and Blood that therefore he is a Carnal and Bloody Man or because the Quakers have Flesh and Blood as other Men therefore there Church is a Carnal and Bloody Church and as raw and defective is R.B. his way of Reasoning p. 25 26 27. of the above said Treatise that where the Author is the same the Matter of Ordinances is the same and the end the same and having the same effect they are never accounted more or less Spiritual because of their different times For all this is not a sufficient enumeration to prove the one not to be more Spiritual than the other there are diverse other great Considerations or Arguments besides these mentioned by him so generally and overly as in the respects above mentioned relating to their Form and Manner and greater Efficacy because of the greater plenty of Grace accompanying the latter than the former and having greater and more excellent Effects for who that knows what a true Christian is but will say he is far beyond an ordinary Religious Jew that had some degree of Faith in the promised Messiah the Scripture comparing the Jew and the Christian as the Child and the Man And who but will say that the true Gospel way of Ministry as it was in the Apostles Days and wherein they were exercised in Preaching and Prayer did far excell the Ministry of the ordinary sincere Jewish Priests and Scribes although they had one Author and one Doctrine for Substance and one end in their Ministry at large and in general and also one effect in general and at large viz. to instruct in Righteousness such as heard them And though in one sense the Jewish Baptisms and that practised by the Apostles after Christ's Resurrection had one Author viz. God yet in another sense there was a considerable difference it being God or the word Incarnate or Christ God Man that was the Author of the latter but not of the former And though the Jewish Water-Baptisms and the Christian Water-Baptisme which is but one do agree in relation to their end in some sort yet there is a great difference in that very respect for tho' the remote end of the Jewish Baptisms was to signifie Remission of Sin through Faith in Christ yet the proximate or next end of those Baptisms was to make them legally clean so as to be allowed to come into the Congregation of the Jewish Church but the end of the Christian Water-Baptism even proximately and nextly considered is to signifie Remission of Sins and the spiritual Cleansing by Christ and also to indicate such Baptized Persons and recognize or acknowledge them to be Members of the Church of Christ that is more excellent and honourable as far as the Christian Dispensation excelled the Judaick But that they farther argue that Water-Baptism cannot reach the Conscience to cleanse it from Sin that therefore it ought not to be practised and because Bread and Wine in the Supper cannot nourish the Soul therefore ought it not to be used in the Supper they might as well have argued against the brazen Serpent that the Jews at God's command should not have looked to it when they were poisoned with the Serpents in the Wilderness because there was no inherent Virtue in that piece of Brass to effect any Cure and they might argue as well against Naaman's going to wash in Jordan to be cured of his Leprosie I know none that plead for Water-Baptism and the outward Supper that think there is any inherent Virtue in these outward things either to wash or feed the Soul the Virtue is wholly in Christ whose Grace Power and Spirit doth accompany the due and right use of these things as they are practised in Faith and in Obedience to Christ's command And the like way they might argue against all vocal Ministry which abounds among the Quakers for no words have any inherent Virtue in them to Cure or Cleanse the Soul or profit any more than Water or Bread and Wine it is only the Grace and Spirit of Christ when it goeth along and accompanieth these outward things whether Words or those outward Elements that is effectual and maketh the use of them effectual without which they are all but as empty Cisterns that can hold no Water SECT IX ANother Argument of W. Penn against the outward Baptism and Supper is that therefore they are to be rejected now the false Church has got them yea the Whore hath made Merchandize with them and under such Historical Shadowy and Figurative Christianity has she managed her Mistery of Iniquity unto the beguiling thousands whose simplicity the Lord will have a tender regard to Ans In this way of Arguing also he is very inconsiderate for his Reason is of equal force against the Holy Scriptures and all the Doctrinal and Historical part of Christ's coming in the Flesh his Death and Sufferings c. Why the false Church has got all this and makes Merchandize therewith and therefore the Bible and the whole Historical and Doctrinal part of Christ's coming in the Flesh and his Death and Sufferings must be rejected also all Preaching and Praying and Meeting together and all external Acts of Worship must be rejected for the same reason because the false Church has got them all Tho' I think it may be said the false Church has not got either Baptisme or the Supper in the true Administration of them but rather a false show and likeness of them But what hinders that the true Church may not Practise these things aright tho' the false Practise them amiss Should the abuse of any thing commanded by God take away the use of it Must Meat Drink and Cloathing be rejected because that many abuse them But he continueth to argue against them p. 110. Reason against Railing Let it be considered that no other Apostle recommends these things nor Paul himself to either the Romans the Corinthians in his first Epistle the Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians Thessalonians Hebrews nor to Timothy Titus and Philemon Ans If so it were that in none of these Epistles Paul had mentioned them nor any other of the Apostles which yet is not so for I have answered it at large what was objected from Peter 1 Pet. 3.21 as that Water-Baptisme is not there meant and in the Epistle to the Romans Galatians Ephesians and Colossians and in that to the Hebrews Baptisme is mentioned and he hath not proved that it is not Water-Baptisme that is there meant yet it will not follow that therefore they are to be rejected seeing other places of Scripture mention both the command and practice of them so that he cannot instance one professing Christianity that was not Baptized any where in the Scripture after the command of Baptism was given by Christ to the Apostles suppose there were but one Text in all the Scripture that clearly proveth some Doctrin of the Christian Faith were not that enough for its proof As that one Text that God is a Spirit
is betwixt the Husband and the Wife who are said to be one Flesh This is a great Mystery said Paul but I speak concerning Christ and the Church who according to Paul's Doctrine as they are one Spirit so they are one Flesh And as elsewhere he said we are of his Flesh and of his Bone and forasmuch as the Children were partakers of Flesh and Blood he took part of the same wherefore he is not ashamed to call them Brethren Now in this R.B. was in a great Error that by his thus excluding the Flesh of Christ's outward Body from being any means of the Saints Communion with God he excludes the said Body of Christ from being any necessary part of the Mediator and at this rate of his Arguing only the Divine Light or Seed in Men is the Mediator betwixt God and Men but according to the Doctrine of the Apostle Paul the Mediator of God and Men who is one is the Man Christ Jesus and by the Man Christ Jesus is understood in Scripture not the Spirit only nor the Soul of his Manhood only but the Body also together with the Soul even Jesus Christ made of the Seed of David according to the Flesh And as really as there is a Relative Union betwixt Brethren and near Kindred with respect to their Flesh and Blood on which account it is said Concerning Joseph Gen. 37.27 He is our Brother and our Flesh and 2 Sam. 5.1 The Tribes of Israel said unto David behold we are thy Bone and thy Flesh So believing Gentiles as well as believing Jews may say concerning the Man Christ who is the Seed of the Woman of whom to wit Eve we are all descended we are his Bone and Flesh and because he hath taken Flesh and Blood like unto us therefore in that very respect he is compleatly qualified and fitted to be our Mediator and High Priest with God by whom because of the true Nature of Man consisting of a true reasonable Soul and true and real Body of Man which the Eternal Word is united unto we have Communion with God His fourth and last Argument hath the like Defect with the former That which Feedeth upon it shall never Dye but the Bodies of all Men once Dye Ans Men are said in Scripture to Dye though the Soul Dyeth not yet Men are said to Dye because the Vital Union of the Soul with the Body is Dissolved which being but for a Time and that a very small Time as a Moment in respect of Eternity and after that their Bodies shall be raised up again and Vitally be United to their Souls therefore by the contrary Argument by the Flesh of Christ that the Saints Feed upon must be meant in part his outward Body of Flesh now Glorified which is a Glorious Spiritual Body because the Resurrection of Christ's Body is the Ground of the Saints Hope wrought in them by the Spirit of Christ that their Bodies shall be raised up and shall together with their Souls inherit Eternal Life And to conclude this whole Matter when Christ said it is the Spirit that Quickneth the Flesh profits nothing His meaning is that according to their Carnal and Fleshly Sense it doth not profit as if he had said it would profit you nothing to Eat my Flesh as ye imagin by the Bodily Mouth but to Eat it Spiritually and by Faith this doth profit but to take the Words the Flesh profits nothing in the Sense that some take them is most Blasphemous as to say Christ's outward Body of Flesh profits nothing to our Salvation for this would make his Coming and Death for us in the Flesh to have been in vain and also would render our Faith Vain that he did so come yea so necessary was Christ's coming in the Flesh for our Salvation that it is by his Flesh and Soul Constituting his Manhood that we have his Spirit the Man Christ is that Olive Tree consisting of Soul and Body United Personally to the Godhead of the Eternal Word which giveth us the Oyl of the Holy Spirit and poureth it into our Hearts and as in the Natural Olive Tree it is by its Body that we have of its Oyl or Spirit and when we Eat of its Oyl we are said to Eat of the Tree because the Tree yields us its Oyl even as when we Eat of an Apple or Drink the Fruit of it or of the Vine we may be said to Eat of the Apple-Tree and Vine-Tree the Fruit being what the Tree naturally yields so the Man Christ consisting of Soul and Body is that Precious Olive Tree and Vine-Tree that yields us the Oyl and Wine of the Holy Spirit and pours it into our Hearts who Believe in him and Love him and as Effectual as his Soul and Flesh of his Manhood is now to Believers for their receiving the Spirit by the same since he came in the Flesh no less Effectual it was to Believers before he came in the Flesh even from the beginning of the World according to B. Jewel's Words he was not come in the Flesh yet they Eat his Flesh to wit by Faith he had not Shed his Blood yet they Drank his Blood viz. by Faith and both his Flesh and his Blood before it had any visible Being or Existence together with his Soul was Effectual to Believers in all Ages for their Reception of the Spirit and all Spiritual Blessings of Justification and Sanctification c. as well before he came in the Flesh as since And thus he was the Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World whose Death was of the same Efficacy from the beginning and will be to the end of the World to all that believe in him And as God is the giver of the Spirit and of all the Graces of the Spirit so he giveth it to Believers by and through Christ even the Man Christ who is both the Procurer and Dispenser of all that Grace that God giveth unto them and though Men most properly Eat the Meat and Drink the Drink that is bought with Money yet in ordinary Speech by a common Metonymy they are said to Eat and Drink the Money that buyeth it as the Poor Widows two Mites were called her Living so after some sort though the inward Life and Spirit of Christ be the most immediate Food of the Souls of Believers Yet because the Flesh of Christ as it was broken for us and his Blood as it was Shed for us is the Price and Purchase Money which hath procured to us the inward Life and Spirit of Christ with the various Graces and Gifts thereof therefore we are said to Eat his Flesh and Drink his Blood by the Like Metonymy But there is much more in this Great Mystery than can be demonstrated by these Similitudes and Examples or any others of the like Nature SECT IV. P. 77. R.B. chargeth it as another Error which he calleth a General Error wherein he saith they all agree viz. both Papists and
the filthiness of the Flesh but to signifie the inward washing by the Blood and Spirit of Christ upon the Soul and Conscience the which when so washed is a good Conscience and the effect of that inward washing is the answer of a good Conscience and indeed to me it is evident that Peter in this description of Baptisme first negatively what it is not doth refer by way of comparison to the legal purifyings under Moses Law by Blood and the Ashes of an Heiser with Water sprinkling the Unclean which as the Author to the Hebrews saith sanctified to the purifying the Flesh Heb. 9.13 and yet even this washing was not to cleanse the Body from natural filth but from the legal uncleanness that Men had on divers occasions as when they touched a dead Body they were legally unclean and because of that they were not to come into the Tabernacle until they were cleansed with this Water of purifying sprinkled on them But the Baptisme with Water under the Gospel had not that but a greater signification and being duly received had a greater and more noble effect viz. to signifie the spiritual cleansing by Christ and to be a means of Grace far greater than under the Law Again p. 17. He thus argueth If we take the second and affirmative definition to wit that it is the Answer or Confession of a good Conscience c. then Water-Baptisme is not it since as our Adversaries will not deny Water-Baptisme doth not always imply it neither is it any necessary consequence thereof Answ This Consequence also is not good because though Water-Baptisme in the literal sense strictly taken without any Metonymy is not the answer of a good Conscience as the Lamb was not the Passover but a signification of it yet the Lamb is called in Scripture the Passover by a Metonymy of the Sign put for the thing signified that is very common in Scripture as in other Authors so the Baptisme with Water metonymically may be called the answer of a good Conscience being the thing signified thereby That he saith their Adversaries will not deny that Water-Baptisme doth not always imply it neither is it any necessary consequence thereof in that he was under a mistake for they will say and do say that Water-Baptisme doth always imply it to such as duly and worthily receive it and that it is always a necessary consequence or concomitant thereof upon due and well qualified Receivers And if nothing appear to the contrary by words or actions but that the receivers are duly qualified tho' some of them be not such really yet in the judgment of Charity even according to Scripture rule they are called such as Paul calleth these of the Churches to whom he writ Saints and yet no doubt all were not real Saints in the Churches though by Profession they were such Again whereas pag. 18. he argueth thus Peter calls this here which saveth the Antitypos the Antitype or the thing figured whereas it is usually translated as if the like figure did now save us thereby insinuating that as they were saved by Water in the Ark so are we now by Water-Baptisme but this Interpretation he saith crosseth his sense Answ His Argument from the Greek word used by Peter viz. Antitypos he should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the neuter gender is indeed altogether weak and groundless as if it only signified the thing and could not be understood of the Figure of the thing the contrary whereof appeareth from Heb. 9.24 where the holy Places made with hands are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Antitypes of the true which are truly translated the Figures of the true holy Places made without hands Again whereas he argueth that Water-Baptisme is not meant p. 19. in 1 Pet. 3.21 that the Baptisme there mentioned is said to save us but Protestants deny it to be absolutely necessary to Salvation Answ Nor hath this Argument any force for though it is not absolutely necessary to Salvation yet that it is in God's ordinary way where it can be duely had and by whom it is duely received one of the ordinary means of Salvation it is truly said to save as the Doctrine of the Gospel outwardly Preached by the Ministry of Men is saving by way of means and as the Holy Scriptures are said by Paul to be able to make wise unto Salvation through Faith in Christ Jesus and said Paul to Timothy 1 Tim. 4.16 Take heed unto thy self and unto thy Doctrine continue in them for in doing this thou shalt both save thy self and them that hear thee And as concerning the means of Salvation though all of them when really given of God are very profitable yet all are not alike necessary nor alike given nor afforded unto all some yea many never perhaps heard the Gospel truly Preached unto them by the Voice of Man yet having the Scriptures read unto them that hath proved an outward means of their Salvation the Lord working inwardly by his Grace and Spirit to make the same effectual to them And as at times the Book of the Holy Scriptures supplieth the defect of a Vocal Ministry so at times a Vocal Ministry doth supply the want of the Book of the Scriptures and thus though Baptisme and the Supper outwardly administred are means of Grace and Salvation when duly received yet they are not so necessary as the Doctrine of the Gospel as outwardly delivered by Men and the Books of the Holy Scripture If any shall object that it is better to keep to the literal Sense of the words in Peter than to run to the Metonymy which ought not to be done but in case of necessity I answer what way soever the Baptisme in 1 Pet. 3.32 be taken as suppose for the Baptisme of the Spirit yet such whoso take it must run to a Metonymy for the inward Baptisme of the Holy Spirit is not the Answer or Confession of a good Conscience otherwise than by a Metonymy of the Cause for the effect The Answer or Confession of a good Conscience being the effect of the inward Baptisme and operation of the Spirit and not the inward Baptisme it self And indeed such Figures and Metonymycal Speeches are very frequent in Scripture to which for not well adverting many are drawn into most false Interpretations of Scriptures and most hurtful Errors as the Papists by taking the words of Christ this is my Body in a mere literal Sense without any Metonymy To conclude upon this Argument the most that with any colour or shadow of Reason can be inferred from this place in 1 Pet. 3.21 is that Water-Baptisme alone neither doth or can save any without the inward Baptisme or operation of the Spirit all which is readily granted nor yet doth the inward Baptisme though joyned to the outward save without any thing else but both the inward Baptisme and outward do save us as Peter plainly declareth by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
Whitehead in the very first instant art of Baptizing they confessed their Sins and neither before nor after But that there was a Divine and Spiritual Baptisme that attended their Ministry to some will not prove that they did Baptize them with the Divine and Spiritual Baptisme which was the Work of God and of Christ and promised by Christ to the Apostles and other Believers but was never commanded them to give it to others His Third Argument is from Gal. 3.2 Received ye the spirit by the works of the law or by hearing of faith c. he therefore that ministreth to you the spirit and worketh miracles among you doth he it by the works of the law or by the preaching of faith Ans He taketh it for granted that by him that worketh Miracles among them and Ministreth the Spirit unto them is to be understood Paul or some other Man by whom they were Converted But Paul it could not be for the words being in the Present Tense implyeth a present Ministration of the Spirit when Paul wrote that Epistle unto them but Paul was then at Rome as the end of the Epistle sheweth nor was it any other Man because they were already Converted and had received the Spirit before he writ that Epistle unto them Therefore it is most proper to understand this he to be Christ who is the only furnisher and supplyer of the Spirit together with God unto the Faithful the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Prebens Suppeditans by Pasor and doth properly signifie the Principal Efficient from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dux chori the Captain of the Chorus but this is Christ who supplyeth and giveth the Spirit to the Saints and neither Paul nor any other Man And that the Apostles were Ministers of the Spirit doth not signifie that they gave the Spirit or Baptized with the Spirit but that they were assisted and guided by the Spirit in their Ministry and that God accompanied their Ministry with his not their giving the Spirit unto such who believed their Doctrine SECT V. I Proceed in the next place to examine all the other Arguments I find used by W. Penn and R. Barclay against these Divine Institutions that seem to have any shadow of weight The First Argument I find used by W. Penn in his Reason against Railing in p. 107. is first saith he we know and they confess that they were in the beginning used as Figures and Shadows of a more hidden and Spiritual Substance 2. That they were to endure no longer than till the Substance was come Now the time of the Baptisme of the Holy Ghost Christ's only Baptisme therefore called the one Baptisme has been long since come consequently the other which was John 's was fulfilled and as becomes a forerunner ought to cease the like may be said of the Bread and Wine for as there is but one Baptisme so there is but one Bread This same Argument for Matter but in different words is used by R.B. in the above said Treatise p. 7.8 Answ The Conclusion they both draw viz. that John's Baptisme is ceased may be granted and yet it will not follow that Water-Baptisme as it was practised by the Apostles and other Ministers after Christ's Resurrection and Ascension is ceased seeing there is great ground to distinguish betwixt John's water-Baptisme and the Apostles in divers weighty respects as first the Man Christ after he rose from the Dead having all Power given him in Heaven and in Earth Commissioned the Apostles to Baptize and that with Water as shall be afterwards proved more fully but John had not his Commission from the Man Christ c. 2. John did only Baptize them of his own Nation and was only sent to Israel but the Apostles Commission reached to all Nations 3. John though he taught them to believe in him who was to come to wit Christ yet he required not Faith in Christ as any condition to qualifie his Disciples to receive his Baptisme but the Apostles required Faith in Christ Jesus in all the Men and Women as a condition qualifying them to receive their Baptisme 4. We do not find that the Holy Ghost was given or promised to them who received John's Baptisme but the promise of the Holy Ghost was given to such as did duly and worthily receive the Apostles Baptisme therefore John's Baptisme was called the Baptisme of Repentance 5. It seems greatly probable that some who had received John's Baptisme were again Baptized with the Apostles Baptisme Acts 19.3.4 5 6. But whereas they both argue from John's Words I must decrease but he must increase it hath a further understanding than barely as in relation to John's Baptisme for it is said John 4.12 that Jesus made and Baptized more Disciples than John tho' Jesus himself Baptized not but his Disciples thus John decreased and Christ increased when both Water-Baptismes were in force that Christ had more Disciples than John even when John was living at which he rejoyced and as the number of Christ's Disciples increased above the number of Johns before John's decease so still after and will encrease and so will the Glory and Honour of Christ encrease above John to the end of the World But whereas they both argue as they think so strongly both against Water-Baptisme and the outward Supper because of the Scripture Phrase one Baptisme and one Bread which I confess did formerly carry some weight with me and I have so argued in some of my former Books but I have sufficiently seen the weakness of that Argument as well as other Arguments brought both by them and me against these Divine Institutions But let it be considered how things are said to be one in divers senses and acceptations God is one in the highest sense yet this doth not infer that there is no distinction of the Father Son and Holy Ghost in their relative Properties which are incommunicable and Christ is one and yet this doth not prove that Christ hath not two Natures one of the Godhead another of the Manhood most gloriously united 3. Faith is one yet there are divers true significations of Faith in Scripture as 1. the saving Faith 2. the Faith of Miracles which every one had not who had the saving Faith 3. Faith objectively taken for the Doctrine of Faith either as it is outwardly Preached or Professed as in Rom. 1.5 Gal. 3.2 Acts 24.24 Now if one should argue because the Scripture saith there is one Faith Eph. 4.5 that consequently there is but one Faith and that is the Doctrine of Faith outwardly Preached and Professed and consequently deny Faith as it is an inward Grace and Virtue of the Spirit in the Hearts of true Believers his Argument would be false so on the other hand if another should argue true saving Faith that is of absolute necessity to Salvation is an inward Grace or Vertue of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of true Believers and therefore there is no Doctrine
and as concerning Colos 2.17 The things there mentioned are called shadows of things to come such as the Types of the Mosaical Law were but Water-Baptisme and the Supper which the Christians were enjoyned to practice were simply not shadows of things to come but are commemorative Signs of Christ as he hath already come in the Body that was prepared for him and of his Body and Blood which he hath given for us together with the spiritual blessings of Grace Life and Light that we have by him to make us comformable to him in holiness as well as to give us the pardon of our Sins and to justifie us and give us a right to eternal Life But it bewrayeth still great in consideration in W. Penn to argue against the outward Baptisme and Supper as he doth in his Defence of his Key above-mentioned p. 154. They that personally saith he enjoy their dearest Friends will not repair to their Pictures though drawn never so much to the life to quicken their remembrance of them His similitude of a Picture to which he compareth the outward Baptisme and Supper is a good Argument against him the Saints on Earth have not the Man Christ personally present with them they have not his Body that suffered Death for them and rose again a present object to their outward sight therefore did he in his great love appoint these outward Signs to be a Memorial of him until they should have himself Personally present with them as they will certainly have in the time appointed and to as little purpose is his arguing in that same page That the true Believers were come to Mount Zion Heb. 12.22 and sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus which must be an attainment above signs of invisible grace being the life and substance of Religion and so the Period and Consummation of Types Shadows and such sort of Signs or Significations as are in question Answer It is a great Misrepresentation of the State of the Question in W. Penn so to place it as well as a weak Argument as because true Believers are come to Spiritual Attainments above Signs of invisible Grace that therefore there is no use of Signs in Religious Matters Why then doth he speak and writ so much in Religious Matters for all his Words and Writings are but Signs and he thinketh that his Brethren are come to higher Attainments than these Signs yea why doth he kneel in Prayer and discover his Head when he Prayeth what are these but Signs And why so much strife and contention about G. Fox's Papers of Church Orders and Womens Dresses Are not his Brethren come to higher Attainments than these outward things But it is an observation of many that after G. Fox had taught his Followers to throw down the outward Institutions of Christ he set up among them his own and so did persuade them to exalt them that whoever did not comply therewith were to be judged by his zealous Admirers to be Apostates thus Pharisee like setting up Humane Traditions above Divine Precepts and in so doing W. Penn has had no small share who hath as eagerly promoted G. Fox's Institutions about outward things as he hath laboured to throw down the Institutions of Christ SECT VII TO avoid the Argument for Water-Baptism it being an Institution of Christ from Matt. 28.19 Go teach all Nations Baptizing them into the name c. he saith but no water is mentioned page 106. Reason against Railing and therefore he concludes in the next p. that Christ commanded the Apostles to Baptize with the Holy Ghost and the like evasions is made by R.B. in the abovesaid Treatise p. 26. where he putteth them who understand it of Water-Baptisme to prove that Water is here meant since the Text is silent of it Ans As Water is not mentioned so nor is Baptizing with the Holy Ghost mentioned and at this rate of arguing used by them nor must Baptizing with the Holy Ghost be understood which yet they so inconsiderately affirm must be meant here But R.B. thinks to prove that Baptisme with the Holy Ghost is here meant arguing from the literal signification of the Text which we ought not to go from except some urgent necessity force us thereunto but no such urgent necessity forceth us thereunto Ans The literal signification of the Text is not Baptizing with the Holy Ghost but on the contrary the word Baptizing literally signifieth to Wash with Water or Dip into Water Yea R.B. grants p. 49. If the etymology of the word should be tenaciously adhered to it would militate as well against most of their Adversaries as the Quakers When it is transferred from the literal signification to a Metaphorical as to signifie the Inward and Spiritual Baptisme with the Holy Spirit it is never when so transferred applied to Men as having any command so to Baptize but wholly and only to God and Christ I challenge any Man to give but one instance in all the Scripture where Baptizing with the Spirit is ever referred to Men either by way of Precept or Practise as if ever any Man but the Man Christ did Baptize with the Holy Spirit or were commanded so to do the quibble from the Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is answered and refuted above as also his arguing from the word one Baptisme and whereas he saith the Name of the Lord is often taken in Scripture for some thing else than a bare sound of words or literal expression even for his Virtue and Power I answer and so is it oft taken otherwise as the Name of God in Scripture signifieth himself so the Name of Christ signifieth Christ and that both considered as he is God and Man and yet one Christ and that to be Baptized into the Name of the Lord Jesus did not signifie the Baptisme of the Holy Ghost I have proved already out of Acts 8.16 Besides the Name of the Father is not the Holy Ghost as neither is the Name of the Son for as the Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost so nor is the Name of the Father nor the Name of the Son the Name of the Holy Ghost as they are distinguished by their relative properties so by these Names though the Name God belongeth to each of them and who are one only God blessed for ever But that he further contends that the Baptisme commanded here in Matth. 28.19 is Christ's own Baptisme I answer Christ's own Baptisme whereof John makes mention and of which he is the author and giver is indeed the Baptism with the Holy Ghost which he promised unto the Apostles to give them and accordingly did perform but we no where find that ever he promised to give them Power to give it to others or commanded them to give it that is wholly an unscriptural Phrase and scandalous if not Blasphemous to say that poor mortal Men hoever so Holy could give the Baptisme of the Spirit this is to give to them what
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
former part of it for Men may have a Power that is neither from the Apostles mediately nor immediately not mediately as he thinks he has proved nor yet immediately from the Apostles because not their immediate Successors But why may they not have a Power mediately from Christ after some true manner and yet in some sort immediate also If we consider the several significations of the Words mediate and immediate none of which are Scripture words any more or scarce so much as other words they reject because not Scripture words and because of the ambiguous and doubtful signification of the Words mediate and immediate they may be omitted and other Words used to as good or better effect But if we may be allowed to use the words mediate and immediate one Sense of the word immediate is a Call from Christ's Person speaking with an audible Voice to the outward Ear such as the twelve Apostles had and Paul also This I know none now pretends to Another Sense of the word immediate is a Call by the Holy Spirit in the Hearts of them who are so Called in the same way and manner as the Prophets were both taught their Prophecies and called to deliver them and commit them to Writing which was by a Prophetick Spirit that did Infallibly guide them in every Sentence and Word of their Message without the least possibility of Error or Mistake and as so Taught and Called without the need or use of any outward means whatsoever If some of the Teachers among the Quakers have pretended to any such Inward Teaching or Calling as it can be easily proved they have it can be as easily proved that they have not been so taught nor called because in too many things wherein they have pretended to such Teaching and Calling they have Bewrayed themselves miserably and laid themselves open to the Judgment of the weaker sort of Sincere Christians who have been able to prove that in too many things they have delivered as Divine Revelations they have contradicted the Holy Scriptures and so have grosly Erred A Third sort of immediate Teaching and Calling is by taking the Etymologie of the Word immediate to signifie not without all Means but in and with the Means as when it is generally acknowledged that there is an immediate Supernatural Divine Concurrence of the Spirit of God that assisteth the Faithful in all truly holy Actions yea in all holy Thoughts and Desires Words and Works yet not without the use of outward Means but in the due and frequent use of them as in Reading Hearing and Meditating upon what hath been Read or Heard Now this sort of inward Teaching and Calling by the Spirit as it is not without means altogether so is it not without all possibility of Erring or Mistake for though no Error can proceed from the Spirit of God nor can the Spirit Err yet a Man that has the Spirit of God working in his Heart both to illuminate his Understanding and move and incline his Will to good Things may through Humane Weakness and Inadvertency or by some Prejudice of Education or wrong Information of his Teachers misapply and misunderstand the Spirits inward Illuminations and Motions which he is the more likely to do if he do not duly and diligently apply his Mind as to the Spirits inward Illumination so to the Directions and Instructions given to us in the Holy Scriptures to examine and find the agreement of the inward with the outward for certainly if the Persuasions that any Man hath contradict the plain Directions and Institutions given in the Holy Scriptures they are not of the Spirit of God whatever appearance they may seem to have of Power or Evidence the joynt concurrence of the Spirit of Truth within and the instrumental and subordinate help of the Scripture without given us to help our weakness may be compared to the natural Light of the Sun or Candle that we read with in some sort though this and all other Similitudes fall short of a full Illustration for as we cannot Read without the Light though the Book lie open before us so when the Light Shines yet it will not teach us what is in the Book unless we look on it and also be taught to Read in it Even so the Light of the Holy Spirit shining upon the Ideas and Perceptions of our Minds as conveyed to us by what we have heard or read out of the Holy Scriptures opens to us the true hidden Sense and Truth of them with Life and Power and great inward Clearness and Evidence Joy and Satisfaction and thus if we find that the Spirits Illumination worketh in our Hearts and Minds an Assent to the Truth of what is Recorded in the Holy Scriptures we can with all readiness receive it But if what we suppose to be a Divine Illumination discord from the Truth of the Scriptures we ought to reject it and by no means to receive it for it is not Divine but Humane or which is worse Diabolical Now according to this last Sense of the Word immediate i.e. inward Teaching and Call of the Spirit in the use of outward Means and Helps and especially the Holy Scriptures I see not but it may be granted that Men may be found and are to be found that have a true immediate Call from the Spirit of Christ in their Hearts both to Preach and Administer these Divine Institutions of the outward Baptism and Supper and all this well consisting with the mediate orderly Call where there is a Constitute Church though not every way so rightly and duly Constitute as was in the Apostles Days and in the purest Times succeeding the Apostles There is ground to believe that God raised up many such in the beginning of the Reformation from Popery and though since that beginning too many Particulars have rather gone backward than forward yet the Success of the Ministry and excellent Books that have come forth time after time of many Worthy Persons however in some things mistaken and the truly Christian Lives and Conversations of many through all the Protestant Churches though in comparison of the great multitude that are Prophane and Scandalous they are but a few may be a good Ground of Evidence that God is truly among them and doth own the Remnant that are Sincere and their Ministry to whom an Allusion may be made of what was said to the Church of Sardis the Greek Word Sardis is in the Plural Number thou hast a few Names in Sardis who have not Defiled their Garments they shall walk with me in White for they are Worthy I know there are some who do more than make an Allusion in the Case and think that by the Church of Sardis is really meant the collective Body of the Protestant Churches throughout the several Parts of the World which I will not here be positive either to affirm or deny but either by way of Allusion or by Hypothesis let us conceive that the Collective Body
Gentile Religion as well as true Christian Religion The Apostacie having been so great that many called Christians were Degenerated below the Heathens and their Religion scarce so good as that of some Heathens that did fear God and Worship him only the Angel might Preach that general Doctrin as being very proper and necessary to call Apostate and Degenerate Professors of Christianity from their Idolatry and Profanity as a necessary Introduction to the Everlasting Gospel as well as in one Sense it is a necessary part of it but not the whole Doctrin of the Gospel for Faith and Love are as necessary Doctrins of the Gospel as Fear though neither of them are expresly mentioned yet implyed together with all the other Christian Virtues But J. P. in his Words above Cited will have it That the Gospel cannot be said to be the Power of God unto Salvation to the Believer in any other Sense than as it is a Powerful energetical inward Principle for as it is barely Historical the Ungodly have that Belief I Answer How Foolishly doth he here Argue and Impertinently whoever said that the bare Historical Relation or Report of Christ Crucified is the Power of God unto Salvation Or if any have said it is the Gospel I am sure I never said nor thought it But what hath J. P. against this Sense of the Gospel Rom. 1.16 That it is the Doctrin of Salvation by the promised Messiah accompanied with the Spirit of God and Christ inwardly Revealed making it effectually to be Believed and Obeyed in all that shall be Saved by it and thus the Gospel that Paul and the other Apostles Preached is not a bare Form of Doctrin without the Spirit and Power nor the Spirit and Power without the Doctrin And how Non-sensical is he to Argue that as it is barely Historical the Ungodly have that Belief But they have not the Saving Belief of the Doctrin of Christ Crucified for that only is wrought in the Godly by the Power and Spirit of Christ And though the Ungodly may have the Gospel Preached unto them yet while they remain Ungodly they receive it not neither do they truly believe it nor obey it A bare Historical Faith is no more a True Faith than the bare Picture of a Man is a Man Therefore he is Idle to Argue against the Saving Faith of Christ Crucified because the Ungodly may have the bare Historical Belief of it which differs as widely as a Dead Body from a a Living Man But it is not enough for J. P. to Pervert my Words but he will be bold to Pervert the Words of the Scripture and not only put a false Gloss on them but alledge that to be said in Scripture which is not said but is his own Addition For as I have above Cited him he saith also when the Everlasting Gospel was again to be Preached and he adds in Parenthesis for it seems by the Word again it had been discontinued to be Preached although the History of Christ's Birth Death had not Now Reader open the Bible and Read that place Rev. 14.6 7. and thou wilt find the Word again is not there to be found but in G. Fox's Some Principles p. 22. it is found and yet he Grounds his Argument upon this Pillar again by which he inferreth that to his seeming the Everlasting Gospel had been discontinued to be Preached although the History of Christ's Birth Death had not And this discontinuing of the Preaching the Everlasting Gospel he and his Brethren think did remain until G. Fox and the Quakers began to Preach it For saith G. Fox and his Brethren in the Book called Some Principles of the Elect People of God Printed it London 1671. In p. 48. But many People speak after this manner Have we not had the Gospel all this time till now Ans We say no you have had the Sheeps Cloathing while you are Alienated from the Spirit and so not living in the Power which is the Gospel c. But as in Rev. 14.6 7. The Word again is not to be found nor will the Greek bear it so nor is it implyed that there was a discontinuing of the Preaching of it altogether for had the Gospel ceased the Church had ceased also and Faith and Salvation had ceased The most that can be inferred is that the Preaching of it was not so common and frequent as formerly it had met with a great Stoppage and Opposition in many parts of the World even under a Christian Profession because of the Apostacie which had it not come the Gospel would have spread much more than it yet hath done but as the Apostacie goes out the Everlasting Gospel the same that the Apostles Preached will be Preached to every Nation and Kindred and Tongue and People John 14.6 That is universally this doth not prove the discontinuing of it as J. P. falsly Argueth but that the more General and indeed the Universal Spreading of it hath not hitherto been as yet His Argument That the Gospel that Paul Preached to the Colossians was not the Doctrin of Salvation by the promised Messiah Christ Crucified because the Gospel he was speaking of was Preached to or in every Creature under Heaven Therefore saith he it could not be meant of the Doctrin of Salvation by Christ Crucified but of that Gospel which had been Preached to or in every Creature under Heaven I say this his Argument is Vain and False but it is a good and effectual Proof to confirm my Charge against them These Quakers Preach not any Gospel for Salvation but that which is Preached to or in every Creature under Heaven but saith J. P. that is not the Doctrin of Salvation by Christ Crucified therefore that is none of the Gospel these Quakers Preach what can be required more habemus Confitentem reum we have the Guilty Confessing Matter of Fact But surely the Gospel that Paul Preached to the Colossians was the Doctrin of Salvation by Christ Crucified as appears plainly from 1 Col. v. 14. to the end of the Chapter And his Arguing from the Words to or in every Creature which sort of Argument hath deceived many is no more valid to prove that the Gospel either then or formerly had been Preached to every Man and Woman in the full and adequate Sense of the Word every as it signifieth every individual than that because Paul said v. 28. of that same Chapter whom we Preach Warning every Man and Teaching every Man in all Wisdom that we may present every Man Perfect in Christ Jesus that Paul and his Brethren then living did Teach every Man that ever lived or is now living on Earth If yea then surely John Pennington and all other Men now on Earth were then living and this will be the Doctrin of the Revolution or Transmigration of Souls with a witness which he so frequently would cast upon me though he has no just ground so to do nor any other Man if nay then he
the sort of Bread and Wine to be used c. Answered SECT VI. Sheweth R.B. his Mistake that the Eating in these Words Take Eat c. do this in remembrance of me was their common Eating The continuance of the Supper Argued from 1. Cor. 11.23 c. That the coming of Christ meant in these Words until he come is his outward and last coming at the end of the World SECT VII Containeth three Reasons That by his coming 1 Cor. 11.26 is meant his outward coming SECT VIII Containeth three other Reasons for the same R.B. his Argument from the Syriack Translation in 1. Cor. 11.26 c. Answered SECT IX Containeth R.B. his last Argument against the outward Baptism and Supper Answered respecting the Power to Administer them as whether Mediate or Immediate The Collective Body of the Protestant Churches may by Allusion or an Hypothesis besaid to answer to the Church of Sardis which was not blamed for Idolatry but otherwayes An Advice to all sincere Christians agreeing in Fundamentals to own one another as Brethren SECT X. Sheweth that many in the Protestant Churches can give greater Evidence of their true inward Call to the Ministry than many of the Teachers among the Quakers Want of due Administrators no Argument against Baptism and the Supper An Advertisement concerning W. Del's Book against Baptism Good Advice to the Quakers concerning those Institutions SECT XI Containeth some Arguments of G. Fox and Humphry Norton with their Answers and some dreadful Words of Humphry Norton against our Saviour's last coming though the Man was highly commended by E. Burrough and F. Howgil Great Teachers among the Qaukers SECT XII Containeth some Scripture Proofs shewing that Baptism and the Supper are Institions of Christ PART I. SECT I. An Impartial Examination and Refutation of their Arguments against Water-Baptisme IN a Book of George Whitehead's whose Title is The Authority of the true Ministry in Baptizing with the Spirit and the Idolatry of such Men as are doting about Shadows and Carnal Ordinances here note his severe Charge p. 13. he bringeth three Reasons or Arguments to prove that in the Commission which Christ gave to his Discipless in Matth. 29.19 Mark 16.18 Water-Baptisme was not intended but the Baptisme of the Spirit His first Argument is If the Baptisme which Christ commanded in Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.16 was a Baptisme without which a Man cannot be saved then it was not the Baptisme of outward Water for Water-Baptisme is not of necessity to Salvation neither is there any stress for Salvation laid upon is but it was that Baptisme without which Men cannot be saved which Christ commanded Matth. 28. therefore not Water-Baptisme I prove saith he the Minor Proposition thus No man can be saved without being Baptized into the Name of God and his Son Christ Jesus for his Name is the Word of God by which Salvation comes and by no other Name and the Lord is one and his Name one and it was into his Name that the Disciples were commanded to Baptize People Ans Here G. Whitehead would appear to be some body in Logick though it is judged by many of his Brethren to be little better than a piece of the black Art but he has in this sufficiently discovered his Ignorance both in true Divinity and true Logick The Fallacy of his Argument is in this apparent that in his supposed Proof of that he calleth the Minor Proposition he confoundeth Baptisme into the Name and the Name it self for saith he his Name is the word of God by which Salvation comes But though Salvation cometh by the word of God and none can be saved without that Word yet it doth not follow that none can be saved without such a Baptisme as the Apostles did Baptize with into the Name of that Word for as they were to Baptize into the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Name of the Father c. So they were to Teach in that Name but this proves not that they were not to teach outwardly and they were to work Miracles in that Name it doth not therefore follow that they were not to work outward Miracles visible to Men's outward sight Again G. Whitehead useth the Name word of God in a too narrow and limited Sense for the full Name of Christ is not the word only but the word made Flesh or the word having assumed the true Nature of Man and that by the Name of Christ here is understood the Name of the Man Christ who was Crucified is clear from Paul's words to the Corinthians Was Paul Crucified for you or were ye Baptized into the Name of Paul Signifying that they were Baptized into the Name of Christ Crucified which hath a necessary Relation to the Man Christ and to Christ considered as truly as Man as God and thought the word is a Name proper to the Son yet it is not the Name either of the Father or of the Holy Ghost for that were to confound and wholly to destroy the distinction of the Relative Properties of Father Son and Holy Ghost which was the Sabellian Heresie The Minor thereof of his Argument is Fallaciously proved by him and his Assertion is false viz. That the Baptisme without which Men cannot be saved was the Baptisme which Christ Commanded to the Apostles if by the words cannot be saved he means absolutely impossible for he hath not in the least proved that it was not Water-Baptisme which Christ Commanded but whereas his Argument seemeth to depend on this that becomes Water-Baptisme is not absolutely necessary to Salvation therefore Christ did not Command it But he should learn better to distinguish things absolutely necessary to Salvation and things necessary in some respect and very profitable though not of absolute necessity and the like distinction G. Whitehead must allow with respect to his and his Brethrens Ministry Preaching and Writing which they suppose Christ has Commanded them and yet he will not say his and their Ministry Preaching and Writing is absolutely necessary to any Man's Salvation Besides it doth absolutely contradict G. Whitehead's declared Principle concerning the Sufficiency of the Light within every Man to Salvation without any thing else to affirm that Men could not be saved unless the Apostles had Baptized them according to Christ's Command even supposing it had been the Baptisme of the Spirit which the Apostles had been Commanded to Administer for this World have made the Salvation of Men depend upon the Ministry of Apostles and their Successors in the outward Exercise of their Spiritual Gift of Preaching and Prayer now before the Apostles Administred this Baptisme suppose it be that of the Spirit the Men to whom they were sent had the Light in them which was sufficient to Salvation without any thing else according to G. Whitehead's Doctrine and consequently without all Ministry of the Apostles and had they never heard or seen the Apostles or any other Men had they given due Attendance and Obedience to
was proper only to God and Christ why did John say he that comes after me shall Baptize with the Holy Ghost he did not say they who should come after me but he intimating none had that Power and Dignity but Christ who was God as well as Man and as he was God had this power belonging to him and which did belong to no Men nor Creature whatsoever and thus indeed the Baptisme with the Spirit is Christ's Baptisme not which he commanded Men to do but which he promised to do altho' the Water-Baptisme which he commanded his Apostles to practise in his Name is also his in a secondary sense as the Apostles teaching is his because commanded by him yet when we speak of Gods teaching according to the sense of that Scripture they shall all be taught of God it is not meant the outward teaching of Men but Gods inward teaching in Mens hearts As touching his third Reason to prove that Baptisme with the Holy Ghost is meant Matth. 28.19 The Baptisme which Christ commanded his Apostles was such that as many as were therewith baptized therewith did put on Christ but this is not true of Water-Baptisme Ans As concerning that place of Scripture Gal. 3.7 from which this Argument seems to be taken the place it self restricts it to the believing Galatians as v. 26. For yee are all the Children of God by faith in Christ Jesus and all such as beings Baptized with outward Water put him on by a publick Profession so by true Faith they inwardly put him on To make a publick Profession of Christ by Baptisme of Water is to put him on in a common Phrase of speech as when a Man is said to put on the Souldier the Magistrate by putting on the Garment of a Souldier or Magistrate in which sense Jerome said Romae Christum indui i.e. at Rome I put on Christ signifying that he was there baptized and it is to be noticed how Paul generally in his Epistles to the Churches he wrot to calls them Saints they being so by profession though there might have been Hypocrites among them and as by outward profession Men are said to be Saints so they may be said to have put on Christ when nothing by Word or Deed can appear to the contrary in a judgment of Charity As to his 4th Argument that Baptisme with Water was John's Baptisme I have above shewn that John's Water-Baptisme and the Water-Baptisme commanded to and practised by the Apostles after Christ's Resurrection diflered in many respects and tho' both required Repentance as a condition in order to receive the Water-Baptisme yet the later required Faith in Christ Crucified and Raised again as a condition in order to receive Baptisme but the former did not require that Faith Again his arguing from their not using that form of Baptism In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost who did Baptize with Water in those days of the Apostles is as defective as his otherways of arguing on this Head But how doth he prove that they used not this Form Why because in all these places where Baptizing with Water is mentioned there is not a word of this Form and in two places Acts 8.16 and 19.5 that it is said of some that they were Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus But it ought to be considered that oft in the Scriptures what is not exprest is understood yea that very Form expressed 8.16 is comprehensive of the other and if no more be expressed by him that is the Administrator if he be sound in the Faith and that the person to be Baptized hath a sound Faith that Form is sufficient it is not exprest that the Eunuch gave any other confession of his Faith before he was Baptized but that Jesus Christ is the Son of God but will it therefore follow that he believed no other Article of the Christian Faith but that and confessed no other In his further Essay to defend his assertion that Christ commanded the Apostles to Baptize with the Spirit he saith Baptisme with the Spirit tho' not wrought without Christ and his Grace is instrumentally done by men fitted of God for that purpose and therefore no absurdity follows that Baptisme with the Spirit should be expressed as the action of the Apostles for tho' it be Christ by his Grace that gives Spiritual Gifts yet the Apostle Rom. 1.11 speaks of his imparting to them Spiritual Gifts and he tells the Corinthians that he had begotten them thro' the Gospel 1 Cor. 4.15 To convert the heart is properly the work of Christ and yet the Scripture oftentimes ascribes it unto Men as being the Instruments and Paul 's commission was to turn Men from Darkness to Light Ans I acknowledge such like answers I had formerly given in some of my former Books to the like Objection but I am come to see the weakness and defect of it in order therefore to detect the fallacy of this assertion that the Apostles might be as well said to Baptize with the Spirit as to Beget to Convert to Impart some Spiritual Gift c. Let it be considered that Baptisme with the Holy Spirit is not only another thing than Conversion or imparting some Spiritual Gift c. that it is incomparably greater for Baptisme with the Spirit is equivalent to the mission of the Spirit and his Inhabitation in Believers and his being given to them all Spiritual Gifts of Faith Conversion Regeneration however so true and real are but works and effects of the Spirit with whom Men may be said Instrumentally to work but the giving the Holy Spirit to which Baptisme with the Holy Spirit is equivalent is of a higher Nature than any or all these Spiritual Gifts differing as much as the Giver differs from his Gifts For as to Create is only proper to God and Christ and the Holy Ghost to Redeem by way of Ransome and Satisfaction to Divine Justice is only proper to Christ without any concurrence of Men or Angels so to Baptize with the Holy Ghost or endue therewith or give or send the Holy Ghost is only proper to God or Christ and not to Men so much as Instrumentally there is no such Phrase to be found in all the Scripture as that any Man did Baptize with the Holy Ghost in any case or sense we ought not to allow such odd Phrases so forrain to Scripture otherwise the greatest absurdities might follow and a Power of Creating and Redeeming might be given to Men at this rate by adding the word Instrumentally but as we are to allow no Instrumental Creators or Redeemers so no Instrumental giver of the Holy Ghost or Baptizers with the same The Holy Ghost is God himself and it is too arrogant and wild to say that Men who in respect of God are as Worms can give their Creator and Maker The Scripture indeed tells us that the Holy Ghost was given thro' the laying on of the Apostles
useful when the signification of them is understood for Example Water in Baptisme hath a nearer resemblance to the thing signified by it than any words whatsoever for words signifie only by humane Institution but visible Signs that are not words bear some Similitude and Analogy to the things signified and are as it were so many Hieroglyphicks of Divine Mysteries In short the difference betwixt the Judaick and the Christian Dispensation stands not as W. Penn would have it that the Judaick Dispensation was an outward Figurative and Shadowy Worship and Religion and that the Gospel hath nothing of outward in it nothing of Figure Sign or Shadowy for in both these Descriptions he is under a great mistake the Judaick Religion had Substance Life and Vertue and an inward Glory belonging to it as really as the Christian yea the very same in Nature and therefore it is not a fit Definition he gives of the Judaick Dispensation and Religion that it was an outward Figurative and Shadowy Worship and Religion the outward part of it was the Shell and Cabinet but it had an inward part that was as the Kirnel and Jewel as all the Faithful did know who were under that Dispensation while it stood in force Again it is as really an Error on the other hand to define the Christian Dispensation to be all inward all Life and Spirit and Substance that is too Chymical and Subtile and no wise Saits with a mortal State at least for as our natural Bodies cannot Eat and Drink all Spirit but require a Food more Bodily so our Christian Religion requireth a Bodily part as well as a Spiritual And such who through an ignorant Presumption throw away the Bodily part of the Christian Religion lose the Spiritual or rather never find it but in place of the true Spirit of Christianity embrace an inward Shadow and Imagination and oft an Antichristian Spirit and such I have known who had been once very Zealous in the Quakers way who upon such ignorant Presumption would come to no Meetings hear no outward Teaching nor joyn in any External Act of Worship alledging all was inward and they needed no outward thing and God was only to be Worshipped in the inward which are the true and proper Consequences of W. Penn's Reasonings here His Distinction of Prenunciative and Commemorative Signs I have above examined and shewed that Water-Baptisme and the outward Supper are not meerly Prenunciative but Commemorative as commanded to be practised after Christ's Resurrection The true distinction betwixt the Judaick and Christian Dispensation and Religion consists in these following Particulars That the Judaick Dispensation and Religion had much more of outward Figurative and Shadowy things than the Christian the former had much as best suited to that Time and State the latter had but little in comparison to the former As for Example the Figures and Shadows of the Law were indeed many perhaps some hundreds there were of the Mosaical Laws commonly called Ceremonial relating to Meats and Drinks Washings or Baptisms Persons Places and Times as Days Weeks Months and Years but the Symbols and Signs under the Gospel are but few as Water in Baptisme and Bread and Wine in the Supper kneeling or standing up in Prayers and the Men uncovering their Heads may be called Decent Religious Signs of our Worship Secondly The Typical and Mosaical Precepts were not only many but considerably chargeable and painful the multitude of their Sacrifices were a great charge and the Males coming there every year to Jerusalem very Laborious Circumcision of the Male Children painful but Water-Baptisme and the Supper very easie and with very little charge and little or no pain which chargeable and painful Service of the Law among other things occasioned Peter to call it a Yoak which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear Acts 15.10 And God in his wisdom saw it meet to put that yoak upon them as suiting to that legal and typical state and our deliverance from that Yoak is a great blessing of God Thirdly These Signs and Shadows of the Law did not near so clearly and plainly hold forth Christ and the Spiritual Blessings of Remission of Sins Justification Adoption Sanctification and Glorification through Christ as these few plain Signs and Symbols of Water in Baptisme and Bread and Wine in the Supper do the words in the Form of Baptisme do plainly express that Great Mystery of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and how these three are concerned in the things signified by the outward Baptisme as namely in the Pardon of our Sins the Father giveth it the Son purchaseth it the Holy Spirit in our Hearts persuadeth us of it Again the form of words in the Institution of the Supper take eat this is my body c. and this cup is the new Testament in my blood shed for the remission of the sins of many drink ye all of it There are no such plain and clear Forms of Speech holding forth Christ and the spiritual Blessings we have by him that were annexed to or used with any of the Figures and Shadows of the Law Fourthly The Figures and Shadows of the Law in the use of them had not that Plenty of Grace and Divine and Spiritual Influence of the Holy Ghost accompanying them generally to Believers under the Law as doth generally accompany Believers under the Gospel for as Paul declareth it was reserved unto the days that were to come after the Judaical Dispensation was ended wherein God was to show the exceeding Riches of his Grace and in the latter Days viz. under the Gospel the Spirit was to be poured forth as was accordingly fulfilled and on these Accounts especially the two last it is that Baptisme with Water and the outward Supper ought not to be numbred among the Carnal Ordinances of the Judaick Dispensation for though the material things in some part be the same yet the manner so differing and the Grace and Spirit more plentiful abundantly as is above declared gives just cause that the outward Baptisme and the Supper when duly Administred as they ought to be and were in the Apostles Days should not be numbred among the Carnal Ordinances nor yet so called but rather Spiritual for things receive their denomination from the greater and better part Holy Men in Scripture are called Spiritual though having Bodies of Flesh and why may not things be called Holy and Spiritual that are used and practised by Holy Men wholly for a Holy End although the things themselves be Material and External All which being considered it will plainly appear how weakly and rawly both W. Penn and R.B. have argued in this Point and what an Impertinent Consequence W. Penn hath made to infer that to allow Water-Baptisme and the outward Supper to belong to the Gospel is to make the Gospel a State of Figures Types and Shadows which doth no more truly follow than to allow that because W. Penn hath a Body of Flesh
Teachers and Leaders now bearing great Sway among them as a thing not only not very necessary but contrary to the Apostles Doctrin Rom. 10. Witness some very express Passages in a Book of G. Whitehead's and George Fox the younger called Truth defending the Quakers and their Principles Writ say they from the Spirit of Truth in G. Whitehead and G. Fox the younger Judge Christian Reader if these Men have not belyed the Spirit of Truth to father such gross Untruth and Antichristian Sayings upon the Spirit of Truth as are contained in these Passages hereafter to be quoted and many others of the like nature that might be produced out of that vile Pamphlet above named Printed at London for Tho. Sâ—mmons at the Bull and Mouth near Aldersgate 1659. In p. 65 of that Book they bring in one Christopher Wade saying Christopher Wade affirmeth that our blessed Saviour doth instruct Men to lay fast hold of and to abide in such a Faith which confideth in himself being without Men To this they answer Ans That 's contrary to the Apostles Doctrin who Preached the Word of Faith that was in their Hearts and the Saints Faith stood in the Power of God which was in them Note Reader this Assertion of C. Wade blamed by them as being contrary to the Apostles Doctrin is so far from being contrary thereunto that there can be nothing more agreeable as appeareth in the words of the Apostle Paul in the very next verse following where after mentioning the word of Faith in Verse 8 which was nigh in the Mouth and in the Heart he adds in the 9th and 10th verses That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation Again They bring in C. Wade see there page 66 saying C. Wade p. 14. hath affirmed that the Lord hath bought us and Redeemed us with the precious Blood of his Humanity and saith your imagined Christ being a mere Spirit never had any Humane Blood to Redeem you with and to prove it he brings 1 Pet. 1.19 now see their Answer Ans That Scripture 1 Pet. 1. Hast thou perverted as thou hast done other Scriptures to thy own destruction for there he witnessed to the blood of the Lamb which redeemed them from their vain conversation but doth not tell of humane Blood to Redeem them with For that which is Humane is Earthly but Christ whose Blood is Spiritual is Lord from Heaven and he is not an imagined Spirit but a true Spirit And what say'st thou to this Was that Humane Blood which Christ saith except a man drink he hath no life in him and which cleansed the Saints from all Sin who were Flesh of Christ's Flesh and Bone of his Bone Note Any intelligent Reader cannot but know that Christopher Wade by the Blood of Christ's Humanity meant the Blood of the Man Christ that was born of the Virgin and by the Humanity he meant the Manhood of Christ which of late years G. Whitehead hath in Print owned even the words Humanity of Christ and yet never to this day hath retracted his vile Doctrin in this and other his Books whereof I have given some account in my first and second Narrative c. at Turners-Hall Nay it is below him to retract any Errors that would reflect upon his Infallibility he is not changed as God is the same and Truth is the same so the Quakers are the same and by consequence so is G. Whitehead the same as John Pennington hath affirmed in one of his late Prints Again In p. 23. of that above mentioned Book they answer a Question thus Q. 43. When you tell us that you have Faith in Christ do you mean Christ whose Person is now ascended into Heaven above the Clouds or do you mean only a Christ within you Ans Here thou wouldst make two Christ's a Christ whose Person is above the Clouds and a Christ within but how provest thou two such Christs We have Faith in that Christ that descended from the Father who is the same that ascended far above all Heavens that he might fill all things and this Christ we witness in us who is not divided Note I need not make any Commentary on these words the Man that asked the Question did not in the least insinuate that there were two Christ's but 't is plain it was G. Whitehead's Sense that to own Christ whose Person is now Ascended unto Heaven above the Clouds and to own Christ within is to make two Christs But seeing there is but one Christ that is only according to G. Whitehead's Notion within and not a Person now Ascended above the Clouds it is plain he doth not own any such Person Ascended into Heaven above the Clouds nor Faith in any such Person and no wonder that he oppose Faith in Christ's Person without us when he opposeth the Being of any such Person for the object of Faith being destroyed or denyed the Act of Faith must be destroyed or denyed also both which we see he hath plainly done in this Book and if in some of his latter Books he seems to be of a better Faith yet who can believe him to be sincere until he retract and comdemn the vile Errors in this and other of his former Books which have infected thousands of the poor ignorant People called Quakers whom he hath led into this Ditch of Unbelief and yet for danger of loosing his Reputation of Infallibility and of being sound from the beginning he will not do any thing to confess his former Ignorance and Unbelief which might be a great means to lead that poor People out of that Ditch into which he had formerly led them And how he will answer it at the great Day of Judgment for this great Sin and Neglect to make amendment so as to correct his former gross Errors and labour to undeceive those whom he had formerly deceived he has great need to consider it and I sincerely wish that a Heart may be given him to do it and that by true Repentance he may be humbled before the Lord and obtain forgiveness But he hath given us a very late Instance that he is not changed really in his false Faith and Persuasion from what he was when he wrote that Book near 40 years past which instance is this He hath blamed G. K. for undervaluing the Light within as not sufficient to Salvation or not sufficient without something else that is Christ Jesus without us Suffering and Dying outwardly for us as in his late Antidote Printed 1697. p. 28. compared with p. 27. ad finem Judge Reader of what little necessity or value he makes of the Man Christ without us and of his Death and Sufferings Resurrection and Intercession in Heaven by this most unsound Notion of his for which he
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
their being Members of the Jewish Church and their Eating of the Passover and of the Sacrifices such as were allowed to them to Eat was a Sign of their being still owned as such and if any by their offensiveness and disobedience did occasion the Church to debarr them from the external Privileges of that Church when upon their Repentance and Reconciliation they were again received they needed no second Circumcision so nor do professed Christians having committed any thing that occasion their casting out being again received by Repentance need a second Baptism Now if Baptism had been the alone obsignating token of the Covenant and Badge of Christian Communion how should Persons be received into Communion without a new Baptism but to have a new Baptism is as improper as for a Woman after some just offence against her Husband that he has put her from him if upon her Repentance he receive her again to need a second Marriage with the same Husband but tho' she need no second Marriage yet that her Husband give her some token and pledge of his Favour and Acceptance is very suitable And now seeing these external Practices have so many necessary uses in the Church so that the Church cannot in all respects be duly constituted and have all things in order without them it is evident that as long as the Church was to continue on Earth in its due Constitution so long should these external Practices remain and seeing Christ enjoyned this of breaking Bread to remain to his coming it is evident that it is his last outward coming The Fifth Reason is that Christ's Inward coming was then in and among the Disciples when he did Institute these Outward Practices The Church was never without the Inward Presence of Christ and of God and of the Holy Spirit It is true that Christ promised his Inward Presence to be with them and in them but this was not so to be understood as if the Faithful had him not present formerly in all Ages as well before as after his Outward coming for without the Inward Presence of God and Christ and the Holy Spirit there can be no true Faith nor Holiness We find that the Faithful are called Saints as well in the Old Testament as in the New and therefore they had as true Inward enjoyments of God then as since the difference at most is but in degree betwixt the Divine Enjoyments of the Faithful before Christ came in the Flesh and since as to the general And if it be said that though Christ was Inwardly come to some yet not to all in the Apostles times so as to Answer to the full extent of the fulfilling of the Promise of his Inward coming It may be answered nor is he so come now for as Christ said the Poor ye have always with you so until the end of the World there will be in the Church Babes and little Children as well as young Men and Fathers and therefore on the account of such by R. B.'s Confession that are weak as some of the Corinthians were that needed those Outward things to put them in Remembrance of Christ's Death they are still to be continued even to Christ's last Outward coming but there are too many among the Quakers that think there is no need to Remember Christ's Death as he dyed at Jerusalem abusing and perverting Paul's words henceforth we know Christ no more after the flesh and so there is no need or use of Remembring Christ's Death that they say is but History but Christ within is the Mystery whereas Christ within is not the whole Mystery but in part and the lesser part too the whole Mystery of Christ is Christ both Outwardly come in the Flesh and Inwardly come by his Spirit into the Hearts of the Faithful The Sixth Reason is that to understand by the coming of Christ in these words untill he come 1 Cor. 11. His Inward coming and not his coming Without us at the day of Judgment by the same pretext and method of Interpretation All the other Scriptures every where that mention his coming throughout the whole Bible and especially throughout the New Testament shall be understood only of his Inward coming And thus we shall have not one proof left us in all the Bible to prove that there is any other coming of Christ to be expected than his Inward coming in Mens Hearts And accordingly indeed we find that too many of the Quakers have by this manner of perverting this place of Scripture been led to understand all these other places of Scripture in the New Testament that mention his coming since he came in the Flesh to be only understood of his Inward coming in Mens Hearts and on this account have denyed any other coming of Christ to be expected but only his Inward coming being persuaded into this False and Antichristian Belief by some of their great Teachers witness what William Baily a great Teacher among them hath plainly declared in this matter p. 306. of the Collection published by the 2d days Meeting of the People called Quakers at Grace-Church-street I never read in all the Scripture saith he as I can remember of a 3 d. coming of Christ personally in his own single person or of a personal Reign besides what shall be in his Saints But I have read of his coming the 2 d. time without Sin unto Salvation c. which the Apostles in their days did witness Witness also Rich. Hubberthorn another great Teacher in his Collection published after his death also by the 2d days Meeting p. 56. in answer to his Opponent How many Souls hast thou led into that Pit of Darkness and Blindness as to believe that Christ is yet to come in Person Now the Scripture which thou bringest proves no such thing Matth. 24.27 And a 3d. witness is G. Whitehead in his Nature of Christianity against R. Gordon who p. 29. saith Dost thou look for Christ as the Son of Mary to appear Outwardly in a bodily Existence to save thee according to thy words p. 30. If thou dost thou may'st look until thy Eyes drop out before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him And p. 41. Where doth the Scripture say he is Outwardly and Bodily Glorified at God's right Hand Do these words express the Glory he had with the Father before the World began in which he is now Glorified This and the two foregoing Quotations are to be found more large in my Two Narratives of the Proceedings at Turners-Hall all which sufficiently prove that they believed no Outward coming of Christ as a thing to come therefore it is no wonder that they meant only Christ's coming Inwardly into Mens Hearts by these words ye shew forth the Lord's death until he come for from the same Unbelief they have construed all the other places that mention Christ's coming after his Resurrection of his Inward coming and all this in prejudice of his Outward coming which these Men did not believe which
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
of Recommendation concerning him they both sent with him to Friends in Ireland contained in the said Manuscript unto you all saith Edward Burrough I do him recommend as a faithful Labourer to be received by you in the Name of him that sends him in tender pity for you all and the Blessing of the Lord upon his Faithfulness I doubt not c. Dated London 19. 3d. mo 1656. And saith Fr. Howgil receive Humphry Norton in the Lord whom the Lord hath moved to come unto you who is a Brother and Faithful in the Lord's Work and be Subject unto him in the Lord all unto him for I much desired that he might come unto you and so the Lord hath ordered it and as you receive him you receive me F. Howgil This Man Humphry Norton after his Arrival in Ireland in the year 1656 writ and spread about several Papers among the People call'd Baptists and others of which I have seen divers contained in a Manuscript all Writ by one Hand and having his Name to them His Argument against Baptism is in the following Words Q. 15. And now ye Baptists seeing that Christ is come and hath Baptized us and all Men come unto him tell me whether there be any Baptism but one seeing the Apostle saith one Lord one Faith one Baptism Eph. 4.5 6. And whether Baptism be not a Doctrin yea or nay If you say an Ordinance whether it be not Abolished yea or nay seeing the Scripture saith having abolished in his Flesh the Enmity even the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinances for to make in himself of Twain one new Man so making Peace Eph. 2.15 Ans That concerning one Baptism is fully Answered above To the latter concerning Ordinances the Word in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not properly Translated Ordinances but rather Opinions or Persuasions But let it be Translated Ordinances how doth this prove that therefore Water-Baptism is Abolished unless the Argument be built upon this Supposition that all Ordinances are Abolished and consequently Baptism with Water and at the same rate Preaching and Prayer must be Abolished which are no less Ordinances And in the same Parcel of Queries the fifth Querie is now Answer in plain Words From whence must this Christ ye wait for come and in what Generation and of what Family and out of what Country and of whom must he be Born that they may no longer be deceived by you who have kept them gazing after a false Christ well may it be called Gazing but leave it and mind these in white Apparel which Reproves you for it Acts 1.10 11. This Humphry Norton after some Years went into New England and after his Return Prints a Book at London which I find Quoted in another Printed Book having the like or the same Queries for Substance the Words are these Is not Christ God and is not God a Spirit you look for a Christ without you from what Coast or Country shall he come What Country-man is he You stand Gazing up in the Clouds after a Man but we stand by in White chiding of you Reader are not these dreadful Words enough to make all Christian Ears to tingle it is no wonder that they have so generally Construed these Words ye shew forth his Death until he come to be only his inward coming when the chiefest Teachers among them had no Faith of his outward coming to Judge the World And it is but too likely that E. Burrough and F. Howgil were as great Unbelievers as he in that great Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion and if they were not they were miserably deceived and did miserably deceive themselves by their supposed Gift of Discerning to give such high Recommendations and Praises of a Man that deserved not to be numbred among the lowest Rank of Christians who hath dared thus openly like one of the Heathen Opposers to Scoff at our Blessed Lord's coming without us to Judgment but never any Christian gave him occasion for such a Scoffing manner of Questioning it being universally believed by all Christians that our Lord will come from Heaven in the same Body wherein he Ascended and is not to be Born again of a Woman Again In another Paper that hath his Name to it there are these Words and whereas he Accused us for denying Christ's Merits I say that which can be Merited is of Self and that which is of Christ is freely given But such a word is not in Scripture as Christ's Merits but is fetch'd from the Whore a at Rome by them Behold the Man whom E. Burrough's called a Faithful Labourer and F. Howgil called a Brother Faithful in the Lord's Work to whom he would have all the Quakers in Ireland to be Subject How can they who follow such blind Guides but fall into the Ditch with them Is there any greater or so great Blindness to be found in the Blindest and most Ignorant of the Papists In a Book of mine called Truth 's Defence p. 140. I find an other Argument I have used against the Supper the Effect of which is contained in these following Words What Christ did at that time and bid his Disciples do until he come is no Gospel Ordinance because it was done in the Night or Evening of the old Covenant Dispensation and consequently was to come to an end with it Ans. I freely acknowledge this Argument is Weak and Unsound and the way to Answer it is by denying the Consequence to be True and Just for mostly what Christ Taught was in the Evening or latter part of the old Covenant but it doth not therefore follow that it was to end with it As also where I have said in my Book called Presbyterian and Independent Churches c. P. 185. That which ye now use is neither Substantial Dinner nor Supper being only a Crumb of Bread c. I acknowledge was unadvisedly said and as weakly Argued for the end of that outward Institution was not any outward Substantial Dinner or Supper as neither was that of the Paschal Lamb. And also where p. 184. of the same I have argued that the use of the outward Signs of Baptism and the Supper did suit most with the Ages and State of Children for they suit well enough with the most grown Christians while remaining in the Mortal Body SECT XII AND thus I have Answered to all the Arguments brought against the outward Baptism and the Supper by their several Writers and chief Teachers that I have found in their Books not omitting any to my best Remembrance of any Note where though I have brought in G. Fox among the last because I had not found the particular Book where his Arguments were until I had finished my Answer to the other four preceeding yet he was the first among the Quakers that led them as into divers other great Errors so into this of rejecting the outward Baptism and the Supper grounding all upon a pretended Divine Inspiration and as
Man Christ and because the Fulness is not in us and never was or shall be in any Man but in the Man Christ Jesus alone that was Born of the Virgin therefore he and he only because of the Fulness of Grace and Truth that was and is in him was Ordained and Appointed to be the Great and only and alone Sacrifice for the Sins of the World being the Head of the Body which is his Church it was only proper that the Sufferings that should be in the Head only should be that compleat only and alone Satisfactory and Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of Men As the Arguments above mentioned in my Queries to G. Whitehead and W. Penn do plainly demonstrate And though in Christ when he Suffered for the Sins of the World at his Death his Godhead did not Suffer yet all that was in him the Godhead excepted did Suffer Note again Reader That although I find no cause to give an Answer to the Book of John Pennington above-mentioned called The Fig-Leaf Covering c. Because I had said in my second Narrative p. 33. that very Book being a pretended Answer to my Book of Explications and Retractations is such a plain and evident Discovery of his Unjust and Unfair Proceedings against me whereof the whole second Days Meeting who hath approved his Book is Guilty and of his Ignorance and Perversness of Spirit in Perverting my Words that I see no need to give any other Answer to him or direct to any other Answer either to his Fig-Leaf c. or his Book Keith against Keith or any other his Books but his own very Book and Books compared fairly with my Books Quoted by him and particularly that of my Explications and Retractations yet because I find divers Passages in that Book of his plainly prove him and his Brethren of the second Days Meeting extreamly Erroneous in the great things of the Christian Doctrin some of them being Fundamental therefore I shall take notice of the following Passages partly to give the Reader a tast of his Unfair Dealing towards me and partly to shew his being still Erroneous in some great Fundamentals of the Christian Faith together with his Brethren of the second Days Meeting who have approved his Fig-Leaf In his 19 and 20 Pages he will needs fasten a Contradiction on me That one time by the Flesh of Christ John 6. I mean an inward invisible Substance and the Eating an inward invisible Eating But now in my Retractations I Assert that to believe in Christ as he gave his Body of Flesh outwardly to be broken for us is the Eating of his Flesh as well as the inward Enjoyment of his Life in us And to confirm the Contradiction he Quotes me saying Immed Revel p. 258. This Body of Christ of which we partake is not that which he took up when he came in the Flesh outwardly but that which he had from the beginning Ans First It is no Contradiction to say the Eating of Christ's Flesh John 6. is to believe not by a bare Historical Belief but by a living sincere Faith Wrought in us by the Spirit of Christ that Christ gave his outward Body to be broken for us and also that it is the inward Enjoyment of his Life in us as it is no Contradiction to say Christ is our Intire and compleat Saviour both as he came outwardly in the Flesh Dyed and Rose again c. And as he cometh inwardly by his Spirit into our Hearts and dwelleth in us by Faith And as concerning that Quotation Immed Rev. p. 258. by this Body in that place I did mean that which is only Allegorically called his Body to wit that Middle of Communication above mentioned that is indeed a Spiritual and invisible Substance owned by R.B. as well as by me and many others And I say still this invisible Spiritual Substance in the Saints is not that visible Body of Christ which he assumed when he came in the Flesh outwardly yet this is not to make two Bodies of Christ because the one is called his Body only in a Metaphorical Sense Ans 2. In my Book of Retractations p. 25. I had plainly Retracted and Corrected that Passage in p. 25. Recor. Corr. That by Christ's Flesh and Blood John 6.50 51. He meaneth only Spirit and Life acknowledging that it was at most an Oversight in me but how doth this prove me a Changling in an Article of Faith As he infers very Injurously May not a Man change his Judgment concerning the Sense of a particular place of Scripture without changing an Article of Faith That such a Change may be without a Change in an Article of Faith is acknowledged by all Sober Writers and Expositors of Scripture Yea there are many places of Scripture that some understand one way and others not that way but another and others a third way and yet all have one Faith in point of Doctrin Ans 3. What a Man Retracts in one Book or part of a Book he ought to be understood to Retract the same Passage where it can be found in another Part or Book of his nor ought he to be Charged with Contradiction in what he hath Retracted For as I have formerly said in Print they are only Chargable with Contradictions that without Retractation holds Contradictory Assertions simul semel i. e. both together Page 22. He will not permit me to use that Distinction to say I had not my Knowledge from them viz. The Scriptures as being the efficient Cause but I did not deny that I had my Knowledge by them Instrumentally to wit the Doctrinal Knowledge and Faith I had of Gospel Truths he Quibbles upon the Word from as if it could not signifie sometimes the efficient Cause and sometimes the Instrumental whereas a School Boy knoweth that it hath these several Significations and more also And seeing what I then Writ in my Book of Immed Rev. was owned by the Quakers it plainly followeth That according to J.P. the Words of Scripture are not a Means so much as Instrumentally to our Knowledge of the Truths of Christian Doctrin But how will he Reconcile this to W. Penn who doth acknowledge that the Scriptures are a Means to know God Christ and our selves See his Rejoynder p. 115. where he expresly saith We never denied the Scriptures to be a means in God's Hand to Convince Instruct or Confirm By we its plain W. P. meant all the Quakers and consequently G. K. being then owned to be one of them Page 39. He will not allow that what I have Quoted out of my Immed Revel p. 243. to p. 247. proves that I did then hold the Man Christ without us in Heaven to be the Object of our Faith though he grants my Words that I said The Man Christ who Suffered in the Flesh at Jerusalem is the Spring out of which all the living Streams flow into our Souls and that he is to be Prayed unto which he saith none of us
is it not sufficient to prove the truth of it And we find but one Text of Scripture and that is in John 6. that mentions the eating of Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood in order to eternal Life is not that one place enough to prove that Truth Another Argument he useth is p. 110. Reas c. That the Gentile Spirit hath troden them under foot so long being part of that outward Court of Religion given to them which were left out at the measuring of the Evangelical Temple of God Rev. 11.1 2. Ans It was not the outward Court but the Holy City that the Gentiles did tread under feet The outward Court indeed is with respect to that time was not to be measured but left unmeasured towit during the time of the great Apostacy But this argueth there was an utter Court the not Measuring of it seems to signifie that it was short and defective of the just Measure that was originally belonging to it as it was in the Apostles dayes and for a long time afterwards until the great Apostacy began at least for the space of three Hundred Years and upwards from our Saviours Resurrection But this is so far from proving that outward Baptsme and the Supper suppose they were a part of the outward Court were no Institutions of Christ under the Gospel that it proves they were for the outward Court was a part of the Temple under the Law and signified that the Church of God under the Gospel was to have that which by way of Analogie answered to it as accordingly it had till the great Apostacy came in that made it to be for a time to be left unmeasured But we find that in Ezekiel the Temple there described Chap 42 is described with its outer Court and is measured which Temple there described it not any material Temple but the Church of God as it shall be raised up after the Apostasie which shall have her outward Court in its just measure and seeing the Quakers take themselves to be the Church come out of the Wilderness and got free from the Apostasie and that Water-Baptisme and the Supper belongs to the outer Court as W. Penn will have it by the same or like Argument they ought to restore the true and due practice of them But why may not their Ecclesiastick Discipline be reckoned as much belonging to the outer Court as Water-Baptisme and the Supper and if so why have they set up that that is as much outward as Baptisme and the Supper and not the other which has far less show of warrant than the other SECT X. THE last Argument W. Penn useth or at least the last that I shall bring and I think I have omitted none either of his or of R. Barclay that I could find that seem'd to require an Answer is taken from Christ's washing his Disciples Feet and commanding them to wash one anothers Feet and James commanding to anoint the Sick with Oyl and the Apostles commanding to abstain from blood and things strangled and that the believers sold their Possessions and had all things common p. 111. Reason against Railing from which he infers that seeing they who plead for the continuance of Water-Baptism and the Supper do not practise those things therefore nor should they practise the other And the like Reasoning doth R.B. use in the above said Treatise called by his Son Baptism and the Supper substantially asserted insisting upon that of Christ's washing the Disciples Feet in several Pages of that Treatise from p. 94 to 99 and on that of anointing with Oyl p. 115. Ans Upon a due consideration of things this last Argument will have as little force as any of the former against the outward Baptism and the Supper That Christ commanded the Disciples to wash one anothers Feet giving them an Example from his own Practice as it was an Act of great Love and Humility in him so to do by his Example he did enjoyn to his Disciples to practise the like Acts of Love and Humility one to another so that what was here enjoyned the Disciples by Christ was not any commemorative Sign of his Death and Sufferings but a real Act of Love and Humility which is not tyed or confined to that particular Action that was peculiar to that County and an ordinary practice among the People of that Country for the Country being hot they used Sandals on their Feet by occasion of which their Feet who used to Travel as Christ and his Apostles frequently did needed washing not only for making them clean but for refreshment and when they came to lodge or stay at a place after Travel it was usual for Travellers to have Water brought and their Feet to be washed as in Gen. 18. and 19. and what was done to them in bringing Water and having their Feet washed was a real Act of Love and Kindness in them that received them into their Houses though they performed not that Office themselves but caused it to be done by their Servants which was a servile Act and more usual to Servants than to Masters But if done by the Master of the House or by one that was not a Servant was an extraordinary Act of Love and Humility so here was nothing in all this of Ceremony Sign or Figure but all a real Act and Office of excessive Love and most profound Humility in our Blessed Lord towards his Disciples and by this exemplary Act of his he both taught and commanded them to perform both that and also other the like Acts and Offices of Love and Humility towards one another which they were to do simply as Acts of singular Virtue after his Example and not as any Symbolical or Commemorative Sign of Christ's Death and Passion and accordingly we find it numbred among the Virtuous Acts of ancient Christian Widows and Matrons 1 Tim. 5.10 If she have washed the Saints Feet And the like was that Custom of giving a Cup of cold Water or of cold as the word is best Translated to Travellers which was a great Act of Kindness and Hospitality in those hot Countries but none of these Actions the one of washing the Feet the other of giving a Cup of cold is any ordinary Act of Friendship Love or Humility here-away in cold Countries where there is either no such ordinary occasion or usual Custom For to do any such thing hereaway would be rather a Ceremony than any substantial Act of either Love or Humility But in all cases when occasion is found for one Christian to perform the equivalent Acts of Love and Humility towards another or others the Command of Christ is no doubt obligatory But to make a Ceremony of that which was then no Ceremony but a substantial Act of Love and Humility were altogether improper and impertinent Next as that in James recommending the Anointing the Sick with Oyl nor was this commanded to be done as any symbolical Act or commemorative Sign but as a mean