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
is it not sufficient to prove the truth of it And we find but one Text of Scripture and that is in John 6. that mentions the eating of Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood in order to eternal Life is not that one place enough to prove that Truth Another Argument he useth is p. 110. Reas c. That the Gentile Spirit hath troden them under foot so long being part of that outward Court of Religion given to them which were left out at the measuring of the Evangelical Temple of God Rev. 11.1 2. Ans It was not the outward Court but the Holy City that the Gentiles did tread under feet The outward Court indeed is with respect to that time was not to be measured but left unmeasured towit during the time of the great Apostacy But this argueth there was an utter Court the not Measuring of it seems to signifie that it was short and defective of the just Measure that was originally belonging to it as it was in the Apostles dayes and for a long time afterwards until the great Apostacy began at least for the space of three Hundred Years and upwards from our Saviours Resurrection But this is so far from proving that outward Baptsme and the Supper suppose they were a part of the outward Court were no Institutions of Christ under the Gospel that it proves they were for the outward Court was a part of the Temple under the Law and signified that the Church of God under the Gospel was to have that which by way of Analogie answered to it as accordingly it had till the great Apostacy came in that made it to be for a time to be left unmeasured But we find that in Ezekiel the Temple there described Chap 42 is described with its outer Court and is measured which Temple there described it not any material Temple but the Church of God as it shall be raised up after the Apostasie which shall have her outward Court in its just measure and seeing the Quakers take themselves to be the Church come out of the Wilderness and got free from the Apostasie and that Water-Baptisme and the Supper belongs to the outer Court as W. Penn will have it by the same or like Argument they ought to restore the true and due practice of them But why may not their Ecclesiastick Discipline be reckoned as much belonging to the outer Court as Water-Baptisme and the Supper and if so why have they set up that that is as much outward as Baptisme and the Supper and not the other which has far less show of warrant than the other SECT X. THE last Argument W. Penn useth or at least the last that I shall bring and I think I have omitted none either of his or of R. Barclay that I could find that seem'd to require an Answer is taken from Christ's washing his Disciples Feet and commanding them to wash one anothers Feet and James commanding to anoint the Sick with Oyl and the Apostles commanding to abstain from blood and things strangled and that the believers sold their Possessions and had all things common p. 111. Reason against Railing from which he infers that seeing they who plead for the continuance of Water-Baptism and the Supper do not practise those things therefore nor should they practise the other And the like Reasoning doth R.B. use in the above said Treatise called by his Son Baptism and the Supper substantially asserted insisting upon that of Christ's washing the Disciples Feet in several Pages of that Treatise from p. 94 to 99 and on that of anointing with Oyl p. 115. Ans Upon a due consideration of things this last Argument will have as little force as any of the former against the outward Baptism and the Supper That Christ commanded the Disciples to wash one anothers Feet giving them an Example from his own Practice as it was an Act of great Love and Humility in him so to do by his Example he did enjoyn to his Disciples to practise the like Acts of Love and Humility one to another so that what was here enjoyned the Disciples by Christ was not any commemorative Sign of his Death and Sufferings but a real Act of Love and Humility which is not tyed or confined to that particular Action that was peculiar to that County and an ordinary practice among the People of that Country for the Country being hot they used Sandals on their Feet by occasion of which their Feet who used to Travel as Christ and his Apostles frequently did needed washing not only for making them clean but for refreshment and when they came to lodge or stay at a place after Travel it was usual for Travellers to have Water brought and their Feet to be washed as in Gen. 18. and 19. and what was done to them in bringing Water and having their Feet washed was a real Act of Love and Kindness in them that received them into their Houses though they performed not that Office themselves but caused it to be done by their Servants which was a servile Act and more usual to Servants than to Masters But if done by the Master of the House or by one that was not a Servant was an extraordinary Act of Love and Humility so here was nothing in all this of Ceremony Sign or Figure but all a real Act and Office of excessive Love and most profound Humility in our Blessed Lord towards his Disciples and by this exemplary Act of his he both taught and commanded them to perform both that and also other the like Acts and Offices of Love and Humility towards one another which they were to do simply as Acts of singular Virtue after his Example and not as any Symbolical or Commemorative Sign of Christ's Death and Passion and accordingly we find it numbred among the Virtuous Acts of ancient Christian Widows and Matrons 1 Tim. 5.10 If she have washed the Saints Feet And the like was that Custom of giving a Cup of cold Water or of cold as the word is best Translated to Travellers which was a great Act of Kindness and Hospitality in those hot Countries but none of these Actions the one of washing the Feet the other of giving a Cup of cold is any ordinary Act of Friendship Love or Humility here-away in cold Countries where there is either no such ordinary occasion or usual Custom For to do any such thing hereaway would be rather a Ceremony than any substantial Act of either Love or Humility But in all cases when occasion is found for one Christian to perform the equivalent Acts of Love and Humility towards another or others the Command of Christ is no doubt obligatory But to make a Ceremony of that which was then no Ceremony but a substantial Act of Love and Humility were altogether improper and impertinent Next as that in James recommending the Anointing the Sick with Oyl nor was this commanded to be done as any symbolical Act or commemorative Sign but as a mean
is betwixt the Husband and the Wife who are said to be one Flesh This is a great Mystery said Paul but I speak concerning Christ and the Church who according to Paul's Doctrine as they are one Spirit so they are one Flesh And as elsewhere he said we are of his Flesh and of his Bone and forasmuch as the Children were partakers of Flesh and Blood he took part of the same wherefore he is not ashamed to call them Brethren Now in this R.B. was in a great Error that by his thus excluding the Flesh of Christ's outward Body from being any means of the Saints Communion with God he excludes the said Body of Christ from being any necessary part of the Mediator and at this rate of his Arguing only the Divine Light or Seed in Men is the Mediator betwixt God and Men but according to the Doctrine of the Apostle Paul the Mediator of God and Men who is one is the Man Christ Jesus and by the Man Christ Jesus is understood in Scripture not the Spirit only nor the Soul of his Manhood only but the Body also together with the Soul even Jesus Christ made of the Seed of David according to the Flesh And as really as there is a Relative Union betwixt Brethren and near Kindred with respect to their Flesh and Blood on which account it is said Concerning Joseph Gen. 37.27 He is our Brother and our Flesh and 2 Sam. 5.1 The Tribes of Israel said unto David behold we are thy Bone and thy Flesh So believing Gentiles as well as believing Jews may say concerning the Man Christ who is the Seed of the Woman of whom to wit Eve we are all descended we are his Bone and Flesh and because he hath taken Flesh and Blood like unto us therefore in that very respect he is compleatly qualified and fitted to be our Mediator and High Priest with God by whom because of the true Nature of Man consisting of a true reasonable Soul and true and real Body of Man which the Eternal Word is united unto we have Communion with God His fourth and last Argument hath the like Defect with the former That which Feedeth upon it shall never Dye but the Bodies of all Men once Dye Ans Men are said in Scripture to Dye though the Soul Dyeth not yet Men are said to Dye because the Vital Union of the Soul with the Body is Dissolved which being but for a Time and that a very small Time as a Moment in respect of Eternity and after that their Bodies shall be raised up again and Vitally be United to their Souls therefore by the contrary Argument by the Flesh of Christ that the Saints Feed upon must be meant in part his outward Body of Flesh now Glorified which is a Glorious Spiritual Body because the Resurrection of Christ's Body is the Ground of the Saints Hope wrought in them by the Spirit of Christ that their Bodies shall be raised up and shall together with their Souls inherit Eternal Life And to conclude this whole Matter when Christ said it is the Spirit that Quickneth the Flesh profits nothing His meaning is that according to their Carnal and Fleshly Sense it doth not profit as if he had said it would profit you nothing to Eat my Flesh as ye imagin by the Bodily Mouth but to Eat it Spiritually and by Faith this doth profit but to take the Words the Flesh profits nothing in the Sense that some take them is most Blasphemous as to say Christ's outward Body of Flesh profits nothing to our Salvation for this would make his Coming and Death for us in the Flesh to have been in vain and also would render our Faith Vain that he did so come yea so necessary was Christ's coming in the Flesh for our Salvation that it is by his Flesh and Soul Constituting his Manhood that we have his Spirit the Man Christ is that Olive Tree consisting of Soul and Body United Personally to the Godhead of the Eternal Word which giveth us the Oyl of the Holy Spirit and poureth it into our Hearts and as in the Natural Olive Tree it is by its Body that we have of its Oyl or Spirit and when we Eat of its Oyl we are said to Eat of the Tree because the Tree yields us its Oyl even as when we Eat of an Apple or Drink the Fruit of it or of the Vine we may be said to Eat of the Apple-Tree and Vine-Tree the Fruit being what the Tree naturally yields so the Man Christ consisting of Soul and Body is that Precious Olive Tree and Vine-Tree that yields us the Oyl and Wine of the Holy Spirit and pours it into our Hearts who Believe in him and Love him and as Effectual as his Soul and Flesh of his Manhood is now to Believers for their receiving the Spirit by the same since he came in the Flesh no less Effectual it was to Believers before he came in the Flesh even from the beginning of the World according to B. Jewel's Words he was not come in the Flesh yet they Eat his Flesh to wit by Faith he had not Shed his Blood yet they Drank his Blood viz. by Faith and both his Flesh and his Blood before it had any visible Being or Existence together with his Soul was Effectual to Believers in all Ages for their Reception of the Spirit and all Spiritual Blessings of Justification and Sanctification c. as well before he came in the Flesh as since And thus he was the Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World whose Death was of the same Efficacy from the beginning and will be to the end of the World to all that believe in him And as God is the giver of the Spirit and of all the Graces of the Spirit so he giveth it to Believers by and through Christ even the Man Christ who is both the Procurer and Dispenser of all that Grace that God giveth unto them and though Men most properly Eat the Meat and Drink the Drink that is bought with Money yet in ordinary Speech by a common Metonymy they are said to Eat and Drink the Money that buyeth it as the Poor Widows two Mites were called her Living so after some sort though the inward Life and Spirit of Christ be the most immediate Food of the Souls of Believers Yet because the Flesh of Christ as it was broken for us and his Blood as it was Shed for us is the Price and Purchase Money which hath procured to us the inward Life and Spirit of Christ with the various Graces and Gifts thereof therefore we are said to Eat his Flesh and Drink his Blood by the Like Metonymy But there is much more in this Great Mystery than can be demonstrated by these Similitudes and Examples or any others of the like Nature SECT IV. P. 77. R.B. chargeth it as another Error which he calleth a General Error wherein he saith they all agree viz. both Papists and
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
and as concerning Colos 2.17 The things there mentioned are called shadows of things to come such as the Types of the Mosaical Law were but Water-Baptisme and the Supper which the Christians were enjoyned to practice were simply not shadows of things to come but are commemorative Signs of Christ as he hath already come in the Body that was prepared for him and of his Body and Blood which he hath given for us together with the spiritual blessings of Grace Life and Light that we have by him to make us comformable to him in holiness as well as to give us the pardon of our Sins and to justifie us and give us a right to eternal Life But it bewrayeth still great in consideration in W. Penn to argue against the outward Baptisme and Supper as he doth in his Defence of his Key above-mentioned p. 154. They that personally saith he enjoy their dearest Friends will not repair to their Pictures though drawn never so much to the life to quicken their remembrance of them His similitude of a Picture to which he compareth the outward Baptisme and Supper is a good Argument against him the Saints on Earth have not the Man Christ personally present with them they have not his Body that suffered Death for them and rose again a present object to their outward sight therefore did he in his great love appoint these outward Signs to be a Memorial of him until they should have himself Personally present with them as they will certainly have in the time appointed and to as little purpose is his arguing in that same page That the true Believers were come to Mount Zion Heb. 12.22 and sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus which must be an attainment above signs of invisible grace being the life and substance of Religion and so the Period and Consummation of Types Shadows and such sort of Signs or Significations as are in question Answer It is a great Misrepresentation of the State of the Question in W. Penn so to place it as well as a weak Argument as because true Believers are come to Spiritual Attainments above Signs of invisible Grace that therefore there is no use of Signs in Religious Matters Why then doth he speak and writ so much in Religious Matters for all his Words and Writings are but Signs and he thinketh that his Brethren are come to higher Attainments than these Signs yea why doth he kneel in Prayer and discover his Head when he Prayeth what are these but Signs And why so much strife and contention about G. Fox's Papers of Church Orders and Womens Dresses Are not his Brethren come to higher Attainments than these outward things But it is an observation of many that after G. Fox had taught his Followers to throw down the outward Institutions of Christ he set up among them his own and so did persuade them to exalt them that whoever did not comply therewith were to be judged by his zealous Admirers to be Apostates thus Pharisee like setting up Humane Traditions above Divine Precepts and in so doing W. Penn has had no small share who hath as eagerly promoted G. Fox's Institutions about outward things as he hath laboured to throw down the Institutions of Christ SECT VII TO avoid the Argument for Water-Baptism it being an Institution of Christ from Matt. 28.19 Go teach all Nations Baptizing them into the name c. he saith but no water is mentioned page 106. Reason against Railing and therefore he concludes in the next p. that Christ commanded the Apostles to Baptize with the Holy Ghost and the like evasions is made by R.B. in the abovesaid Treatise p. 26. where he putteth them who understand it of Water-Baptisme to prove that Water is here meant since the Text is silent of it Ans As Water is not mentioned so nor is Baptizing with the Holy Ghost mentioned and at this rate of arguing used by them nor must Baptizing with the Holy Ghost be understood which yet they so inconsiderately affirm must be meant here But R.B. thinks to prove that Baptisme with the Holy Ghost is here meant arguing from the literal signification of the Text which we ought not to go from except some urgent necessity force us thereunto but no such urgent necessity forceth us thereunto Ans The literal signification of the Text is not Baptizing with the Holy Ghost but on the contrary the word Baptizing literally signifieth to Wash with Water or Dip into Water Yea R.B. grants p. 49. If the etymology of the word should be tenaciously adhered to it would militate as well against most of their Adversaries as the Quakers When it is transferred from the literal signification to a Metaphorical as to signifie the Inward and Spiritual Baptisme with the Holy Spirit it is never when so transferred applied to Men as having any command so to Baptize but wholly and only to God and Christ I challenge any Man to give but one instance in all the Scripture where Baptizing with the Spirit is ever referred to Men either by way of Precept or Practise as if ever any Man but the Man Christ did Baptize with the Holy Spirit or were commanded so to do the quibble from the Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is answered and refuted above as also his arguing from the word one Baptisme and whereas he saith the Name of the Lord is often taken in Scripture for some thing else than a bare sound of words or literal expression even for his Virtue and Power I answer and so is it oft taken otherwise as the Name of God in Scripture signifieth himself so the Name of Christ signifieth Christ and that both considered as he is God and Man and yet one Christ and that to be Baptized into the Name of the Lord Jesus did not signifie the Baptisme of the Holy Ghost I have proved already out of Acts 8.16 Besides the Name of the Father is not the Holy Ghost as neither is the Name of the Son for as the Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost so nor is the Name of the Father nor the Name of the Son the Name of the Holy Ghost as they are distinguished by their relative properties so by these Names though the Name God belongeth to each of them and who are one only God blessed for ever But that he further contends that the Baptisme commanded here in Matth. 28.19 is Christ's own Baptisme I answer Christ's own Baptisme whereof John makes mention and of which he is the author and giver is indeed the Baptism with the Holy Ghost which he promised unto the Apostles to give them and accordingly did perform but we no where find that ever he promised to give them Power to give it to others or commanded them to give it that is wholly an unscriptural Phrase and scandalous if not Blasphemous to say that poor mortal Men hoever so Holy could give the Baptisme of the Spirit this is to give to them what
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
Grain being produced out of the Soil of American Earth Secondly saith he p. 63. and to put the Matter out of doubt when the Carnal Jews would have been so understanding it he tells them plainly v. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profits nothing Ans Nor doth this prove his Assertion the Error of the Carnal Jews was that they supposed Christ meant they were to eat his Body Corporally with their Bodily Mouth but if they had understood that he meant not a Corporal Eating but a Spiritual and Metaphorical they had not erred in so thinking his Quotation approved by him out of Augustine proves that by eating here Christ meant believing in him as he was to Dye for the Sins of the World and as he was to give his Body to be broken for them and his Blood to be shed for the Remission of the Sins of all that should believe in him and for the giving Eternal Life to them both in Soul and Body Thirdly Saith he p. 63.64 This is also founded upon most sound and solid Reason because that it is the Soul not the Body that is to be Nourished by this Flesh and Blood now outward Flesh cannot Nourish nor Feed the Soul there is no Proportion nor Analogy betwixt them neither is the Communion of the Saints with God by a Conjunction and mutual Participation of Flesh but of the Spirit he that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit not one Flesh for the Flesh I mean outward Flesh even such as was that wherein Christ lived and walked when upon Earth and not Flesh when transposed by a Metaphor to be understood Spiritually can only partake of Flesh as Spirit of Spirit as the Body cannot Feed upon Spirit neither can the Spirit Feed upon Flesh Ans Here also he Argueth very Weakly and Fallaciously that which deceived him and occasioned his great Mistake which he embraced as a solid Reason was by Arguing from the strict literal Sense of Nourishing and Feeding to the Metaphorical and Figurative which all true Logicians and Masters of solid Reason will say is unlawful as also to Argue from the natural Feeding or Nourishing to the Spiritual To his Argument then I answer outward Flesh cannot Feed the Soul Naturally I grant Spiritually and Metaphorically I deny now the Eating Feeding and Nourishing meant John 6.53 is not Natural but Spiritual and Metaphorical the Word Eating signifieth Believing And whereas he speaketh of the Feeding of the Spirit or Soul of Man that it cannot be the Flesh of Christ that can Feed it but the Spirit so as to be its Food by Food here we must understand it Metaphorically even as R.B. hath confessed that the Spirit of Christ is not properly but Metaphorically called Flesh So the Souls of Believers Feeding upon the Spirit of Christ is also Metaphorical for if by the Spirit of Christ he meant the Godhead how can the Godhead which is an Infinite Being in all respects be the Food f the Soul or Spirit of Man that is Finite strictly or literally understood without a Metaphor much more may I use his Argument against his own Assertion there is less Proportion or Analogie betwixt the Infinite Creator and the Soul that is a Finite Creature than is betwixt the Flesh of Christ and the Soul Besides if we argue from the strict and literal Nicety of the Words Food Feed and Nourishment that which is the Food and Nourishment of a Body becomes a part of its very Substance and Being shall any therefore conclude that because God is the Food and Nourishment of the Souls of the Saints that therefore he becomes a part of their Souls We know George Fox was blamed for saying the Soul was a part of God or of the Divine Essence surely it is as justly blame-worthy for any to say that God is a part of the Soul therefore when God or his Spirit is said to be the Souls Food it is not to be understood Strictly and Literally but Metaphorically and Figuratively as when David saith my Soul thirsteth after God But if it be said that not the Godhead but that which R.B. calleth the Vehicle of the Godhead is the most proper and immediate Food of the Souls of Believers as a certain Divine Emanation or Efflux nor can that Strictly and Literally without a Metaphor be called the Souls Food for that Divine Emanation or Efflux doth not become any part of the Souls Substance but is more Noble than the Soul of any Saint upon the Hypothesis that there is such a thing which to dispute is forrain to the present Question for the Soul of Man in its own Nature is capable of Sin and sinful Defilements which this Divine Seed or Principle in the Soul is not therefore it can never be Convertible into the Souls Substance The Feeding of the Soul therefore in whatever Sense we take it is Metaphorical and not to be measured or determined by the Feeding of the Body yet beareth some Analogy or Similitude thereunto as all Metaphors do to the things from which they are transferred for as what Feeds the Body doth Refresh and Comfort it maketh it Lively and Vigorous Fat and Beautiful and doth strengthen it and is united with it So the Spirit of Christ and his Divine Influences in the Souls of Believers have the like Effects in them they do wonderfully Refresh and Comfort them and that most sensibly make them Lively and Vigorous Fat and Beautiful and do mightily strengthen them and make them Fruitful in Divine Virtues and Fruits and are United with the Soul SECT III. BUT there are two other things that need Correction in these foregoing Words of R.B. the first is that he saith it is the Soul not the Body that is to be Nourished by this Flesh and Blood this is a great Mistake though the Bodies of the Saints are not to be Nourished by Christ as with natural Food that is Corruptible yet seeing it is by him that the Bodies of the Saints shall be raised up at the Resurrection of the Dead to partake of Life Everlasting therefore he is truly said to be that Food that Perisheth not that Feedeth both the Souls and Bodies of the Saints to Life Everlasting and though their Bodies Dye yet because by the Power of Christ's Resurrection as his Body was Raised from the Dead so on the account of his Resurrection their Bodies shall be Raised to Eternal Life Therefore their Bodies as well as their Souls are truly said to be Nourished by him The second is that he saith neither is the Communion of the Saints with God by a Conjunction and mutual Participation of Flesh but of the Spirit he that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit not one Flesh Ans The Communion indeed of the Saints with God is not by any natural Conjunction or Union of Christ's Body that was outwardly Slain with the Saints yet a Mystical and Relative Union there is as really or rather more really as
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