the institution end and use during our corporal eating and drinking of them at that Supper of the Lord. The word which I used in the Concrete Spiritual he turns to the Abstract Spirit and thus clamors me * Therefore it is thy reason is so weak that saith The bread which you break although it be bread in the nature and substance yet it is Spirit in the institution c. What blasphemy is this to say that the Spirit is in the bread which is natural in the substance Here is a Papistical trick indeed Oh horrible delusion Rep. 1. I brought not 1 Cor. 10. 16. or any reason from thence to prove the bread to be material and outward though I could as above I have from the 11. Chap. but to shew it was not carnal in R. F. his sense set in opposition to the spiritual institution end and use For that which is appointed by Christ to be used for signification and assurance of many a souls interest in and communion of his natural body and blood broken and shed upon the Cross that is not meer carnal bread and drink But the bread and wine is after Christs institution to be so used as Paul admonisheth the Corinthians and not to be abused and profaned i. e. used in a common maner as if it were but ordinary bread and wine and had no special signification and end stampt upon it That natural body and blood of Christ which we remember in the Supper as broken and shed at his Passion was and is a true natural body then on earth now in heaven and yet it was and is spiritual food his flesh meat indeed his blood drink indeed there is no sweeter no better there 's none to that So the bread and wine is truly bread materially wine and yet withal in the Lords Supper it is Christs body and it is his blood How significatively a spiritual memorial of Christs death and a pledge of what Christ is to us that believe in him dying for us 2. This man R. F. coyneth phrases and then fathers them upon me The Spirit in the institution and the Spirit is in the bread and would make the world believe he were as ignorant of Popery as of true Protestant Doctrine The Doctrine I held forth according to Scripture was and is in professed opposition to all Papisticall tricks and devices touching the Lords Supper I said the bread as the wine was so and is so in its nature and substance but spiritual in the institution end and use And I adde neither Christs Institution nor the Ministers Blessing doth transubstantiate them or turn them into the natural body and blood of Christ as the Papists imagine after their consecration They do not say that I know the Spirit is in the bread nor did I ever so express my self in preaching at Edinburgh or elsewhere and what I wrote there * page 20. is to be seen and read of all men yet more then this of confused stuff would R. F. in his return to the Agreement of 42. Ministers * Contradiction of the Quakers so called p. 16. make the world believe he can produce under my hand and the hands of other Preachers in that City Had his mistake * See page 18. with the marginal not been onely in a letter of my name to put e for a it were a very venial offence but to refer as he doth to my whole name except that letter is a most impudent forgery But to return to the Pontificians this they hold Popish Transubstantiation a blinde dotage The body of Christ is corporally under the shew of bread and the blood of Christ is substantially under the colour of wine as if the accidents or qualities of roundness redness or whiteness could be without the subject and substance of those creatures and as if Christs natural body and blood for substance could be there and neither be seen felt nor tasted and as if Christ had laid down the qualities of a true natural body and were in moe places then one at once with many such blinde dotages this is to make a very carnal Supper of it indeed Hence it is that they maintaining in words onely and with fire and faggot not by any Scripture rightly understood nor sound Argument from thence the real corporal carnal presence of Christ we protest against them as Antichristian And so must we enter a protestation against R. F. and men of his way to be yet more mysteriously Babylonish For the grosser Papists speak broadly and make a nullity of the Lords Supper by their feigned Transubstantiation and carnal-corporal presence but these speak subtilly and nullifie it by transforming of the Institution and spreading the Lords Table with another cloth as it were and as will more appear anon while we hold up the Ordinance according to Gospel-primitive simplicity and do maintain upon sufficient Scripture-grounds both the outward and inward matter and form of the Lords Supper with the spiritualness of the Institution and the truly-spiritual presence of Christ with his own ordained signs who in relation to them and to his own promise and his peoples faith is there as at Baptism Matth. 28. 19 20. Lo I am with you c. by his Spirit to quicken confirm and seal up our communion with himself as crucified for us Hence The benefit of the Lords Supper it is that the Churches of Christ and every true believer active in his faith have found it and do still experience it to be a faith-strengthning conscience-refreshing soul-comforting love-increasing sin-mortifying salvation-assuring Ordinance although they have not always a like sense of his presence But to cast off this Ordinance and call it a carnal invention as R. F. hath done for want of expected assurance at the participation of it is a rash fruit of unbelief and proud impatience and to call us Deceivers * Page 20. for keeping to the Institution which remaineth firm in it self while it proves ineffectual to many an unworthy communicant is to hide himself in his self-deceivings Finally to cry out Oh horrible delusion is to cast a mist before others eyes that they may not see where the jugling and the jugler lie close together For what saith he further The Kingdom of God consists not in meat and drink but in righteousness peace and joy in the holy Ghost and in that Kingdom wheat-bread and red wine is not the souls food but the precious blood of Christ Rep. 1. Where the Apostle speaks of the choice things wherein the Kingdom of God consists viz. righteousness c. Rom. 14. 17. he is not treating of bread and wine at Rom 14. 17. vindicated the Lords Table but of meats and drinks which Jews and Gentiles made a difference about ver 2. One believeth he may eat all things another that is weak eateth herbs He was the stronger Christian who found his liberty to eat of all things i. e. all creatures appointed for
his fancy 13. Head of their Scripture-contradiction Concerning the Lords Supper Section 39. I Had noted out of a Pamphlet as it fell out of R. F. what a title of dishonor he gives to the Lords Supper no better then a Carnal invention as strong a contradiction to 1 Cor. 11. 23. as his reason is weak because he wanted that assurance which he expected at the Participation of that ordinance whereupon he takes me up with his old reviling language * I charge thee in that to be a gross The visible outward Lords supper no carnal invention lyar I said that your imagination was a carnal invention but the Lords Supper I own Rep. What Lords Supper doth he own that in the heart onely for he owneth what he witnesseth and what doth he witness it followeth in his book and witness that he is come in to sup with me Rev. 3. 20. Rep. But at that Supper I never heard or read before of one drunk with the opinion That the commemoration of the Lords death by breaking and eating of blessed Bread and drinking of blessed Wine i. e. bread and wine set apart by prayer and thanksgiving as he appointed was mans imagination and a carnal invention It is matter of Faith and not imagination to me as to many thousands and as with my heart I believe so with my mouth and Pen I make this confession that That Lords Supper which Paul speaks of 1 Cor. 10. 16. and 11. 20. and which chap. 10. 21. he calls the Lords Table was and is something besides the inward mystical communion with Christ Rev. 3. 20. even the visible sign and seal of that Communion and of other effects of his death and if this be proved and found to be none of mine nor mans imagination it will appear to all men who is the gross lyar and that R. F. hath called that Lords Supper or the ordinance of bread and wine instituted by Christ in the night wherein he was betrayed a carnal invention But he goes on And the bread which we break it is the Communion of the body of Christ and the cup which we drink it is the Communion of the blood of Christ and as Paul said so say I Let those that are spiritual judge what is said Rep. Agreed in Pauls sense not in the apprehension of R. F. but where hath Paul these words Let those that are Spiritual judge c. It is true the spiritual man judgeth of colors white and black truth and error grace and corruption something he can judge of all spiritual things which a natural man cannot But it is the wise man which the Apostle appealeth to in that place which R. F. shot at at rovers 1 Cor. 10. 15. I speak as to wise men judge ye what I say If any man think himself to be a Prophet or spiritual and be not wise he may think as R. F. that the words ver 16. are meant of bread broken onely in the heart and of the cup drunk in the heart c. but no wise man that ever yet I met with nor any truly spiritual have so thought or will so judge excluding outward bread and the visible Cup from being the sign and pledge of inward communion in and with the body and blood of the Lord as R. F. * Page 20. Bread and wine the outward matter of the Lords Supper doth Thou canst not prove that Paul broke outward bread and drunk outward wine with the Corinthians nor the maner how Rep. The truth doth not rest upon my proof nor needs there any more but the reading of the words 1 Cor. 11. 23 24 25. which I shall transcribe at large for the memorial of the institution as the blessed Apostle hath left it to the Saints For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and said Take eat this is my body which is broken for you this do in remembrance of me After the same maner also he took the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the New Testament in my blood this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me What proof lies in these words which R. F. calls for I shall demonstrate in this argumentative way What the Lord Jesus brake and drank with his disciples and after what maner that Paul brake and drank with the Corinthians and after that maner But the Lord Jesus brake material or outward bread and drank material or outward wine with his Disciples Mat. 26. 26 27 Mark 14 22 23 24. having first blessed the bread and given thanks distinctly at the taking of the cup and then gave it to them to be used in remembrance of him Therefore Paul brake material or outward bread and drank material or outward wine with the Corinthians after the maner that the Lord brake and drank and gave it to his Disciples to be used in remembrance of him The Major or first proposition is undeniable else Paul had been unfaithful to teach and practise among the Corinthians and to write it over to them and us for imitation but Paul obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful 1 Cor. 7. 25. The Minor or second proposition is as true as the first for Christ took of the Bread upon the table the reserve of it after the Passover Supper and blessed that brake that gave that to be eaten and he took of the Cup upon the table and gave thanks afresh and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it For this is i. e. this is a sign pledge memorial seal or assurance of my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you as Luke hath it Chap. 22. ver 20. and for many as Matthew and Mark record it * Mat. 26. 28 29 Mark 22. 24 25. for the remission of sins which Cup put by a Metonymie of the Subject for the Adjunct i. e. the thing containing put for the thing or outward matter contained in it i. e. for the Wine in the Cup he calleth the fruit of the vine as it was in its own nature and substance it must of necessity follow that Paul following his Masters institution at the heels or to a hair as even now was cleared the bread that he brake and the wine that he drank and ordered for the future to them and all the Churches to be broken and drunk 1 Cor. 11. 26. was the fruit of seed-corn material outward bread and the fruit of the vine material outward wine which because R. F. in another piece of his had said was carnal I added for explication and to discover how he contradicted 1 Cor. 10. 16. that albeit the bread and wine which we use according to the Lords precept and Pauls practice in the Lords Supper are in their nature and substance very bread and wine yet they are Spiritual in
natural and bodily food He was the weaker who confined himself to some particulars as onely lawful viz. Herbs c. This Scripture of the Apostles preferring righteousness c. before meats and drinks is impertinently and sinfully alledged to contradict the observation of the Lords Supper wherein he will be remembred by the use of natural bread and wine till his second coming 1 Cor. 11. 26. As oft as ye eat of this bread 1 Cor. 11. 26 cleared and drink of this cup for natural substance the same with other bread and wine but for signification and assurance different ye do shew by such a use and participation the Lords death till he come That clause till he come and others of his coming are usual in the New Testament to denote his second and glorious coming visibly in our nature If I will that he tarry till I come c. John 21. 22. So shall also the coming of the Son of man be Mat. 24. 37 39. Even so come Lord Jesus the voice of the Bride and of John echoing to Christs Surely I come quickly Rev. 22. 20. 2. Although wheat-wheat-bread and red wine be not souls food alone and by themselves yet stampt with the Lords Institution his word of promise This is my body This is my blood with his word of command Do this c. and this done in faith accordingly in and by them Christ doth feed our souls If the sacred signs of the Old Testament had this significancy and excellency that in respect of what was represented by them they are called spiritual meat and spiritual drink 1 Cor. 10. 3 4. Manna was appointed to feed the faith of the Fathers and Water out of the rock to refresh their soul-faith surely the blessed signs of the New Testament come not short of such spiritual significancy and excellency which they have not from themselves but from Christ the institutor and ordainer of them who will and doth make them souls food instrumentally because he thereby and therewith gives forth himself to be their assured food and nourishment But saith R. F. * Page 20. for a close He is my meat and drink and food for my soul to feed on and for such as are in him John 6. who is the bread of life Rep. But how he doth not tell us onely he saith it is so and I wish it be so and that he doth not feed upon ashes nor that a deceived heart doth lead him aside nor that a lye be found in his right hand I 'm sure it is in his tongue or pen who shall say or write Christ feeds not souls by wheat-bread and red wine 1. It is a true exposition of John 6. which we hold up against the Papists that all along that Chapter Christ speaks not of the Sacrament called the Lords Supper consisting of sign and thing signified outward and inward matter but onely of his natural flesh and blood given and shed for all that eat and drink him spiritually or by faith which daily they may and ought to do Believe and thou hast eaten as was Augustines counsel and encouragement of old to the Christians in his time 2. It is a proud and disdainful practice altogether to reject the use of wheat-bread and red wine or any fruit of the vine frequently as a help to memory faith love and all the graces of the inner man especially by fresh remembrance of Christs death in the application of the signs to be strengthned in believing our interest and propriety in him that we may feed the more strongly upon him and live chearfully by faith every day and hour By this time me thinks I hear James Nayler crying out of divisions about the form * Love to the lost pag. 43. of the Lords Supper which the worlds Teachers and Professors are all out of and have lost and the power also and then spreading his new cloth that I hinted at before as some wet napkin over a Corpse so he over his new Communion Table and then sets on his new-transformed Supper and what 's that Hear if you can and read without their trembling but in true fear take notice of his horrible delusion For the sake saith he * Pagâ— 45. of such who are lost in this thing and troubled in minde concerning it what I have James Naylers transmutation of the Lords Supper received of the Lord that I shall declare unto you which all shall witness to who come to partake thereof as the truth is in Jesus Christ If you intend to sup with the Lord or shew the Lords death till he come let your eating and drinking so oft as you do it be in remembrance of him and in his fear that at death you may witness to the lust and excess c. If this man were not lost himself could he write thus wildely falsly impudently or minister such a miserable comfort to a troubled minde Why where will the poor lost simple soul say is the fallacy wildeness impudence The fallacy in this that by eating and drinking as oft as you do it he meaneth your ordinary meals of Breakfast Dinner or Supper for so he expresseth it Page 43. This was to be done at all seasons when they eat and drank The wildeness in this For the sake of such as are lost and that at death you may witness to the lust and excess The impudence in this that he saith He received it of the Lord and to avoid excess and of becoming reprobates in the faith it was * Page 44. that the Lord Jesus commanded his Disciples in eating and drinking to shew forth his death till he came And this was that the Apostles received of the Lord and so practised till he was come to them and then * Page 46. they continued it for their sakes who were weak in the faith to whom he was not yet appeared What His colourable Reasons dis-colouâ—ed colour will the lost simple soul say hath he for all this He hath something surely to set forth his new dish First He thinketh * Page 43. this Lords Supper was done and instituted by Christ as they sate at meat and did eat Mat. 26. 26. Mark 14. 22. But must it therefore be confounded with every ones common ordinary meal That Supper which he instituted a new was if Luke 22. 20. be consulted after the Paschal Supper and Paul saith 1 Cor. 11. 25. after he the Lord had supped yea after he had risen at the end of the Paschal Supper John 13. 2. he took a towel washt his Disciples feet sate down again ver 12. and had given the dipped sop to the Traitor who upon the receiving of it went immediately out ver 30. and came in no more But now Christ and his chosen ones are alone they not having removed the Table the Lord enters his Sermon John 13. latter end with Chap. 14. 15 16. and having taken bread and then the cup he either prayed
that in Chap. 17. or after his distinct consecrating words of blessing and thanksgiving and his giving and their taking of the bread and wine at the end of the whole action for John 18. 1. compared with Mat. 26. 30. the prayer after the Sermon ended and the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hymn sung by them all they go forth over the Brook Kedron into a Garden in Gethsemane near to the Mount of Olives It appeareth by what is said it was a distinct Supper from the rest attended with solemn Speeches Prayers and Praises in prose and in a Song If all the Quakers drink in James Naylers Doctrine they will then take up Prayer and Thanks at meals which many have laid down they will be frequent in singing Hymns even as oft as they eat and drink it must be done if they will believe what he saith the lord hath revealed unto him But some will be wiser I hope then some other and hear reason as it divinely lyeth in the Scripture The Scripture calleth the instituted bread and wine this bread and this cup and this cup of the Lord 1 Cor. 11. 26 27. And this bread it calls Christs body and this cup the cup of the new Testament and the wine Christs blood Will J. N. or any of his friends be so profane as to call every piece of bread he eateth and every draught of drink with such an Emphasis and such a title Will he make no meals of any thing but of bread and drink or will he have all his own and Believers drink to be of the fruit of the vine Thus the Scripture describeth the Lords Supper to consist for the outward matter of bread and wine as I have before proved for R. F. his conviction The Scripture neither from Christs mouth nor Pauls pen saith As oft as ye eat and drink it is the Lords Supper but as oft as ye do this eat of this bread drink of this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come What boldness is it to make that temporary and of short continuance which the Apostle saith is to be held up till he cometh 1 Cor. 11. 26. And such a coming he speaks of there as in other of his Epistles but especially consult 1 Thess 5. 2. 2 Thess 2. 1 2. Secondly You will finde him suggesting to the lost bewildred soul * Love to the lost pag. 43. That the Church at Jerusalem did continue in the Apostles doctrine c. and breaking bread from house to house did eat their meat with gladness c. What then If their breaking bread and eating meat be confounded that in ver 42. with that in ver 46. here was confusion in the Churches greatest purity which J. N. denieth If bread and wine was distinctly used after the Lords institution and apart from their civil repasts and meals then he hath nothing makes for his transfigured Supper from this Scripture But ver 42. speaks of Church-ordinances by themselves Acts 2. 42. 46. cleared and ver 46. of Family-repast as distinct from the other and the latter words explain but the former their breaking bread domatim or at home is said to be eating meat which was not the Lords Supper J. Nayler reads it daily breaking bread from house to house but 't is not so read or to be read though 't is a truth to be supposed they did daily take their ordinary repasts more then once a day but they continuing daily with one accord in the Temple c. There is nothing of certain ground for daily use of the Lords Supper but Acts 20. 7. will shew us the primitive practise of assembling every first day of the week for that breaking of bread at the Lords Table and so Tremelius out of the Syriack hath it 1 Cor. 11. 20. When ye come together In die Domini nostri on our Lords day ye do not eat and drink as is meet And if it be read after the Greek as we read it When ye come together into one place c. it sheweth the eating and drinking of the Lords Supper was and should be by the Churches respectively as that at Corinth for one in some one place together and civil ordinary meals should be as they were at Jerusalem at first in their own houses 1 Cor. 11. 34. Thirdly saith J. N. * pag as above In their eating and drinking at all seasons they were to do it to the Lord and therein to have communion with his Body and his Blood and for that end were to keep themselves pure from all pollution It is a truth nor they nor we are to sin in any action but whether we eat or drink c. do all to the Lord and his glory we are not to feed without fear we are to keep from all excess do all in a mortified way think and speak of Christ at dinner and supper but this must not nullifie or make void the peculiar Ordinance of the Lords Supper but rather we must frequently observe it as a solemn help to purity and mortification influential into our whole conversation Communion with Christ and his Body and Blood is to be perpetually held up in all our actions natural civil and sacred by faith and the communion of his Spirit but the communion with him in the use of the memorative signs of his body and his blood viz. bread and wine solemnly set apart by his special appointment for that end is yet an advancing work distinct by it self from other actions of ordinary communion Fourthly J. Nayler in the place aforesaid presumeth when the Christians were to eat with Gentiles-unbelieving they were to partake of the Table of the Lord as is plain 1 Cor. 10. which is neither plain nor true understood of the same time place and company as this man holds it forth for their eating with the Infidels was at best when there was no meat offered to idols or no knowledge of it no scruple made about it but a civil correspondence and there was more then Bread and Wine the onely outward materials at the Lords Table even whatsoever was sold in the shambles ver 25. Besides the place and company where and with whom they did eat and drink at the Lords Table was in some one Meeting-house or other as the house of Gaius Rom. 16. 23. for one where the whole Church and onely the Church did participate It is to no purpose what he saith afterwards * Page 44. Whether they eat or drank they were to do it to the Lord as at his Table for every like is not the same and although different actions meet in the same general ultimate end yet there are special subordinate ends to each of them Fifthly he addes There is no other thing can keep from feeding in the lust and eating to the lust but to eat in remembrance of Christs death til he come c. And I subjoyn It is not our eating every day in fear
and moderation as it ought to be that will mortifie a lust but onely give a check of restraint Bodily exercise of fasting profiteth little that way Acting of faith upon Christs death every day will do much as well out of meals as at them yea he that doth not remember Christ at his plowing and sowing when he lieth down when he riseth up goeth out or cometh in or at other times as at break-fast dinner or supper will go near to forget him then But that we may never forget him and his death and his power and love to take away our sin he hath left us his solemn sacred Supper as an instituted means of a Remembrance of him to be used as oft as with conveniency we can meet at his Table Let not J. Nayler or any man upbraid us with eating and drinking in a Self-solemnity once a moneth or three times a year The superstitious observation of times by man set up is laid down I think by all the Godly in the three Nations as to that business None have impositions upon them for once a moneth Were hearts and purses large enough in all the Churches they might meet every first day of the week our Christian Sabbath-day a day that the Lord hath made for solemn conventions and exultations Psal 118. 24 at the Lords Table Let him look to the idols in his own heart and beware of imposing upon others his New-model or putting off his Gibeonitish old clouted shooes and mouldy bread I mean his pieces of old Familism For what shall we make of that passage * Love to the Lost pag 45. It must needs be so viz. to spend upon their lusts with such as do not discern his body in their eatings who is the Body of all creatures but a chip of the old block H. N. the old father of the pretended Family of Love his Doctrine to incorporate Gods Essence into the creatures and the creatures into his For said he In the beginning one God and one man had in all one order being and nature And God was all that the man was and the man was all that God was Accordingly saith J. N. He is the Body of all creatures and filleth all things in heaven and in earth but by them that are in the lust Christ is not discerned present who is the fulness and vertue of every creature Here is it may be an Ubiquitarian mystery Christs glorified Body deified and to be discerned every where in every creature But will the lost soul be carried away with this winde of doctrine so diverse and estranging from and contrary to the blessed Apostles intention 1 Cor. 11. 29. where by not 1 Cor. 11. 29. vindâ—cated cleared discerning the Lords Body he holdeth forth their sin who confound their own meals with the Lords Supper whereas 't is the duty of all the Churches and every Communicant to distinguish both notionally and practically between that Bread and Wine instituted and set apart for special sacred spiritual use and common ordinary food used for civil repast and corporal nourishment The Bread at the Lords Table is to be discerned as a pledge sign and memorial of the Lord Christ his natural body once broken and crucified The Wine is to be discerned as the sign pledge and memorial of his natural blood shed in the garden and upon the cross And the relation which Christ hath unto his appointed signs together with mystical union and special spiritual presence promised and given to the true partaker of the signs is to be discerned also all which James Nayler is ignorant of or wilfully shuts his eyes with his fellow-creature R. F. who threw off the ordinance because he wanted the assurance that he expected But how to reconcile these two mens writings about the Lords Supper I was at a loss while the one saith Wheat bread and red wine is not souls food as before and the other dictateth The Lords Supper was to be at all seasons when they eat and drank one would have the Supper to be altogether within the other would have it to be at all times when men eat with moderation and without excess it is well if they understand themselves until I compared their other words viz. of R. F. The Lord is come in to sup with me with James Naylers God's Son the fulness and virtue of every creature which all know who come to his Supper where the Father and the Son are come in and sup with the creature And hereby as by other of their expressions it appeareth they do both of them cast off the external visible ordinance of the use of particular bread and wine at some times for the ends appointed and resolve it into an imaginary transformed communion of God in and with every creature which so it speaks like H. N. the old branded Familist they care not how unlike the Holy Scripture they write as one said long since of his first followers Section 40. THat they may with the fairer shew make void the Lords institution at his Table they have devised false Interpretations of that place in 1 Cor. 11. 26. one of which 2 Cor. 11. 26. vandicated I discovered in this Section to which R. F. answereth nothing although I had it out of one of his Pamphlets viz. of shewing the Lords death till he came to his disciples after his resurrection which to mention onely carrieth confutation in the forehead J. Nayler notwithstanding its grosness favors this sense and addes another First he gratifies R. F. in his sense by reading or writing it in the Praeter tense * Love to the lost page 43. They were to do it in remembrance of him shewing his death till he came Now Pauls words are plainly respecting the time to come till he come i. e. till the very instant hour of his coming for the * Adverb of time notes duration having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another Adverb and Particle added to it which imply a drawing out of the time that should the Lord stay never so long ere he comes the Supper is to be continued till that coming of his which I hinted in the former Section was his coming the second time as it is called Heb. 9. 18. in that humane nature which at his first coming he assumed into the unity of his person The word for he come used by Paul is the same and in the same subjunctive Mood as in Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 9. 26. when he shall come in his own glory and in his Fathers c. so it might be read in Paul as our Latine * Beza Translation hath it usquequo venerit and Tremelius out of the Syriack usque ad adventum ejus even till his very appearance in the clouds For that meaning must stand whatsoever J. Nayler * Love to the Lost pag. 46. secondly addes to the former Fiction viz. That Christ charging his disciples to wait for his coming at
not yet emptied unless God restrain and stop his mouth and dry up his pen and inkhorn terms 2. As to his and his fellows denying such Questions as are What Questiona are of the Devil of the Devil I wish they would make good this denial But since I heard in Scotland that Questions were of the Devil I have read of many Questions of theirs which come from no better spirit then the old Serpent and Satan The Question is whether R. F. will own them as of God or deny them as being of the devil I read in one * A Declaration against Popery Quere 6. of their Pamphlets to this purpose Whether you that say bread and wine i. e. in our Lords Supper is the body and blood of Christ be not they that minde earthly things and are carnal and natural In my poor judgement this Question is from ignorance of the Lords purpose in his instituted Supper which calls upon us to minde spiritual and heavenly things by what are earthly and natural i. e. bread and wine in their substance but spiritual in their signification and use during the celebration and unsavory this Question is to such as truly own the remembrance of Christ in that Ordinance Again they Quere * Quere 10. Whether every one may not purchase bread and wine and whether any can purchase the body and blood of Christ for money Now if ignorant unsavory vain needless and unprofitable Questions come of the Devil and R. F. denieth such will he deny this to be any other If he saith he yields it to be vain c. his fellows do not he must then herein at least deny them if he maintains it for good he must so prove it I judge it to be as the former ignorant and unsavory in that it ariseth from the not distinguishing between the inward and outward part of the Lords Supper and needless vain and unprofitable because not tending to edification but meerly to strife and vain jangling Another tempting and upbraiding Question * Quere 21. there is Whether ever any of you received the substance since that which you called the sign was practised by you and so bear witness to the substance and deny the sign yea or nay The scope of this indeed is diabolical to throw off the sign of Christs appointment when they come to feel the substance whereas the true method of Christians is first to receive the substance Christ in the promise before they joyn with the Church to receive the sign because the Ordinance of the Supper is not a converting Ordinance if we speak of the true initial work for confirming and carrying on of the work of faith and love holiness c. And if none should receive the sign and memorial of Christs death after they have by faith in the Gospel-promise received the substance they should orderly never receive the sign at all How insolent and ignorant a Question is that * Quere 27. Whether do you wait and believe to be made heirs with Christ yea or nay and to have the same minde which was also in Jesus Christ who thought it no robbery to be equal with God whether you witness this yea or nay Will R. F. acknowledge the subtilty and wickedness of this Quere say I yea or nay For the blessed Apostle Phil. 2. 5 6 7. presseth to the same Phil 12. 5. c vindicated humble minde that was in Jesus Christ who being in the form of God that is left out in the Question thought it no robbery c. But made himself of no reputation c. all that in ver 7 and 8. should have been added if the Question had not been snarling and contradictious to the Apostles scope which is far from teaching Christians as is the intent of the Question to aspire after any such thought as to be equal with God we may know and believe our heir-ship and coheir-ship with Christ in glory and yet stoop to mean estates and conditions with low mindes here on earth and carry no such proud thought to heaven as the Question doth insolently dictate Is this the perfection these men talk of to harbor proud thoughts in their bosoms of being equal with God because Christ thought it no robbery so to be Oh ye deceived professors lift not up your horns on high speak not with a stiff neck beyond the Donatists of old or as the Familists of later times but remember those who were nick-named Puritans in Queen Elizabeths days and since for their sincere endeavors after Purity be humble in the midst of failings as they were and forsake the tents of these Corahs Dathans and Abirams or worse who not onely think themselves as perfect as Saints in heaven but hope hereafter if they be not here to be equal in perfection and glory with God Lord rebuke this Blasphemy in all thine and convince all obstinate gain-saying Questionists which is not in our power to do but instrumentally we desire to be subservient in the work according to thy word Titus 1. 9. To proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall instance but in another Pamphlet for their Questions are endless and to attend the Answers would be a needless endless work As R. F. denies Questions that are of the Devil I hope he will not deny most ignorant and proud Questions to be of the Devil as from old Adam also as that for one * Fruits of a Fast pag. 19. What rule have you in Scripture for putting off the Hat That this Question ariseth from pride appeareth by another Quest 20. in the same Book Page 20. Whether is it for the Lords sake that a man would have his fellow-creature stand with his Hat off before him or for his self-sake Fellow-creatures they think must be all alike in honor This might be the thought of those creatures that are now Devils which made them Devils and by the 21. Quest He that for the Lords sake c. cannot bow to a creature whether ought he to be imprison'd for mis-behavior or a contemner of Authority yea or nay The first Question bewrayeth ignorance which if R. F. justifies he must be sent to the Catechism out of Exod. 20. 12. and asked what is the fifth Commandment and what it meaneth and what Rom. 13. 7. Render honor to whom honor is due I hope R. F. will grant that quarrelling Questions are of the Devil as was that Job 1. 9. Doth Job serve God for nought such is that in the fore-mentioned Pamphlet * page 22. Whether is your Gospel free and without charge as the Apostles was yea or nay For 1. To clear God He will not let his servants serve him for nought 2. To clear his servants This I say again as before Sect. 44. they may serve with a free spirit yet take wages whereof the Laborer is worthy for they serve not the Lord in the ministery for wages It is one thing as I have said
of doing and darkly vailed over with Types and Ceremonies They heard of doing more then believing and the administration gendred as the Apostle saith Gal. 4. 24. unto bondage every carnal heart conceiving there was nothing ministred of righteousness or strength at all from another and being called and counted nothing but Law hence it is that the spirit of bondage is said more commonly to sute that Old administration The Church in this time was considered as an Heir in its minority As an Heir it was free but as an Infant or in its minority it was but as a servant under Tutors and Governors Gal. 4. 1. As an Heir true believers had then the Spirit of Adoption and Liberty As a Childe it had the spirit of fear and servitude And as it was but a dark and servile administration comparatively to what it is So 2. There was but a scanty proportion of graces and gifts as to the generality even of true believers they had little illumination and a small measure of sanctification I speak of the greater number of the Saints to what is and will be given since Christs Ascension from the greatest to the least 3. The dispensation of Grace and its covenant was but to a few families for a time and afterwards but to one nation springing out of those families under the new admistration the Covenant is made with all sorts of families and with some of every nation In stead of one there have been and are many Churches Acts 9. 31. and 15. 14. Every where God hath had and will have a people taken out from among the Gentiles or nations a select company for his Name 4. The seals and witnesses of the Testament are altered from Old to New and although the writings of the old copy remain i. e. the Books of the Old Testament because the substance of the covenant is there to be read and understood by the shadows yet there are new writings added i. e. the Books of the New Testament for clearer understanding and more assurance of faith when both are compared together The reason of the whole change of the old administration The reason of the change of old into new administration to the new in the particulars named was faultiness or imperfection It is the wisdom of God to proceed from ways less perfect to that which is more perfect Heb. 8. 7. If that first Covenant or Testament that is the first administration of the covenant of Grace had been fault less Heb 8 7. opened then should no place have been sought for the second How was it faulty 1. In that it made nothing perfect Cap. 7. 19. All in that old way especially the Sacrifices being typical and shadowy they of themselves could not take away sins therefore Christ whose body was fitted for a sacrifice he comes and puts by the shadows and types Heb. 10. 9. He takes away the first administration that he may establish the second the perfection of his own sacrifice and all that attends it in the new administration His blood stancheth all other blood stays the further shedding of the blood of Bulls and Goats and he coming by Blood and not by Water onely hath left to his Church a commemoration and obsignation of both in his new Institutions of Baptism and his Supper 2. In that people could not as it was dispensed after the maner of a covenant of Works though not so in it self possibly see how to stand or continue in it They stumbled at the Ceremonies and stuck in the Letter of the Law and could not see unto the end of that which is now abolished 2 Cor. 3. 13. But whence was the fault God was not to be blamed nor the substance of his Covenant but he lays the blame upon them who were willing to stand under such an administration and would not look to the kernel marrow and substance of it which was Christ But as it was the Jews infidelity which turned as to them that which was a covenant of Grace into a covenant of Works sticking in the rinde and bark of the Ceremony and which excluded and shut them out from the Grace of the covenant so do many thousands under the new administration the greater is their sin insist upon terms of doing and obeying the Light within them and God lets them go on and work their heart out if they will for life let them get it win it and wear it although he tells them it is impossible for if the Jews in all the Ceremonies of old should have lookt to Christ in them and beyond them the Gentiles should upon the first hearing of Christ believe on him and begin and end all their duties with the use of all New Testament Institutions in him or they will lose all their labor as did the Jews Arguments to disprove the Levitical Law as no covenant of works 3. I shall adde a few Arguments to disprove the Levitical Law from having been a covenant of Works 1. It was a covenant outwardly made with the people and that the people outwardly made with God by sacrifice Psalm 50. 6. But the covenant of Works was never made by sacrifice it admits of no expiation or atonement The sacrifices under the Law were shadows of that blood which is the blood of the everlasting covenant Heb. 13. 20. The blood of Christ the blood of the New Testament or the new administration of the covenant of Grace not to be altered but to abide for ever in its all-sufficient vertue and efficacy 2. That which carried all along with it remission of sins was no covenant of Works but of Grace but the Levitical Law had remission of sins going along with it for as the Apostle reasoneth Heb. 9. 22. with 18. without shedding of blood there is no remission whereupon the first Testament or * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disposition of Christs will was not dedicated without blood but that there might be assurance of remission to believers even then that blood was shed which not being able to take away sin of it self did type out Christs blood which could and should effect it A covenant dedicated by blood first typical and then true is the same for substance 3. In the Levitical Law was a Mediator a Priest daily to offer and a high Priest once a year to offer the incense of mediation in the Holy of Holies in the covenant of Works there is no Intercessor or Mediator but we have in the covenant of Grace Christ our Priest and high Priest answering that in the new which was typed out in the old dispensation Heb. 9. 15. For this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament c. and Ver. 12. by his own blood he entred in once into the holy place c. 4. In the Levitical Law was the Mercy-seat there is no Mercy-seat set up in a covenant of Works There was a common favor in it that God should vouchsafe to enter into
answer to Rom. 8. 10. though he quotes not the place but some of the words adding his own gloss The words of the Apostle are these And if Christ be in you the body is dead because of sin but the Spirit is life because of righteousness By the body here Rom. 8. 10. cleared in its genuine sense is meant the natural body consisting of flesh blood and bones as appeareth 1. By the scope of the Apostle to comfort them against the Law of death ver 2. 2. From the comfort which he raiseth grant the Body is dead frail corruptible mortal subject to death yet first it is not totally dead for the sting of death which is the guilt of sin is pluckt out ver 2. and the Spirit by the law of opposition here to be taken for the soul of a believer is life or a living soul immortal and shall live gloriously to immortality and may and doth live comfortably here because of righteousness i. e. while it takes up this consideration that Christs own personal righteousness is imputed as the cause of a glorious life and Christs infused holiness is the evidence of Justification-life and Glory-life Secondly the body shall not be always under the power of death v. 11. for he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies which epithete mortal is added to shew he spake of the natural body ver 10. and to strengthen and comfort in that the same spirit dwelling in Christ and true Christians look as he raised up Christs body so he shall raise up theirs This being the genuine sense of the Apostle we may grant a pious truth in something R. F. saith but not as properly grounded on this place The truth is the natural body is mortified in part to the acts of unrighteousness as the habits of sin are mortified in the soul Rom. 8. 10. vindicated from improper and abusive interpretation but the Apostle saith not the body is dead because of sin being destroyed as R. F. hath glossed but because of fin that is the natural body is a mortal dying body hath many partial deaths upon it and will dye at last soul and body will be separated for a time because of sin which remaineth in the soul dwelleth and acteth in and by the body and will not be absolutely and in all degrees rooted out till the body dies a natural death Sin is such a troublesome in-mate or like some old inhabitant pleading prescription that it will not out God suffering it so to be till the House be pulled down over its head therefore the Apostles reason because of sin discovers them to erre who deny sin to dwell in act where Christ reigneth Sin dwelleth in the soul the inward rooms chiefly but it so lodgeth within as it acteth and worketh in the outward room and shop of the body till body and soul be dissolved when this troublesome inmate is cast out totally finally and for ever from the Saints Let not R. F. go on to say here thou art contradicting the Scriptures and opposing the work of Christ which is to take away sin for there is not one Scripture which speaks of a perfect Saint absolutely free from the in-dwelling presence and in-working power of sin in the least degree while he lives here upon the earth and the work of Christ in taking away sin is in a way of Sanctification to carry it on by little and little as was his casting out of the Canaanites Exod. 23. 30. Let not him that puts on his armor boast as he that puts it off What is it for R. F. * Page 15. to reason And such as abide in him sins not then sin acts not he that acts sin commits sin and there Christ reigns not but Antichrist under whose dominion thou art that pleads for him and his work Rep. 1. Sin may and doth act in the Saints not they but sin is acting when as Saints and so far as regenerate they do act against sin This is not committing of sin in Johns sense as hath been cleared before Sect. 14. but as Paul speaking of himself in the name of all the regenerate as hath been proved Sect. 20. Rom. 7. 16 17. If I do that which I would not c. it is no more I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me 2. Although Christ reigns not where sin is committed in Johns sense yet he reigneth where that in-dwelling principle of sin is mortified in truth and in some degree and where the actings of sin are resistings of sin are hated resisted and unfulfilled Gal. 5. 16. They that walk in the Spirit do not fulfil the lusts of the flesh yet the flesh is lusting and acting what it can against a Christian to make him stumble while he is in a good walk 3. Antichrist reigns in none more then in filthy dreamers who while they preach perfection are found in their pollutions It is Antichrists design to represent a sinners Justification imperfect and his Sanctification perfect that he may glory in himself and not in Christ Antichrist pretendeth as much to Holiness as these men called Quakers but out of order and to a wrong end as they also 4. To plead for perfect inherent Holiness as the Believers Justification as J. Nayler * See Love to the lost p. 21. and 51. and R. F. do is to serve under Antichrists colors and to wear his livery and to make void the obedience and sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ 5. He is not under the dominion of Antichrist who pleads against his imaginary perfections is made perfect in his Justification by coming unto Christs sacrifice Heb. 10. 1 14. and in a way of Sanctification presseth after more of the power of Christs death and resurrection to be conformed thereunto But R. F. goes on * Page 15. to mis-apply Scripture and contradict the true scope and sense He that is begotten of God keepeth himself and that wicked one toucheth him not Rep. 1. It is true the words are so and I believe it is so as the Spirit speaketh in that place 1 John 5. 18. what then 1 John 5 18. vindicated Doth not sin dwell and stir therefore in the regenerate Look back to ver 16. and you may conclude That not onely sin is in every Christian Brother but you may sometimes have it visibly acted before your eyes for saith the Apostle If any man see his brother sin c. 2. Although he sinneth yet we know that whosoever is born of God as every true Brother is sinneth not i. e. unto death as every sin is not unto death so no sin of the truly godly is unto death but he keepeth himself as he is kept and he acteth as he is acted by the principle of the new creature by the Spirits and Christs fresh influence against such a sin and that wicked one Satan toucheth him not with his sting nor instills such deadly poison
Scripture-contradiction in this very particular To those two Arguments I produced from Acts 2. and 1 Cor. 7. mentioned in the beginning of this Section he saith little or nothing nothing at all to the latter and little to the former and that as falsly as weakly according to his wonted language But thou perverts the Scripture Acts 2. 38 39. saying Be baptized every one of you you and your children Here thou art a lyar it doth not command Children to be baptized with water neither did they ever so baptize them that thou canst prove by one plain Scripture Rep. 1. He attends not my reason which I must repeat for help to his memory or others understanding The Command there reacheth as far as the Promise the Promise extends it self to Children not to all but to their children To you and to your children is the Promise made and therefore the Command Be baptized every one of you is made to the Parent and concerning the Childe and Children also of such Parents as gladly receive the word of Promise for them and theirs as it is said they did ver 41. And although it is not there plainly exprest the Children and Infants were baptized yet the Promise is plain enough and the Precept is explained and enforced by the Promise which had been of far less force to the Jew and Proselyte also if their Children formerly circumcised upon their Parents taking hold of the Covenant Isa 56. 6. had been excluded and left un-baptized and why may not the yongest be included with the eldest among those three thousand souls according to Scripture-phrase elsewhere Gen. 46. 26 27. 2. Why should R. F. if he were not unreasonable tye me or himself to one plain Scripture That which one place giveth not forth so plainly another compared with it may explain that and its self also Let him consult Ephes 5. 26. opened Ephes 5. 26. There is plain mention of water and washing of water by whom by Christ He that sanctifies and cleanseth the soul Whom doth he sanctifie and cleanse or whose souls His Church his mystical body ver 23. How By water and the word both which are the outward means by which he applies his Blood and Spirit to all that he cleanseth The water distinguisht here from the grace of sanctifying and cleansing can be no other then Baptismal-water The word * Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place distinguisht from Christ himself can be no other then the Scripture-command for the use of water and the Scripture-promise for the blessing of water to the ends he hath appointed it in Baptism The Scripture-promise we have found belongeth to Children and the Scripture-command for the use of water to all that have the Promise and to all that are of Christs mystical body Now some Children will be found to belong to his body the Church I hope R. F. will think if he doth not others will believe the Scripture is plain enough for that Luke 18. 15 16 17. In one Verse we read of Infants in another of little Children whom Christ owned as belonging to the Kingdom of God The Kingdom of God and the true Church that is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus 1 Thes 1. 1. differ not an hairs-breadth of some of that age or non-age we may call it of yong ones and little ones is Christs body made up in part yea he is so far from setting all Infants by and shutting them out that he professeth with vehemency ver 17. Verily whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little Childe shall in no wise enter therein Let R. F. be humblypassively capable of what a little Childe is capable and he may enter with Christs little ones into the knowledge of this mystery and benefit of Infant-baptism Thirdly I shall prove the sprinkling of Infants or application A sprinkling Baptism warrantable by Scrâ—pture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of water to them or others that way by plain and sound consequence from Scripture 1. Although the word Bapto signifieth to dip the word Baptizo signifieth to wash diverse ways The Jews had diverse Baptisms as the words are Heb. 9. 10. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated diverse washings Some by sprinkling or putting water upon persons or things to which Ezek. 36. 25. and Heb. 10. 22. alludeth Some civil or superstitious as Mark 7. 4. washing of vessels tables or beds which way was by casting water upon them as by dipping some things into the water so that the command for baptizing is a command for sprinkling as for dipping as the word is used 1 Cor. 10. 2. They were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea some might be more drencht or wet then others but they whether yong or old whether more or less washed or moistned with water were all baptized It is not the quantity but the quality and use of water that was then and is now significative in Baptism The general end and use of water is washing the effect whereof is cleansing and such is the use and force of the word as before hence I reason That action which fully representeth the main end and use of Baptismal-water is lawful and sufficient But sprinkling pouring or putting water upon the body doth represent this main end and use c. For the main general end and use of Water-baptism is to signifie spiritual washing and cleansing of the soul from sin Acts 22. 16. Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins and this is done significatively by a sprinkling-Baptism of yong or old as well as by a dipping 2. When John baptized Christ and Philip the Eunuch their going down to the water was one action and the baptizing another I stand not convinced by any plain or forcible Scripture-phrase or by any circumstance in Scripture-history that there was any other action or rite of baptizing when it came to that then sprinkling or casting water upon the person baptized 3. Sprinkling or putting water upon the baptized is the more ready and easie action and Christ hath not burthened his Church in the New Testament with painful Ceremonies Dipping and plunging is either of the whole body or of a part onely if but of a part it is hazardous and troublesom not onely to Infants but to persons of years Once upon a time I asked a neighbor of mine who was for Dipping how Paul dipped the Jaylor his answer was He took him plum up from the ground and put him into the water By the way I told him there had need be good store of strength in all Administrators of Baptism in this maner and little Paul might not be strong enough for the service if Silas was I asked again whether there was a pond or river in the yard betwixt the prison and the Jaylors proper lodgings and was answered there might be a brook running through the yard These are strange conjectures which men will assume and fancy to themselves