of Faith to be Preached or Professed his Argument should be also false and as false is this way of reasoning that because the Baptisme is one therefore that one Baptisme is only the inward of the Spirit excluding the outward Baptisme of Water or as to say therefore it is only the outward Baptisme of Water excluding the inward Baptisme of the Spirit Now as the one Faith mentioned Ephes 4.5 Suppose is meant the inward Grace or Virtue of Faith in the hearts of all True Believers doth not exclude the Doctrine of Faith outwardly Preached and Professed so nor doth the inward Baptisme of the Spirit suppose there meant Eph. 4.5 exclude the outward Baptisme of Water both being true and one in their kind as the inward Grace of Faith is specifically one in all true Believers but numerically manifold even as manifold as there are numbers of Believers so the Doctrine of Faith is one in its kind though consisting of many parts therefore to argue as W. Penn doth that Baptisme is one in the same sense as God is one is very inconsiderate which would infer that though God is one in specie yet that there are as many Gods numerically as Believers And notwithstanding that in Ephes 4.5 it is said there is one Baptisme yet it is not said there or elsewhere that there is but one Baptisme for another place of Scripture mentions Baptismes in the Plural Number Heb. 6.2 And indeed as weak as their Argument against Water-Baptisme is from the Scripture words one Baptisme no less weak is their Argument against the outward Supper practised with Bread and Wine in commemoration of our Lord's Death because of the Scripture words one Bread 1 Cor. 10.17 for in that same verse Paul tells of one Bread in a very different signification even as far as the Church of Christ is not Christ we said he being many are one Bread but doth it therefore follow that there is no other Bread than the Church nay for they are all partakers of that one Bread which is Christ and there is a third Bread that he mentions in the same Chapter which is neither the one nor the other one Bread and that is the outward Bread that they did eat v. 16. the bread which we break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ Even as Christ said concerning the outward Bread that it was his Body to wit Figuratively so by the like Figure it was the Communion of his Body but not the Body it self which too many have been so foolish as to imagine that the outward Bread was Converted into Christ's real Body and as if Paul had foreseen that many would become so foolish and unwise as so to imagine therefore to caution against any such folly he had said I speak as to wise Men judge ye what I say But whereas many of the People called Quakers by Bread in that part of the Verse the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Lord's Body Will have to be meant not the outward Elementary Bread but the Body of Christ it self in this they are under a great mistake for that would render the words to have a most absur'd Sense as to say the Body of Christ is the Communion of his Body but the Body is one thing and the Communion of that Body is another and it were as little sense to understand it thus the Body of Christ is a Figure of the Communion of his Body therefore the true sense of the words is the outward Bread which we break is a Figure or Sign of the Communion of the Lord's Body But these Men are under another great Mistake as if by the Lord's Body here were not meant his outward Body that was Crucified and Raised again but the Life which is the Light in them and in every Man whether Believer or Unbeliever But of this great Error I shall have occasion hereafter to take notice only at present let it be remembred that by the Body of Christ in these above-mentioned words is to be understood the Body of Christ that was outwardly Crucified Dyed and rose again and is a living Glorious Body which is the Body of the second Adam the quickning Spirit of the Virtue of which all true Believers partake and by their having the Communion of his Body whether when eating the outward Bread so that they eat with true Faith or when they do not eat yet believing for the Communion of his Body is not confined to the outward eating they have the Communion of his Spirit also and enjoy of the manifold Spiritual Blessings of Grace Life and Light sent and conveyed into their Hearts by and through the glorified Man Christ Jesus who hath a Glorified Body and though this Communion of Christ's Body is hard to be expressed or to be demonstrated to Man's reasonable understanding yet by Faith it is certainly felt and witnessed with the blessed Effects of it causing an encrease in Holiness and Divine Knowledge and Experience in all true Believers nor is there any thing in this Mystery or any other Mystery of the Christian Religion that is contradictory to our reasonable understanding But yet a little further to let them see the folly of that Argument from the Scripture Phrase one Baptisme and one Body when Paul saith Eph. 4.4 There is one Body and one Spirit it doth not bear this Sense as if the Church were but one numerical Body or one single Man or as if there were no Body of the Man Christ in Heaven though some of their Teachers have so falsely argued that because the Body of Christ is one therefore Christ has no Body but his Church and as false should their Arguing be there is but one Spirit and that Spirit is the Holy Ghost therefore the Man Christ hath no Soul or Spirit of Man in him and therefore Believers have no Spirits or Souls of Men in them that are Created Rational Spirits both which are most false and foolish consequences also when the Scripture saith there is one Father and one is your Father it would be a very false consequence to infer that therefore we have never had any outward or visible Fathers and as false a consequence it is from one invisible Baptisme of the Spirit to argue against any outward and visible Baptisme or from the outward visible Baptisme being one in its kind to argue against the invisible and inward Baptisme which is one in its kind also this is an Error called by Logicians a Transition from one kind to another as because there is one kind of Animal on Earth called a Dog therefore there was not any thing else so called whereas there is a Fish that hath the same Name as also a Star in Heaven SECT VI. BUT whereas W. Penn in his above mentioned Argument saith first we know and they confess that they were in the beginning used as Figures and Shadows of a more hidden Spiritual Substance Ans In this
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
The ARGUMENTS OF THE QUAKERS More particularly Of George Whitehead William Penn. Robert Barclay John Gratton George Fox Humphry Norton And my own AGAINST Baptism and the Supper Examined and Refuted ALSO Some clear Proofs from Scripture shewing that they are Institutions of Christ under the Gospel WITH An APPENDIX Containing some Observations upon some Passages in a Book of W. Penn called A Caveat against Popery And on some Passages of a Book of John Pennington called The Fig Leaf Covering Discovered By George Keith 1. John 4.1 Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God Chrysost Homil. on Matthew If thou hadst been without a Body God had given the things naked and without a Body but because the Soul is planted in the Body he gives thee intelligible things in things sensible London Printed for C. Brome at the Gun at the West-End of St. Paul's Church-yard 1698. TO THE READER DIvers Weighty Reasons have induced me to this Undertaking One whereof chiefly is that whereas most of these Men have not only run out with bitter Invectives against these Divine Institutions but have Fathered their Bold Opposition to them upon the Holy Spirit as they commonly do their other Gross Errors a Witness whereof is W. Penn in his Book against Thomas Hicks called Reason against Railing who saith in p. 109. concerning these Institutions We can testifie from the same Spirit by which Paul Renounced Circumcision that they are to be rejected as not now required Now if upon due Tryal their Arguments they have used and still use against them are found to be Vain and Invalid Grounded upon gross Wrestings and Perversions of Holy Scripture and that it be proved by sound Arguments that they were and are true Divine Institutions under the pure Gospel Dispensation not only their too Credulous Followers but the Teachers themselves such of them as are alive may have occasion to reflect upon the Spirit which had acted their first Leaders to oppose those things as well as other great Truths of the Gospel and thereby discern that it was not the Spirit of God but a Spirit of Untruth and may judge it forth from among them and be humbled before the Lord for entertaining it Another Reason is which is indeed my chiefest Reason That whereas I had formerly been Swayed and Byassed by the undue Opinion I had of their chief Teachers and Leaders who had Printed Books long before I came among them as being greatly indued with Divine Revelations and Inspirations and that I too Credulously believe their Bold and False Asseverations that what they had said and Printed against the outward Baptism and outward Supper was given forth from the Spirit of Truth in them by means whereof I had been drawn into the same Error as many other well meaning and simple Hearted Persons have been and still are by them to oppose these Divine Institutions and have in some of my Printed Books used some of the same Arguments which they had used I having in a Measure of Sincerity I hope Repented and been humbled before the Lord for that my said Error whereof I have given a Publick Acknowledgment in Print in my late Book called George Keith's Explications and Retractions and wherein I have not only Retracted my Errors in Relation to outward Baptism and the Supper but in Relation also to divers other Particulars therein mentioned but withal holding close to my Testimony in all Principles of Christian Faith and Doctrin delivered by me in any of my former Books I judged it my Duty besides my Publick Acknowledgment and Retracttation of the Error to endeavour according to the Ability given me of God of a better Understanding to undeceive and reduce from the said Error any into whose Hands my Books have come Treating on that Subject who have been deceived or hurt by them For as the Law of God requireth Restitution for any Wrong done to a Neighbour in Worldly Matters so I judge it no less requireth the like in Spirituals And as the Law required an Eye for an Eye the Gospel requireth that whom we have in any degree been accessory to Blind or Misinform their Understandings we should labour to our outmost Ability after we are better Enlightened our selves to Enlighten and duly Inform them so far as God shall be pleased to make us his Instruments in so doing to whom it chiefly belongs Know therefore Friendly Reader that what Arguments I have used in any of my Books against the outward Baptism and Supper particularly in that called Truth 's Defence and in another called The Presbyterian and Independent visible Churches in New England and elsewhere brought to the Test Cap. 10. and in another called The pretended Antidote proved Poison and in another called A Refutation of Pardon Tillinghast who pleadeth for Water-Baptism its being a Gospel Precept As I hereby declare them to be void and null so I do in this following Treatise shew the Nullity and Invalidity of them by answering not only them but divers others of other Persons together with them as above named in the Title Page of this Treatise And so far as the Arguments are the same which both they and I have used one Answer will serve to both though I never was so blind as not to see the Weakness of divers Reasons of some of their Great Authors against these Institutions But the Truth is divers of their Weakest and most Impertinent Arguments I never heard nor read till of late that Providence brought to my hand some of their Books I never heard of before The CONTENTS SECT I. Containeth a Correction of R.B. his great Mistake That the Eating Christ's Flesh John 6. hath no Relation to Christ's outward Flesh The Quotation of Augustine vindicated from his Mistake SECT II. Containeth a Vindication of B Jewel's words on Jos 6.1 2 3. from the Great Misconstruction that W. Penn hath put on them contrary to B. Jewel's intended Sense R.B. his Arguments to prove that the Flesh of Christ John 6.53 hath no Relation to his outward Flesh Answered SECT III. Containeth a Correction of two Unsound Assertions of R.B. concerning Christ's Flesh and Blood SECT IV. Sheweth R. B's Mistake in saying that both Papists and Protestants tye the Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to the outward Sign of Bread c. And his other Mistake that the whole end of the Paschal Lamb was to signifie the Jews and keep them in remembrance of their Deliverance out of Aegypt The true Sense of Paul's words given The Bread which we break c. 1. Cor. 10.16 SECT V. Sheweth R.B. his Mistake as if the Cup of the Lord and Table of the Lord 1. Cor. 10.21 did not signifie the use of Bread and Wine c. His Reasons against it proved invalid His Argument from the Custom of the Jews using Bread and Wine at the Passover Answered His other Arguments from the supposed difficulties about the time of practising it
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
Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyed no less to the Principles of the Christian Doctrin of Christ and Oracles of God which therefore by his Argument being Elements are to be thrown aside As for his other Arguments in those two Treatises against the outward Baptism and the Supper they are no other that I can find but such as are above mentioned in my Reply to those of William Penn and Robert Barclay and therefore one Answer will serve both to them and him PART II. SECT I. The Arguments against the outward Supper examined and Refuted THus having finished my Examination and Refutation of the Arguments of the above mentioned Persons against Water-Baptism and the outward Supper in general I think fit to bring to the like Examination what R.B. hath more particularly Argued against the outward Supper as being not any longer to continue but until Christ's inward coming to arise in their Hearts and give a plain Refutation of the same In the beginning of the Chapter or Head wherein he discourseth concerning the Body and Blood of Christ although he saith truly that the Communion i.e. the Participation thereof is inward and Spiritual yet he was under a great mistake to affirm that the said Body and Blood of Christ whereof true Believers do participate is only inward which he afterwards explains to be that Light and Seed in every Man as he expresseth plainly in several places as p. 61 of the above said Treatise and p. 65 where he saith and that Christ understands the same things here viz. John 6. by his Body Flesh and Blood which is understood John 1. by the light hath enlighteneth every man and the life c. And p. 77. he chargeth it to be an Error to make the Communion or Participation of the Body Flesh and Blood of Christ to relate to that outward Body Vessel or Temple that was Born of the Virgin Mary and walked and Suffered in Judea whereas it should relate to the Spiritual Body Flesh and Blood of Christ even that Heavenly and Celestial Light and Life which was the Food and Nourishment of the Regenerate in all Ages as we have said he already proved Ans In this he was in a great Error to make the Eating or Participation of Christs Flesh and Blood to have no relation to Christ's outward Body of Flesh and Blood that was Born of the Virgin and Suffered Death for our Sins on the Tree of the Cross For the Regeneration of Believers and Justification with all the Spiritual Blessings of Life and Light and inward Divine Virtue and Might wherewith they are inwardly Refreshed and Nourished by Christ hath a most near and immediate Relation to Christ's outward Body and Blood and to his coming in that outward Body because that most Holy and Perfect Obedience of Christ which he performed in that Body and became Obedient to the Death of the Cross was and is the procuring and meritorious Cause of all that inward Grace Virtue Light and Life whereby Regeneration was wrought in any in any Age of the World either before or since Christ came in the Flesh as well as it was and is the procuring and meritorious Cause of their Justification and the Remission of their Sins For Christ Died as well for the Sins of those who lived in the Ages before he came in the Flesh as since and they had the same Benefits by his Death and by his Body and Blood that we have the same inward Grace and Light to Regenerate them as the same Mercy and Favour to Justifie them and give them the Remission of their Sins which they received through Faith in Christ as he was to come in the Flesh without them and whole Christ is the Food of true Believers I mean Christ not only considered as the Word simply but as the Word made Flesh And having taken or assumed the Seed of Abraham and the true Nature of Man into such a high Union as that the Godhead of the Word and the Manhood assumed thereby is but one Christ and as such is the Food of all true Believers both as he outwardly came in the Flesh and as he is inwardly come the Light and the Life in them and Believers Eating of Christ is their Believing in him and by their Faith being United to him and he to them so that he dwells in them and they in him And though it may be owned that Believers Feeding upon Christ's Light and Life Metaphorically and Allegorically speaking that Light and Life may be called according to Scripture Meat and Drink and Flesh and Blood of Christ as it hath many other such Metaphorical Names such as Milk Honey Wine Marrow and Fatness Oyl c. All which Names are given because of Men's Weakness and that they have not proper Words to express Divine Things by yet that ought not to make us reject and lay aside Christ's outward Body of Flesh and Blood from having any Relation to the Saints feeding upon him Nor do the Arguments brought by R.B. here prove in the least what he intends as the following Examination of them will sufficiently I hope manifest He begins with a Quotation out of Augustine in his Tractat Psalm 98. The words which I speak unto you are spirit and life understand spiritually what I have spoken ye shall not eat of this body which ye see and drink this blood which they shall spill that shall crucifie me I am the living bread which have descended from heaven he called himself the bread which descended from heaven exhorting that they might believe in him c. Ans It is evident from these last Words that by Eating Augustine meant in one Sense Corporal Eating and in another Sense Believing as elsewhere Tract 25. ad cap. 6. Johan Hoc est opus Dei ut quid paras dentem ventrem crede manducasti Credere enim in eum hocest comedere panem vinum qui credit in eum manducat eum in English thus why preparest thou thy Teeth and Belly believe and thou hast eat for to believe in him is to eat the Bread and Wine who believeth in him eateth him Both these Quotations are good against the Papists who hold that Believers eat the Body of Christ Corporally with their Mouths but say nothing against this Spiritual Way of Eating Christs Body but plainly confirm it The plain Sense therefore of Augustin's Words Quoted by R.B. is this Ye shall not eat Corporally with the outward Mouth the Body of Christ which ye see but ye shall eat it Spiritually that is believe with a sincere Faith which the Spirit of God worketh in you that Christ shall give his Body that ye see speaking then to the Jews to be broken for you and his Blood even the Blood of that Body to be shed for you And in so Believing ye shall eat my Body and drink my Blood that is ye shall be united to me and I to you that I shall abide in you and
ye shall abide in me which Sense doth evidently agree with our Saviour's Words John 6.29 47. And indeed to Exclude Christ's outward Body of Flesh and Blood from having any Relation to this place of Scripture as no way concerned in the Sense of these Words of it John 6.53 is plainly to Exclude Christ as he outwardly came in that outward Body from being the Object of our Christian Faith for seeing Eating here signifieth Believing by Agustine's Quotation approved by R.B. if this Spiritual Eating which is our Believing respects not the Body of Christ that was outwardly Slain then Christ as he came and Suffered in that Body is no Object of the Christian Faith which is most absurb and none that is in the least acquainted with Augustin's Writings can say it ever was his meaning to deny the Body of Christ that was outwardly Slain to be any wise Concerned in the Christian Faith for Augustine was a most zealous Asserter of the Necessity of Faith in Christ as he came in that Body in order to our Salvation against the Heresie of Pelagius who denied it and Writ many Books against that Heresie now Revived by many of the Quakers Teachers tho what R.B. hath Writ here I impute to his Inadvertency and do not charge him with the Pelagian Heresie for the same because from other Places of his Writings I can prove that he made the Faith of Christ's giving his Body to be Slain for us necessary to our Salvation and a part of the Christian Belief SECT II. AND as Inadvertent and Mistaken as R.B. was in his Quotation of Augustine concerning Christ's Flesh and Blood no less hath W. Penn been p. 314. of his Rejoynder to J. F. in his Quotation of Bishop Jewel in his Sermon upon Jos 6.1 2 3. Who speaking of what Christ was to the Jews in the Wilderness says thus Christ had not yet taken upon him a Natural Body yet they did eat his Body he had not yet shed his Blood yet they drank his Blood St. Paul saith all did eat the same Spiritual Meat that is the Body of Christ all did drink of the same Spiritual Drink that is the Blood of Christ and that as truly as we do now And whosoever did then so Eat lived for ever I think saith W. Penn a Pregnant and Apt Testimony to Christ's being the Christ of God before his coming in the Flesh Ans But this doth not prove that by Christ here B. Jewel meant only the Light within in these Jews and by his Body and Blood only that Light within or Seed or Principle as W. Penn would have it All that are in the least acquainted with the Doctrine of the Church of England of which B. Jewel was a Zealous Defender as in his Apologie for the same appeareth or with B. Jewel's Writings know well that the Sense which W. Penn hath here put on B. Jewel's Words never came into his Remotest Thoughts but it is no wonder that he should so misunderstand and misconstrue B. Jewel's Words when he doth so use the Scriptures themselves B. Jewel's Sense is Obvious Christ had not taken upon him a Natural Body yet they did Eat his Body viz. by Faith believing that in the time appointed of God he would take a Body and give up that Body to be Slain for their Sins he had not yet shed his Blood yet they drank his Blood viz. By faith believing that after he should take flesh and blood in the fulness of time he would give his blood to be shed for the remission of their sins and by this faith all the faithful among them had Christ dwelling in them by his spirit and did know and witness his spirit to regenerate and sanctifie them to quicken and refresh them and nourish them as meat and drink doth refresh and nourish the body of man As for his Quotations out of Joshua Sprig and others its no wonder he doth so Magnifie them seeing its but too evident the Quakers have sucked that Poisonous Milk out of the Breasts of such Men who have been in the same Errors before them But to return to R.B. his Arguments whereby he laboureth but to no purpose to prove that the Flesh there mentioned John 6.53 c. hath no Relation to his outward Flesh First saith he p. 63 because that it is said both that it came down from Heaven yea that it is he that came down from Heaven Now all Christians at present generally acknowledge that the outward Body of Christ came not down from Heaven neither was it that part of Christ which came down from Heaven Ans 1. By Himself that came down from Heaven who is called by Paul the second Adam the Lord from Heaven Heavenly the quickning Spirit cannot be meant the inward Principle of Light in Men abstractly considered from the Fountain of it which dwelt in the Man Christ but chiefly the Light as in him and consequentially that which Men receive out of his Fulness according to their several Measures And as our Regeneration and Salvation have a necessary Dependance on that fulness of Light Life and Grace that dwells in him out of which we receive our several Measures so they have a necessary respect to the Man Christ both Soul and Body in which that Fulness dwelleth because the Soul and Body of Christ even his outward and visible Body was concerned in that great Work of our Redemption in what he did and Suffered for us Therefore God hath Exalted the same Man Jesus Christ both in Soul and Body in Unity with his Godhead to be a Prince and Saviour to give Repentance and Remission of Sin Grace and Glory and all Spiritual Blessings to all that shall be saved This ancient Writers have explained by the Example of a red hot Iron exceedingly burning and shining the Fire and Light in the same answering to the Godhead and the Iron answering to the Manhood Now when this fired Iron burns or lightens any Stick of Wood that is applied to it it is not the Fire only without the Iron nor the Iron only without the Fire but both joyntly that have an Operation upon the Wood to Kindle and Lighten it even so it is the Godhead of Christ in Unity with his Manhood consisting of Soul and Body that wrought that outward Redemption for us and doth inwardly produce in us the blessed Effects of it by his Spirit in Renewing and Sanctifying us Justifying us and giving us Eternal Life and Glory Ans 2. Because Christ's outward Body of Flesh was Miraculously Conceived by the Power of the most High and in that respect had a Heavenly Original as well as that it was really the Woman's Seed and part of the Virgins Substance therefore it may be said to be from Heaven and to be Heavenly as well as Earthly as Wheat and Barly and other Grains that Grow in America which come Originally from England are called English Grain even in America though they are also American
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
Church is not because of any Abuse that the Devil may tempt any to make of it to be forborn by such as are called to perform it by the Spirit of God Ans All this is exceeding weak Reasoning and proceeds upon a false Supposition that because Baptisme was abused therefore it was simply to be forborn or laid aside no such thing appears mentioned in Scripture for though Paul Baptized but a few of the Corinthians he did not tell them that few were Baptized by any others But the contrary appears from his words that all the believing Corinthians were Baptized though not by him yet by some other 1 Cor. 1.13 If some of them had not been Baptized at all it had been improper for him to ask them were they Baptized in the Name of Paul And though Preaching be the greater Ordinance as practised by the Apostles and is not simply to be forborn yet occasions might and may happen that might cause it to be forborn at some certain time and place As suppose some had certainly informed Paul that if he Preached at such a place and at such a time some that did lay wait for him would lay hands on him and kill him on this Advertisement who will say but Paul might feel in himself not only a Liberty to forbear going to Preach at such a place and at such a time but even a Necessity laid on him not then to go for we find that not only Paul when he understood that some sought his Life did seek to escape but our blessed Lord himself for a certain time did withdraw from such as sought his Life because his time to suffer was not then come And as in that case upon such certain Information Paul might have lawfully forborn to have Preached to People at that place when his Life was in danger so the Report being confirmed that such a Design was laid against him he might have lawfully rejoyced and thanked God that he did not go to Preach at that place at that time And many the like Examples might be brought to prove that Preaching it self may Lawfully be forborn though not simply yet at some occasion which might render the forbearance of it at some certain place and time both Lawful and Necessary and suppose a Preacher did foresee that his Preaching at such a place at such a day should occasion by accident some Schism or Division among sincere Professors of the Christian Faith he might very lawfully forbear to do it at that time yea it were his Duty to forbear and he might very justly rejoyce and thank God that he did not Preach to them in that place and at that time this needed not to have been so largely insisted upon but for their sake who through their great Ignorance and Prejudice lay so great stress on this sort of Argument as because Paul thanked God he had Baptized but a few of the Corinthians therefore Baptisme is no Gospel Institution the weakness of which consequence I suppose is sufficiently manifest On the contrary a good Argument may be brought for Water-Baptisme that seeing the abuse of it at Corinth or any where else was no cause or occasion of laying it aside to any but that it was universally practised on Believers in the Apostles Days insomuch that it cannot be instanced where any Church Family or Person that did believe was not Baptized that therefore it was practised by Divine institution and not by Permission such as Circumcision was for neither Circumcision nor any other Jewish Rite was universally practised as Baptisme was the abovesaid Argument taken from Paul's words he thanked God he Baptized none but such and such I find used by W. Penn in his Book called Reason against Railing p. 110. to which let the above mentioned Answer serve But I find some new Arguments used by G. Whitehead in his Antidote to prove that Baptisme with Water was not commanded to the Apostles Matth. 28.19 p. 120. Lo I am with you always to the end of the World saith he what for to enable them to Baptize with Water No that many can do without him or the least sense of his Presence Ans Of all the Arguments I ever heard against Baptisme with Water this is one of the weakest and too much favouring of Profanity that saith he many can do without him but can they do it in Faith without him and in true Obedience to his Command This Scoff of his has equal weight against John's Baptisme when in force which he grants was with Water and thus as G. Whitehead argueth John could and did Baptize without Christ's inward Presence and the least sense of it and it has the like force against all External Acts of Religion commanded of God both under the Law and Gospel for all External Acts simply considered as such without regard to Faith or the inward Frame of the Mind can be done as much without Christ as Baptisme with Water but none of them can be done as they ought without him Hath G. Whitehead forgot Christ's Saying to his Discâ—â—les without me ye can do nothing that he hath so boldly contradicted him to say they could Baptize with Water without him This is more Prophane and Scandalous than what Samuel Jennings said at a Monthly Meeting in Philadelphia for which he was reproved by diverse in the Meeting and of which there is an account in Print To do our own Business as Men we need not the help of the Spirit but to do God's Business we need it But here according to G. Whitehead when John Baptized with Water which was God's Business it being commanded of God he could do that without him Another Argument of his in the same Page is It is not go Teach and then Baptize them with Water but go teach all Nations Baptizing them and there was a Divine and Spiritual Baptisme immediately attending and present with their Ministry Ans This Argument is also weak and grounded upon a Quibble because it is not said go Teach and then Baptize but go Teach Baptizing c. Because the word Baptizing is a Participle but this hath not the weight of a Feather it is so light and yet with such light airy Stuff have deceived many For as the word Baptizing is a Participle both in the Greek and English so the word Translated go set before Teach in the Greek is a Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 going or having gone Teach Now by the like Argument because it is not said first go and then Teach but going Teach therefore every foot of their way where ever they went through tho' they were not in sight or within hearing of any People before they came to them they were to Preach and by the like Argument where it is said Mark 1.5 And were all Baptized of him in the river of Jordan confessing their sins It is not said they first Confessed and then were Baptized or they were first Baptized and then Confessed according to G.
he is very short and defective in his Expression they were both appointed and used in the beginning I mean from the time of Christ's Resurrection and Ascension to be Figures and Signs of Christ's outward Body that was broken for us on the Cross and his Blood that was outwardly shed In the first place and consequently of the inward Graces of the Spirit and Benefits coming to Believers by his outward Body and Blood and by the Man Christ wholly considered both in Soul and Body and whereas he saith 2. They were no longer to endure than till the Substance was come All this sheweth W. Penn's great Misunderstanding of the Nature of these Institutions both of Baptisme and the Supper as if they only signified some inward hidden Virtue which he calls a more hidden and spiritual Substance that was to come and so were only as he calls them in his Defence of his Key called a Reply to a pretended Answer c. Prenuniative and forerunning Signs but were not commemorative Signs as well of things past as of things present for this is utterly false that Water in that Baptisme which the Apostles used after Christ's Resurrection and Ascension was prenunciative and not commemorative for on the contrary it was not simply prenunciative but commemorative as commemorating and signifying the Blood of Christ that had been shed outwardly for the Remission of our Sins and the same commemoration and signification had the Wine in the practise of the Lord's Supper and the Bread that was broken in the Supper signified after Christ's Death and Resurrection his Body that was outwardly broken on the Cross and that outward practise was Instituted by Christ for a Memorial of his Death and Sufferings which all true Believers in Christ ought to have fresh and lively in their Minds to which the outward practise both of Baptisme and the Supper is of great use and the more frequent the practise of the Supper is being duly used as with Faith Reverence and Devotion the more profitable it is Therefore said Christ as oft as ye eat this bread c. As if one did say as oft as ye Pray with true Faith and Fervency it turns the more to your Spiritual Advantage And though the Spirit of Christ in true Believers is the great and principal rememberer unto them yet he oft doth remember them in the use of that outward Practise using it as a means and blessing it unto them even as the Spirit useth the frequent outward Institutions and Exhortations that Ministers give to Believers as a means and blesseth that outward means unto them also the more to quicken and enlighten them and as Peter said to stir up the pure mind in them by way of remembrance which was the end of his Epistles and also of Paul's Epistles unto the Churches and therefore it is but weakly and falsly argued by many of the People called Quakers and their Teachers the Spirit in them is their remembrancer and they have the more hidden and invisible substance in them and therefore there is no use of these outward Signs to them for this Argument has the same force against all outward Teaching and External Acts of Worship And indeed as I have oft observed and considered the chiefest Arguments used by these Men against these outward Practises of the outward Baptisme and the Supper may be as much brought against all outward Teaching and External Acts of Worship and against all use of Books yea of the Holy Scriptures themselves and the like may be said of these Arguments that are commonly in the Mouths of the People called Quakers that Bread and Wine and Water are carnal things and visible which may be touched tasted handled whereas the Scripture saith touch not tast not handle not which are all to perish with the using and the kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Ghost Again we look not at things seen for they are temporal but at the things unseen which are eternal and Col. 3. If ye be risen with Christ seek the things which are above and set your affection on things above not on things on the earth but Water Bread and Wine are things on earth and let no man judge you in meats and drinks Col. 2.17 which are a shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ All these and the like Scriptures I say may with as great show of reason be brought against all good Books and outward Teachings Instructions Exhortations yea against the Books of the Holy Scriptures which G. Fox hath called the Carnal and Earthly Letter that he touched and handled as much as Water Bread and Wine and is visible and consequently by their Argument is not to be look'd into nor is the Scripture nor the best of words uttered in Speech or Written the Kingdom of God or the hidden invisible Substance as neither Water Bread and Wine yet all these have their use when duly used on a Spiritual Account for as words signifie and hold forth Christ and the inward and spiritual Benefits that Believers have by him to the outward hearing so do these other hold forth Christ and his spiritual Blessings to their Sight Tast and Feeling for which reason antient Writers did call the outward Baptisme and Supper verbum visible i.e. the visible word God having so appointed it in his Wisdome that the Knowledge of Divine and Spiritual things after a sort should be given to us by outward Signs and Symbols that affect our Senses and by our Senses as by so many Doors and Windows should be let into our Souls by means whereof through the inward Operation of the Holy Spirit the inward and Spiritual Faculties of our Souls and Minds are awakened and enabled to apprehend the Spiritual things themselves whose Symbols and Emblems these outward Elementary things are And none of these Scriptures above mentioned have any relation to the outward Baptisme and Supper which were the Institutions of Christ but to such outward things the observations of which were after the Commandments and Doctrines of Men as not only the Jewish Rites but Gentile Customs and Traditions also were touching Meats and Drinks and other things which the Apostle calls Col. 2.20.21 22. the Rudiments of the World which as they are of a perishing nature so the use and service of them but so is not the use and service of the outward Baptisme and Supper which is a holy Commemoration of our Lord's Death and Sufferings and of the great benefits we have thereby tending to excite our ardent Love and Affections to him and to raise them up to ascend to him in Heaven therefore though true Believers at Christ's command use the outward things yet neither their Minds nor Affections are set on them but on him and the heavenly Blessings they have by him which holy Commemoration we should not let dye or perish in us but keep alive for our spiritual Benefit and Advantage
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
hands Acts 8.16 and sometimes in Preaching and sometimes in Prayer the Holy Ghost was given but it was never said that Men gave it or Baptized with it Besides at this rate they may say the Teaching that Christ commanded Matth. 28.19 was not outward Teaching but inward and then call it Instrumental but what sense would be made of such an assertion the Apostles were sent not to Teach outwardly but inwardly by Instrumental Teaching and one might argue as strongly that it was not outward Teaching that Christ meant Matth. 28.19 why not the least word is mentioned of outward Teaching therefore it is not understood but only inward Teaching If it be fit to answer this wild inference thus the Teaching there commanded must needs be outward because its only Mens work to Teach outwardly and Gods work to teach inwardly the like answer is as proper to be given in relation to Baptisme as it is Mens work to Baptize outwardly with Water so it is the work of God and Christ to Baptize inwardly with the Spirit And if Men be resolved to quibble and embrace any wild notion rather than the simple Truth had there been express mention made of Water Matth. 28.19 that quibbling Spirit would have made a new objection and still argued it was not material or outward Water but inward and Spiritual because in many places of Scripture Water signifieth not outward material Water but inward and Spiritual SECT VIII THERE is yet another Argument used both by W. Penn and R.B. against both Water-Baptism and the Supper in common I shall recite it in W. Penn's words being the same in effect with these of R.B. Thirdly saith W. Penn they were but the more noble among the Meats and Drinks and diverse Washings that the Apostles said were but shadows of the good things to come for I would not that any should be so sottish as to think that Christ came to abolish those shadows of the Jews and institute others in their room by no means He came to remove change and abolish the very nature of such Ordinances and not the particular Ordinances only to wit an outward Shadowy and Figurative Religion for it was not because they were Jewish Meats and Drinks and diverse Washings but because they were Meats and Drinks and outward Washings at all which never could nor can cleanse the Conscience from dead Works nor give eternal Life to the Soul else wherein would the change be A continuance of them would have been a judaizing of the Spiritual Evangelical Worship the Gospel would have been a state of Figures Types and Shadows which to assert or Practice is as much as in such lies to pluck it up by the roots Ans This whole way of Arguing proceeds upon a supposed Foundation that is false and because the Foundation is false therefore is his Superstructure also both which I shall briefly show First His supposed Foundation is false viz. No Signs that is no outward things that are Symbolical or Significative of greater and more excellent things do by any means belong to the Gospel and Christian Religion otherwise as he argueth but very weakly there would be no change and no difference betwixt the Jewish Religion and the Christian or betwixt Law and Gospel but this doth by no means follow For allowing that some Signs belong to the Gospel yet there is not only a change and difference betwixt them two but a very great change and difference even as much as betwixt the Light of the Twilight and the clear Light of the Sun after he is risen or betwixt the Sun in the Morning and the Sun when he is high in the Firmament and if he will have the outward Baptisme and Supper called Shadows as well as Signs is there no difference betwixt the Shadow that the Sun casts early in the Morning when he is but low above the Horizon and when he is high we know that the higher the Sun riseth the Shadow is the less yet still there is some Shadow however high the Sun riseth until he come to the Zenith or Vertical Point at which Point there is no Shadow but this never happeneth to us in these Northern Parts and to apply the similitude of the Sun and Shadow to the case in hand admit the Sun to be Christ as he enlightenth the Christian Church or the best Christian Congregation that ever was on the Earth did any such Church or Congregation know that Divine Sun to be risen upon them so high as the Vertical Point in this Spiritual Sense Is not that rather the State that is reserved to the future Life When the Shadows shall flee away Cant. 2.17 and 4.6 What was the State of the Church in the Apostles days after they had received plentiful Illuminations of the Holy Ghost Did not Paul say concerning himself and them now we see darkly as in a Glass tanquam in aenigmate the seeing Face to Face being reserved to the future State after Death and as he said again we walk by Faith not by Sight which is to be understood comparatively for though it is granted that the Saints while living in the mortal Body have often sweet and precious sights and tasts of the glory of God and of Christ yet it is not so always with them and their highest Illuminations of Knowledge do admit of some defects and obscurities and the condition of a mortal State as it implyeth somewhat of Shadow with reference to their defects and shortness in respect of the much higher and more full and perfect Attainments of glorified Saints and Angels So in this State of the mortal Body Shadows and Symbolical things may be and are really of that Service to them as the Shadow of a Curtain is that is interposed betwixt the brightness of the Sun and the frail sight of our mortal Bodies And what are all words but Signs verba sunt signa rerum conceptuum words are Signs of Things and Thoughts So are words properly defined by Logicians and Philosophers Now if the Gospels Dispensation under Christianity be all life and substance and nothing else then not only all Books and Letters but all words possible to be uttered by the Mouths of Men must be rejected from having any use in Gospel Worship and instead of silent Meetings at times there must be not other Meetings but silent Meetings nay nor any Meetings at all of Bodies of Men and Women outwardly Assembled for by W. Penn's way of Arguing there is no use of them such Meetings of Bodies reach but to the sight and all that is or can be seen is but Carnal and cannot reach to the Soul all Meetings must be only within and all Teaching within and all Prayer and Worship within and nothing without But if it be granted that outward words though Signs may be useful for the encrease of spiritual Knowledge by the same reason the outward Signs of God's appointment may be useful also yea in some sort they are more
Teachers and Leaders now bearing great Sway among them as a thing not only not very necessary but contrary to the Apostles Doctrin Rom. 10. Witness some very express Passages in a Book of G. Whitehead's and George Fox the younger called Truth defending the Quakers and their Principles Writ say they from the Spirit of Truth in G. Whitehead and G. Fox the younger Judge Christian Reader if these Men have not belyed the Spirit of Truth to father such gross Untruth and Antichristian Sayings upon the Spirit of Truth as are contained in these Passages hereafter to be quoted and many others of the like nature that might be produced out of that vile Pamphlet above named Printed at London for Tho. Sâ—mmons at the Bull and Mouth near Aldersgate 1659. In p. 65 of that Book they bring in one Christopher Wade saying Christopher Wade affirmeth that our blessed Saviour doth instruct Men to lay fast hold of and to abide in such a Faith which confideth in himself being without Men To this they answer Ans That 's contrary to the Apostles Doctrin who Preached the Word of Faith that was in their Hearts and the Saints Faith stood in the Power of God which was in them Note Reader this Assertion of C. Wade blamed by them as being contrary to the Apostles Doctrin is so far from being contrary thereunto that there can be nothing more agreeable as appeareth in the words of the Apostle Paul in the very next verse following where after mentioning the word of Faith in Verse 8 which was nigh in the Mouth and in the Heart he adds in the 9th and 10th verses That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation Again They bring in C. Wade see there page 66 saying C. Wade p. 14. hath affirmed that the Lord hath bought us and Redeemed us with the precious Blood of his Humanity and saith your imagined Christ being a mere Spirit never had any Humane Blood to Redeem you with and to prove it he brings 1 Pet. 1.19 now see their Answer Ans That Scripture 1 Pet. 1. Hast thou perverted as thou hast done other Scriptures to thy own destruction for there he witnessed to the blood of the Lamb which redeemed them from their vain conversation but doth not tell of humane Blood to Redeem them with For that which is Humane is Earthly but Christ whose Blood is Spiritual is Lord from Heaven and he is not an imagined Spirit but a true Spirit And what say'st thou to this Was that Humane Blood which Christ saith except a man drink he hath no life in him and which cleansed the Saints from all Sin who were Flesh of Christ's Flesh and Bone of his Bone Note Any intelligent Reader cannot but know that Christopher Wade by the Blood of Christ's Humanity meant the Blood of the Man Christ that was born of the Virgin and by the Humanity he meant the Manhood of Christ which of late years G. Whitehead hath in Print owned even the words Humanity of Christ and yet never to this day hath retracted his vile Doctrin in this and other his Books whereof I have given some account in my first and second Narrative c. at Turners-Hall Nay it is below him to retract any Errors that would reflect upon his Infallibility he is not changed as God is the same and Truth is the same so the Quakers are the same and by consequence so is G. Whitehead the same as John Pennington hath affirmed in one of his late Prints Again In p. 23. of that above mentioned Book they answer a Question thus Q. 43. When you tell us that you have Faith in Christ do you mean Christ whose Person is now ascended into Heaven above the Clouds or do you mean only a Christ within you Ans Here thou wouldst make two Christ's a Christ whose Person is above the Clouds and a Christ within but how provest thou two such Christs We have Faith in that Christ that descended from the Father who is the same that ascended far above all Heavens that he might fill all things and this Christ we witness in us who is not divided Note I need not make any Commentary on these words the Man that asked the Question did not in the least insinuate that there were two Christ's but 't is plain it was G. Whitehead's Sense that to own Christ whose Person is now Ascended unto Heaven above the Clouds and to own Christ within is to make two Christs But seeing there is but one Christ that is only according to G. Whitehead's Notion within and not a Person now Ascended above the Clouds it is plain he doth not own any such Person Ascended into Heaven above the Clouds nor Faith in any such Person and no wonder that he oppose Faith in Christ's Person without us when he opposeth the Being of any such Person for the object of Faith being destroyed or denyed the Act of Faith must be destroyed or denyed also both which we see he hath plainly done in this Book and if in some of his latter Books he seems to be of a better Faith yet who can believe him to be sincere until he retract and comdemn the vile Errors in this and other of his former Books which have infected thousands of the poor ignorant People called Quakers whom he hath led into this Ditch of Unbelief and yet for danger of loosing his Reputation of Infallibility and of being sound from the beginning he will not do any thing to confess his former Ignorance and Unbelief which might be a great means to lead that poor People out of that Ditch into which he had formerly led them And how he will answer it at the great Day of Judgment for this great Sin and Neglect to make amendment so as to correct his former gross Errors and labour to undeceive those whom he had formerly deceived he has great need to consider it and I sincerely wish that a Heart may be given him to do it and that by true Repentance he may be humbled before the Lord and obtain forgiveness But he hath given us a very late Instance that he is not changed really in his false Faith and Persuasion from what he was when he wrote that Book near 40 years past which instance is this He hath blamed G. K. for undervaluing the Light within as not sufficient to Salvation or not sufficient without something else that is Christ Jesus without us Suffering and Dying outwardly for us as in his late Antidote Printed 1697. p. 28. compared with p. 27. ad finem Judge Reader of what little necessity or value he makes of the Man Christ without us and of his Death and Sufferings Resurrection and Intercession in Heaven by this most unsound Notion of his for which he
Grain being produced out of the Soil of American Earth Secondly saith he p. 63. and to put the Matter out of doubt when the Carnal Jews would have been so understanding it he tells them plainly v. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profits nothing Ans Nor doth this prove his Assertion the Error of the Carnal Jews was that they supposed Christ meant they were to eat his Body Corporally with their Bodily Mouth but if they had understood that he meant not a Corporal Eating but a Spiritual and Metaphorical they had not erred in so thinking his Quotation approved by him out of Augustine proves that by eating here Christ meant believing in him as he was to Dye for the Sins of the World and as he was to give his Body to be broken for them and his Blood to be shed for the Remission of the Sins of all that should believe in him and for the giving Eternal Life to them both in Soul and Body Thirdly Saith he p. 63.64 This is also founded upon most sound and solid Reason because that it is the Soul not the Body that is to be Nourished by this Flesh and Blood now outward Flesh cannot Nourish nor Feed the Soul there is no Proportion nor Analogy betwixt them neither is the Communion of the Saints with God by a Conjunction and mutual Participation of Flesh but of the Spirit he that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit not one Flesh for the Flesh I mean outward Flesh even such as was that wherein Christ lived and walked when upon Earth and not Flesh when transposed by a Metaphor to be understood Spiritually can only partake of Flesh as Spirit of Spirit as the Body cannot Feed upon Spirit neither can the Spirit Feed upon Flesh Ans Here also he Argueth very Weakly and Fallaciously that which deceived him and occasioned his great Mistake which he embraced as a solid Reason was by Arguing from the strict literal Sense of Nourishing and Feeding to the Metaphorical and Figurative which all true Logicians and Masters of solid Reason will say is unlawful as also to Argue from the natural Feeding or Nourishing to the Spiritual To his Argument then I answer outward Flesh cannot Feed the Soul Naturally I grant Spiritually and Metaphorically I deny now the Eating Feeding and Nourishing meant John 6.53 is not Natural but Spiritual and Metaphorical the Word Eating signifieth Believing And whereas he speaketh of the Feeding of the Spirit or Soul of Man that it cannot be the Flesh of Christ that can Feed it but the Spirit so as to be its Food by Food here we must understand it Metaphorically even as R.B. hath confessed that the Spirit of Christ is not properly but Metaphorically called Flesh So the Souls of Believers Feeding upon the Spirit of Christ is also Metaphorical for if by the Spirit of Christ he meant the Godhead how can the Godhead which is an Infinite Being in all respects be the Food f the Soul or Spirit of Man that is Finite strictly or literally understood without a Metaphor much more may I use his Argument against his own Assertion there is less Proportion or Analogie betwixt the Infinite Creator and the Soul that is a Finite Creature than is betwixt the Flesh of Christ and the Soul Besides if we argue from the strict and literal Nicety of the Words Food Feed and Nourishment that which is the Food and Nourishment of a Body becomes a part of its very Substance and Being shall any therefore conclude that because God is the Food and Nourishment of the Souls of the Saints that therefore he becomes a part of their Souls We know George Fox was blamed for saying the Soul was a part of God or of the Divine Essence surely it is as justly blame-worthy for any to say that God is a part of the Soul therefore when God or his Spirit is said to be the Souls Food it is not to be understood Strictly and Literally but Metaphorically and Figuratively as when David saith my Soul thirsteth after God But if it be said that not the Godhead but that which R.B. calleth the Vehicle of the Godhead is the most proper and immediate Food of the Souls of Believers as a certain Divine Emanation or Efflux nor can that Strictly and Literally without a Metaphor be called the Souls Food for that Divine Emanation or Efflux doth not become any part of the Souls Substance but is more Noble than the Soul of any Saint upon the Hypothesis that there is such a thing which to dispute is forrain to the present Question for the Soul of Man in its own Nature is capable of Sin and sinful Defilements which this Divine Seed or Principle in the Soul is not therefore it can never be Convertible into the Souls Substance The Feeding of the Soul therefore in whatever Sense we take it is Metaphorical and not to be measured or determined by the Feeding of the Body yet beareth some Analogy or Similitude thereunto as all Metaphors do to the things from which they are transferred for as what Feeds the Body doth Refresh and Comfort it maketh it Lively and Vigorous Fat and Beautiful and doth strengthen it and is united with it So the Spirit of Christ and his Divine Influences in the Souls of Believers have the like Effects in them they do wonderfully Refresh and Comfort them and that most sensibly make them Lively and Vigorous Fat and Beautiful and do mightily strengthen them and make them Fruitful in Divine Virtues and Fruits and are United with the Soul SECT III. BUT there are two other things that need Correction in these foregoing Words of R.B. the first is that he saith it is the Soul not the Body that is to be Nourished by this Flesh and Blood this is a great Mistake though the Bodies of the Saints are not to be Nourished by Christ as with natural Food that is Corruptible yet seeing it is by him that the Bodies of the Saints shall be raised up at the Resurrection of the Dead to partake of Life Everlasting therefore he is truly said to be that Food that Perisheth not that Feedeth both the Souls and Bodies of the Saints to Life Everlasting and though their Bodies Dye yet because by the Power of Christ's Resurrection as his Body was Raised from the Dead so on the account of his Resurrection their Bodies shall be Raised to Eternal Life Therefore their Bodies as well as their Souls are truly said to be Nourished by him The second is that he saith neither is the Communion of the Saints with God by a Conjunction and mutual Participation of Flesh but of the Spirit he that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit not one Flesh Ans The Communion indeed of the Saints with God is not by any natural Conjunction or Union of Christ's Body that was outwardly Slain with the Saints yet a Mystical and Relative Union there is as really or rather more really as
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
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
of the Protestant Churches answers to Sardis and not this or that particular spot or part of the Earth or this or that particular Country Province or City but the Collective Body of the whole that by the Harmony of their Confessions already extant may be allowed to hold the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith however many are under great mistakes in other things Now we do not find this Church of Sardis blamed for Idolatry or suffering it as some of the other Seven Churches we find so blamed and particularly that of Pergamus and Thyatira that may allude to the Dark and Idolatrous Times of Popery for divers Ages foregoing The great things of the Sardis Church that are blamed are that her Works were not perfect before God that she had more a Name of Life than the possession of it which seems to paint out to the Life the Collective Body of the Protestant Churches who yet have a few Names who have not defiled their Garments and who are worthy which few Names are not confined to this or that particular Denomination but scattered and dispersed through the whole as so many Grains of pure Silver or Gold thro' a great mass or Lump of Oar where is much more Dross and Refuse And because things receive their denomination from the better part frequently therefore I judge that the Protestant Churches are with a respect to and on the account of these few Names that have kept their Garments clean to be reckoned a true Church and is so reputed of God And therefore it were very advisable that all that sincerely Believe in God and in Christ and love God and Christ and agree in Fundamentals as they generally do that they would Love one another and Repute one another as Brethren walk together and worship God together in Spirit and in Truth the Stronger condescending to the Weaker and becoming all things to all Men and in every thing that is not manifestly sinful yielding one to another endeavouring to be of one Heart and Soul in true Christian Love and Affection however differing in some lesser matters both as to Judgment and Practice This I hope God in his own time will bring to pass and for this as many I believe sincerely pray so do I cordially joyn my earnest Supplications with them And let this suffice at present for an Answer to that last Argument about the Call as whether mediate or immediate SECT X. IT is not to be doubted but many in the Protestant Churches can give as great evidence and far greater of their true Inward Call to the work of the Ministry than many or most of the Teachers among the People call'd Quakers and that not only by the conformity of their Doctrine and Conversation to the Holy Scriptures but the real success and good effect of their Ministry by the Blessing of God upon their Labours And if the noise of boldly claiming to themselves the only Privilege of being the Church of Christ and their Teachers and Ministers the only Ministers of Christ having only the Inward Call and furnishing of the Spirit be laid aside and the Question fairly and calmly stated it will not bear great Dispute to make it appear which of the two sorts have the best Marks of the true Church and Ministry Would the Quakers less value themselves for some singular things which at best are but as the Cummin and the Mint and some of them not so much they might easily find themselves equalled and far excelled in great part by many others in the greater things of true Divine Knowledge Piety and Virtue Only for a Conclusion let this be added that suppose present Administrators could not be readily found so qualified as to silence all the scrupulosities of Objectors this will not prove that Baptism and the Supper are not the Institutions of Christ as it will not prove that Preaching the Gospel is not a Divine Institution because in many parts of the World true Preaching has been wanting and yet is yea according to the Quakers narrow and scanty Charity true Preaching was generally lost in the World untill the Quakers were raised up about the year 1648. Doth it therefore follow that it was no Institution of Christ to the Apostles and their Successors to Preach the Gospel And here let it be noticed that I put a distinction betwixt a Power given to a Man to use the Gifts that God has given him in teaching others less knowing and a Pastoral Gift of not only Teaching but Administring these Divine Institutions of Baptism and the Supper and doing divers other things relating to the Discipline Order and Government of the People over whom by God's appointment and the Peoples consent he is set to be their Pastor and Watchman Here Note Reader that what is said in this small Treatise in Answer to the Arguments of the principal Teachers of the Quakers above named will also serve for an Answer to W. Dell's Book against Water-Baptism for there is nothing Material in his Book but what is in their Books upon that Subject though they borrowed his Arguments and have so great a liking to his Book that they have Printed it often again and again and indeed as they borrowed from him so the most of his Arguments he seems to have borrowed from Socinus who hath used the same Arguments for the most part long before W. Dell or the Quakers appeared in the World Only please Reader to take notice of that great piece of Ignorance in W. Dell to affirm so bold an Untruth that Zacharias John the Baptist's Father was High Priest The more particular Questions about Baptism relating either to the proper Subjects of it or manner of it are not needful to be handled here the design of this Treatise being to Convince such of the Quakers as are willing to read it that Baptism and the Supper are Divine Institutions till they own this it would be Preposterous to persuade them about those other Were the People called Quakers convinced of this great Truth that the outward Baptism by Water and the Supper are Divine Institutions and ought to be practised by them as becoming true Christians there are some thousands of them who are at Age and have Children at Age who never had any manner of outward Baptism if these have true Faith in Jesus Christ and can sincerely say as the Eunuch did Acts 8.37 I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and do renounce all those Errors that are contrary to the true Faith in the Fundamental Doctrins thereof there is no question but they may be Baptized they are proper enough Subjects of it and when they are thus well Prepared and Qualified to Receive it it may be hoped that they will be Directed and Guided by the Lord where and how to find the Persons that may be fit to Administer it unto them Such among them who scruple or question the manner of Baptism by Sprinkling may receive it by Dipping for
deny And yet with the same Breath as it were he denyeth it for if the Man Christ is to be Prayed unto being the Spring out of which all the living Streams flow unto our Souls surely as such he is the Object of our Faith for how can we Pray to an Object in whom we believe not But seeing he will not allow me that I then owned the Man Christ without us to be the Object of Faith wherein he is most unjust unto me and that I Writ then as a Quaker and my Doctrin was the Quakers Doctrin It is evident that according to him it was not the Quakers Doctrin that the Man Christ without us is in any Part or Respect the Object of our Faith why then doth he and many others Accuse me that I Bely them for saying they hold it not necessary to our Salvation that we believe in the Man Christ without us And it is either great Ignorance or Insincerity in him to say that none of them deny that the Man Christ without us in Heaven is to be Prayed unto Seeing a Quaker of great Note among them William Shewen hath Printed it in his Book of Thoughts p. 37. Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham David and Mary Saint or Angel but to God the Father all Worship Honour and Glory is to be given through Jesus Christ c. This c. cannot be Jesus the Son of Abraham but some other Jesus as suppose the Light within otherwise there would be a Contradiction in his Words so here he Asserts two Jesus's with a witness what saith J. Pennington to this Page 41. In Opposition to my Christian Assertion that the believing Jews before Christ came in the Flesh did believe in Christ as he was to be Born Suffer Death Rise and Ascend and so the Man Christ even before he was Conceived Born c. was the Object of their Faith He thus most Ignorantly and Erroneously Argueth Could that be the Object of theirs viz. The believing Gentiles or of the Jews Faith which our Lord had not yet received of the Virgin which was not Conceived nor Born much less Ascended Ans Yes That can be an Object of Faith and Hope which has not a present Existence but is quid ' futurum something to come though nothing can be an Object of our Bodily Sight or other Bodily Senses but what is in Being and hath a real Existence in the present Time But so Stupid and Gross is he that he cannot understand this that the Faith of the Saints could have a future Object in any Part or Respect this is to make Faith as low and weak a thing as Bodily Sense Is it not generally acknowledged through all Christendom that the Saints of old as Abraham Moses David believed in Christ the Promised Seed as he was to come and be Born and Suffer Death for the Sins of the World according to our Saviours Words Abraham saw my Day and was glad which is generally understood by Expositors that as he saw Christ inwardly in Spirit so he saw that he was to come ' outwardly and be his Son according to the Flesh and by what Eye did he see this but by the Eye of Faith And that Eye of Faith had Christ to come in the Flesh to be Born c. for its Object as a thing to come And in the same Page 41. He Quoteth me falsly saying Immed Rev. p. 132. agreeing with both Papists and Protestants That God speaking in Men is the Formal Object of Faith This Quotation is False in Matter of Fact as well as his Inference from it is False and Ignorant I said in that p. 132. That both Papists and Protestants agree in this That the Formal Object of Faith is God speaking but quoth the Papist it is the Speaking in the Church of Rome no quoth the Protestant God Speaking in the Scriptures is the Formal Object of Faith Here I plainly shew the difference of Papists and Protestants about the Formal Object of Faith though they agree in one Part that it is God Speaking yet in the other Part they differ the Papists making it God Speaking in the Church that is not in every Believer but in the Pope and his Counsel And there in that and some following Pages I Plead for Internal Revelation of the Spirit not only Subjectively but Objectively Working in the Souls of Believers to which Testimony I still Adhere But what then Doth this prove that Christ without us is no Object of our Faith Will he meddle with School Terms and yet understand them no more than a Fool Doth neither he nor his quondam Tutor T. Ellwood understand that the res credendae i. e. The things to be believed are Ingredients in the Material Object of Faith as not only that Christ came in the Flesh was Born of a Virgin but all the Doctrins and Doctrinal Propositions set forth in Scripture concerning God and Christ and all the Articles of Faith are the Material Object of our Faith but the Formal Object of Faith is the inward Testimony of the Spirit moving our Understandings and Hearts to believe and close with the Truth of them All which are well consistent and owned by me Page 43. He Rejects my Exposition of the Parable concerning the lost piece of Money in my late Retractation of my former Mistake p. 15. Sect. 1. p. 10. That by the lost piece of Money is to be understood the Souls of Men as by the lost Sheep and the lost Prodigal To this he most Ignorantly and Falsly opposeth by saying First The Lord can find the Soul without lighting a Candle in it I Answer By finding here is meant Converting the Soul thus the Father of the Prodigal found him when he Converted him to himself this my Son was lost and is found i. e. was departed from God but now is Converted Luke 15.32 And ver 6. I have found the Sheep that was lost Now can this be wrought or doth God Work this Work of Conversion in a lost Soul without his Lighting a Candle in it Secondly He saith the very design of the Parable was to set forth not what God had lost but what Man had lost the Candle being used by Man who needed it not by God and Christ who needed it not How Ignorantly and Stupidly doth he here Argue How can Man use the Candle unless God light it in his Heart and doth not God use it in order to bring or Convert Man to himself It 's true though there were no Candle lighted in Man's Heart God seeth where the Soul is even when it is involved in the greatest Darkness but in order to the Souls Conversion which is principally God's Act it is God that lights the Candle in it and causes his Light to Shine in it And whereas I have said they who Expound the lost Piece of Money to be the Light within will find difficulty to shew what the nine Pieces are which are not lost His Answer to
this is as Similes seldom go on all four so neither must Parables be pursued too far I Answer Though every Circumstance of a Parable is not to be pursued yet every necessary part of it is whoever Expounds the Parable is bound to Expound what the nine Pieces are as well as what the tenth was But he thinks to pinch me with great Difficulties in my Exposition As first He demands whether there be no difficulty to find who the Woman is that had ten Souls kept nine and lost one Ans There is no difficulty in this more than in finding who the ninety nine Sheep were that were not lost and who the Elder Brother was in the other two Parables And who they were I had formerly shewn but that his Prejudice blinds him that he will not see Many Angelical Created Rational Spirits did not Sin so were not lost but the Souls of Men did Sin so were lost And the number nine in the one Parable and ninety nine in the other answer one to another the Definite Numbers being put for Indefinite as is ordinary in Scripture But he thinks it a mighty difficulty according to my Exposition to tell what the House was which in effect has no difficulty at all the House where the Soul is as Buried under a great heap of Filth and Sin is the Body wherein the Soul is Lodged and the Animal and Natural Faculties with which also the Soul is Defiled so the House to wit the Body and Animal and Natural Faculties being Swept and Cleansed by him who hath his Fan in his Hand purely to Purge his Floor to wit Christ signified here by the Woman he finds the lost Soul for as he said himself he came to seek and to save i. e. that which was lost For Christ had not lost Christ nor God had not lost God but they had in a Sense lost the Souls that had Sinned as the Souls had lost God and Christ Page 45.46 In Opposition to me he will needs have all these Places 1 Cor. 2.2 Rom. 66. Gal. 2.20 Heb. 6.6 To be understood of Christ's being Crucified in Men else why doth he oppose me with his Queries and at this rate we shall not find any place in the New Testament where Paul Preached Christ Crucified without Men but only within for by the same Liberty he may Expound all other Places only of Christ Crucified within But there is no reason why any of these places should be understood of Christ's Crucifixion in Men the Crucifying the Old Man is so far from being joyned with the inward Crucifying of Christ that it is rather a Sign and Effect of Christ's Power Triumphing Victoriously in Man than of his being Crucified in Man The Crucifying Christ afresh is not so much the Crucifying him within Men as its Men Acting so Unworthily as if they did Act over again the Jews Part in Crucifying him outwardly Page 47. His base Reviling me for my Retracting some things in my Book of Universal Grace used by way of Argument unduly by me ing Thus in him is verified the saying of the Apostle James 1.8 A double minded Man is unstable in all his ways By this means he will allow no Man to Amend or Correct his Faults or Retract his Errors however truly convinced of them if he does he is Condemned by J. Pennington and not by the Apostle James to be a dâ—uble minded Man But what if perhaps G. Whitehead or W. Penn should find cause to Retract or Correct some Passages in their Books which formerly they thought Divine Openings must they also be judged double Minded Men c. Is it not more an Evidence of Sincerity to Retract an Error than to persist in it Have not many good Men done it Yea have not the Quakers commended some for Retracting and Condemning some things which formerly they reckoned to be Divine Openings Must all that Retract from their Errors be Reputed double Minded Men Oh unfair Adversary full of deep Prejudice and Spite I pray God give him Repentance and Forgiveness Page 50. He is so Ignorant and Blind as not to understand my distinction betwixt Essentials of true Religion Indefinitely and Essentials of the true Christian Religion in Specie Cornelius's Religion being Gentile Religion was true in its kind before he had the Faith of Christ Crucified but I say the Faith of Christ Crucified in some degree is Essential to the Christian Religion and otherwise to Assert its plain Deisme yet that Faith may be where the knowledge of the Circumstances of Times Places and Persons may be wanting Page 52. He blames my saying upon Supposition that any suchh thing can be found in my Books I Retract and Renounce it viz. That any are saved without all Knowledge and Faith of Christ Explicit or Implicit this he saith is Childish all over And for a Proof he Querieth Can a Man Retract and Renounce a Passage upon Supposition and not know what the Passage is But his Query is Impertinent and hits not the Case a Man may Retract a Saying upon Supposition that he had said it yet not knowing that ever he said it as if he were accused that he had said B. is a Dishonest Man and replyeth I know not that ever I so said but on Supposition that I so said I Retract it This is not Childish but Manly and Christian if he had no cause to say B. is a Dishonest Man It seems J. Pennington never Repented of his Sins of Ignorance he thinks that 's Childish all over I pity his Childishness Page 54. His blaming me for saying in my Retractations The breaking of the Union betwixt Soul and Body is more properly a Death than the breaking the Union betwixt the Life and Spirit of Christ and the Soul of Man is the Death of Christ in the Soul For of that I was Trâ—aâ—ing and at this rate of his blaming me when Christ Dyed upon the Cross that was not so proper a Death as when he is Crucified in Men by their Sins and consequently his Death in Men is the only proper Sacrifice for that Mans Sins His Death without being not so proper a Death is not a proper Sacrifice by his most Ignorant way of Reasoning But my Reason for my Assertion holds good and which he has not touched for when a Man Dyeth his Soul leaveth the Body and ceaseth to Act in it nor is the Body any more sensible but Christ Acteth in a Dead Soul and the Soul though Dead is oft made in some degree sensible of the Spirit of Christ Acting in it in order to its being further quickned as frequently comes to pass in Thousands and Millions of Souls Besides as I Argued the Union of Soul and Body is a Personal Union whereby what the Body doth is chargable upon the Soul but the Union betwixt the Spirit of Christ and Men is not a Personal Union otherwise when those Men Sin their Sin would be chargeable upon Christ Page 61. He
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
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 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