Reason as is manifest in the present Case for Paul telleth in the same Chapter that he Baptized some of the Church of Corinth which he ought not to have done without a Commission for as to what is alledged that he and others did Baptize by Permission and not by Commission as when he Circumcised Timothy it was by Permission and not by Commission which conceit I grant I had formerly entertained as well as R.B. being swayed by the assumed Authority of them we esteemed our Elders pretending they did so Interpret the Scriptures by Divine Inspiration But finding their Pretences to be palpably false in many other things of greater weight occasioned me to examine their pretended Inspirations in this also which I desire to praise God for his true Illumination I found to be false Now that Paul's Circumcising Timothy was not by Commission is certain because sometimes afterwards he did earnestly oppose the practice of it but we never find that he or any else in Scripture opposed the practice of Baptisme with Water or spoke so slightly of it as he did of Circumcision he did not say if any of you be Baptized Christ should profit you nothing as he said if any of you be Circumcised and he submitted to Baptisme himself and received it Acts 9.18 compared with Acts 22.16 Though I find that W. Penn calleth it in question whether this was Baptisme with Water which bespeaketh as great inadvertency in him as when he had printed in his Christian Quaker that Jesus Christ was born at Nazareth And as for Paul's saying he thanked God he Baptized none of the Corinthians but such and such it only proveth that he judged Preaching to be his principal work as indeed it was for had he Baptized all to whom he Preached and who were Converted by his Ministry it would have been too great a hindrance to his Preaching and as Paul Preached to many whom he did not Baptize so did the other Apostles therefore we find not either Peter or John or any of the other Apostles after our Saviour's Resurrection Baptized all to whom they Preached but left it to be done in great part by others and whereas some have argued that if Baptisme had been a Gospel Precept Paul would not have said he thanked God he had Baptized so few of them This Argument hath no force for he did not thank God simply that he did not Baptize but that he had Baptized so few of them lest they should say he had Baptized in his own Name which sheweth that the occasion of the Division that was among the Corinthians at that time was about Baptisme and that they had too much an eye to those who had Baptized them so as to denominate themselves after them And whereas R.B. saith p. 32.33 Let it from this be considered how the Apostle Excludes Baptizing not Preaching though the abuse mark proceeded from that no less than from the other for these Corinthians did denominate themselves from those different Persons by whose Preaching as well as from those by whom they were Baptized they were Converted as by the 4 5 6 7. and 8 Verses of the third Chapter may appear Ans But that the Preaching of these different Persons was the occasion of this Division among the Corinthians doth not appear from the Verses Cited nor any where else for Paul and Apollo Preached the same Doctrine to them but we no where find that there Preaching occasioned any Division but suppose it had on the supposition that some of the Corinthians might esteem the Preaching of the one more powerful than the Preaching of another yet that proves not that Paul Excluded Baptizing the most it proves is that he preferred his Preaching to his Baptizing as being the greater and more principal Work enjoyed to him Page 33. And yet for to remove that Abuse saith R.B. the Apostle doth not say he was not sent to Preach nor yet doth he Rejoyce that he had only Preached to a few because Preaching being a standing Ordinance in the
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
hands Acts 8.16 and sometimes in Preaching and sometimes in Prayer the Holy Ghost was given but it was never said that Men gave it or Baptized with it Besides at this rate they may say the Teaching that Christ commanded Matth. 28.19 was not outward Teaching but inward and then call it Instrumental but what sense would be made of such an assertion the Apostles were sent not to Teach outwardly but inwardly by Instrumental Teaching and one might argue as strongly that it was not outward Teaching that Christ meant Matth. 28.19 why not the least word is mentioned of outward Teaching therefore it is not understood but only inward Teaching If it be fit to answer this wild inference thus the Teaching there commanded must needs be outward because its only Mens work to Teach outwardly and Gods work to teach inwardly the like answer is as proper to be given in relation to Baptisme as it is Mens work to Baptize outwardly with Water so it is the work of God and Christ to Baptize inwardly with the Spirit And if Men be resolved to quibble and embrace any wild notion rather than the simple Truth had there been express mention made of Water Matth. 28.19 that quibbling Spirit would have made a new objection and still argued it was not material or outward Water but inward and Spiritual because in many places of Scripture Water signifieth not outward material Water but inward and Spiritual SECT VIII THERE is yet another Argument used both by W. Penn and R.B. against both Water-Baptism and the Supper in common I shall recite it in W. Penn's words being the same in effect with these of R.B. Thirdly saith W. Penn they were but the more noble among the Meats and Drinks and diverse Washings that the Apostles said were but shadows of the good things to come for I would not that any should be so sottish as to think that Christ came to abolish those shadows of the Jews and institute others in their room by no means He came to remove change and abolish the very nature of such Ordinances and not the particular Ordinances only to wit an outward Shadowy and Figurative Religion for it was not because they were Jewish Meats and Drinks and diverse Washings but because they were Meats and Drinks and outward Washings at all which never could nor can cleanse the Conscience from dead Works nor give eternal Life to the Soul else wherein would the change be A continuance of them would have been a judaizing of the Spiritual Evangelical Worship the Gospel would have been a state of Figures Types and Shadows which to assert or Practice is as much as in such lies to pluck it up by the roots Ans This whole way of Arguing proceeds upon a supposed Foundation that is false and because the Foundation is false therefore is his Superstructure also both which I shall briefly show First His supposed Foundation is false viz. No Signs that is no outward things that are Symbolical or Significative of greater and more excellent things do by any means belong to the Gospel and Christian Religion otherwise as he argueth but very weakly there would be no change and no difference betwixt the Jewish Religion and the Christian or betwixt Law and Gospel but this doth by no means follow For allowing that some Signs belong to the Gospel yet there is not only a change and difference betwixt them two but a very great change and difference even as much as betwixt the Light of the Twilight and the clear Light of the Sun after he is risen or betwixt the Sun in the Morning and the Sun when he is high in the Firmament and if he will have the outward Baptisme and Supper called Shadows as well as Signs is there no difference betwixt the Shadow that the Sun casts early in the Morning when he is but low above the Horizon and when he is high we know that the higher the Sun riseth the Shadow is the less yet still there is some Shadow however high the Sun riseth until he come to the Zenith or Vertical Point at which Point there is no Shadow but this never happeneth to us in these Northern Parts and to apply the similitude of the Sun and Shadow to the case in hand admit the Sun to be Christ as he enlightenth the Christian Church or the best Christian Congregation that ever was on the Earth did any such Church or Congregation know that Divine Sun to be risen upon them so high as the Vertical Point in this Spiritual Sense Is not that rather the State that is reserved to the future Life When the Shadows shall flee away Cant. 2.17 and 4.6 What was the State of the Church in the Apostles days after they had received plentiful Illuminations of the Holy Ghost Did not Paul say concerning himself and them now we see darkly as in a Glass tanquam in aenigmate the seeing Face to Face being reserved to the future State after Death and as he said again we walk by Faith not by Sight which is to be understood comparatively for though it is granted that the Saints while living in the mortal Body have often sweet and precious sights and tasts of the glory of God and of Christ yet it is not so always with them and their highest Illuminations of Knowledge do admit of some defects and obscurities and the condition of a mortal State as it implyeth somewhat of Shadow with reference to their defects and shortness in respect of the much higher and more full and perfect Attainments of glorified Saints and Angels So in this State of the mortal Body Shadows and Symbolical things may be and are really of that Service to them as the Shadow of a Curtain is that is interposed betwixt the brightness of the Sun and the frail sight of our mortal Bodies And what are all words but Signs verba sunt signa rerum conceptuum words are Signs of Things and Thoughts So are words properly defined by Logicians and Philosophers Now if the Gospels Dispensation under Christianity be all life and substance and nothing else then not only all Books and Letters but all words possible to be uttered by the Mouths of Men must be rejected from having any use in Gospel Worship and instead of silent Meetings at times there must be not other Meetings but silent Meetings nay nor any Meetings at all of Bodies of Men and Women outwardly Assembled for by W. Penn's way of Arguing there is no use of them such Meetings of Bodies reach but to the sight and all that is or can be seen is but Carnal and cannot reach to the Soul all Meetings must be only within and all Teaching within and all Prayer and Worship within and nothing without But if it be granted that outward words though Signs may be useful for the encrease of spiritual Knowledge by the same reason the outward Signs of God's appointment may be useful also yea in some sort they are more
and Blood that therefore he is a Carnal and Bloody Man or because the Quakers have Flesh and Blood as other Men therefore there Church is a Carnal and Bloody Church and as raw and defective is R.B. his way of Reasoning p. 25 26 27. of the above said Treatise that where the Author is the same the Matter of Ordinances is the same and the end the same and having the same effect they are never accounted more or less Spiritual because of their different times For all this is not a sufficient enumeration to prove the one not to be more Spiritual than the other there are diverse other great Considerations or Arguments besides these mentioned by him so generally and overly as in the respects above mentioned relating to their Form and Manner and greater Efficacy because of the greater plenty of Grace accompanying the latter than the former and having greater and more excellent Effects for who that knows what a true Christian is but will say he is far beyond an ordinary Religious Jew that had some degree of Faith in the promised Messiah the Scripture comparing the Jew and the Christian as the Child and the Man And who but will say that the true Gospel way of Ministry as it was in the Apostles Days and wherein they were exercised in Preaching and Prayer did far excell the Ministry of the ordinary sincere Jewish Priests and Scribes although they had one Author and one Doctrine for Substance and one end in their Ministry at large and in general and also one effect in general and at large viz. to instruct in Righteousness such as heard them And though in one sense the Jewish Baptisms and that practised by the Apostles after Christ's Resurrection had one Author viz. God yet in another sense there was a considerable difference it being God or the word Incarnate or Christ God Man that was the Author of the latter but not of the former And though the Jewish Water-Baptisms and the Christian Water-Baptisme which is but one do agree in relation to their end in some sort yet there is a great difference in that very respect for tho' the remote end of the Jewish Baptisms was to signifie Remission of Sin through Faith in Christ yet the proximate or next end of those Baptisms was to make them legally clean so as to be allowed to come into the Congregation of the Jewish Church but the end of the Christian Water-Baptism even proximately and nextly considered is to signifie Remission of Sins and the spiritual Cleansing by Christ and also to indicate such Baptized Persons and recognize or acknowledge them to be Members of the Church of Christ that is more excellent and honourable as far as the Christian Dispensation excelled the Judaick But that they farther argue that Water-Baptism cannot reach the Conscience to cleanse it from Sin that therefore it ought not to be practised and because Bread and Wine in the Supper cannot nourish the Soul therefore ought it not to be used in the Supper they might as well have argued against the brazen Serpent that the Jews at God's command should not have looked to it when they were poisoned with the Serpents in the Wilderness because there was no inherent Virtue in that piece of Brass to effect any Cure and they might argue as well against Naaman's going to wash in Jordan to be cured of his Leprosie I know none that plead for Water-Baptism and the outward Supper that think there is any inherent Virtue in these outward things either to wash or feed the Soul the Virtue is wholly in Christ whose Grace Power and Spirit doth accompany the due and right use of these things as they are practised in Faith and in Obedience to Christ's command And the like way they might argue against all vocal Ministry which abounds among the Quakers for no words have any inherent Virtue in them to Cure or Cleanse the Soul or profit any more than Water or Bread and Wine it is only the Grace and Spirit of Christ when it goeth along and accompanieth these outward things whether Words or those outward Elements that is effectual and maketh the use of them effectual without which they are all but as empty Cisterns that can hold no Water SECT IX ANother Argument of W. Penn against the outward Baptism and Supper is that therefore they are to be rejected now the false Church has got them yea the Whore hath made Merchandize with them and under such Historical Shadowy and Figurative Christianity has she managed her Mistery of Iniquity unto the beguiling thousands whose simplicity the Lord will have a tender regard to Ans In this way of Arguing also he is very inconsiderate for his Reason is of equal force against the Holy Scriptures and all the Doctrinal and Historical part of Christ's coming in the Flesh his Death and Sufferings c. Why the false Church has got all this and makes Merchandize therewith and therefore the Bible and the whole Historical and Doctrinal part of Christ's coming in the Flesh and his Death and Sufferings must be rejected also all Preaching and Praying and Meeting together and all external Acts of Worship must be rejected for the same reason because the false Church has got them all Tho' I think it may be said the false Church has not got either Baptisme or the Supper in the true Administration of them but rather a false show and likeness of them But what hinders that the true Church may not Practise these things aright tho' the false Practise them amiss Should the abuse of any thing commanded by God take away the use of it Must Meat Drink and Cloathing be rejected because that many abuse them But he continueth to argue against them p. 110. Reason against Railing Let it be considered that no other Apostle recommends these things nor Paul himself to either the Romans the Corinthians in his first Epistle the Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians Thessalonians Hebrews nor to Timothy Titus and Philemon Ans If so it were that in none of these Epistles Paul had mentioned them nor any other of the Apostles which yet is not so for I have answered it at large what was objected from Peter 1 Pet. 3.21 as that Water-Baptisme is not there meant and in the Epistle to the Romans Galatians Ephesians and Colossians and in that to the Hebrews Baptisme is mentioned and he hath not proved that it is not Water-Baptisme that is there meant yet it will not follow that therefore they are to be rejected seeing other places of Scripture mention both the command and practice of them so that he cannot instance one professing Christianity that was not Baptized any where in the Scripture after the command of Baptism was given by Christ to the Apostles suppose there were but one Text in all the Scripture that clearly proveth some Doctrin of the Christian Faith were not that enough for its proof As that one Text that God is a Spirit
hath got a late Patron and Assistant a Clergy Man of the Church of England formerly though not in present Office one that calleth himself Edmund Ely's who hath Printed lately two half Sheets in Vindication of G. Whitehead's vile Error and blaming my Christian Assertion The Title of one of his half Sheets being this G. Keith's saying that the Light within is not sufficient to Salvation without something else proved to be contrary to the Foundation of the Christian Religion These two half Sheets are printed and sold by T. Soule the Quakers Printer next door to their Meeting-house in White-heart Court in Grace-church-street 1697. By which it appears they are very fond of this Patron to their Cause and particularly that G. Whitehead is so by the Commendation he gives of him in his late printed Antidote However this may seem to some an improper Digression yet if they well consider the occasion of it they will if Impartial acknowledge it both proper and convenient SECT XII AND hereby it may easily appear what Spirit hath Acted the first Teachers that appeared among the Quakers as chiefly G. F. and G. W. to oppose so keenly and earnestly the practice of those two Divine Institutions of Water-Baptism and the Supper namely to draw People into a forgetfulness of all Faith in Christ without us as he dyed and rose again and is Ascended into Heaven for the proper Memorials of Christ Crucified being rejected and laid aside as well as the Doctrin it self not only not Preached but opposed as contrary to the Scripture the drift and aim of that Spirit that hath Acted them both against the one and the other is plainly manifest and how it s opposing the Doctrin of Faith in the Man Christ without us is the great cause of its opposing these external Practices which are such proper means together with the Doctrine to propagate and preserve the true Christian Faith in the World And indeed upon that Hypothesis or Foundation laid by their principal Teachers that there is no need of Preaching Faith in the Man Christ without for Remission of Sin and eternal Salvation but the only thing needful is the Light within as it universally enlightenth all Mankind either to be Preached or Believed as a late Writer against them hath well observed these outward Practices of Water-Baptism and the outward Supper are useless and insignificant Formalities for they were never appointed to signifie Remission of Sin Justification and Salvation only by obedience to the Light within excluding the necessity of Faith in the Man Christ without us whose alone Obedience unto Death for us is the only meritorious Cause of the Remission of our Sins of Justification and eternal Salvation and of all that inward Grace and Virtue of the Holy Spirit whereby we are inwardly Sanctified and made meet to receive that eternal Inheritance But though the Spirit that first appeared to Act in these Men the first Teachers and Leaders of that People did prove it self to be Antichristian by opposing the Memorials of Christ without us yet many simple and honest hearted People knew nothing of this design and however in part leavened with that Spirit in respect of its opposition to these outward Institutions of Baptism and the Supper yet by God's great Mercy were preserved from being prevailed upon by it to oppose the Doctrine and Faith of Christ as he outwardly Suffered Dyed and Rose again and is in Heaven our Intercessor among whom I can justly and uprightly number both R.B. and my self both of us having been preserved sound in our Faith as touching the Faith in Christ without us however otherwise hurt and byassed by them in relation to these two outward Institutions of Baptism and the Supper and my Charity leads me to believe that if R.B. had lived in the Body to this day to see the ill effects that his Writing against these Divine Institutions have had and the bold opposition that many have of late more than formerly made to the necessity of the Faith in Christ Crucified and the Preaching of it even here in Christendom since the Question hath been more distinctly stated betwixt my Opposers and me touching the necessity of the Faith asserted by me and opposed by them he would have plainly seen and readily acknowledged his Error in Writing against these Divine Institutions There is yet another of their Teachers who is of late years become a Person of no small Note among the Quakers viz. John Gratton whom I cannot well pass without observing his Ignorant and Inconsiderate way of Arguing against these Divine Institutions especially as touching one of his main Arguments he hath framed from a most false and perverse Understanding of that place in Heb. 6.1 2. Therefore leaving the Principles of the Doctrin of Christ let us go on to Perfection where in his Book called John Baptist decreasing Printed many years ago and Re-printed in the year 1696 he layeth the Foundation of his Argument against Water-Baptism upon the word in that place LEAVING which he hath caused to be Printed more than once in his Book in Capital Letters for a Monument it will be of his gross Ignorance and yet bold Presumption thus to pervert the Holy Scripture from thence inferring that Water-Baptism is to be left off and laid aside for thus be argues p. 47. of the last Edition 1697. If they had been commanded by Christ to have been used to the Worlds end then why should Paul for so I call that Author have been so earnest at that day which was soon after Christ's Ascension to have had them then to leave them and to go on to a more Manful Powerful perfect State Ans At this rate of Arguing not only Water-Baptism but the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is also to be left for the Author mentions the Doctrin of Baptisms in the Plural Number which John Gratton most unfairly and falsly quotes in the Singular Baptism for Baptisms Also by the same Argument Repentance from dead works and faith towards God the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment are all to be left off from being Preached or Believed But the true Sense is obvious of the word leaving i.e. not to Treat or Write upon these first Principles further at present but to Treat of other things as when a Man hath laid the Foundation of a House he goeth on to Build a Superstructure upon it And as Ignorant and Impertinent doth he discover himself to be in his other Treatise preceeding the other of Baptism and the Supper where from the Word Elements used in Gal. 4.3 9. he concludes that Water-Baptism is one of these beggerly Elements Paul opposed because Water is an Element and after this rate divers others of their Teachers have Argued but the Word Translated Elements there Gal. 4.3 9. hath no relation to the Water-Baptism nor to the Element of Water but to Principles and Doctrins of the Jews relating to the Jewish Rites and Ceremonies the Greek
Grain being produced out of the Soil of American Earth Secondly saith he p. 63. and to put the Matter out of doubt when the Carnal Jews would have been so understanding it he tells them plainly v. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profits nothing Ans Nor doth this prove his Assertion the Error of the Carnal Jews was that they supposed Christ meant they were to eat his Body Corporally with their Bodily Mouth but if they had understood that he meant not a Corporal Eating but a Spiritual and Metaphorical they had not erred in so thinking his Quotation approved by him out of Augustine proves that by eating here Christ meant believing in him as he was to Dye for the Sins of the World and as he was to give his Body to be broken for them and his Blood to be shed for the Remission of the Sins of all that should believe in him and for the giving Eternal Life to them both in Soul and Body Thirdly Saith he p. 63.64 This is also founded upon most sound and solid Reason because that it is the Soul not the Body that is to be Nourished by this Flesh and Blood now outward Flesh cannot Nourish nor Feed the Soul there is no Proportion nor Analogy betwixt them neither is the Communion of the Saints with God by a Conjunction and mutual Participation of Flesh but of the Spirit he that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit not one Flesh for the Flesh I mean outward Flesh even such as was that wherein Christ lived and walked when upon Earth and not Flesh when transposed by a Metaphor to be understood Spiritually can only partake of Flesh as Spirit of Spirit as the Body cannot Feed upon Spirit neither can the Spirit Feed upon Flesh Ans Here also he Argueth very Weakly and Fallaciously that which deceived him and occasioned his great Mistake which he embraced as a solid Reason was by Arguing from the strict literal Sense of Nourishing and Feeding to the Metaphorical and Figurative which all true Logicians and Masters of solid Reason will say is unlawful as also to Argue from the natural Feeding or Nourishing to the Spiritual To his Argument then I answer outward Flesh cannot Feed the Soul Naturally I grant Spiritually and Metaphorically I deny now the Eating Feeding and Nourishing meant John 6.53 is not Natural but Spiritual and Metaphorical the Word Eating signifieth Believing And whereas he speaketh of the Feeding of the Spirit or Soul of Man that it cannot be the Flesh of Christ that can Feed it but the Spirit so as to be its Food by Food here we must understand it Metaphorically even as R.B. hath confessed that the Spirit of Christ is not properly but Metaphorically called Flesh So the Souls of Believers Feeding upon the Spirit of Christ is also Metaphorical for if by the Spirit of Christ he meant the Godhead how can the Godhead which is an Infinite Being in all respects be the Food f the Soul or Spirit of Man that is Finite strictly or literally understood without a Metaphor much more may I use his Argument against his own Assertion there is less Proportion or Analogie betwixt the Infinite Creator and the Soul that is a Finite Creature than is betwixt the Flesh of Christ and the Soul Besides if we argue from the strict and literal Nicety of the Words Food Feed and Nourishment that which is the Food and Nourishment of a Body becomes a part of its very Substance and Being shall any therefore conclude that because God is the Food and Nourishment of the Souls of the Saints that therefore he becomes a part of their Souls We know George Fox was blamed for saying the Soul was a part of God or of the Divine Essence surely it is as justly blame-worthy for any to say that God is a part of the Soul therefore when God or his Spirit is said to be the Souls Food it is not to be understood Strictly and Literally but Metaphorically and Figuratively as when David saith my Soul thirsteth after God But if it be said that not the Godhead but that which R.B. calleth the Vehicle of the Godhead is the most proper and immediate Food of the Souls of Believers as a certain Divine Emanation or Efflux nor can that Strictly and Literally without a Metaphor be called the Souls Food for that Divine Emanation or Efflux doth not become any part of the Souls Substance but is more Noble than the Soul of any Saint upon the Hypothesis that there is such a thing which to dispute is forrain to the present Question for the Soul of Man in its own Nature is capable of Sin and sinful Defilements which this Divine Seed or Principle in the Soul is not therefore it can never be Convertible into the Souls Substance The Feeding of the Soul therefore in whatever Sense we take it is Metaphorical and not to be measured or determined by the Feeding of the Body yet beareth some Analogy or Similitude thereunto as all Metaphors do to the things from which they are transferred for as what Feeds the Body doth Refresh and Comfort it maketh it Lively and Vigorous Fat and Beautiful and doth strengthen it and is united with it So the Spirit of Christ and his Divine Influences in the Souls of Believers have the like Effects in them they do wonderfully Refresh and Comfort them and that most sensibly make them Lively and Vigorous Fat and Beautiful and do mightily strengthen them and make them Fruitful in Divine Virtues and Fruits and are United with the Soul SECT III. BUT there are two other things that need Correction in these foregoing Words of R.B. the first is that he saith it is the Soul not the Body that is to be Nourished by this Flesh and Blood this is a great Mistake though the Bodies of the Saints are not to be Nourished by Christ as with natural Food that is Corruptible yet seeing it is by him that the Bodies of the Saints shall be raised up at the Resurrection of the Dead to partake of Life Everlasting therefore he is truly said to be that Food that Perisheth not that Feedeth both the Souls and Bodies of the Saints to Life Everlasting and though their Bodies Dye yet because by the Power of Christ's Resurrection as his Body was Raised from the Dead so on the account of his Resurrection their Bodies shall be Raised to Eternal Life Therefore their Bodies as well as their Souls are truly said to be Nourished by him The second is that he saith neither is the Communion of the Saints with God by a Conjunction and mutual Participation of Flesh but of the Spirit he that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit not one Flesh Ans The Communion indeed of the Saints with God is not by any natural Conjunction or Union of Christ's Body that was outwardly Slain with the Saints yet a Mystical and Relative Union there is as really or rather more really as
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
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
like Reasons some of the Antients and particularly Augustin called it Verbum visibile the visible Word which when joyned with the Word that is founded in Mens Ears has a double force upon the Minds of devout Believers To which doth well agree that saying of Chrysostome in his Homilies on Matthew cited in the Title Page If thou hadst been without a Body God had given thee naked and incorporeal Gifts but because the Soul is planted in a Body he giveth thee Intelligible things in Sensible things And it was well observed by the Antients that all obsignatory Signs have some words of God or Christ added unto them to make them effectual according to which Augustin said Accedat verbum ad rem fit Sacramentum i.e. let the word be added to the sign and it becomes a Sacrament and therefore we find in Eph. 5.26 the washing of Water joyned with the Word That he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word I know some will have the Water here to be meant the inward Water and the Word to be inward also but such a Sense would be not only strained but unintelligible as to say with the washing of the Word by the Word for they make the inward Water and Word to be the same thing here but the Apostle distinguisheth them as two things both which have the Efficacy by the inward working of the Holy Spirit Titus 3.5 Page 111. He undertakes the Answering of the Argument for the Institution of the Supper and its continuance until Christ come at the end of the World from those Words Ye shew forth the Lord's death till he come To this he p. 112. Answers They take two of the chief parts of the Controversie here for granted without proof First that as often imports a Command the contrary whereof is shewn neither will they ever be able to prove it 2ly That this coming is understood of Christ's last Outward coming and not of his Inward and Spiritual that remains to be proved whereas the Apostle might well understand it of his Inward coming and appearance And a little after he saith Now those weak and carnal Corinthians might be permitted the use of this to shew forth or remember Christ's Death till he come to arise in them For though such need those Outward things to put them in mind of Christ's Death yet such as are dead with Christ and not only dead with Christ but burried and so risen with him need not such Signs to remember him Ans That as often together with the foregoing words import a Command I have already proved and it was rashly said in him that he had shewn the contrary and that they will never be able to prove it And whereas some argue had it been a Command some certain times would have been mentioned how oft in a Week Month or Year it should have been Practised To this it is Answered that it followeth not more than to argue that because it is not mentioned how often in a Week Month or Year Publick Prayer is to be used that therefore they are not Institutions of Christ for as Publick Preaching and Prayer is to be used as frequently as can stand with the Ability and Conditions of both Preachers and Hearers so this Practice as frequently is to be used which as the time of those is to be left to the Discretion of the Persons as God shall inwardly Guide them and outwardly afford them the Convenience so is the Time of this to be left to the like Discretion Guidance and Convenience which as it seemed to be the Practice of the Church in the Days of the Apostles each Lord's-day being the first Day of the Week so it is clear from Justin Martyr and other ancient Writers that it was the constant Practice of the Christians Solemnly to Celebrate the same every Lord's-day besides what other times they might have done it As to the second which he calls together with the other the chief thing in Controversie it is indeed so even the chief thing and therefore if this be effectually proved against them that those Words until he come again are understood of Christ's last outward coming the Cause is gained But first let us examine what Proof he brings that they are not to be understood of Christ's last outward coming First he saith the Apostle might well understand it of his inward coming and appearance but what Proof doth he give of this None at all but his simple Affirmation Secondly He saith these Weak and Carnal Corinthians might be permitted the use of this to shew forth or remember Christ's Death till he should arise in them But what Proof gives he of this that this was or might be a Permission for no such Permission is any where expressed in the Scriptures the things that simply were permitted as Circumcision were used but by a few and not long Paul severely opposed them after some time but so he never did either Water-Baptism or the Supper Thirdly That he said though such need thâ—se outward things to put them in mind of Christ 's Death why then seeing there are now in all Churches and Christian Societies some that are as weak as those Corinthians were do not they allow the use of them to such as need them Fourthly That he saith such as are Dead and Buried with Christ and Risen again with him need not such things to remember him Answer Here as elsewhere his Argument is faulty by arguing that because such things are not absolutely necessary therefore they are not useful or necessary in any respect Besides as I have above shewn his Argument has the same force against the use of the Holy Scriptures and all Books all Preaching of the best Men and all External Parts of Worship viz. They that are Dead and Buried with Christ and Risen with him need none of these outward things But the best Men and such are the most humble will and cannot but acknowledge that all outward Helps and Means that God hath afforded them are very useful to them and help to stir up the pure Mind in them Nor are any so Risen with Christ as the Raised Saints shall be at the Resurrection therefore till then they may be helped with outward Means of God's appointing It is very Unwisely as well as Irreverently Argued we need not those things therefore they are not commanded The contrary is the better Argument they are commanded therefore they are needful at least in some respect God better knoweth what we need than we do our selves and therefore in his great Love and Wisdom hath provided outward Helps for us as well as inward But seeing they will needs understand the Words until he come not to mean Christ's last outward coming but his inward then with the same Pretext they may as well understand his Death of an inward Death of Christ in them and the shewing his Death of an inward shewing and then all Remembrance of
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
the Woman that was Born of the Virgin Mary and what that Power effected and wrought in the Faithful in the Ages before Christ came into the Flesh it was with Respect to his coming in the Flesh and to what he was to do and suffer in his Body of Flesh for their Sins And what I said as Quoted by him page 35. out of my Book Way to the City of God page 125. Even from the beginning yea upon Man's Fall God was in Christ Reconciling the World to himself and Christ was manifest in the Holy Seed inwardly and stood in the way to ward off the Wrath of God from the Sinners and Unholy that it might not come upon them to the uttermost during the Day of their Visitation All this or what ever else of that sort I have said in any of my Books hath a safe and sound Sense rightly understood though this Prejudiced Adversary seeks by his own Perversion to turn them to the contrary The Word Reconciling Redeeming hath a two-fold Signification the one is to satisfie Divine Justice and pay the Debt of our Sins this was only done by Christ as he Suffered for us in the Flesh the other is to Operate and Work in us in order to slay the Hatred and Enmity that is in us while Unconverted that being Converted we may enjoy that inward Peace of Christ that he hath Purchased for us by his Death and Sufferings Now that the Light Word and Spirit gently Operates and Works in Men to turn and incline them to Love God to Fear him and Obey him to Believe and Trust in him that is to Reconcile Men to God and to ward or keep off the Wrath of God from them And thus God was in Christ Reconciling the World to him in all Ages But this is not by way of Satisfaction to Divine Justice for Men's Sins but by way of Application and Operation inwardly Inviting Persuading and as it were Intreating Men to be Reconciled unto God that so the Wrath of God that hangs over their Heads may not fall upon them for while God by Christ thus inwardly visits the Souls of Men inviting and persuading them to turn and live saying why will ye Dye the Wrath is suspended and delayed to be Executed upon them yet it is not removed but abides upon them until they Repent and Believe as the Scripture testifieth he that believeth not the Wrath of God abideth on him And though this inward Appearance and Operation in Christ in Men's Hearts stayeth the Execution of Divine Wrath and Justice yet that inward Appearance is not the Procuring and Meritorious Cause of Men's Reconciliation with God but the Means whereby what Christ by his Death and Sufferings hath Purchased is applyed for though Christ made Peace for us by his Blood outwardly Shed yet that Peace cannot be nor is obtained or received by any but as the Soul is inwardly Changed and Converted and so Reconciled unto God III. And the like twofold Signification hath the Word to Attone for as it signifieth to Attone or Reconcile God and us that wholly is procured by Christ's Obedience unto Death and Sacrifice that he offered up for Men on the Cross but as it signifieth the effectual Application of that great Attonement made by Christ for Men at his Death that is wrought by his Spirit and inward Appearance in their Hearts And I might well say at Man's Fall the Seed of the Woman was given not only to bruise the Serpent's Head but also to be a Lamb or Sacrifice to Attone and Pacify the Wrath of God towards Men as he Quotes me in my Book Way to the City p. 125. For taking Attoning in the first Sense the Virtue Merit and Efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross did as really extend to the Faithful for Remission of Sin and bringing into Reconciliation and Peace with God from Adam's Fall as it now doth which this Prejudiced Author seems wholly ignorant of as well as his Brethren Again taking it in the second Sense for the effectual Application of the Attonment made by Christ's Death through his Meek and Lamb-like Appearance by his Spirit and Life in Men's Hearts it has a Truth in it And Christ may be said to be the Lamb of God that taketh away the Sins of the World both by his outward Appearance in the Flesh as he Dyed for us to Procure and Purchase the Pardon of our Sins and our Justification before God and also by his inward Appearance to Renew and Sanctifie us for as by our Justification the Guilt of Sin is taken away so by our Sanctification is the Filth of it removed Both which is the Work of Christ the Lamb of God respecting both his outward and inward Appearance in his outward being a Sin-offering for us and a Sacrifice in a strict Sense in his inward Appearance of his Divine Life in us being as a Peace-offering and Sacrifice of sweet smelling Incense before God not to Reconcile God and us as is above said but to apply effectually to us the Reconciliation made for us by his Death on the Cross IV. And that I said as he again Quotes me the Seed hath been the same in all Ages and hath had its Sufferings under by and for the Sins of Men in them all for the Removing and Abolishing them This I still hold that there is a tender Suffering Seed or Principle in Men that suffers by Men's Sins and by its gentle Strivings prevails and gains the Victory at last in all the Heirs of Salvation But this suffering Seed or Principle I never held it to be God nor was I ever of that Mind that God did really and properly Suffer by Men's Sins although I have known divers to hold such an absurd Opinion as G. Whitehead hath plainly declared to be his Opinion in his Divinity of Christ p. 56. which is as really Repugnant both to Scripture and sound Reason as to hold that God hath Bodily Parts and Members because the Scripture in many places in condescension to our human Capacities speaks of God's Suffering Repentance being grieved as it doth of his Face Eyes Ears Hands and Feet all which ought not to be properly but Allegorically understood And though I hold that this tender Seed suffers in Men by their Sins that so by its gentle Strivings with them it may overcome them and Slay and Crucifie the Body of Sin in them Yet I hold not that Suffering to be the Procuring and Meritorious Cause of our Justification and Pardon of Sins before God nor do I remember any where that I have so said or writ if any shall shew me where I shall readily Correct and Retract it or any thing in any of my Books that looks that way And if any Query whether I hold that Seed to be Christ that doth so suffer in Men by their Sins I Answer It is not the Fulness of Christ but a Measure proceeding from the Fulness that was and is lodged in the
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
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
Gentile Religion as well as true Christian Religion The Apostacie having been so great that many called Christians were Degenerated below the Heathens and their Religion scarce so good as that of some Heathens that did fear God and Worship him only the Angel might Preach that general Doctrin as being very proper and necessary to call Apostate and Degenerate Professors of Christianity from their Idolatry and Profanity as a necessary Introduction to the Everlasting Gospel as well as in one Sense it is a necessary part of it but not the whole Doctrin of the Gospel for Faith and Love are as necessary Doctrins of the Gospel as Fear though neither of them are expresly mentioned yet implyed together with all the other Christian Virtues But J. P. in his Words above Cited will have it That the Gospel cannot be said to be the Power of God unto Salvation to the Believer in any other Sense than as it is a Powerful energetical inward Principle for as it is barely Historical the Ungodly have that Belief I Answer How Foolishly doth he here Argue and Impertinently whoever said that the bare Historical Relation or Report of Christ Crucified is the Power of God unto Salvation Or if any have said it is the Gospel I am sure I never said nor thought it But what hath J. P. against this Sense of the Gospel Rom. 1.16 That it is the Doctrin of Salvation by the promised Messiah accompanied with the Spirit of God and Christ inwardly Revealed making it effectually to be Believed and Obeyed in all that shall be Saved by it and thus the Gospel that Paul and the other Apostles Preached is not a bare Form of Doctrin without the Spirit and Power nor the Spirit and Power without the Doctrin And how Non-sensical is he to Argue that as it is barely Historical the Ungodly have that Belief But they have not the Saving Belief of the Doctrin of Christ Crucified for that only is wrought in the Godly by the Power and Spirit of Christ And though the Ungodly may have the Gospel Preached unto them yet while they remain Ungodly they receive it not neither do they truly believe it nor obey it A bare Historical Faith is no more a True Faith than the bare Picture of a Man is a Man Therefore he is Idle to Argue against the Saving Faith of Christ Crucified because the Ungodly may have the bare Historical Belief of it which differs as widely as a Dead Body from a a Living Man But it is not enough for J. P. to Pervert my Words but he will be bold to Pervert the Words of the Scripture and not only put a false Gloss on them but alledge that to be said in Scripture which is not said but is his own Addition For as I have above Cited him he saith also when the Everlasting Gospel was again to be Preached and he adds in Parenthesis for it seems by the Word again it had been discontinued to be Preached although the History of Christ's Birth Death had not Now Reader open the Bible and Read that place Rev. 14.6 7. and thou wilt find the Word again is not there to be found but in G. Fox's Some Principles p. 22. it is found and yet he Grounds his Argument upon this Pillar again by which he inferreth that to his seeming the Everlasting Gospel had been discontinued to be Preached although the History of Christ's Birth Death had not And this discontinuing of the Preaching the Everlasting Gospel he and his Brethren think did remain until G. Fox and the Quakers began to Preach it For saith G. Fox and his Brethren in the Book called Some Principles of the Elect People of God Printed it London 1671. In p. 48. But many People speak after this manner Have we not had the Gospel all this time till now Ans We say no you have had the Sheeps Cloathing while you are Alienated from the Spirit and so not living in the Power which is the Gospel c. But as in Rev. 14.6 7. The Word again is not to be found nor will the Greek bear it so nor is it implyed that there was a discontinuing of the Preaching of it altogether for had the Gospel ceased the Church had ceased also and Faith and Salvation had ceased The most that can be inferred is that the Preaching of it was not so common and frequent as formerly it had met with a great Stoppage and Opposition in many parts of the World even under a Christian Profession because of the Apostacie which had it not come the Gospel would have spread much more than it yet hath done but as the Apostacie goes out the Everlasting Gospel the same that the Apostles Preached will be Preached to every Nation and Kindred and Tongue and People John 14.6 That is universally this doth not prove the discontinuing of it as J. P. falsly Argueth but that the more General and indeed the Universal Spreading of it hath not hitherto been as yet His Argument That the Gospel that Paul Preached to the Colossians was not the Doctrin of Salvation by the promised Messiah Christ Crucified because the Gospel he was speaking of was Preached to or in every Creature under Heaven Therefore saith he it could not be meant of the Doctrin of Salvation by Christ Crucified but of that Gospel which had been Preached to or in every Creature under Heaven I say this his Argument is Vain and False but it is a good and effectual Proof to confirm my Charge against them These Quakers Preach not any Gospel for Salvation but that which is Preached to or in every Creature under Heaven but saith J. P. that is not the Doctrin of Salvation by Christ Crucified therefore that is none of the Gospel these Quakers Preach what can be required more habemus Confitentem reum we have the Guilty Confessing Matter of Fact But surely the Gospel that Paul Preached to the Colossians was the Doctrin of Salvation by Christ Crucified as appears plainly from 1 Col. v. 14. to the end of the Chapter And his Arguing from the Words to or in every Creature which sort of Argument hath deceived many is no more valid to prove that the Gospel either then or formerly had been Preached to every Man and Woman in the full and adequate Sense of the Word every as it signifieth every individual than that because Paul said v. 28. of that same Chapter whom we Preach Warning every Man and Teaching every Man in all Wisdom that we may present every Man Perfect in Christ Jesus that Paul and his Brethren then living did Teach every Man that ever lived or is now living on Earth If yea then surely John Pennington and all other Men now on Earth were then living and this will be the Doctrin of the Revolution or Transmigration of Souls with a witness which he so frequently would cast upon me though he has no just ground so to do nor any other Man if nay then he