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
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
the â—ight within that that would have saved them according to G. Whitehead's Divinity without any other Baptisme outward or inward that the Apostles could Administer unto them SECT II. Next as to his second Argument from that in Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved these words do not prove that this was not Baptisme with Water for its a true Assertion he that believes and is Baptized with Water shall be saved but it will not prove that therefore Baptisme with Water is of absolute necessity to Salvation the most it proveth is that Baptisme with Water when and where it can be duly had is a means of Salvation as outward Hearing and Reading in the Holy Scriptures are means of Salvation yet not of such absolute necessity but that Men may be saved without them even as it may be truly said he that believeth and frequenteth the Meetings of the Faithful shall be saved and yet in divers Cases Men may be saved without frequenting such Meetings as when they are hindred by Sickness or Imprisonment or some other Restraint as when living in a Country where no such Meetings are to be found and that the Baptisme mentioned Mark 16. is not that which is of absolute necessity to Salvation is evident from the following Words where the word Baptized is omitted for Christ did not say he that is not baptized shall be damned but he that believeth not shall be damned the varying of the Expression sufficiently proveth that he did not mean the inward Baptisme but the outward and whereas not G. Whitehead but W. Penn and R. Barclay argue from the Particle in Greek that signifieth in English into that therefore it must be the Baptisme with the Spirit it is indeed very weakly and fallaciously argued for the same Greek Particle is found Acts 8.16 where it is said that these of Samaria who were Baptized into the Name of the Lord Jesus had not received the Holy Ghost when so Baptized till for some time after that Peter and John came unto them the Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same here and in Matth. 28.19 And any who have but a little skill in Greek know that the Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath often the same signification with the Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifieth as well in as into so that their so arguing is built on a Grammatical Quibble that is altogether groundless And for them to argue that it was not Water-Baptisme which Christ commanded to the Apostles Matth. 28.19 because of the words Baptizing into the name c. with as much colour of reason they might argue that when in James 5.14 It is said anointing them with Oyl in the name of the Lord that the anointing there meant was not an outward anointing but an inward and that the Oyl was not outward but inward Again whereas G.W. saith on this second Argument for the Saints were saved by that Baptisme which was not the putting away the filth of the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience 1. Pet. 3.21 Therefore it was not Water-Baptisme which Christ commanded in Matth. 28. c. I answer that doth no wise follow that therefore it was not Water-Baptisme SECT III. AND because I find that Robert Barclay in that Chapter of his Printed Apology reprinted by his Son Robert Barclay at London 1696 doth much insist upon this place in Peter as if it did effectually prove that Water-Baptisme is no Gospel Institution and it is a common Text the Teachers among the Quakers bring to oppose Baptisme with Water therefore I think fit the more fully to examine the Arguments brought by him from this place against it But in the first place I do apologize for my medling to answer or correct any Passages in the Books of R. Barclay whom as I did greatly love and esteem and who I believe was one of the foundest Writers among the People called Quakers so I do truly honour his memory believing that as to the main he was a true Christian though in divers things he was byassed and misled as I also was by the too great esteem that he had and too great credit he gave as I also did of those called his Elders whose gross perversions and misinterpretations of Holy Scripture we both did upon their Authority take for Divine Inspirations and I hope it may be a just Apology to me and defence against the injurious Clamours of some that may and will object it against me as a breach of Friendship to censure or correct any thing of that my deceased Friend That I do no otherwise in this Case than I would be done by for if after my decease as well as before any Friend of mine should censure and correct any Passages in any Books of mine that did justly need such Censure and Correction I and all that love me should take it as a true act of Friendship it being the best way to cover the Faults of our Friends or were it of our Parents to correct them and though Men may be dear to us yet Truth ought to be more dear nor do I thus censuring and correcting what I judge amiss in R.B. on these Heads do any more wrong to him than I do to my self whom I have impartially censured and now again do freely declaring whatever I have said or writ any where against Baptisme with Water and the Outward Supper as being no Gospel Institution was erronious and which therefore I retract and correct And where I have used divers of the same Arguments which G.W. and R.B. hath used which I find R.B. hath been more large upon than I have any where been in any of my Books therefore I shall rather consider these Arguments as brought by him than by me especially for this cause that he is jugded by many of the Quakers to have writ more forcibly against these matters than most have or then I have done R.B. thus argueth from 1 Pet. 3.21 see pag. 16. of his Sons Edition called Baptisme and the Supper substantially asserted The Apostle saith he tells us first negatively what it is not viz. not a putting away of the filth of the Flesh then surely it is not a washing with Water since that is so Answer That the Baptisme there described is not a putting away the filth of the Flesh is granted but it doth not follow that therefore it is not Water-Baptisme for though ordinary washing with Water is a doing away Bodily filthiness yet Baptisme with Water is not not ever was nay not John's Baptisme with Water for John did not say that he baptized his Disciples to wash away the filth of their Bodies but unto Repentance The description of Baptisme here given by Peter is taken from the end as is very common both in Scripture and elsewhere to describe a thing from its end now the end of Water-Baptisme as it was commanded by Christ Matth. 28.19 was not to put away
Teachers and Leaders now bearing great Sway among them as a thing not only not very necessary but contrary to the Apostles Doctrin Rom. 10. Witness some very express Passages in a Book of G. Whitehead's and George Fox the younger called Truth defending the Quakers and their Principles Writ say they from the Spirit of Truth in G. Whitehead and G. Fox the younger Judge Christian Reader if these Men have not belyed the Spirit of Truth to father such gross Untruth and Antichristian Sayings upon the Spirit of Truth as are contained in these Passages hereafter to be quoted and many others of the like nature that might be produced out of that vile Pamphlet above named Printed at London for Tho. Sâ—mmons at the Bull and Mouth near Aldersgate 1659. In p. 65 of that Book they bring in one Christopher Wade saying Christopher Wade affirmeth that our blessed Saviour doth instruct Men to lay fast hold of and to abide in such a Faith which confideth in himself being without Men To this they answer Ans That 's contrary to the Apostles Doctrin who Preached the Word of Faith that was in their Hearts and the Saints Faith stood in the Power of God which was in them Note Reader this Assertion of C. Wade blamed by them as being contrary to the Apostles Doctrin is so far from being contrary thereunto that there can be nothing more agreeable as appeareth in the words of the Apostle Paul in the very next verse following where after mentioning the word of Faith in Verse 8 which was nigh in the Mouth and in the Heart he adds in the 9th and 10th verses That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation Again They bring in C. Wade see there page 66 saying C. Wade p. 14. hath affirmed that the Lord hath bought us and Redeemed us with the precious Blood of his Humanity and saith your imagined Christ being a mere Spirit never had any Humane Blood to Redeem you with and to prove it he brings 1 Pet. 1.19 now see their Answer Ans That Scripture 1 Pet. 1. Hast thou perverted as thou hast done other Scriptures to thy own destruction for there he witnessed to the blood of the Lamb which redeemed them from their vain conversation but doth not tell of humane Blood to Redeem them with For that which is Humane is Earthly but Christ whose Blood is Spiritual is Lord from Heaven and he is not an imagined Spirit but a true Spirit And what say'st thou to this Was that Humane Blood which Christ saith except a man drink he hath no life in him and which cleansed the Saints from all Sin who were Flesh of Christ's Flesh and Bone of his Bone Note Any intelligent Reader cannot but know that Christopher Wade by the Blood of Christ's Humanity meant the Blood of the Man Christ that was born of the Virgin and by the Humanity he meant the Manhood of Christ which of late years G. Whitehead hath in Print owned even the words Humanity of Christ and yet never to this day hath retracted his vile Doctrin in this and other his Books whereof I have given some account in my first and second Narrative c. at Turners-Hall Nay it is below him to retract any Errors that would reflect upon his Infallibility he is not changed as God is the same and Truth is the same so the Quakers are the same and by consequence so is G. Whitehead the same as John Pennington hath affirmed in one of his late Prints Again In p. 23. of that above mentioned Book they answer a Question thus Q. 43. When you tell us that you have Faith in Christ do you mean Christ whose Person is now ascended into Heaven above the Clouds or do you mean only a Christ within you Ans Here thou wouldst make two Christ's a Christ whose Person is above the Clouds and a Christ within but how provest thou two such Christs We have Faith in that Christ that descended from the Father who is the same that ascended far above all Heavens that he might fill all things and this Christ we witness in us who is not divided Note I need not make any Commentary on these words the Man that asked the Question did not in the least insinuate that there were two Christ's but 't is plain it was G. Whitehead's Sense that to own Christ whose Person is now Ascended unto Heaven above the Clouds and to own Christ within is to make two Christs But seeing there is but one Christ that is only according to G. Whitehead's Notion within and not a Person now Ascended above the Clouds it is plain he doth not own any such Person Ascended into Heaven above the Clouds nor Faith in any such Person and no wonder that he oppose Faith in Christ's Person without us when he opposeth the Being of any such Person for the object of Faith being destroyed or denyed the Act of Faith must be destroyed or denyed also both which we see he hath plainly done in this Book and if in some of his latter Books he seems to be of a better Faith yet who can believe him to be sincere until he retract and comdemn the vile Errors in this and other of his former Books which have infected thousands of the poor ignorant People called Quakers whom he hath led into this Ditch of Unbelief and yet for danger of loosing his Reputation of Infallibility and of being sound from the beginning he will not do any thing to confess his former Ignorance and Unbelief which might be a great means to lead that poor People out of that Ditch into which he had formerly led them And how he will answer it at the great Day of Judgment for this great Sin and Neglect to make amendment so as to correct his former gross Errors and labour to undeceive those whom he had formerly deceived he has great need to consider it and I sincerely wish that a Heart may be given him to do it and that by true Repentance he may be humbled before the Lord and obtain forgiveness But he hath given us a very late Instance that he is not changed really in his false Faith and Persuasion from what he was when he wrote that Book near 40 years past which instance is this He hath blamed G. K. for undervaluing the Light within as not sufficient to Salvation or not sufficient without something else that is Christ Jesus without us Suffering and Dying outwardly for us as in his late Antidote Printed 1697. p. 28. compared with p. 27. ad finem Judge Reader of what little necessity or value he makes of the Man Christ without us and of his Death and Sufferings Resurrection and Intercession in Heaven by this most unsound Notion of his for which he
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
by that Pretence he did throw down the Institutions of Christ leading many thousands into the Ditch with him So by the same pretended Authority he set up outward Orders and Ordinances of his own particularly that of Women's Meetings giving them Rule and Government in the Church and appointing all Marriages to come before the Women's Meetings before they could pass or be allowed by the Community which hath no Footstep or Warrant from the Holy Scripture And when it could not be proved from Scripture though Essayed by him and others miserably straining the Scriptures contrary to their true Sense the Result was that it was commanded by G. Fox and whoever did not Obey were judged by him and his Followers Apostates and Enemies to Truth In the next place I shall bring some clear Proofs from Scripture shewing that outward Baptism and the Supper are the Institutions of Christ under the Gospel And first as to Baptism with Water That is an Institution of Christ which he did command his Apostles and their Successors to Practise to the end of the World But he commanded them to Practise Baptism with Water c. Therefore That he commanded them to Practise Baptism with Water is proved from Matth. 28.19 And from what is above Discoursed in Answer to their Objections it is apparent that Water-Baptism is there meant And that the Apostles and all the Churches of Christ did understand that Water-Baptism was an Institution of Christ is clear from the universal Practice of Believers in the Apostles Days so that it cannot be instanced where any came under the Profession of Faith in Christ but they received Baptism with Water either by the Apostles or other Ministers of Christ Again That which is declared in Scripture to be a means of Grace and Salvation and which hath Gospel Promises annexed to it is a Divine Institution But so is Baptism with Water as the following Scriptures prove Mark 16.16 Acts 2.38 Acts 22.16 Rom. 6.3 Gal. 3.27 Col. 2.12 1 Pet. 3.21 And though these Quakers will not allow that the Scriptures above-mentioned are to be understood of Baptism with Water yet by what is above Discoursed in Answer to their Objections it is evident that they are to be understood of Baptism with Water the Sign being accompanied with the thing signified in all that duly received it Again That which is made a Ground of Unity among the Faithful together with Faith and Hope and Calling is a Divine Institution but one Baptism as well as one Faith one Hope one Calling is made a Ground of Unity among the Faithful Eph. 4.5 And that the one Baptism there is the Baptism with Water the thing signified going along with the Sign is above proved in the Answer to the foregoing Objections And thus much briefly for Proof of Water-Baptism its being an Institution of Christ under the Gospel to continue to the end of the World because he promised to be with his Ministers to the end of the World in their doing what he commanded them Next That the Supper by breaking of Bread and the use of the Cup is an Institution of Christ until his last coming is proved by the like Arguments that Water-Baptism is proved to be an Institution of Christ for first it was commanded by Christ Do this in remembrance of me as oft as you Eat this Bread and Drink this Cup ye shew forth the Lord's Death till he come And that this is his outward coming to Judge the World is above proved Secondly it is a Means of Grace the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Lord's Body The Cup which we bless is it not the Communion of his Blood That is are they not both Signs and Means exhibiting to us the Communion of his Body and Blood and the Spiritual Blessings that come to Believers thereby For indeed all the Signs that ever God appointed to his People were Means of Grace and not bare Signs or Symbols Thirdly the Bread and Wine in the Supper is made a ground of Unity among the Faithful as well as Baptism we being many are one Bread and all are made partakers of that one Bread The Objections made against the Sense of these and the like Scriptures are above fully Answered so that I see no occasion to say any more at present by way of Argument on this Subject An APPENDIX Containing some Observations upon some Passages in a Book of W. Penn call'd A Caveat against Popery and on some Passages of a Book of John Pennington call'd The Fig-Leaf Covering Discovered IN a Book of W. Penn called A Seasonable Caveat against Popery Printed in the Year 1670. I find the following Passage p. 18. But if there be some Virtue signified by the Wine more than by the Bread it is horrid Sacriledge to Rob the Sign much more the thing signified It is a Supper and at Supper there should be to Drink as well as to Eat there can be no Body without Blood and the Drinking of his Blood shews a Shedding of his Blood for the World and a Participation of it Besides the Sign is incompleat and the end of that Sacrament or Sign not fully Answered but plainly maimed and what God hath put together they have put asunder so that the Falseness and Inscriptural Practice of these Men are very manifest Obs Reader Wouldest thou not think by these Words that W. Penn was in good earnest Pleading for the Sacrament as he calls it or Sign of the Supper And hadst thou not known that W. Penn was the Author of that Book would'st thou not have concluded whoever was the Author was rightly Principl'd for the Supper compleatly Administred under both Signs by the Arguments he brings for it as first If there be some Virtue signified by the Wine more than by the Bread it is horrid Sacriledge to Rob the Sign c. The Antecedent is true by W. Penn otherwise his Argument is vain and therefore the Consequence must be true which is this It is horrid Sacriledge to Rob the Sign Now if it be horrid Sacriledge in the Popish Priests and Teachers to Rob the Sign of Wine in the Supper is it not as horrid or rather more horrid Sacriledge in W. Penn and the rest of the Teachers of the Quakers to have Robb'd both the Signs the Bread as well as the Wine and under the Guilt of this Robbery and Sacriledge they still continue I wish they may Repent of it that they may find Mercy and Forgiveness His second Argument is this It is a Supper and at Supper there should be to Drink as well as to Eat But how is it a Supper when there is neither to Eat nor to Drink If the Popish Teachers have maimed the Supper which he blames them for how much more is he and his Brethren Blameworthy who have quite Abolished it His third Argument for the Cup is the Drinking of his Blood shews a Shedding of his Blood but how doth it shew it
must quit his Post and cease any more to Argue from his place of Scripture that the Gospel that Paul Preached was not the Doctrin of Salvation by Christ Crucified but the true Sense of that place Col. 1.23 I had formerly given as he Quotes me p. 71. Saying though it was not at the same time actually Preached to all Men yet it was begun to be Preached and after the Prophetical Stile that which was to be done is said to be done He Quibbles against this saying Where that Prophetical Phrase is or how it is used he Assigns not Indeed it was not necessary to shew to any but a little Skilled in the Letter and true Sense of Scripture where that Prophetical Phrase is for it is so general in Scripture Prophecies that no Man that is not Brutish but must be sensible of it when he Reads them When Isaiah Prophecied of Christ's Death and Sufferings and Birth yea and Burial it is all said in praeterito as if it had been which yet was not some hundred Years after And so it is almost in the whole Prophecie of the Book of the Revelation and particularly that 14. Rev. 6.7 brought by him which yet he applyeth not to John's Time but to his and his Brethrens Preaching not the Doctrin of Salvation by Christ Crucified if we must believe J. P. behold your Patron all Sober Persons among the Quakers but the Light in every Creature under Heaven And p. 22. Some Principles of the Elect People And now saith G. F. the Gospel must be Preached again to all Nations and this saith J. P. is not the Doctrin of Salvation by Christ Crucified but the Light or inward Principle in every Creature and his and his Brethrens Argument is Weak that because Paul called the Gospel the Power of God to Salvation therefore it is nothing else but the inward Principle for he called the Preaching of the Cross the Power of God 1 Cor. 1.18 And yet that Preaching was an outward Preaching and he called it the Power of God because it was made Effectual to many that heard it by the Power of God that accompanied it Thus Reader I have given thee a Tast of this Man's Ignorance and Anti-Christian Doctrin which is the same with that of his Brethren of the Second Days Meeting who have approved his Books against me I shall not nauseate thee with his other many Impertinencies and Extravagancies as well as his Gross Errors in other Particulars of Doctrin nor take notice of his Base and Scurrilous Revilings that are equally Unjust and Malicious As his calling me not Sincere but a Belly-Convert and his insinuating If I be disappointed among Protestants I may seek a Living from the Papists which is like his and his Brethrens other false Prophecies Note Reader That having some Years ago seen a Book of Thomas Lawson a Quaker against Water-Baptism I have made search for it but cannot find it any where to have it however I suppose it hath nothing of Argument in it but what in effect is contained in those above Examined and Answered and I do not think that any of their Books on that Subject will be found to have any other Arguments in them against Baptism and the Supper but what is in effect contained in those above-mentioned FINIS The ERRATA P. 2. l. 18. for thereof r. therefore p. 2. l. 24. for becomes r. because p. 3. l. 30. after Whitehead r. only p. 5. l. 17. r. judged p. 13. l. 18. before have r. they have and l. 29. for art r. act p. 30. l. 38. for there r. thrice p. 68. l. 13. for visible r. invisible