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
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
by that Pretence he did throw down the Institutions of Christ leading many thousands into the Ditch with him So by the same pretended Authority he set up outward Orders and Ordinances of his own particularly that of Women's Meetings giving them Rule and Government in the Church and appointing all Marriages to come before the Women's Meetings before they could pass or be allowed by the Community which hath no Footstep or Warrant from the Holy Scripture And when it could not be proved from Scripture though Essayed by him and others miserably straining the Scriptures contrary to their true Sense the Result was that it was commanded by G. Fox and whoever did not Obey were judged by him and his Followers Apostates and Enemies to Truth In the next place I shall bring some clear Proofs from Scripture shewing that outward Baptism and the Supper are the Institutions of Christ under the Gospel And first as to Baptism with Water That is an Institution of Christ which he did command his Apostles and their Successors to Practise to the end of the World But he commanded them to Practise Baptism with Water c. Therefore That he commanded them to Practise Baptism with Water is proved from Matth. 28.19 And from what is above Discoursed in Answer to their Objections it is apparent that Water-Baptism is there meant And that the Apostles and all the Churches of Christ did understand that Water-Baptism was an Institution of Christ is clear from the universal Practice of Believers in the Apostles Days so that it cannot be instanced where any came under the Profession of Faith in Christ but they received Baptism with Water either by the Apostles or other Ministers of Christ Again That which is declared in Scripture to be a means of Grace and Salvation and which hath Gospel Promises annexed to it is a Divine Institution But so is Baptism with Water as the following Scriptures prove Mark 16.16 Acts 2.38 Acts 22.16 Rom. 6.3 Gal. 3.27 Col. 2.12 1 Pet. 3.21 And though these Quakers will not allow that the Scriptures above-mentioned are to be understood of Baptism with Water yet by what is above Discoursed in Answer to their Objections it is evident that they are to be understood of Baptism with Water the Sign being accompanied with the thing signified in all that duly received it Again That which is made a Ground of Unity among the Faithful together with Faith and Hope and Calling is a Divine Institution but one Baptism as well as one Faith one Hope one Calling is made a Ground of Unity among the Faithful Eph. 4.5 And that the one Baptism there is the Baptism with Water the thing signified going along with the Sign is above proved in the Answer to the foregoing Objections And thus much briefly for Proof of Water-Baptism its being an Institution of Christ under the Gospel to continue to the end of the World because he promised to be with his Ministers to the end of the World in their doing what he commanded them Next That the Supper by breaking of Bread and the use of the Cup is an Institution of Christ until his last coming is proved by the like Arguments that Water-Baptism is proved to be an Institution of Christ for first it was commanded by Christ Do this in remembrance of me as oft as you Eat this Bread and Drink this Cup ye shew forth the Lord's Death till he come And that this is his outward coming to Judge the World is above proved Secondly it is a Means of Grace the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Lord's Body The Cup which we bless is it not the Communion of his Blood That is are they not both Signs and Means exhibiting to us the Communion of his Body and Blood and the Spiritual Blessings that come to Believers thereby For indeed all the Signs that ever God appointed to his People were Means of Grace and not bare Signs or Symbols Thirdly the Bread and Wine in the Supper is made a ground of Unity among the Faithful as well as Baptism we being many are one Bread and all are made partakers of that one Bread The Objections made against the Sense of these and the like Scriptures are above fully Answered so that I see no occasion to say any more at present by way of Argument on this Subject An APPENDIX Containing some Observations upon some Passages in a Book of W. Penn call'd A Caveat against Popery and on some Passages of a Book of John Pennington call'd The Fig-Leaf Covering Discovered IN a Book of W. Penn called A Seasonable Caveat against Popery Printed in the Year 1670. I find the following Passage p. 18. But if there be some Virtue signified by the Wine more than by the Bread it is horrid Sacriledge to Rob the Sign much more the thing signified It is a Supper and at Supper there should be to Drink as well as to Eat there can be no Body without Blood and the Drinking of his Blood shews a Shedding of his Blood for the World and a Participation of it Besides the Sign is incompleat and the end of that Sacrament or Sign not fully Answered but plainly maimed and what God hath put together they have put asunder so that the Falseness and Inscriptural Practice of these Men are very manifest Obs Reader Wouldest thou not think by these Words that W. Penn was in good earnest Pleading for the Sacrament as he calls it or Sign of the Supper And hadst thou not known that W. Penn was the Author of that Book would'st thou not have concluded whoever was the Author was rightly Principl'd for the Supper compleatly Administred under both Signs by the Arguments he brings for it as first If there be some Virtue signified by the Wine more than by the Bread it is horrid Sacriledge to Rob the Sign c. The Antecedent is true by W. Penn otherwise his Argument is vain and therefore the Consequence must be true which is this It is horrid Sacriledge to Rob the Sign Now if it be horrid Sacriledge in the Popish Priests and Teachers to Rob the Sign of Wine in the Supper is it not as horrid or rather more horrid Sacriledge in W. Penn and the rest of the Teachers of the Quakers to have Robb'd both the Signs the Bread as well as the Wine and under the Guilt of this Robbery and Sacriledge they still continue I wish they may Repent of it that they may find Mercy and Forgiveness His second Argument is this It is a Supper and at Supper there should be to Drink as well as to Eat But how is it a Supper when there is neither to Eat nor to Drink If the Popish Teachers have maimed the Supper which he blames them for how much more is he and his Brethren Blameworthy who have quite Abolished it His third Argument for the Cup is the Drinking of his Blood shews a Shedding of his Blood but how doth it shew it
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
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
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
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
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
like Reasons some of the Antients and particularly Augustin called it Verbum visibile the visible Word which when joyned with the Word that is founded in Mens Ears has a double force upon the Minds of devout Believers To which doth well agree that saying of Chrysostome in his Homilies on Matthew cited in the Title Page If thou hadst been without a Body God had given thee naked and incorporeal Gifts but because the Soul is planted in a Body he giveth thee Intelligible things in Sensible things And it was well observed by the Antients that all obsignatory Signs have some words of God or Christ added unto them to make them effectual according to which Augustin said Accedat verbum ad rem fit Sacramentum i.e. let the word be added to the sign and it becomes a Sacrament and therefore we find in Eph. 5.26 the washing of Water joyned with the Word That he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word I know some will have the Water here to be meant the inward Water and the Word to be inward also but such a Sense would be not only strained but unintelligible as to say with the washing of the Word by the Word for they make the inward Water and Word to be the same thing here but the Apostle distinguisheth them as two things both which have the Efficacy by the inward working of the Holy Spirit Titus 3.5 Page 111. He undertakes the Answering of the Argument for the Institution of the Supper and its continuance until Christ come at the end of the World from those Words Ye shew forth the Lord's death till he come To this he p. 112. Answers They take two of the chief parts of the Controversie here for granted without proof First that as often imports a Command the contrary whereof is shewn neither will they ever be able to prove it 2ly That this coming is understood of Christ's last Outward coming and not of his Inward and Spiritual that remains to be proved whereas the Apostle might well understand it of his Inward coming and appearance And a little after he saith Now those weak and carnal Corinthians might be permitted the use of this to shew forth or remember Christ's Death till he come to arise in them For though such need those Outward things to put them in mind of Christ's Death yet such as are dead with Christ and not only dead with Christ but burried and so risen with him need not such Signs to remember him Ans That as often together with the foregoing words import a Command I have already proved and it was rashly said in him that he had shewn the contrary and that they will never be able to prove it And whereas some argue had it been a Command some certain times would have been mentioned how oft in a Week Month or Year it should have been Practised To this it is Answered that it followeth not more than to argue that because it is not mentioned how often in a Week Month or Year Publick Prayer is to be used that therefore they are not Institutions of Christ for as Publick Preaching and Prayer is to be used as frequently as can stand with the Ability and Conditions of both Preachers and Hearers so this Practice as frequently is to be used which as the time of those is to be left to the Discretion of the Persons as God shall inwardly Guide them and outwardly afford them the Convenience so is the Time of this to be left to the like Discretion Guidance and Convenience which as it seemed to be the Practice of the Church in the Days of the Apostles each Lord's-day being the first Day of the Week so it is clear from Justin Martyr and other ancient Writers that it was the constant Practice of the Christians Solemnly to Celebrate the same every Lord's-day besides what other times they might have done it As to the second which he calls together with the other the chief thing in Controversie it is indeed so even the chief thing and therefore if this be effectually proved against them that those Words until he come again are understood of Christ's last outward coming the Cause is gained But first let us examine what Proof he brings that they are not to be understood of Christ's last outward coming First he saith the Apostle might well understand it of his inward coming and appearance but what Proof doth he give of this None at all but his simple Affirmation Secondly He saith these Weak and Carnal Corinthians might be permitted the use of this to shew forth or remember Christ's Death till he should arise in them But what Proof gives he of this that this was or might be a Permission for no such Permission is any where expressed in the Scriptures the things that simply were permitted as Circumcision were used but by a few and not long Paul severely opposed them after some time but so he never did either Water-Baptism or the Supper Thirdly That he said though such need thâ—se outward things to put them in mind of Christ 's Death why then seeing there are now in all Churches and Christian Societies some that are as weak as those Corinthians were do not they allow the use of them to such as need them Fourthly That he saith such as are Dead and Buried with Christ and Risen again with him need not such things to remember him Answer Here as elsewhere his Argument is faulty by arguing that because such things are not absolutely necessary therefore they are not useful or necessary in any respect Besides as I have above shewn his Argument has the same force against the use of the Holy Scriptures and all Books all Preaching of the best Men and all External Parts of Worship viz. They that are Dead and Buried with Christ and Risen with him need none of these outward things But the best Men and such are the most humble will and cannot but acknowledge that all outward Helps and Means that God hath afforded them are very useful to them and help to stir up the pure Mind in them Nor are any so Risen with Christ as the Raised Saints shall be at the Resurrection therefore till then they may be helped with outward Means of God's appointing It is very Unwisely as well as Irreverently Argued we need not those things therefore they are not commanded The contrary is the better Argument they are commanded therefore they are needful at least in some respect God better knoweth what we need than we do our selves and therefore in his great Love and Wisdom hath provided outward Helps for us as well as inward But seeing they will needs understand the Words until he come not to mean Christ's last outward coming but his inward then with the same Pretext they may as well understand his Death of an inward Death of Christ in them and the shewing his Death of an inward shewing and then all Remembrance of