Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyed no less to the Principles of the Christian Doctrin of Christ and Oracles of God which therefore by his Argument being Elements are to be thrown aside As for his other Arguments in those two Treatises against the outward Baptism and the Supper they are no other that I can find but such as are above mentioned in my Reply to those of William Penn and Robert Barclay and therefore one Answer will serve both to them and him PART II. SECT I. The Arguments against the outward Supper examined and Refuted THus having finished my Examination and Refutation of the Arguments of the above mentioned Persons against Water-Baptism and the outward Supper in general I think fit to bring to the like Examination what R.B. hath more particularly Argued against the outward Supper as being not any longer to continue but until Christ's inward coming to arise in their Hearts and give a plain Refutation of the same In the beginning of the Chapter or Head wherein he discourseth concerning the Body and Blood of Christ although he saith truly that the Communion i.e. the Participation thereof is inward and Spiritual yet he was under a great mistake to affirm that the said Body and Blood of Christ whereof true Believers do participate is only inward which he afterwards explains to be that Light and Seed in every Man as he expresseth plainly in several places as p. 61 of the above said Treatise and p. 65 where he saith and that Christ understands the same things here viz. John 6. by his Body Flesh and Blood which is understood John 1. by the light hath enlighteneth every man and the life c. And p. 77. he chargeth it to be an Error to make the Communion or Participation of the Body Flesh and Blood of Christ to relate to that outward Body Vessel or Temple that was Born of the Virgin Mary and walked and Suffered in Judea whereas it should relate to the Spiritual Body Flesh and Blood of Christ even that Heavenly and Celestial Light and Life which was the Food and Nourishment of the Regenerate in all Ages as we have said he already proved Ans In this he was in a great Error to make the Eating or Participation of Christs Flesh and Blood to have no relation to Christ's outward Body of Flesh and Blood that was Born of the Virgin and Suffered Death for our Sins on the Tree of the Cross For the Regeneration of Believers and Justification with all the Spiritual Blessings of Life and Light and inward Divine Virtue and Might wherewith they are inwardly Refreshed and Nourished by Christ hath a most near and immediate Relation to Christ's outward Body and Blood and to his coming in that outward Body because that most Holy and Perfect Obedience of Christ which he performed in that Body and became Obedient to the Death of the Cross was and is the procuring and meritorious Cause of all that inward Grace Virtue Light and Life whereby Regeneration was wrought in any in any Age of the World either before or since Christ came in the Flesh as well as it was and is the procuring and meritorious Cause of their Justification and the Remission of their Sins For Christ Died as well for the Sins of those who lived in the Ages before he came in the Flesh as since and they had the same Benefits by his Death and by his Body and Blood that we have the same inward Grace and Light to Regenerate them as the same Mercy and Favour to Justifie them and give them the Remission of their Sins which they received through Faith in Christ as he was to come in the Flesh without them and whole Christ is the Food of true Believers I mean Christ not only considered as the Word simply but as the Word made Flesh And having taken or assumed the Seed of Abraham and the true Nature of Man into such a high Union as that the Godhead of the Word and the Manhood assumed thereby is but one Christ and as such is the Food of all true Believers both as he outwardly came in the Flesh and as he is inwardly come the Light and the Life in them and Believers Eating of Christ is their Believing in him and by their Faith being United to him and he to them so that he dwells in them and they in him And though it may be owned that Believers Feeding upon Christ's Light and Life Metaphorically and Allegorically speaking that Light and Life may be called according to Scripture Meat and Drink and Flesh and Blood of Christ as it hath many other such Metaphorical Names such as Milk Honey Wine Marrow and Fatness Oyl c. All which Names are given because of Men's Weakness and that they have not proper Words to express Divine Things by yet that ought not to make us reject and lay aside Christ's outward Body of Flesh and Blood from having any Relation to the Saints feeding upon him Nor do the Arguments brought by R.B. here prove in the least what he intends as the following Examination of them will sufficiently I hope manifest He begins with a Quotation out of Augustine in his Tractat Psalm 98. The words which I speak unto you are spirit and life understand spiritually what I have spoken ye shall not eat of this body which ye see and drink this blood which they shall spill that shall crucifie me I am the living bread which have descended from heaven he called himself the bread which descended from heaven exhorting that they might believe in him c. Ans It is evident from these last Words that by Eating Augustine meant in one Sense Corporal Eating and in another Sense Believing as elsewhere Tract 25. ad cap. 6. Johan Hoc est opus Dei ut quid paras dentem ventrem crede manducasti Credere enim in eum hocest comedere panem vinum qui credit in eum manducat eum in English thus why preparest thou thy Teeth and Belly believe and thou hast eat for to believe in him is to eat the Bread and Wine who believeth in him eateth him Both these Quotations are good against the Papists who hold that Believers eat the Body of Christ Corporally with their Mouths but say nothing against this Spiritual Way of Eating Christs Body but plainly confirm it The plain Sense therefore of Augustin's Words Quoted by R.B. is this Ye shall not eat Corporally with the outward Mouth the Body of Christ which ye see but ye shall eat it Spiritually that is believe with a sincere Faith which the Spirit of God worketh in you that Christ shall give his Body that ye see speaking then to the Jews to be broken for you and his Blood even the Blood of that Body to be shed for you And in so Believing ye shall eat my Body and drink my Blood that is ye shall be united to me and I to you that I shall abide in you and
the Woman that was Born of the Virgin Mary and what that Power effected and wrought in the Faithful in the Ages before Christ came into the Flesh it was with Respect to his coming in the Flesh and to what he was to do and suffer in his Body of Flesh for their Sins And what I said as Quoted by him page 35. out of my Book Way to the City of God page 125. Even from the beginning yea upon Man's Fall God was in Christ Reconciling the World to himself and Christ was manifest in the Holy Seed inwardly and stood in the way to ward off the Wrath of God from the Sinners and Unholy that it might not come upon them to the uttermost during the Day of their Visitation All this or what ever else of that sort I have said in any of my Books hath a safe and sound Sense rightly understood though this Prejudiced Adversary seeks by his own Perversion to turn them to the contrary The Word Reconciling Redeeming hath a two-fold Signification the one is to satisfie Divine Justice and pay the Debt of our Sins this was only done by Christ as he Suffered for us in the Flesh the other is to Operate and Work in us in order to slay the Hatred and Enmity that is in us while Unconverted that being Converted we may enjoy that inward Peace of Christ that he hath Purchased for us by his Death and Sufferings Now that the Light Word and Spirit gently Operates and Works in Men to turn and incline them to Love God to Fear him and Obey him to Believe and Trust in him that is to Reconcile Men to God and to ward or keep off the Wrath of God from them And thus God was in Christ Reconciling the World to him in all Ages But this is not by way of Satisfaction to Divine Justice for Men's Sins but by way of Application and Operation inwardly Inviting Persuading and as it were Intreating Men to be Reconciled unto God that so the Wrath of God that hangs over their Heads may not fall upon them for while God by Christ thus inwardly visits the Souls of Men inviting and persuading them to turn and live saying why will ye Dye the Wrath is suspended and delayed to be Executed upon them yet it is not removed but abides upon them until they Repent and Believe as the Scripture testifieth he that believeth not the Wrath of God abideth on him And though this inward Appearance and Operation in Christ in Men's Hearts stayeth the Execution of Divine Wrath and Justice yet that inward Appearance is not the Procuring and Meritorious Cause of Men's Reconciliation with God but the Means whereby what Christ by his Death and Sufferings hath Purchased is applyed for though Christ made Peace for us by his Blood outwardly Shed yet that Peace cannot be nor is obtained or received by any but as the Soul is inwardly Changed and Converted and so Reconciled unto God III. And the like twofold Signification hath the Word to Attone for as it signifieth to Attone or Reconcile God and us that wholly is procured by Christ's Obedience unto Death and Sacrifice that he offered up for Men on the Cross but as it signifieth the effectual Application of that great Attonement made by Christ for Men at his Death that is wrought by his Spirit and inward Appearance in their Hearts And I might well say at Man's Fall the Seed of the Woman was given not only to bruise the Serpent's Head but also to be a Lamb or Sacrifice to Attone and Pacify the Wrath of God towards Men as he Quotes me in my Book Way to the City p. 125. For taking Attoning in the first Sense the Virtue Merit and Efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross did as really extend to the Faithful for Remission of Sin and bringing into Reconciliation and Peace with God from Adam's Fall as it now doth which this Prejudiced Author seems wholly ignorant of as well as his Brethren Again taking it in the second Sense for the effectual Application of the Attonment made by Christ's Death through his Meek and Lamb-like Appearance by his Spirit and Life in Men's Hearts it has a Truth in it And Christ may be said to be the Lamb of God that taketh away the Sins of the World both by his outward Appearance in the Flesh as he Dyed for us to Procure and Purchase the Pardon of our Sins and our Justification before God and also by his inward Appearance to Renew and Sanctifie us for as by our Justification the Guilt of Sin is taken away so by our Sanctification is the Filth of it removed Both which is the Work of Christ the Lamb of God respecting both his outward and inward Appearance in his outward being a Sin-offering for us and a Sacrifice in a strict Sense in his inward Appearance of his Divine Life in us being as a Peace-offering and Sacrifice of sweet smelling Incense before God not to Reconcile God and us as is above said but to apply effectually to us the Reconciliation made for us by his Death on the Cross IV. And that I said as he again Quotes me the Seed hath been the same in all Ages and hath had its Sufferings under by and for the Sins of Men in them all for the Removing and Abolishing them This I still hold that there is a tender Suffering Seed or Principle in Men that suffers by Men's Sins and by its gentle Strivings prevails and gains the Victory at last in all the Heirs of Salvation But this suffering Seed or Principle I never held it to be God nor was I ever of that Mind that God did really and properly Suffer by Men's Sins although I have known divers to hold such an absurd Opinion as G. Whitehead hath plainly declared to be his Opinion in his Divinity of Christ p. 56. which is as really Repugnant both to Scripture and sound Reason as to hold that God hath Bodily Parts and Members because the Scripture in many places in condescension to our human Capacities speaks of God's Suffering Repentance being grieved as it doth of his Face Eyes Ears Hands and Feet all which ought not to be properly but Allegorically understood And though I hold that this tender Seed suffers in Men by their Sins that so by its gentle Strivings with them it may overcome them and Slay and Crucifie the Body of Sin in them Yet I hold not that Suffering to be the Procuring and Meritorious Cause of our Justification and Pardon of Sins before God nor do I remember any where that I have so said or writ if any shall shew me where I shall readily Correct and Retract it or any thing in any of my Books that looks that way And if any Query whether I hold that Seed to be Christ that doth so suffer in Men by their Sins I Answer It is not the Fulness of Christ but a Measure proceeding from the Fulness that was and is lodged in the
deny And yet with the same Breath as it were he denyeth it for if the Man Christ is to be Prayed unto being the Spring out of which all the living Streams flow unto our Souls surely as such he is the Object of our Faith for how can we Pray to an Object in whom we believe not But seeing he will not allow me that I then owned the Man Christ without us to be the Object of Faith wherein he is most unjust unto me and that I Writ then as a Quaker and my Doctrin was the Quakers Doctrin It is evident that according to him it was not the Quakers Doctrin that the Man Christ without us is in any Part or Respect the Object of our Faith why then doth he and many others Accuse me that I Bely them for saying they hold it not necessary to our Salvation that we believe in the Man Christ without us And it is either great Ignorance or Insincerity in him to say that none of them deny that the Man Christ without us in Heaven is to be Prayed unto Seeing a Quaker of great Note among them William Shewen hath Printed it in his Book of Thoughts p. 37. Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary Saint or Angel but to God the Father all Worship Honour and Glory is to be given through Jesus Christ c. This c. cannot be Jesus the Son of Abraham but some other Jesus as suppose the Light within otherwise there would be a Contradiction in his Words so here he Asserts two Jesus's with a witness what saith J. Pennington to this Page 41. In Opposition to my Christian Assertion that the believing Jews before Christ came in the Flesh did believe in Christ as he was to be Born Suffer Death Rise and Ascend and so the Man Christ even before he was Conceived Born c. was the Object of their Faith He thus most Ignorantly and Erroneously Argueth Could that be the Object of theirs viz. The believing Gentiles or of the Jews Faith which our Lord had not yet received of the Virgin which was not Conceived nor Born much less Ascended Ans Yes That can be an Object of Faith and Hope which has not a present Existence but is quid ' futurum something to come though nothing can be an Object of our Bodily Sight or other Bodily Senses but what is in Being and hath a real Existence in the present Time But so Stupid and Gross is he that he cannot understand this that the Faith of the Saints could have a future Object in any Part or Respect this is to make Faith as low and weak a thing as Bodily Sense Is it not generally acknowledged through all Christendom that the Saints of old as Abraham Moses David believed in Christ the Promised Seed as he was to come and be Born and Suffer Death for the Sins of the World according to our Saviours Words Abraham saw my Day and was glad which is generally understood by Expositors that as he saw Christ inwardly in Spirit so he saw that he was to come ' outwardly and be his Son according to the Flesh and by what Eye did he see this but by the Eye of Faith And that Eye of Faith had Christ to come in the Flesh to be Born c. for its Object as a thing to come And in the same Page 41. He Quoteth me falsly saying Immed Rev. p. 132. agreeing with both Papists and Protestants That God speaking in Men is the Formal Object of Faith This Quotation is False in Matter of Fact as well as his Inference from it is False and Ignorant I said in that p. 132. That both Papists and Protestants agree in this That the Formal Object of Faith is God speaking but quoth the Papist it is the Speaking in the Church of Rome no quoth the Protestant God Speaking in the Scriptures is the Formal Object of Faith Here I plainly shew the difference of Papists and Protestants about the Formal Object of Faith though they agree in one Part that it is God Speaking yet in the other Part they differ the Papists making it God Speaking in the Church that is not in every Believer but in the Pope and his Counsel And there in that and some following Pages I Plead for Internal Revelation of the Spirit not only Subjectively but Objectively Working in the Souls of Believers to which Testimony I still Adhere But what then Doth this prove that Christ without us is no Object of our Faith Will he meddle with School Terms and yet understand them no more than a Fool Doth neither he nor his quondam Tutor T. Ellwood understand that the res credendae i. e. The things to be believed are Ingredients in the Material Object of Faith as not only that Christ came in the Flesh was Born of a Virgin but all the Doctrins and Doctrinal Propositions set forth in Scripture concerning God and Christ and all the Articles of Faith are the Material Object of our Faith but the Formal Object of Faith is the inward Testimony of the Spirit moving our Understandings and Hearts to believe and close with the Truth of them All which are well consistent and owned by me Page 43. He Rejects my Exposition of the Parable concerning the lost piece of Money in my late Retractation of my former Mistake p. 15. Sect. 1. p. 10. That by the lost piece of Money is to be understood the Souls of Men as by the lost Sheep and the lost Prodigal To this he most Ignorantly and Falsly opposeth by saying First The Lord can find the Soul without lighting a Candle in it I Answer By finding here is meant Converting the Soul thus the Father of the Prodigal found him when he Converted him to himself this my Son was lost and is found i. e. was departed from God but now is Converted Luke 15.32 And ver 6. I have found the Sheep that was lost Now can this be wrought or doth God Work this Work of Conversion in a lost Soul without his Lighting a Candle in it Secondly He saith the very design of the Parable was to set forth not what God had lost but what Man had lost the Candle being used by Man who needed it not by God and Christ who needed it not How Ignorantly and Stupidly doth he here Argue How can Man use the Candle unless God light it in his Heart and doth not God use it in order to bring or Convert Man to himself It 's true though there were no Candle lighted in Man's Heart God seeth where the Soul is even when it is involved in the greatest Darkness but in order to the Souls Conversion which is principally God's Act it is God that lights the Candle in it and causes his Light to Shine in it And whereas I have said they who Expound the lost Piece of Money to be the Light within will find difficulty to shew what the nine Pieces are which are not lost His Answer to
hath got a late Patron and Assistant a Clergy Man of the Church of England formerly though not in present Office one that calleth himself Edmund Ely's who hath Printed lately two half Sheets in Vindication of G. Whitehead's vile Error and blaming my Christian Assertion The Title of one of his half Sheets being this G. Keith's saying that the Light within is not sufficient to Salvation without something else proved to be contrary to the Foundation of the Christian Religion These two half Sheets are printed and sold by T. Soule the Quakers Printer next door to their Meeting-house in White-heart Court in Grace-church-street 1697. By which it appears they are very fond of this Patron to their Cause and particularly that G. Whitehead is so by the Commendation he gives of him in his late printed Antidote However this may seem to some an improper Digression yet if they well consider the occasion of it they will if Impartial acknowledge it both proper and convenient SECT XII AND hereby it may easily appear what Spirit hath Acted the first Teachers that appeared among the Quakers as chiefly G. F. and G. W. to oppose so keenly and earnestly the practice of those two Divine Institutions of Water-Baptism and the Supper namely to draw People into a forgetfulness of all Faith in Christ without us as he dyed and rose again and is Ascended into Heaven for the proper Memorials of Christ Crucified being rejected and laid aside as well as the Doctrin it self not only not Preached but opposed as contrary to the Scripture the drift and aim of that Spirit that hath Acted them both against the one and the other is plainly manifest and how it s opposing the Doctrin of Faith in the Man Christ without us is the great cause of its opposing these external Practices which are such proper means together with the Doctrine to propagate and preserve the true Christian Faith in the World And indeed upon that Hypothesis or Foundation laid by their principal Teachers that there is no need of Preaching Faith in the Man Christ without for Remission of Sin and eternal Salvation but the only thing needful is the Light within as it universally enlightenth all Mankind either to be Preached or Believed as a late Writer against them hath well observed these outward Practices of Water-Baptism and the outward Supper are useless and insignificant Formalities for they were never appointed to signifie Remission of Sin Justification and Salvation only by obedience to the Light within excluding the necessity of Faith in the Man Christ without us whose alone Obedience unto Death for us is the only meritorious Cause of the Remission of our Sins of Justification and eternal Salvation and of all that inward Grace and Virtue of the Holy Spirit whereby we are inwardly Sanctified and made meet to receive that eternal Inheritance But though the Spirit that first appeared to Act in these Men the first Teachers and Leaders of that People did prove it self to be Antichristian by opposing the Memorials of Christ without us yet many simple and honest hearted People knew nothing of this design and however in part leavened with that Spirit in respect of its opposition to these outward Institutions of Baptism and the Supper yet by God's great Mercy were preserved from being prevailed upon by it to oppose the Doctrine and Faith of Christ as he outwardly Suffered Dyed and Rose again and is in Heaven our Intercessor among whom I can justly and uprightly number both R.B. and my self both of us having been preserved sound in our Faith as touching the Faith in Christ without us however otherwise hurt and byassed by them in relation to these two outward Institutions of Baptism and the Supper and my Charity leads me to believe that if R.B. had lived in the Body to this day to see the ill effects that his Writing against these Divine Institutions have had and the bold opposition that many have of late more than formerly made to the necessity of the Faith in Christ Crucified and the Preaching of it even here in Christendom since the Question hath been more distinctly stated betwixt my Opposers and me touching the necessity of the Faith asserted by me and opposed by them he would have plainly seen and readily acknowledged his Error in Writing against these Divine Institutions There is yet another of their Teachers who is of late years become a Person of no small Note among the Quakers viz. John Gratton whom I cannot well pass without observing his Ignorant and Inconsiderate way of Arguing against these Divine Institutions especially as touching one of his main Arguments he hath framed from a most false and perverse Understanding of that place in Heb. 6.1 2. Therefore leaving the Principles of the Doctrin of Christ let us go on to Perfection where in his Book called John Baptist decreasing Printed many years ago and Re-printed in the year 1696 he layeth the Foundation of his Argument against Water-Baptism upon the word in that place LEAVING which he hath caused to be Printed more than once in his Book in Capital Letters for a Monument it will be of his gross Ignorance and yet bold Presumption thus to pervert the Holy Scripture from thence inferring that Water-Baptism is to be left off and laid aside for thus be argues p. 47. of the last Edition 1697. If they had been commanded by Christ to have been used to the Worlds end then why should Paul for so I call that Author have been so earnest at that day which was soon after Christ's Ascension to have had them then to leave them and to go on to a more Manful Powerful perfect State Ans At this rate of Arguing not only Water-Baptism but the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is also to be left for the Author mentions the Doctrin of Baptisms in the Plural Number which John Gratton most unfairly and falsly quotes in the Singular Baptism for Baptisms Also by the same Argument Repentance from dead works and faith towards God the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment are all to be left off from being Preached or Believed But the true Sense is obvious of the word leaving i.e. not to Treat or Write upon these first Principles further at present but to Treat of other things as when a Man hath laid the Foundation of a House he goeth on to Build a Superstructure upon it And as Ignorant and Impertinent doth he discover himself to be in his other Treatise preceeding the other of Baptism and the Supper where from the Word Elements used in Gal. 4.3 9. he concludes that Water-Baptism is one of these beggerly Elements Paul opposed because Water is an Element and after this rate divers others of their Teachers have Argued but the Word Translated Elements there Gal. 4.3 9. hath no relation to the Water-Baptism nor to the Element of Water but to Principles and Doctrins of the Jews relating to the Jewish Rites and Ceremonies the Greek
Christ's Death as he Dyed outwardly may be forgotten But if by the Lord's Death is understood his outward Death by as good reason by his coming is understood his outward coming SECT VII HAving thus shewn the Invalidity of his Proofs that by the Lord 's coming is understood his inward coming into their Hearts and not his outward coming I shall give some clear Reasons why it must be understood his outward coming at the general Judgment The first Reason is because the Reason of the Command continuing to his last outward coming the Command doth also continue for so long doth any Command continue in Force as the Reason of it continueth but the Reason of the Command Do this in remembrance of me c. doth continue to Christ's last outward coming which Reason is this that by that Practice they might remember the Lord's Death and not only remember it but shew it forth Publickly Declare and Profess it and the inestimable Benefits they have by it Now put the case that any had so good and living Remembrance of it that they needed not the outward things to put them in remembrance thereof yet that is not enough to Answer the Reason and End of the Command which is by this outward Practice to shew it forth and declare it by a publick Profession that they owe Remission of Sin and Salvation to the Crucified Jesus and that they are not ashamed to own and confess him their Saviour their King their Priest and Prophet and in Token thereof they give Testimony of their Obedience to these his peculiar positive Laws and Institutions of Water-Baptism and the Supper for if these be rejected by the same Method Men may reject all other his positive Institutions relating to External Practice of Religion and so turn the Christian Religion into meer Deism and Pagan Morality The second Reason is that the end of this Institution being a solemn Commemoration of Christ's Death and Sacrifice which he offered up to God for our Sins above sixteen hundred Years ago and of the great Spiritual Blessings we have thereby there is the same Cause and End for it to continue to our Day and to the end of the World as when it was first appointed Had it been indeed only a Prenuniciative Sign of some things to come or of the hidden invisible Substance as W. Penn terms it meaning thereby the Spirit of Christ within at the coming of the Spirit within into their Hearts the Sign might have ceased as the Prenunciative Signs of Christ's outward coming in the Flesh were to cease after his outward coming and accordingly did cease But the Signs of Water-Baptism and the Supper as commanded by Christ and Practised by the Apostles were not such Prenunciative Signs of the coming of his Spirit within them but were chiefly Commemorative Signs of him as he had come for both of them were appointed by him when he was come and the Institution of Baptism was appointed by him after his Death and Resurrection the Institution of the Supper so near to his Death that it was in the very Night when he was Betrayed and at which time he had the great Sense and Weight of his Sufferings upon him and as then in great part begun and because the use of those Signs of Bread and Wine the Bread being broken and the Wine poured out was a Solemn Commemoration of his having given his Body to be broken for them and his Blood to be shed for them therefore he said Take Eat this is my Body that is broken for you he did not say this is my Spirit or this is the inward visible hid Substance that ye shall afterwards receive but this is my Body Take Eat and though they were not to eat his Body with the Carnal Mouth but only the Bread which signified it yet by Faith they were to eat his Body that is to say they were to partake of a Mystical Union with his Body and to have their Right and Interest in him confirmed to them by that Symbol by means whereof they were to receive plentifully of his Grace and Spirit as the Consequent and Effect of that Union with him Therefore they were not so to mind the Effect as to neglect the great Cause of that Effect which great cause was his giving his Body to be broken for them and his Blood to be shed for to mind only the Effect and neglect the Cause were like the Hogs that greedily run after the Acorns or Nuts but are unmindful of the Tree that beareth them But as the Spiritual Eyes of Believers are to be to the Graces and Gifts of Christ so especially and chiefly to him from and by whom they have them and their Faith and Love ought chiefly to act upon him and upon God the Father in and through him as also upon the Holy Spirit as principally residing in him from and by whom we derive our several Measures of the same The Third Reason is this when Christ gave the Cup he said this Cup is the new Testament in my Blood shed for the remission of the sins of many Now how is that Cup the New Testament surely no other ways but as an Obsignatory Sign of the New Testament obsignating to Believers remission of Sins by his Blood outwardly shed which New Testament hath in it the Force and Essence of the Covenant of Grace which God â—â—keth with Believers through Christ the Mediator of it and as Christ hath confirmed this Covenant of Grace and Testament with his Blood that was Shed once for us so he hath given to Believers this obsignating Pledge of it by way of Investiture as when a Man has an Estate of Land conveyed to him and gets the Investiture of it it is by some outward Sign as here in England in some Places by delivering to him Twig and Turf and as Kings were Invested with their Kingly Power by having Oyl poured on them and as Aaron was Invested into the Office of Priesthood And indeed all Covenants that ever God made with any People have always been by some outward obsignatory things as in his Covenant he made with Noah he gave the Bow in the Cloud for the Token of that Covenant in the Covenant with Abraham he gave the Sign of Circumcision which by a Metonymy is called God's Covenant in Scripture Also the Sacrifices under the Law were Signs of obsignatory of God's Covenant with them who offered those Sacrifices And in all the Covenants that we read of in Scripture that any of the Fathers made with the Neighbouring Princes or Inhabitants there were obsignatory Signs and Pledges so that who rightly understand the Nature of a Covenant Transacted after any publick manner must acknowledge it cannot be without some obsignatory Pledge or Sign outwardly to be seen given by the one Party to the other insomuch that it seems to be a general Instinct in Mankind or at least the Equivalent of it an universal Custom received and practised even among
places of Scripture are many as Matth. 24.27 This very place G. W. denyeth to be meant of his Outward coming at the Day of Judgment as also 1 Thess 4.15 In his Book called Light and Life in Answer to W. Burnet and Heb. 9.28 Now by the same Method whereby they deny any of these four places now mentioned to be understood of any other coming of Christ than his Inward coming they must deny all other places that mention his coming after his Resurrection to be meant of his Outward coming in the true Nature of Man because they have declared they own no such thing as Christ's being in Heaven without us in a Personal and Bodily Existence and that which is not in Being they cannot believe will come But no such Error I charge as this on R.B. who I know did own that Christ had the true Being and Nature of Man in Heaven and that he would come and appear without us in that Nature to judge the World in Righteousness But to prosecute the Argument that by the words until he come must be understood his Outward coming it has the more force against R.B. because he believed that Christ was Outwardly to come and that there were sufficient proofs of Scripture for it as indeed many there are besides those already named as Acts 1.11 1 Cor. 4.5 Joh. 14.3 Mark 8.38 Luke 12.37 43. 1 Cor. 15.23 24. Jude 14. Rev. 17. 1 Cor. 1.7 1 Thess 2.19 1 Thess 3.13 1. Thess 5.23 2 Thess 2.1 2 Pet. 3.12 1 Pet. 5.4 1 Joh. 2.28 1 Joh. 3.2 Now seing R.B. did believe that all or Many of these places were to be understood of his Outward coming how could he have convinced his unbelieving Brethren that any of these places were to be understood of his Outward coming more than that 1 Cor. 11.26 till he come seeing from the reasons above given as much evidence appeareth that by his coming 1 Cor. 11.26 is meant his Outward coming as from any other places above cited or any that can be brought his Outward coming can be proved And so indiscreetly Zealous have some of their great Teachers been for Christ's Inward coming which is a Truth very great and necessary to be believed rightly and duly understood but ought not to be proved by perversions of Scripture that mean not so whereas sufficient proofs can be brought for it without all such perversions that divers of the Prophecies of the Old Testament concerning Christ's coming in the Flesh they have turned to Christ's Birth within them as that in Isaiah Unto us a Child is born a Son is given And that in Isaiah 53. concerning his Death and Burial without us in his real Body of Flesh He made his grave with the wicked c. Rich. Hubberthorn turns it to Christ's being buried in the wicked contrary both to the true translation as well as to the true sense of that place And thus by this presumptuous Liberty they take to expound the Scriptures falsely contrary to all reason and common Sense they seek to disarm the Christians from bringing proofs out of the Old Testament against the Jews to prove that the promised Messiah is already come in the Flesh or that he hath suffered in the Flesh And though I was so far blinded by them that I did understand 1 Cor. 11.26 till he come of his Inward coming yet I had always a firm Belief both of Christ's being in Heaven in the glorified Nature of Man and that he would come in that glorified Nature of Man to judge the World And now I plainly see that his coming 1 Cor. 11.26 is as really his Outward coming as any where else in all the Scripture and I hope I have sufficiently proved it to all impartial and intelligent Persons who shall read my Reasons I have brought to prove the same Page 113. His Quotation of the Syriack translation doth no ways favour his Sense as that the Eating 1 Cor. 11.26 was only by Indulgence and not by Command The Quotation is this In that concerning which I am about to Command you or Instruct you I Commend you not because ye have not gone forward but are descended into that which is less or of less Consequence From this he infers that Paul judged the Bread and Wine to be beggerly Elements But the Syriack translation saith no such thing he might well have blamed them that they were not gone forward in the Life of Christianity but rather backward because of the corrupt and irregular manner of their practising that Institution that some were drunk surely this was to go back but this is no proof against the regular Practice it self And what he further quotes of the same Syriack Version is as improper and invalid to his purpose v. 20. When then ye meet together ye do not do it as it is just ye should do in the day of the Lord ye eat and drink thereby shewing to them to meet together to Eat and Drink outward Bread and Wine was not the Labour and Work of that Day of the Lord. But nothing appeareth from this that he blamed the regular Practice of it but their undue and corrupt manner of doing it so that their doing of it as they did it was not the Work of the Day And therefore he might well say as it is v. 20. of 1 Cor. 11. When ye come together therefore into one place this is not to eat the Lord's Supper because they had turned it into a prophanation But R. B.'s observation on these Words p. 109. is of no force at all to prove his purpose He saith not this is not the right manner to eat but this is not to eat the Lord's Supper because saith he the Supper of the Lord is Spiritual and a Mystery Ans But the right manner of a thing in many cases is so essential to the thing that the want of the right manner destroys the thing it self As the right manner of a Circle is to have all the straight Lines drawn from the Center to the Circumference equal and if this be wanting the Figure is not a Circle Yea If the right manner of Prayer be wanting so that it be directed to God yet not in true words it is not true Prayer and if not in truth and sincerity of Heart it is not true Prayer His other Arguments from Rom. 14.7 Coloss 2.16 Heb. 9.10 are all answered above sufficiently Part 1. Sect. 6. SECT IX PAge 121. His last Argument is general against both the Outward Baptism and the Supper It remains saith he for our Adversaries to shew us how they come by Power and Authority to Administer them Their Power must be derived from the Apostles either mediately or immediately but they have no mediate Power because of the Interruption made by the Apostacy And for an immediate Power or Command by the Spirit of God to Administer these things none of our Adversaries pretend to it Ans 1. The Argument is unduly worded in the
among the Quakers who have totally Abolished the Bread as well as the Cup His fourth Argument is the Sign is incompleat and the end of that Sacrament or Sign not fully Answered But how is the end of that Sacrament or Sign any wise Answered among the Quakers who have Abolished both Signs His fifth Argument is what God hath put together they have put asunder so that the Falsness and Inscriptural Practice of these Men is very manifest Now to Prosecute and Retort his Argument upon himself If it be a hainous Sin to put a sunder what God hath put together is it not as hainous or rather more to put away or Abolish both things which God hath put together If they do Evil that separate Man and Wife whom God hath joyned or put together do not they worse who kill them both If it be said W. Penn's Arguments are only on Supposition and used against the Papists ad hominem I Answer first This doth not appear by his Words which are Positive Secondly If here he only Argues on Supposition and ad hominem how shall we know when he Argueth Positively and is in good earnest Thirdly His Arguments seem to me and I think they will seem to many others not only Positive but more valid and strong than any Arguments he hath brought against them Again In the same Book p. 20. concerning the Sacrifice of the Altar he saith notwithstanding the Scripture expresly tells us that we have our High Priest that needs not Sacrifice once a year but who hath offered one Sacrifice and that by the will of God we are Sanctified through the Offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all and that by one Offering he perfected them that are Sanctified Heb. 10.10 11 14. Yet do they daily Sacrifice him a fresh As if his first were insufficient or their daily Sins required a new one Obs Do not these Arguments of W. Penn against Christ his being daily Offered up a Sacrifice in the Mass prove as effectually W. Penn and G. Whitehead's Doctrin to be false in their Defence of W. Smith who said in p. 64. of his Primmer second Part we believe that Christ in us doth offer up himself a living Sacrifice unto God for us by which the Wrath and Justice of God is appeased towards us This W. Penn Confirms in his Rejoynder to J. Faldo p. 285. saying that Christ offers himself in his Children in the nature of a Mediating Sacrifice and that Christ is a Mediator and an Attoner in the Consciences of his People at what time they shall fall under any Miscarriage if they unfeignedly Repent according to 1 John 2. 1 2. and G. Whitehead is very large in the Defence and Confirmation of it in his Book called The Light and Life of Christ within p. 44. And Quotes at least seven several places of Scripture to prove it viz. That Christ in them doth offer up himself a Sacrifice unto God for them by which the Wrath and Justice of God is appeased towards them All which Scriptures and many more respecting the Sacrifice of Christ without us and his Blood outwardly Shed they have most grosly Perverted and Misapplyed to a supposed Daily Offering of Christ by way of Sacrifice in them to Appease the Wrath and Justice of God Now let W. Penn Answer to his own Arguments which he had used against the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass for any that are not wilfully blind may see they are of equal force against his supposed and invented Sacrifice of Christ daily offered in every Quaker when they Sin to Appease the Wrath and Justice of God And here I think fit to repeat some Questions I Proposed to W. Penn by way of Argument against this false Notion of his and of G. Whitehead which they Originally received from G. Fox and he it is very probable from Familists and Ranters who had the same Notion as I can easily prove that Christ offers up himself in them to Appease the Wrath and Justice of God in the Nature of a Mediating Sacrifice Note Reader these Words bespeak their Sense to be a Sacrifice really and strictly so taken yea the Sacrifice within to be the only real and strict Sacrifice for the other without of Christ's Body and Blood without the Gates of Jerusalem was the Type the History The Lamb without shews forth the Lamb within said W. Penn one outward thing cannot be the proper Figure or Representation of another outward thing These Questions are in my Book called Gross Error and Hypocrisie Detected in G. Whitehead and some of his Brethren p. 20. And I have just cause to propose them again to his and his Brethrens Consideration because I have not to this Day received any Answer to them either from W. Penn or George Whitehead nor from Tho. Elwood who hath Writ a pretended Answer to this very Book called Gross Error c. who hath passed by not only these Queries containing so many Arguments as there are Queries but the other chief things in that Book and yet he and his Brethren Glory how they have Answered all my Books when in effect they have Answered none of them to purpose and some of them not at all as my second Narrative of the Proceedings of the Meeting at Turner's Hall that has been above a Year in Print as no more have they Answered to Satan Disrob'd done by the Author of the Snake in the Grass being a Reply to Tho. Elwood's pretended Answer to my first Narrative which saved me the Labour of Replying to it And indeed the Book called Gross Error c. has been in Print near three Years and yet no Answer has been given to these Queries which are as follow 1. If Satisfaction be totally Excluded as W. Penn hath Argued against the Satisfaction of the Man Christ Jesus without us and by his Death and Sufferings on the Cross Reason against Railing p. 91. because a Sin or Debt cannot be both Paid and Forgiven what need is there of a Mediating Sacrifice of Christ within Men more than without them 2. Seeing it is the Nature of all Sacrifices for Sin that they be Slain and their Blood Shed how is Christ Slain in his Children and when For we Read in Scripture that Christ lived in the Faithful as he did in Paul but not that he is Slain in them 3. If any Slay the Life of Christ in them by their Sins doth not that hinder the Life to be a Sacrifice by G. Whitehead's Argument that the Killing of Christ outwardly being the Act of Wicked Men could be no Meritorious Act 4. Where doth the Scripture say Christ offers himself up in his Children a Sacrifice for Sin 5. Is not this to make many Sacrifices or at least to say that Christ offers himself often yea Millions of times contrary to Scripture that saith Christ offered up himself once 6. Why could no Beast under the Law that had a Blemish be offered but to signifie
this is as Similes seldom go on all four so neither must Parables be pursued too far I Answer Though every Circumstance of a Parable is not to be pursued yet every necessary part of it is whoever Expounds the Parable is bound to Expound what the nine Pieces are as well as what the tenth was But he thinks to pinch me with great Difficulties in my Exposition As first He demands whether there be no difficulty to find who the Woman is that had ten Souls kept nine and lost one Ans There is no difficulty in this more than in finding who the ninety nine Sheep were that were not lost and who the Elder Brother was in the other two Parables And who they were I had formerly shewn but that his Prejudice blinds him that he will not see Many Angelical Created Rational Spirits did not Sin so were not lost but the Souls of Men did Sin so were lost And the number nine in the one Parable and ninety nine in the other answer one to another the Definite Numbers being put for Indefinite as is ordinary in Scripture But he thinks it a mighty difficulty according to my Exposition to tell what the House was which in effect has no difficulty at all the House where the Soul is as Buried under a great heap of Filth and Sin is the Body wherein the Soul is Lodged and the Animal and Natural Faculties with which also the Soul is Defiled so the House to wit the Body and Animal and Natural Faculties being Swept and Cleansed by him who hath his Fan in his Hand purely to Purge his Floor to wit Christ signified here by the Woman he finds the lost Soul for as he said himself he came to seek and to save i. e. that which was lost For Christ had not lost Christ nor God had not lost God but they had in a Sense lost the Souls that had Sinned as the Souls had lost God and Christ Page 45.46 In Opposition to me he will needs have all these Places 1 Cor. 2.2 Rom. 66. Gal. 2.20 Heb. 6.6 To be understood of Christ's being Crucified in Men else why doth he oppose me with his Queries and at this rate we shall not find any place in the New Testament where Paul Preached Christ Crucified without Men but only within for by the same Liberty he may Expound all other Places only of Christ Crucified within But there is no reason why any of these places should be understood of Christ's Crucifixion in Men the Crucifying the Old Man is so far from being joyned with the inward Crucifying of Christ that it is rather a Sign and Effect of Christ's Power Triumphing Victoriously in Man than of his being Crucified in Man The Crucifying Christ afresh is not so much the Crucifying him within Men as its Men Acting so Unworthily as if they did Act over again the Jews Part in Crucifying him outwardly Page 47. His base Reviling me for my Retracting some things in my Book of Universal Grace used by way of Argument unduly by me ing Thus in him is verified the saying of the Apostle James 1.8 A double minded Man is unstable in all his ways By this means he will allow no Man to Amend or Correct his Faults or Retract his Errors however truly convinced of them if he does he is Condemned by J. Pennington and not by the Apostle James to be a dâ—uble minded Man But what if perhaps G. Whitehead or W. Penn should find cause to Retract or Correct some Passages in their Books which formerly they thought Divine Openings must they also be judged double Minded Men c. Is it not more an Evidence of Sincerity to Retract an Error than to persist in it Have not many good Men done it Yea have not the Quakers commended some for Retracting and Condemning some things which formerly they reckoned to be Divine Openings Must all that Retract from their Errors be Reputed double Minded Men Oh unfair Adversary full of deep Prejudice and Spite I pray God give him Repentance and Forgiveness Page 50. He is so Ignorant and Blind as not to understand my distinction betwixt Essentials of true Religion Indefinitely and Essentials of the true Christian Religion in Specie Cornelius's Religion being Gentile Religion was true in its kind before he had the Faith of Christ Crucified but I say the Faith of Christ Crucified in some degree is Essential to the Christian Religion and otherwise to Assert its plain Deisme yet that Faith may be where the knowledge of the Circumstances of Times Places and Persons may be wanting Page 52. He blames my saying upon Supposition that any suchh thing can be found in my Books I Retract and Renounce it viz. That any are saved without all Knowledge and Faith of Christ Explicit or Implicit this he saith is Childish all over And for a Proof he Querieth Can a Man Retract and Renounce a Passage upon Supposition and not know what the Passage is But his Query is Impertinent and hits not the Case a Man may Retract a Saying upon Supposition that he had said it yet not knowing that ever he said it as if he were accused that he had said B. is a Dishonest Man and replyeth I know not that ever I so said but on Supposition that I so said I Retract it This is not Childish but Manly and Christian if he had no cause to say B. is a Dishonest Man It seems J. Pennington never Repented of his Sins of Ignorance he thinks that 's Childish all over I pity his Childishness Page 54. His blaming me for saying in my Retractations The breaking of the Union betwixt Soul and Body is more properly a Death than the breaking the Union betwixt the Life and Spirit of Christ and the Soul of Man is the Death of Christ in the Soul For of that I was Trâ—aâ—ing and at this rate of his blaming me when Christ Dyed upon the Cross that was not so proper a Death as when he is Crucified in Men by their Sins and consequently his Death in Men is the only proper Sacrifice for that Mans Sins His Death without being not so proper a Death is not a proper Sacrifice by his most Ignorant way of Reasoning But my Reason for my Assertion holds good and which he has not touched for when a Man Dyeth his Soul leaveth the Body and ceaseth to Act in it nor is the Body any more sensible but Christ Acteth in a Dead Soul and the Soul though Dead is oft made in some degree sensible of the Spirit of Christ Acting in it in order to its being further quickned as frequently comes to pass in Thousands and Millions of Souls Besides as I Argued the Union of Soul and Body is a Personal Union whereby what the Body doth is chargable upon the Soul but the Union betwixt the Spirit of Christ and Men is not a Personal Union otherwise when those Men Sin their Sin would be chargeable upon Christ Page 61. He