one onely one is translated into English and the other is left in Greek untranflated And so whilst thou saist thou dost not know that any Scripture calls it Christs washing or baptism confesses and calls it inward washing thy self so that by thy own confession there is no more difference between the inward washing and cleansing by the Spirit and Christs baptism then there is between baptizing in Greek and washing in English which is all one and the word baptism might as well have been translated washing in all places of the Scripture as in one place had it not made for the upholding of the Trade of the Translators and for the continuing of much idolatry and ignorance in the world and whereas thou sayest it is not called Christs Baptism what Baptism was that the Apostles speak of 1 Cor. 12.13 For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles and what Baptism was that which Paul speaks of Rom. 6.3 4. by which they were baptized into Christ and into his death and were buried with Christ by Baptism and by it planted into the likeness of his death whereby they knew that the old man was crucified with him that the body of sin might be destroyed that henceforth they might not serve sin for he that was thus dead and buried with Christ was free from sin which your water doth not do nay do not you who are washed with water plead against freedom from sin and say it is not attainable in this world and therefore it is strongly to be suspected that as your Baptism is wrong so is your faith also seeing the Scripture saith as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ and put off the old man with his deeds by being planted into the likeness of his death and by being buried with him by Baptism and in the 1 Cor. 6.11 where the Apostle saith they were washed and sanctified and justified by the spirit c. what difference is there by being washed or cleansed by the spirit and by being baptized by the spirit seeing washing and Baptizing is all one and if thou wert come to the full assurance of faith and knewest what it was to have thy heart sprinkled from an evil conscience then thou wouldst know what that pure water was with wch the Saints had their bodies washed Heb. 10.22 But thou concludest that Christs Baptism is not now in being because those tongues and miracles thou speaks of are not in being that thou know of and so justifies thy self that the one baptism is meant water baptism Christs baptism or the Baptism of the spirit was some extraordinary thing and was to confer upon them a larger measure of gifts fitting then to spread the Gospel c. and therefore one principal gift bestowed by that Baptism was the gift of tongues to this I spake before about fire Baptism as in Acts the second and saith other places both before in the sixth page and now but names none by which I conclude thou hast no place to prove the Holy Ghosts Baptism thou speaks of but that of Acts 2. and what ground thou hast to call that fire Christs Baptism or the Baptism promised that Christ should come withal I know not since there is not one word in that second of the Acts at the beginning that speaks of Baptism where it is said there came a sound from Heaven as of a rushing mighty wind and it filled all the house where they were sitting And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire and it sate upon each of them and they were all filled with the Ghost and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them utterance Where is this called the Baptism of Christ or the Baptism of the Holy Ghost the word Baptism is no more named here neither in Greek nor English and yet this thou wouldst have by all means to be the only Baptism of the Holy Ghost promised and some other places where both the word Baptism in Greek and the word washing in English is spoken off must not be the Baptism of the spirit that was promised and was to continue when outward water was to cease but why should thou speak of miracles and tongues so much seeing tongues were for a sign not for them which believed but for them which believed not and thou accounts thy self a believer 1 Cor. 14.22 But James Pope why dost thou seem to grant inward washing and cleansing by the spirit to be a washing or Baptism of the spirit seeing thou hast spent so much time to prove inward washing and cleansing to be none of the spirits baptism and yet sums up the query thy self in these words whether the Baptism of water or the inward washing and cleansing by the spirit be the one Baptism which Paul writs of or why writs he but of one if both must be continued to which thou grants both must be continued and yet saith it is water Baptism he writs of So that thou seems to grant what thou wouldst deny and to deny what thou wouldst grant but thou art in a strait and truth is too hard for thee for if thou grant the spirits Baptism to continue then thy water Baptism must down because there is but one and therefore of the two thou hadst rather the spirits Baptism should cease then thine and yet if thou should deny inward baptizing or cleansing to be out of use then thou wert no Christian and therefore thou hast sowed as good a covering together as fig leaves will make to hide thy nakedness withal and to save thy water Baptism and thinks to do it by calling inward baptizing with the Holy Ghost inward cleansing and washing by the spirit and so sets up two words to contend each with other whilst thou thereby thinkest to amaze the Reader that thou may escape with thy water to be the one Baptism that is to continue and yet in thy first answer saith both must continue inward Baptism because no entrance into the Kingdom without it and water must continue because it is Christs Ordinance fitted to the New Testament as Circumcision was to the Old In thy next Book James prove it an Ordinance commanded by Christ to be practiced after his Ascention in plain words and not by an invented consequence least you are found guilty of that for which you condemned the Priests of England viz. for proving their Baptism by a consequence and will not this be much to your shame to have your Commision to prove by a consequence and not by plain and positive Scripture for a Commissioner by consequence onely is no Commissioner But James me thinks thou comes too near the Priests of England in bringing Circumcision and Baptism together dost thou not lay thy self open to some disadvantage in this was one Ordinance a type of another or one figure a type of another figure what confusion is here is not this Priests
baptism was not the Circumcision of the flesh a type of the Circumcision of the heart and was not water Baptism a figure of the inward washing by the Lavor of regeneration and is called a figure 1 Pet. 3.21 of that that saves not the washing away the filth of the flesh which was the outward baptism but the inward washing and answer of a good conscience by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ which is known by all who have their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience by the flesh of Jesus Christ How is Baptism fitted any more to the new witness then any other thing commanded or practiced by the Saints if thou knew the new witness which he that believes hath in himself thou wouldst know there is no more outward water in it then outward fire but thou speaks words by tradition and understandest not what thou sayest was Circumcision any otherwise fitted to the old witness or Testament then as a figure of the true cutting off from the body of sin by the Circumcision of Christ and is Baptism any otherwise fitted to the new Testament then as a figure also and when the substance is come they both end in him who is the substance And for thy saying Christs Disciples were to teach succeeding Disciples what ever he had commanded them c. but water is not mentioned to be commanded them by Christ and therefore not to teach water having it not in charge Again thou sayest he promised his presence with them to the end of the world if his presence with them then is he not a commander to them and are they not to receive the word at is mouth seeing God speaks by him in these last dayes and he is the same yesterday to day and for ever or was and did Christ only speak with and to his twelve disciples and they to deliver over by tradition what he told them or were the Saints without Christs presence for divers hundred years after his departure oâ—t of the world before the New Testament was gathered together and bound in one Book seeing the Epistles were scattered up and down in divers parts of the world some many hundred miles distant one Epistle from another and how long after and by whose command were they gathered together or is Christs presence with his people and yet he speaks not to them imediately or is Christ less powerful then he was or is his love abated or did he speak once for all and will he never speak more imediately or else what doth Christs presence signifie now if not to speak to them lead them and save them otherwise what is man the better for such a presence as he knows not nor is not sensible of or hath Christ ceased to be a King seeing where the presence of a King is there is power or is a man only to believe he hath Christs presence with him while other Lords have Dominion over him or hath Christ left his people to pick out his worship as well as he can here and there a little out of all the Epistles and other Books by their own judgements and understandings Is not this to make the New Testament inferior to the Old where Israels Laws were together in Tables and in some particular places and books as Deut Levit. c If you be the succeeding Disciples and are to observe all things that those were to observe and had in command why are you not going into all Nations to Preach the Gospel in every creature but stay at home in your country or have you not Christs presence with you and so dare not venture too far but what singular thing do you do whereby it may appear you have Christs presence with you and are indeed the succeeding Disciples thou speaks of or is it not rather manifest you are none of his Disciples seeing he never taught nor practiced such customs and conformities to the world as are practiced among many called baptists besides this legible mark they do not love one another but bite and devour one another about those things they call Christs Ordinances and appointments and if this be true which Christ said viz. by this shall all men know you are my Disciples if you love one another then whose Disciples are those who hate one another how is Christs presence with them while these things abide among them Then thou gives thy reason why thou sayest that of water is the one Baptism Paul writes of viz. because the other is not called Baptism but it is called washing by the spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 divers other places as before is proved so it is either the thing or the word thou denyes if the thing it is sufficiently proved to be called washing which is all one with baptizing as Luke 11.38 And when the Pharisee saw it he marvelled that he had not first baptized before dinner or washed as some Translators read it If the word baptism be that which thou denyes where is the word Baptism attributed to fire or where is it said they were baptized with fire and yet thou urges the second of Acts to prove Baptism with fire when there is not the word baptism there onely like as of fire But then thou sayest if it were called Baptism yet were it a Metaphorical and not a proper Baptism c. James thou mayest remember in thy six page thou sayest to the Law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them out of thy own mouth mayest thou be judged where is there one such a word in the Law or testimony as Metaphorical if it be not there to be found may it not be said without offence thou speaks not according to the Law and testimony therefore there is no light in thee for thou sayest plainly it is not a proper baptism surely James thou knowest it not and therefore miscals it for if ever thou had witnessed it or knew what it were to be baptized into Christ and to put on Christ thou would not so speak of it to call it not a proper Baptism What did John who baptized with water baptize with a proper baptism and Christ of whom he bore witness baptize with an improper baptism or a baptism not proper was ever such grosse absurdities affirmed as that the messenger and servant should baptize with the proper Baptism and the Master himself with a Baptism not proper Is the servant become above his master or is the Masters work onely Metaphorical and not proper what is not the washing away of sins a proper washing and is not the lavor of regeneration a proper washing or baptising and is not that with wch those Apostles and others who were baptized or washed by the spirit a proper washing or baptizing and those that had their bodies washed with pure water was not that a proper washing Is not this to darken counsel again by words without knowledge and by mens traditions and
endeavoured to make outward water to be may be easily seen by the upright in heart who saith not onely it must continue because fitted to the New Testament as Circumcision was to the Old and so in like manner as the Teachers of Circumcision thrust in that upon the bewitched Galatians and said except they were Circumcised they could not be saved do not all you whose judgement this is do the same concerning your water when you say It is fitted to the New Testament as Circumcision was to the Old And do not you make Proselites by your outward water as they did by Circumcision But as if this were not enough thou saist Outward water is that one Baptism spoken of by Paul joined with the one Faith one Lord and the one God as if that outward water either lets into the union with Christ or the want of it makes void the union and yet you say in words that union with Christ must precede and fit the subject before a right can be to water and yet what it should be that should make you cry up water so much I know not seeing you have no positive Command by Christ in plain words for it except through the cunning craftiness of the old serpent who gives leave to cry up and to rest upon any thing that is outward on purpose to busie the mind upon and to blind the eye from looking at or upon any thing revealed within that onely can give the knowledge of God in Christ and manifests to the Souls its union with and compleatness in Christ Jesus both as to the true Circumcision and Baptism Col. 2.11 12. The next Question thou saist Thou understands not which was whether such do truly discern the Lords body eat his flesh and drink his blood who do imagine of the flesh blood and bones of Christ as the Jews did And yet as if thou wert concerned in the Query though thou understand it not as thou saist will return some kind of answer to it which is not the part of a wise man to give an answer to that which he positively saith he understands not as thou dost but thy answer makes it manifest that thou art not sensible of that fond imagination which runs in the minds of filthy creatures who defile the flesh for thou saist If it be meant of the believing Jews who did believe that Christ rose from the dead with his flesh and bones as himself testifies such may truly discern the Lords hody eat his flesh and drink his blood c. Doth not this answer savour of a Jew outward Or art thou mistaken as thou wast in thy former quotation when as there is neither Chap. nor vers to be found so in this also seeing thou names onely flesh and bones and the Query was flesh and blood and bones as a real man hath or dost thou imagine of Christ that he had or hath flesh and bones onely and no blood like a real man If so speak plainly in thy next Book that I may know thy Opinion in this particular and name thy proof or if it be the Errata of the Printer let thy next be rectified that thou hadst forgotten to put down the blood and so I may pass it by for the present To the next Question which is whether that flesh which is meat indeed and that blood which is drink indeed be not spiritual and that which quickneth and nourisheth up to eternal life all those that feed thereon To this thou confesseth but cannot know it but in the light no more then the Jews did who said how can this man give us his flesh to eat And it is as hard a saying now as it was then though easilier confest now because it is written and may be read To the last Query which is What is that flesh that profiteth nothing And what is that flesh after which Christ was once known yet henceforth know we him so no more To which thou returns this answer Christ in John 6.63 shews that it is the Spirit that quickneth and therefore without that all is without profit whatever is done in the flesh without the Spirit and so if you take it of being implyed in Ordinances with the flesh or outward man onely it profiteth nothing This is thy answer to the first part of the Query viz. What is that flesh which profiteth nothing Can any wise man take this for an answer to the Question or is it not a declining the Question and answering to another Question of thy own framing As if thou had been asked whether that worship that is performed in the flesh or outward man onely without the Spirit of God profiteth or not If this had been the Question then thou hadst returned an answer somewhat pertinent but the Question that thou was to answer to was What is that flesh that profiteth nothing Considering what the foregoing Question was and thy answer to it viz. that there is a flesh that is spiritual and doth nourish to eternal life all those that feed thereon then comes this Question in the next words as depending upon the foregoing Question and what then is that flesh that profiteth nothing seeing there is flesh that nourishes up to eternal life But thou in stead of giving an answer what flesh it is that profiteth nothing tells a story of what ever is born in the flesh or outward man without the Spirit profits not c. A Child that reads his Primer might have said so much by rote out of the Catechism and yet thou quotes John 6.63 as if thy answer were intended to that place of Scripture as if thou didst believe the Question was grounded upon that place which answer of thine doth manifest as if Christ were speaking in this place of worshipping in the flesh without the Spirit and instructing his Disciples that the worshipping in the flesh without the Spirit profiteth nothing which thing though true in it self yet not true in this place as being the thing Christ was at this time teaching his Disciples for he was here rather rectifying and informing of them aright seeing they seemed to be prejudiced at Christs foregoing words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood and saying at the 57. ver he that eateth me even he shall live by me and at the 58. ver This is that bread which came down from Heaven not as your fathers did eat Manna and are dead he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever and at the 60. ver Many therefore of his Disciples when they heard this said This is an hard saying Who can hear it When Jesus knew in himself that his Disciples murmured at it he said unto them Doth this offend you What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are life So that it is manifest Christs drift and scope in
this place is to satisfie his Disciples that murmured about his telling them of of eating his flesh and drinking his blood and to take them off from looking at his outward fleshly presence as if his outward flesh or outward words were that which they were to feed upon or alwaies to expect to hear but there was another flesh to be known and other work to be read in the inward man by the Spirit for that quickneth and those words are Spirit and life but the flesh profiteth nothing so by this may the enlightned understanding see and read plainly the scope and drift of Christs Words and not to be spoken in that sence which thou and others in your vain minds conceive but have a deeper understanding which the children of light are acquainted withal so that the Query yet remains unanswered by thee viz. what then is the flesh that profiteth nothing And for thy answer to the second part of the Query viz. and what is that flesh after which Christ was once known yet henceforth know we him so no more to which thou answerest To know any man or Christ after the flesh it was to know according to the natural line of Abram and so according to the first Covenant but now know we him no more that is not by a natural descent but he that is in Christ is a new Creature and all the old things of the first Covenant are passed away and all things are become new and thou quotes Philip. 3.3 4 5. and saith We will help to clear the sence of this place viz. what is that flesh after which Christ was once known yet henceforth know we him so no more By this answer to the Query thou hast but manifested thy ignorance of Christ after the Spirit for doth the knowledge of Christ after the Spirit teach to deny the natural descent of Christ after the flesh seeing it is reckoned up as one of the Israelites Priviledges viz. of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever Amen Rom. 9.4 5. Or is Christ changed from what he was Or is he the same yesterday and to day and for ever And doth the Apostle Paul teach to forget the Genealogy of Christ from Abram Or hath he forgotten his love to his brethren and kinsmen according to the flesh which he saith Rom. 9.3 he could wish himself separated from Christ for them Or doth he instrust children after they are come to the knowledge of Christ no more to know their Parents after the flesh or natural descent or any other man after any natural line Surely to say so had been crime enough against the people called Quakers then might thou have had some ground to cry out of their disrespect to Superiours and of the neglect of children in not obeying their Parents and subjects in not giving honour to Magistrates and of servants in not obeying of their Masters after the flesh which in thy Book thou seems to blame the Quakers for their remisness therein and dost thou do the same thing Or dost thou go about to interpret Pauls words to such a sence Whereas he himself was so far from denying his natural descent or linage or outward Priviledge that upon occasion he reckons it up again and again and stands upon it and is not condemned for it and doth he write to the Corinthians to know no man after the natural line or descent No not Christ himself What doth Paul make void Matthews and Lukes reckoning up of the natural line or descent of Christ from Abraham Are we no more to know Christ so What do the Christians with it in their Bibles then if Christ be no more to be known so But let us see if the Apostle Paul have one word tending that way in that place thou quotes 2 Cor. 5.16 For he is speaking how the love of Christ constrained them at the 14. ver and the cause of it because saith he we thus judge that if one died for all then were all dead and that he died for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves but unto him which died for them and rose again Wherefore from henceforth know we no man according to the flesh for so it is and some translations read it so yea though we have known Christ according to the flesh yet now henceforth know we him no more Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature old things are past away behold all things are become new And all things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ c. James Pope what ground is here for thy conceived imagination therefore wait upon the Lord in the light of his Son that thou may be made alive by God by being his workmanship in Christ Jesus and then thou wilt know how the word henceforth in the 15. ver answers to the word henceforth in the 16. ver and then thou wilt see how such inventions and interpretations of thy own brain are some of those old things which then thou wilt behold passing away as thou becomes a new Creation and all things will be of God and in that day thou wilt know the first Covenant and its vanishing by the new everlasting Covenant which is Gods free gift but known to none who are alive without the Law and have their first husband living such must know a bitter cup and a day of death before ever they can be married to Christ Take this in love to thy Soul James Pope for this is the Word of the Lord to thee and is of nearer concernment to thee then as yet thou art aware of And for that of Philip. 3.3 4 5. it proves nothing of thy conceit and invention but rather may serve to condemn thee who art comparing outward circumcision and outward washing together as being fitted to the New Testament as outward circumcision was to the Old but we are the Circumcision which worship God in the Spirit and have no confidence in the flesh neither Faith in any outward washing with outward water but our Faith stands in Christ alone in whom we are compleat both as to the true Circumcision and to the one Baptism and to the one bread in which we have Communion together in the body and as many as are joyned to the Lord are one Spirit and are of one heart and one Soul and do not deny any of the Gospel Ordinances or plead for the abrogating of them as thou saist the Query seems to suppose but this we plead against will-worship and all likenesses and dead imitations in the worship of God for by the Gospel of our Salvation are we made alive and do not rush into Gods service without fear and the leadings of his Spirit having in times past felt by experience and smarted for having a form of godliness but not sensible of the power and a name to live and accounted as worshippers but were in the
inventions to make void Christs commands is not the washing of the spirit the true and proper washing or is the figure in thy esteem become proper and substantial and the substance and truth become Metaphorical and not proper and is the washing away the filth of the flesh preferred before the answer of a good conscience by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and so that by thee is called not proper which is most proper and that Metaphorically which is true substantial and real for whatsoever is spiritually so is more so then that which is naturally so and that which is most real and true is most proper but herein thou apparently manifests thy ignorance of the true and proper Baptism like those who had Johns washing but knew not whether there were any Holy Ghost or not Acts 19. mayest thou not as well say that Christs blood and Christs flesh which except a man eat and drink he hath no life in him is Metaphorical and not proper though Christ saith his blood is drink indeed and his flesh is meat indeed and nourishes up to eternal life and is most proper food for the children but is not this as improper in thy judgement though Christ saith it is meat indeed mark indeed not as thou sayest of his Baptism but properly substantially and indeed but is not this as hard a saying now to many who say they are Disciples as it was of old and because of these hard sayings have not many Disciples gone back and walked no more with him Joh. 6.60 66. Again thou sayest the Baptism intended by Paul Ephes 4.5 is distinguished in the same place from faith by which God purifieth the heart Acts 15.9 and Mark 19.16 and there is no such chapter nor verse which is the inward washing and cleansing by the spirit Here thou grants again what thou seems to dispute against which is sayest thou the inward washing and cleansing by the spirit so that all that thou contends against is the word baptizing or Baptism where as thou cals it washing by the spirit but denyes it to be baptizing by the spirit so confesses it in English but denyes it in Greek but thou sayest it is distinguished from faith which washes and therefore not the spirits baptizing or washing and yet calls it thy self the inward washing by the spirit so thou art but as one that fights with thy own shadow But is not thy confusion manifest to all whose eyes are open is not this thy reason that thou gives why that baptism is not meant the spirits baptism because distinguished from faith which washes c. is not this reason as strong against the spirit and against the hope and against the one Lord and one God as against the Baptism are not all these distinguished by name though all one in nature and kind or is the Lord not God because distinguished by name and is not the spirit God because distinguished there by name and is the hope not Christ because distinguished what non-sence and confusion is here is the one baptism or one washing that is so nearly coupled to the one spirit one Lord and one God and one hope and one faith not the true or proper Baptism or washing of the spirit because distinguished from such which washes and purifies is not by the same reason the one hope which purifies not the true and spiritual hope because it is distinguished from faith which purifies and by the same reason the one spirit is not the true spirit because distinguished from faith and hope which purifies and washes as 1 Cor. 6 11. washed by the spirit but in this Argument also as well as others is not thy folly made manifest to all men that reads with understanding are all these things different in nature because distinguished by name what ignorance is this doth not thy own Argument make against thy self and thy water Baptism viz. because faith and hope and the spirit and Lord and God and Baptism are onely distinguished by name and not divided in nature or kind therefore it must needs be intended the Baptism of the spirit all these names being spiritual and onely distinguished but not divided in nature and kind is to speak of a spiritual and inward hope and a spiritual and inward faith and a spiritual and inward Lord and God above all and through all and in you all and then should thrust in in the midst of this inward and spiritual unity an outward visible water which onely washes away the filth of the flesh outwardly is not this to set up and to prefer your water and couple it with and make it equal to the one Lord the one faith the one God and one spirit and to make the want of outward water and washing to be a breach of the union with the one Lord and one God and one faith and so he that is not outwardly washed with outward water is out of the unity with the one spirit one Lord and the one God for if any of these particulars be wanting the union is not compleat but broken and therefore he that hath not the true hope in him is not in the unity of the spirit and he that hath not the true and one faith hath not unity with God nor Christ and so he that hath not the one Baptism hath not the one Lord nor the one God for none of these may be spared without the breach of the union in the whole for he that hath one of these hath all these for they are in unity together and unites all as with a bond of Peace where they are enjoyed So that thou James Pope hast at once by thy saying this one Baptism is outward water and washing condemned all the children of the Lord that are not so baptized with outward water as being out of the unity of the spirit and out of the unity with the one Lord and one God and so no salvation for them is not this to set up another Saviour or to bring in an outward corruptible creature and set it upon the throne by the Creator and so make outward washing with water to be the key to let into the Kingdom of God and unity of the spirit and without it no union with God or Christ or the spirit and so no salvation therefore said I not truely thou wast not willing to part with thy water so but like Micah Judges the 18.24 might well cry out you have taken away my gods and what have I more and why do you ask me what aileth me so now it is no wonder you cry out so much for your water seeing you joyn it so close to the one faith one Lord and the one God that if it be wanting unity with God is not known and so this is agreeable to what some have Printed that without water Baptism no salvation and is not this to make another door then Christ and another way then Christ and how much short of this thou hast
hath part in the first Resurrection over him the second death shall have no power and he is willing that the doctrine of the Resurrection of the body of Christ as the first fruits of the Resurrection of the bodies of the Saints should be perpetuated though some say now of such as once was said of Paul Acts 17. that he was a setter forth of strange gods because he Preached unto them Jesus and the Resurrection and this query doth not altogether excuse the Author from that spirit but James here is three things for thee to prove by plain Scripture and not by thy consequences least thou be guilty of that which you of your way have charged upon the Priests 1. To prove Christ commanded water baptism since his Resurrection 2. To prove that his servants practiced it by vertue of that command after his Resurrection 3. That he commanded outward washing to be practiced after his Resurrection in memorial of his Resurrection and that the practitioners did it so accordingly all which thou seems to affirm in thy query and to take it for granted and then a more particular answer to them all thou mayest receive according to the Scripture of Truth Q. 4. Whether those that deny the Ordinance of breaking bread as it was instituted by Christ and practiced by his Primitive Saints are willing the memorial of Christs death and blood-shed should remain among his Saints until his next coming Answ Those who deny any Ordinance or institution of Christ to those of whom he required it and to that end for which he appointed it as the cause of his requiring it at their hands are transgressors and are not willing that the end or cause of his commanding it should be fulfilled or accomplished nor do not wait or look for his appearing the second time without sin unto salvation but believe they are saved though they commit sin and believe that freedom from all sin they can never attain while living in this visible world and such are not onely unwilling that the memorial of Christs death and blood-shed should remain among his Saints but are both ignorant and unbelieving that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses all that know it and believe in it from all unrighteousness and presents them perfect unto God without spot or wrinkle or any such thing and such onely as thus believe celebrate the memorial of Christs death and blood-shed as are dead with Christ and such are free from sin and such though they neither eat bread nor drink wine but feed upon locust and wild hony or are content with a dinner of green herbs such I say do truely shew forth the Lords death in their conformity to it and his blood shed in that their hearts are sprinkled from an evil conscience to serve the living God in truth and righteousness Q. 5. Whether those that say that Scripture 1 Cor. 11.26 is meant of Christs coming in Spirit do not in effect say that the Ordinance of breaking of bread was appointed for unbelievers to eat and drink damnation till Christ come to them in Spirit Answ Was it not in the same night in which he was betrayed that he took bread and is not Christ a spirit and his coming in spirit or doth he come out of the spirit or is there a coming of Christ and not in the spirit is Christ and the spirit divided or can he come and he not in the spirit and the spirit in him and where Christ is present is not the spirit there also and he in it and it in him and yet but one And doth it at all follow in sound judgement or good understanding that they who say the 1 Cor. 11.26 is meant of Christs coming in spirit must needs or in effect say that the Ordinance of breaking bread was appointed for unbelievers to eat and drink damnation till Christ come to them in spirit any more then it follows that the Disciples had no power at all because they were commanded to wait at Jerusalem for the promise of the Father and that they should receive power after the Holy Ghost was come upon them Acts 1.4.8 ver or any more then it may be said of Christ that his words implyed or that he in effect said that his Disciples had not his spirit at all in them and so were none of his when he said to them in these words how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy spirit to them that ask him Luke 11.13 and yet all that time God was their Father and they could not ask aright without the spirit and yet Christ saith how much more shall your heavenly Father give the holy spirit to them that ask him so do they who say that the coming of Christ in 1 Cor. 11.26 is his coming in spirit in effect say any more or otherwise that those had not the spirit at all or were unbelievers to whom Christ said take eat this is my body which is broken for you c. because they were to wait for a further and fuller manifestation of him in them and he went away in that fleshly appearance that he might come again unto them and abide with them for ever and this Christ prayed for and performed accordingly John 17.23 I in them and thou in me that they may be made perfect in one c. so that to say till he come is meant of Christs coming in spirit doth no more deny or in effect say that the breaking of bread was appointed for unbelievers to eat and drink damnation c. then Christ in saying the Father would give his holy Spirit to them that ask him in effect said that God would give his holy Spirit to them that asked or prayed without the Spirit or then Christ in effect said that they who waited in their wills and in the form without the power should receive power after the Holy Ghost was come upon them or then in effect Christ should say they had not the holy Spirit at all as yet because it was to come upon them and so till he come though meant of his coming in Spirit yet doth not follow but those to whom Christ spake had a measure of his Spirit already come to them and was in them and so commanded them not to eat and drink damnation but by eating of that bread and drinking of that cup they were to shew the Lords death till he come and then when he was come who was shewed by that eating and drinking the shew needed no longer the thing shewed being come and witnessed the bread indeed and drink indeed was known and Eternal life inherited Q. 6. Whether it is not granted by those that seem to deny it that the forecited place directs the Church at Corinth to the use of an Ordinance seeing some might eat this bread and drink this cup which is also called flesh and blood unworthily but those that eat truly that flesh that is meat indeed and drink that blood