Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	damnation_n	drink_v	eat_v	10,899	5	8.2264	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47124	The arguments of the Quakers, more particularly, of George Whitehead, William Penn, Robert Barclay, John Gratton, George Fox, Humphry Norton, and my own arguments against baptism and the Supper, examined and refuted also, some clear proofs from Scripture, shewing that they are institutions of Christ under the Gospel : with an appendix containing some observations upon some passages in a book of W. Penn called A caveat against Popery, and on some passages of a book of John Pennington, caled The fig leaf covering discovered / by George Keith.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1698 (1698)	Wing K142; ESTC R7322	106,695	121

betwixt the Cup of Devils and the Cup of the Lord. Now the Table of Devils and the Cup of Devils were outward things to wit the outward Offerings of Meats and Drinks that the Heathens offered to their Idols and to Devils Therefore also by the Table of the Lord and the Cup of the Lord were meant the outward things of Bread and Wine not barely and simply as such but as Signifying and Exhibiting the Spiritual Things above-mentioned His Arguing against this Institution from the one Bread is answered above Part 1. Sect. 5. Page 87. and 89. He gives a most jejune and strained as well as false Sense upon these Words the Table of the Lord as saith he p. 89. he that esteemeth a Day and placeth Conscience in keeping it was to regard it to the Lord and so it was to him in so far as he was to Dedicate it unto the Lord the Lord's Day he was to do it worthily Ans We find no Day called the Lord's Day upon any such account nor did Paul call the Cup in the Supper the Cup of the Lord on any such Supposition of Men's esteeming it to be commanded when it was not really commanded but it is plainly apparent Paul call'd it the Cup of the Lord because he commanded it as the House of the Lord the Law of the Lord c. and the Command is extant drink ye all of it Matth. 26.26 27. Besides in this he palpably runs into a contradiction to what he had said a little before in p. 83. For there he will not have the Bread and Wine to be the Table of the Lord and Cup of the Lord because wicked Men cannot partake of the Table of the Lord and yet now here he grants they may and thereby Eat and Drink Damnation And as jejune and strained as well as false is the Gloss he puts on these Words he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh his own damnation and is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord as if they signified no more than what these Words import Rom. 14.23 He that doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of faith which had only a Relation to Meats that might lawfully be Eaten but if he that did Eat them did think them forbidden he Sinned and so was Condemn'd in his own Conscience For the Word Damned and Damnation in both places do not signifie any Final Sentence of Damnation but only both being Sins they incurr'd the Guilt of Judgment or Condemnation But doth it therefore follow that the Sin and Guilt is the same in both Cases Is he as Guilty of Damnation that Eats Swines Flesh Doubting 〈◊〉 that Eats and Drinks Unworthily at the Lord's Table We read in James 3.1 of a greater Condemnation the Greek Word is the same in both places viz. James 3.1 and 1 Cor. 11.29 Seeing therefore there is a greater and lesser Damnation it will not follow as ● B. would have it that the Eating of Meats that are lawful doubtfully is as great a Sin and deserves the same Condemnation that unworthy Eating at the Lord's Table One might argue after the like manner that to make a Lye about a Trifle brings as great Guilt and Condemnation as downright Atheism and denying the Lord that bought us Page 91. We find saith R.B. this Ceremony only mentioned in Scripture in four places to wit Matthew Mark and Luke and by Paul to the Corinthians Matthew and Mark give only an account of the Matter of Fact without any Precept to do so afterwards simply declaring that Jesus at that time did desire them to Eat of the Bread and Drink of the Cap to which Luke adds these Words do this in remembrance of me Ans That he calleth it a Ceremony I know no Warrant he hath the Scripture giveth it no such Name they blame the use of the Word Sacrament because it is not a Scripture Word but to be sure Ceremony is no Scripture Word they who are well Skilled in the Greek Language say that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well enough Translated Sacrament as the vulgar Latin Translates it in that place hoc est magnum Sacramentum They further say there ought to be no prejudice against it because some Heathen Authors had formerly used it for so had they used the Word Mystery and had applied the same to the External Rites and Symbols used by them in their Sacrifices to their Idols When Paul would have himself and other Ministers of Christ to be accounted Stewards of the Mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4.1 They plead that by the Mysteries of God there are to be meant not only the Doctrins of the Christian Faith but the Observation of those Institutions of Christ of Baptism and the Supper which none will deny who believe them to be his Institutions But that he saith Matthew and Mark give only an account of the Matter of Fact without any Precept to do so afterwards Ans Though the Precept is not expressed it is implyed and Luke doth express it plainly intimating they were commanded to do it afterwards And if it were no where to be found but in Luke seeing it is acknowledged that Luke is of the same Authority with the other Evangelists it is sufficient as well as that one place in John 6. concerning the Eating Christ's Flesh and Drinking his Blood that is only expressive of that Mysterie is sufficient to prove the Truth of it Page 92. Now this Act saith he was no singular thing neither any solemn Institution of a Gospel Ordinance because it was a constant Custom among the Jews as Paulus Ricius observes at length in his Celestial Agriculture that when they did Eat the Passover the Master of the Family did take Bread and bless it and breaking of it gave it to the rest and likewise taking Wine did the same c. Ans This Consequence will not follow for it is as Idle and Groundless as if one should argue the Jews in the Time of the Law had their Religious Meetings where Preaching and Prayer were used therefore Religious Meetings and Preaching and Prayer are no Gospel Institutions But as his Consequence is not good so the Antecedent is not true viz. That it was no singular thing for though it was not singular in respect of the Material Part yet it was altogether singular in respect of its Formal Part. None of the Masters of the Families among the Jews said Take Eat this is Christ's Body which is to be broken for you and this Cup is the New Testament in his Blood c. It was the great Love and Wisdom of Christ to establish his Institutions under the Gospel relating to the external part of Religion as near to the Jewish Forms as possible excepting what might seem to favour their Superstitions and other Shadowy Things that were to be Abolished All the moral Part as well as divers things of Instituted Worship that were among the Jews being commanded

Protestants in tying this Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to that Ceremony used by him with his Disciples in the breaking of Bread c. As if it had only a Relation thereto or were only enjoyed in the use of that Ceremony which it neither hath nor is Ans For any to tye the Participation of Christs Body and Blood to the outward Eating in the Supper as above mentioned is indeed a great Error But it was a great Mistake in him and too rashly charged in general by him upon both Papists and Protestants their being guilty of that Error For it can be shewn that some of the Popish Writers have affirmed the contrary and delivered it as the common Faith of their Church that true Believers partake of Christ's Flesh and Blood although they Dye before they receive the outward Supper for which Lombard Lib. 4. Dist 9. citeth Augustine saying Lib. de med paen Nulli ambigendum est c. No man ought to doubt that any Man is then a partaker of the Body and Blood of the Lord when he is made a Member of Christ nor is he Alienated from the Communion of that Bread and Cup although before he Eat that Bread and Drink the Cup being Constituted in the Unity of the Body of Christ he depart out of this World for he is not deprived of the benefit of that Sacrament when he is found to have that which that Sacrament signifieth And as for the generality of Protestants I know not nor ever knew any that so tyed the Participation of Christs Body to the outward Supper as he mentioneth They say indeed it is a Means of Grace and of our Communion of the Lord's Body but not the only means or so absolutely necessary as without it none have that Communion Another great Mistake I find in R.B. p. 81. of that Treatise where he saith as for the Paschal Lamb the whole end of it is signified particularly Exod. 13.8.9 to wit that the Jews might thereby be kept in remembrance of their Deliverance out of Egypt Ans That is indeed mentioned as an end of it but not the whole end of it for the end of the whole Law was Christ whereof that Command of the Passover was a part but that the Passover was a Type of Christ particularly as he was to be Slain for their Sins is plain out of Paul's Words 1. Cor. 5.7 Let us keep the feast c. for our passover is slain for us Now as the Jews were to Eat the Flesh of the Passover so the Believers in Christ are to Eat his Flesh even that Flesh that was Slain to wit by Faith as is above declared but not by any Corporal Eating and why did John the Evangelist apply these Words of the Passover to Christ's Body a bone of him shall not be broken This plainly proveth that the Passover was a Type of Christ and therefore one great end of it was to hold him forth to their Faith In p. 87. R.B. saith let it be observed that the very express and particular use of it according to the Apostle is to shew forth the Lord's Death c. But to shew forth the Lord's Death and partake of the Flesh and Blood of Christ are different things from whence he infers as his following Words shew that this Practice of the outward Supper hath no inward or immediate Relation to Believers Communicating or Partaking of the Spiritual Body and Blood of Christ or that Spiritual Supper spoken of Rev. 3.20 Ans This Consequence doth not follow that Practice of the outward Supper had not only that end to Commemorate and shew forth the Lord's Death but had other great ends also as another was to signifie their Communion of Christ's Body as not a bare Sign but as a means of that Communion though not the only means or such a means as if the said Communion were tyed thereto another end was to signifie their Union and Communion one with another both which ends are plainly held forth in these Words The bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Lord's Body c. and we being many are one bread and all are made partakers of that one bread And though R.B. denyeth that by Bread in those Words the bread which we break is it not the communion of the Lord's body is to be understood the outward Bread yet I have above proved it to be the outward Bread that was used in the Supper for to understand it of the Lord's Body were to make it Non-sense as to say the Body of Christ is it not the Communion of his Body Whereas the true Sense is Obvious taking it for the outward Bread The Bread which we break is it not a Sign of the Communion of the Lord's Body c. And such a Sign that is a means whereby our Communion of the Lord's Body and of the Spiritual Blessings we have thereby is confirmed to us and an increase of Grace is Exhibited unto us as it is duly Administred and Received SECT V. PAge 83. He puts a very false and strained Sense upon these Words ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and of the table of Devils 1 Cor. 10.21 which shews saith he that he understands not here the using of Bread and Wine because those that do Drink the Cup of Devils and Eat of the Table of Devils yea the Wickedest of Men may partake of the outward Bread and the outward Wine Ans By the Lord's Table is not meant barely and simply the Signs of Bread and Wine but as they do signifie and are Means Exhibitive of the Spiritual Blessings understood thereby The Wickedest of Men may indeed receive the Bread and Wine but they are not to them any Significative or Exhibitive Signs and Means of these Spiritual Blessings which are the things signified and intended and are the Kirnel without which the bare outward Signs are mere Shells and broken Cisterns Again Let us distinguish betwixt what is de jure i.e. of Right and what is de facto i.e. in Fact Wicked Persons though in Fact they may receive the outward Part yet they have no Right to it The manner of Speech used here by Paul is like that of James doth the same fountain send forth sweet water and bitter How then can the same tongue bless God and curse men My brethren these things ought not to be And when as Paul said elsewhere no man can say Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost he may outwardly say the Words but he hath no Right to say them nor can his saying them profit him without the Holy Spirit But that by the Table of the Lord and the Cup of the Lord here are to be meant the outward things of Bread and Wine as above described is evident from the Antithesis or Opposition he makes betwixt the Table of Devils and the Table of the Lord and

under the Gospel That of Christ's washing the Disciples Feet which he insisteth on for several Pages is fully Answered to in the first Part. As also that of Anointing the Sick with Oyl so that no more needs be said to it here As for these Objections that he raiseth about the Time of the natural Day when this Institution should be practised as why not at Night and what sort of Bread whether Leavened or Unleavened and whether other Drink may not be used as well as Wine which he calls Difficulties out of which it is impossible he saith p. 101. to extricate themselves but by laying it aside another of which Difficulties is to understand as he alledgeth that these Words Take Bless and Break the Bread and give it to others are to the Clergy meaning the Pastors but to the Laity only meaning the People Take Eat c. Ans I do not find that he proveth in the least any such Difficulties they may be all easily extricated much more than in many other Cases where far greater Difficulties occur But this is too Rash and Preposterous because of some seeming Difficulties therefore to lay aside a Divine Institution or to conclude it is no such thing This is to cut the Knot instead of loosing it and to Kill instead of Curing At this rate because in Paul's Epistles and in many other places of Scripture there are things hard to be understood and resolved therefore all such places of Scripture are to be rejected Who doth not see the Impertinency of such Consequences And the like may be said in Answer to his Objection from the great Contentions that have hapned betwixt Papists and Protestants about the Supper and betwixt the Protestants one with another and the much Blood that hath been shed occasioned by these Controversies All which say nothing against the Institution it self more than against Christ and his Gospel about which more Blood has been spilt than about that He should have better considered the distinction betwixt a causa per se and causa per accidens and the use of a thing and the abuse of it SECT VI. PAge 104. For would they take it as it lies it would import no more than that Jesus Christ at that time did thereby signifie unto them that his Body and Blood was to be offered for them and desired them that whensoever they did eat or drink they might do it in remembrance of him or with a regard to him whose Blood was shed for them Ans If this Supposition be true as he would have it that whensoever they did eat or drink they were to do it in remembrance of him then why hath he pleaded so much for the ceasing of it Surely if they were to do it whensoever they did Eat or Drink they were to do it to the end of the World because as long as the World continues Eating and Drinking will continue But we do not find that our Saviour's Words import any such Sense he doth not say whensoever ye eat or drink c. But as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup where the Word this Imports it to be another Eating than their common Eating and the like is Imported by these Words let a man examine himself and so let him eat c. whoso eateth this bread unworthily c. 1 Cor. 11.28 27. But to this Sense that he hath given I find a Passage a little after p 111. that as I judge is a plain Contradiction to the former He saith there the Apostles Words For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come Imports no more a command than to say As oft as thou goest to Rome see the Capitol will infer a Command to me to go thither Now if they were to obey this Institution whensoever they did Eat or Drink then surely they were to do it very often and that by a Command which plainly contradicts this last Assertion of his butth Words As seen as thou goest to Rome see the Capitol implie neither a Command nor any frequent Practice of going therefore this Example is very improper and impertinent in this respect as well as in others Page 110 111. As to that passage 1 Cor. 11. from 23. to 27. He saith There is no Command in this place but only an account of matter of Fact He saith not I received of the Lord that as he took Bread so I should Command it to you to do so also there is nothing like this in the place Ans Be it so that there was no new Command given in the Case either to Paul or by him to the Corinthians It sufficed to Paul to give an account of the matter of Fact as it was delivered to him from the Lord by Divine Revelation as he plainly affirmed That saith he which I received of the Lord that also I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed c. Now as all Divine Revelations are for some great end we may safely argue that since what the Lord did that night was Revealed to him by the Lord it was not an indifferent thing either to be Believed or Practised since it had a Command in it This do in remembrance of me Here was a positive Command that Christ gave unto his Apostles alledged both by Paul 1 Cor. 11.24 And also by Luke 22.19 There was no need of renewing the same Commandments as the Law of the Ten Commandments once given at Mount Zinai did oblige the twelve Tribes of Israel without any other giving them though what was then given them was oft taught them both by Moses and the succeeeding Prophets so what Christ the great Law-giver under the New Testament gave forth to be his Command wherever that Command is made known to any People Nation or Country it ought to be obeyed without the requiring or expecting any new Sanction And to shew a little further how improper his Example of one saying As often as thou goest to Rome See the Capitol is to the present Case If one that has the Command of another should first say go to Rome and then add As often as thou goest to Rome go to the Capitol this would imply a Command Now Christ said first to his Disciples This do in remembrance of me as both Luke and Paul testifie and then Paul adds further v. 25. As oft as ye drink it this do in remembrance of me and v. 26. for as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated ye shew may be translated ye declare or ye preach for so is the same word translated Acts 15.26 Acts 13.38 Acts 17.13 which signifieth some Publick way of shewing it forth in Religious Meetings that proveth it was not Mens private Eatings which may oft happen when they are alone and for this and the

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

all Christendom own that that Form may be used Lawfully and that Adult Persons having Faith in the Lord Jesus after their giving the Confession of the same may and ought to be Baptized And such among them who might scruple to receive it from Persons of another Denomination might find some of their own Way to Administer it unto them For it were strange to suppose that among so many hundreds of Men professing to have an immediate or inward Call to that part of the Ministry by Preaching and Prayer there should not be some found among them who might apprehend that they are as immediately call'd to the other part of the Ministry of Baptism and the Supper after they are truly convinced that they are Gospel Institutions There is some Ground of Hope that many among them will be brought to some good Consideration and better Understanding so as to see the great hurt and loss that it has been unto them to reject those things and also to come to that good and solid Discretion and Judgment of the great Profit and Advantage it would be to them to receive the Practice of them among them for their Spiritual Good and Honour of their Christian Profession thereby declaring as well as by their Christian Lives and Conversations that they are the Disciples of Christ by this Testimony of their Love to him that they keep these his Commandments as well as the others that he has enjoyned remembring that he that breaketh the least of his Commandments and teacheth Men to do so shall be least in the Kingdom of Heaven and also for the removing the great Scandal and Offence of many Tender People who are greatly stumbled at their Way in not only omitting but speaking Reproachfully against those Sacred Institutions It will be no occasion of Dishonour to them nor Argument of their declining or going backward from the Truth to own and receive the Practice of these things that they have needlesly and for want of due Consideration dropt and lost more than it would be to a Man that had dropt some piece of Money or Jewel to return and stoop to take it up again That which addeth to my Ground of Hope in this thing is that some among them have privately acknowledged that they are sensible of the Hurt and Disadvantage that they have been at as a Body of People for laying those Practices aside SECT XI HAving finished my Answers to the Arguments of the four Persons above named against the outward Baptism and the Supper I think fit to take notice of the Arguments of George Fox the greatest Person among the Quakers when living and whose Words are still as Oracles unto them against these Divine Institutions to which indeed little more Answer is needful than what is given to those other for his Arguments are Included in theirs and so may the Answers be in the Answers to them His Argument against the outward Baptism I find to be but one in a Book of his called Something in Answer to the Old Common-Prayer-Book Printed at London 1660 p. 18. And doth not that in Matth. 28. say Baptize into the Name and is not that more than in the Name This the Reader will find Answered above in Reply to some of their Arguments but to Baptize into the Name Acts 8. they grant not to be the inward Baptism and therefore nor is that Matth. 28. the Particles in and into being frequently the same in Signification both in English and Greek yea and in Hebrew also and Latin and generally in other Languages His Arguments against the outward Supper are as followeth p. 26. They that received the Bread and Wine in remembrance of Christ shewing his Death till he come which the Apostle had received of the Lord and delivered to the Corinthians which they were to examine and Eat and Drink in remembrance of Christ's Death till he come This was in 1 Cor. Then he wrote again to the Corinthians and bids them examine themselves and prove their own selves knew they not that Christ was in them except they were Reprobates So they may see that this was not a standing Form but as often as they did it they did it in remembrance of Christ till he come and then examine your selves prove your selves If Christ be not in you except ye be Reprobates so if you have him within what need you to have that which puts in remembrance of him And so if ye be risen with Christ seek those things that are above for now Bread and Wine is below which is the remembrance of his Death so that part dies with him which must have a Sign to put in remembrance of him For the Apostles forgot who said that they thought that that Man should deliver Israel Ans The substance of this is replyed unto above only I thought fit to take notice how impertinent and idle his Argument is from his comparing the first Epistle to the Corinthians with a passage in his second Epistle to them as if in his first Epistle Paul had delivered the Command or Practice of it unto them because Christ was not then come in them but when he wrote again he was come in them Which reasoning of G.F. is built on a most false Foundation for Paul did believe that Christ was as truly come in the Corinthians at his first writing as at his second for as he said unto them in his second Epistle know ye not that Jesus Christ is in you c. 2. Cor. 13.5 So he said in his first Epistle 1 Cor. 6.19 Know ye not that your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you which ye have of God c. And surely when they had the Holy Ghost in them they had Christ in them from which it appears that this Argument of G.F. is exceeding impertinent and built on a gross and manifest untruth But it was the way of G.F. What he neither did nor could prove from Scripture he would boldly persuade by his Authority and Stamp with saying This is the word of the Lord unto you and then it was no more to be questioned and if any did they were reckoned bad Spirits like Corah c. Also his saying Bread and Wine is from below and they who have Christ in them need not the Sign all this is answered above and had he not been very weak in his understanding and inconsiderate he might have easily observed that this way of his Reasoning was equally against all Outward Ministry Words and Writings which are not Christ more than Bread and Wine And are not his many Papers about Orders and Womens Dresses from below seeing they are visible things and therefore by his Arguments they should be rejected There is yet one Argument behind which I have found in a Manuscript having Humphry Norton's Name to it a Preacher of great Name formerly among the Quakers and in extraordinary repute with Edward Burrough and Francis Howgil as appeareth by their Epistles

Heathens as to my certain knowledge it is among the American Heathens who in all their Covenants make use of Signs for the greater Security and Confirmation Thus in the 50th Psalm it is said gather my Saints together who have made a covenant with me by sacrifice v. 5. And if any should be so Stiff and Pertinacious as to deny that outward Signs are necessary to the Confirmation of Covenants universally yet the Case is plain here as to the Supper for Christ himself hath said it this Cup is the new Testament in my Blood c. Which must have this meaning that the Cup was Christ's Testament as Circumcision was God's covenant with Abraham and his seed for so it was called in Scripture that is to say the Cup is a sign of Christ's Testament and of the covenant of grace that God hath made with believers through Christ the Mediator of it But if any object this would seem to make the outward Baptism and Supper of so great necessity as that it cannot be said that the Covenant is duly confirmed without them betwixt God and Believers Ans It sheweth inded a great necessity of them as in respect of any People being in Covenant with God in a visible way of a Church and as Members of a visible Church or Society well and duly constituted for all the Members of a visible Church as they are in Covenant with God inwardly by the Faith and Obedience of their Hearts so they are in Covenant with him outwardly by the Confession of their Mouths and other External Acts of Religion whereby they declare their professed Subjection to him and to his Laws Hence we find in Scripture that not only Faith is required in order to Salvation but Confession also and that Confession is not only with the Mouth but by External Works of the Body proceeding from a living Principle of Faith in the Heart among which Works are the External Practices of outward Baptism and the Supper where they can be duly had whereby they declare their Subjection to the positive Laws and Institutions of Christ and thereby distinguish themselves from either Jews or Pagans who may be Moral Men and Profess Faith and Religion towards God as a Creator and yet be professed Enemies to the Christian Faith such as many Jews and Heathens were in the Apostles Days and are in our Days And therefore the outward Baptism and the Supper have been not unfitly called and esteemed Badges of Christianity peculiarly distinguishing Christians from Jews and Pagans though not the only Badges but when they are accompanied with a good Conversation of Sobriety Justice and Piety they do make the distinction betwixt true Christians and Jews and Heathens much more apparent for if these External Practices Instituted by Christ be laid aside whereby shall it outwardly appear that Men and Women are Christians If it be said by the Sobriety Justice and Piety of their Conversation But these are no positive distinguishing Marks of Christianity because Men and Women that are no Christians may have as much of the out-side of Sobriety Justice and Piety towards God as many true Christians have If it be again said their frequent Prayer to God in the Name of Christ and calling on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ in Prayer is a Badge of their Christianity I answer in part it is so but not in full or in the whole for he that not only Prayeth to God in the Name of Christ and confesseth him in Words but also sheweth his Obedience and Subjection to all the Commands of Christ the least as well as the greatest whereof the outward Baptism and the Supper are some is the most Accomplished Christian and beareth the most compleat Badge of Christianianity And though Men's Ignorance in their not knowing them or not being persuaded concerning them that they are the Commands of Christ being darkned by the Prejudice of Education or fasly persuaded by Seducers and false Teachers doth in part excuse them or at least where Sincerity is as to the main gives ground of Hope that God will forgive them the Omission of these Practices yet where Obedience is not given to every Command of Christ even the least as well as the greatest though the Omission be through Ignorance or false Persuasion yet it is a Sin and renders the Persons found in that Omission defective and incomplete Christians SECT VIII THE 4 th Reason is this These outward practices of Baptism and the Supper are not only visible Signs and Pledges of our being in Covenant with God thro' Christ and that as he is our God so we are his People but they are also the visible Signs and Pledges that we are in the Unity and Communion of the Church as Children of one Family begot of one Father having one Faith and Hope one Lord and being Members of one Body And though the Communion of Believers consists chiefly in the Spirit and the inward Graces thereof yet as they are a visible Body and Society they are to have some outward and visible Signs and Pledges of the same that carry some distinguishing Character to distinguish them not only from professed Infidels but also from loose and scandalous Persons professing the Christian Faith with them Therefore as in the Jewish Church God had appointed that whoever did not obey the Mosaical Precepts were to be excluded the Congregation and debarred from the external Privileges that they had as a Church even so Christ has appointed that whosoever professing him in Words deny him in Works and walk disorderly and offensively as well as who err concerning the Faith so as not to hold the Head that they ought to be rejected and disowned in token whereof they are to be debarred from the external Signs of the Saints Communion with God and Christ and one with another Otherwise what can be meant by rejecting casting out and purging out in the Scriptures of the New Testament Also by the word separating and withdrawing so as to have no Fellowship with them Surely it was more than a verbal denyal of them or giving forth a Paper against them Doth not Paul tell us what it was when he saith 1 Cor. 5.11 If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator c with such an one no not to eat This not to eat cannot be meant the common Eating but such as that 1 Cor. 10.21 to wit at the Lord's Table And therefore the Lord did see it meet that as the Outward Baptism should be a Sign declarative of the Persons Baptized taking or putting on the Profession of a Christian so the Eating at the Lord's Table should be a Sign that they did remain Faithful under that Profession and did continue in the Unity and Communion of the Church as Paul's words declare We being many are one bread and are all made partakers of that one bread c. Even as under the Law the receiving of Circumcision was the Sign or Badge of