Whitehead in the very first instant art of Baptizing they confessed their Sins and neither before nor after But that there was a Divine and Spiritual Baptisme that attended their Ministry to some will not prove that they did Baptize them with the Divine and Spiritual Baptisme which was the Work of God and of Christ and promised by Christ to the Apostles and other Believers but was never commanded them to give it to others His Third Argument is from Gal. 3.2 Received ye the spirit by the works of the law or by hearing of faith c. he therefore that ministreth to you the spirit and worketh miracles among you doth he it by the works of the law or by the preaching of faith Ans He taketh it for granted that by him that worketh Miracles among them and Ministreth the Spirit unto them is to be understood Paul or some other Man by whom they were Converted But Paul it could not be for the words being in the Present Tense implyeth a present Ministration of the Spirit when Paul wrote that Epistle unto them but Paul was then at Rome as the end of the Epistle sheweth nor was it any other Man because they were already Converted and had received the Spirit before he writ that Epistle unto them Therefore it is most proper to understand this he to be Christ who is the only furnisher and supplyer of the Spirit together with God unto the Faithful the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Prebens Suppeditans by Pasor and doth properly signifie the Principal Efficient from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dux chori the Captain of the Chorus but this is Christ who supplyeth and giveth the Spirit to the Saints and neither Paul nor any other Man And that the Apostles were Ministers of the Spirit doth not signifie that they gave the Spirit or Baptized with the Spirit but that they were assisted and guided by the Spirit in their Ministry and that God accompanied their Ministry with his not their giving the Spirit unto such who believed their Doctrine SECT V. I Proceed in the next place to examine all the other Arguments I find used by W. Penn and R. Barclay against these Divine Institutions that seem to have any shadow of weight The First Argument I find used by W. Penn in his Reason against Railing in p. 107. is first saith he we know and they confess that they were in the beginning used as Figures and Shadows of a more hidden and Spiritual Substance 2. That they were to endure no longer than till the Substance was come Now the time of the Baptisme of the Holy Ghost Christ's only Baptisme therefore called the one Baptisme has been long since come consequently the other which was John 's was fulfilled and as becomes a forerunner ought to cease the like may be said of the Bread and Wine for as there is but one Baptisme so there is but one Bread This same Argument for Matter but in different words is used by R.B. in the above said Treatise p. 7.8 Answ The Conclusion they both draw viz. that John's Baptisme is ceased may be granted and yet it will not follow that Water-Baptisme as it was practised by the Apostles and other Ministers after Christ's Resurrection and Ascension is ceased seeing there is great ground to distinguish betwixt John's water-Baptisme and the Apostles in divers weighty respects as first the Man Christ after he rose from the Dead having all Power given him in Heaven and in Earth Commissioned the Apostles to Baptize and that with Water as shall be afterwards proved more fully but John had not his Commission from the Man Christ c. 2. John did only Baptize them of his own Nation and was only sent to Israel but the Apostles Commission reached to all Nations 3. John though he taught them to believe in him who was to come to wit Christ yet he required not Faith in Christ as any condition to qualifie his Disciples to receive his Baptisme but the Apostles required Faith in Christ Jesus in all the Men and Women as a condition qualifying them to receive their Baptisme 4. We do not find that the Holy Ghost was given or promised to them who received John's Baptisme but the promise of the Holy Ghost was given to such as did duly and worthily receive the Apostles Baptisme therefore John's Baptisme was called the Baptisme of Repentance 5. It seems greatly probable that some who had received John's Baptisme were again Baptized with the Apostles Baptisme Acts 19.3.4 5 6. But whereas they both argue from John's Words I must decrease but he must increase it hath a further understanding than barely as in relation to John's Baptisme for it is said John 4.12 that Jesus made and Baptized more Disciples than John tho' Jesus himself Baptized not but his Disciples thus John decreased and Christ increased when both Water-Baptismes were in force that Christ had more Disciples than John even when John was living at which he rejoyced and as the number of Christ's Disciples increased above the number of Johns before John's decease so still after and will encrease and so will the Glory and Honour of Christ encrease above John to the end of the World But whereas they both argue as they think so strongly both against Water-Baptisme and the outward Supper because of the Scripture Phrase one Baptisme and one Bread which I confess did formerly carry some weight with me and I have so argued in some of my former Books but I have sufficiently seen the weakness of that Argument as well as other Arguments brought both by them and me against these Divine Institutions But let it be considered how things are said to be one in divers senses and acceptations God is one in the highest sense yet this doth not infer that there is no distinction of the Father Son and Holy Ghost in their relative Properties which are incommunicable and Christ is one and yet this doth not prove that Christ hath not two Natures one of the Godhead another of the Manhood most gloriously united 3. Faith is one yet there are divers true significations of Faith in Scripture as 1. the saving Faith 2. the Faith of Miracles which every one had not who had the saving Faith 3. Faith objectively taken for the Doctrine of Faith either as it is outwardly Preached or Professed as in Rom. 1.5 Gal. 3.2 Acts 24.24 Now if one should argue because the Scripture saith there is one Faith Eph. 4.5 that consequently there is but one Faith and that is the Doctrine of Faith outwardly Preached and Professed and consequently deny Faith as it is an inward Grace and Virtue of the Spirit in the Hearts of true Believers his Argument would be false so on the other hand if another should argue true saving Faith that is of absolute necessity to Salvation is an inward Grace or Vertue of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of true Believers and therefore there is no Doctrine
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
all Christendom own that that Form may be used Lawfully and that Adult Persons having Faith in the Lord Jesus after their giving the Confession of the same may and ought to be Baptized And such among them who might scruple to receive it from Persons of another Denomination might find some of their own Way to Administer it unto them For it were strange to suppose that among so many hundreds of Men professing to have an immediate or inward Call to that part of the Ministry by Preaching and Prayer there should not be some found among them who might apprehend that they are as immediately call'd to the other part of the Ministry of Baptism and the Supper after they are truly convinced that they are Gospel Institutions There is some Ground of Hope that many among them will be brought to some good Consideration and better Understanding so as to see the great hurt and loss that it has been unto them to reject those things and also to come to that good and solid Discretion and Judgment of the great Profit and Advantage it would be to them to receive the Practice of them among them for their Spiritual Good and Honour of their Christian Profession thereby declaring as well as by their Christian Lives and Conversations that they are the Disciples of Christ by this Testimony of their Love to him that they keep these his Commandments as well as the others that he has enjoyned remembring that he that breaketh the least of his Commandments and teacheth Men to do so shall be least in the Kingdom of Heaven and also for the removing the great Scandal and Offence of many Tender People who are greatly stumbled at their Way in not only omitting but speaking Reproachfully against those Sacred Institutions It will be no occasion of Dishonour to them nor Argument of their declining or going backward from the Truth to own and receive the Practice of these things that they have needlesly and for want of due Consideration dropt and lost more than it would be to a Man that had dropt some piece of Money or Jewel to return and stoop to take it up again That which addeth to my Ground of Hope in this thing is that some among them have privately acknowledged that they are sensible of the Hurt and Disadvantage that they have been at as a Body of People for laying those Practices aside SECT XI HAving finished my Answers to the Arguments of the four Persons above named against the outward Baptism and the Supper I think fit to take notice of the Arguments of George Fox the greatest Person among the Quakers when living and whose Words are still as Oracles unto them against these Divine Institutions to which indeed little more Answer is needful than what is given to those other for his Arguments are Included in theirs and so may the Answers be in the Answers to them His Argument against the outward Baptism I find to be but one in a Book of his called Something in Answer to the Old Common-Prayer-Book Printed at London 1660 p. 18. And doth not that in Matth. 28. say Baptize into the Name and is not that more than in the Name This the Reader will find Answered above in Reply to some of their Arguments but to Baptize into the Name Acts 8. they grant not to be the inward Baptism and therefore nor is that Matth. 28. the Particles in and into being frequently the same in Signification both in English and Greek yea and in Hebrew also and Latin and generally in other Languages His Arguments against the outward Supper are as followeth p. 26. They that received the Bread and Wine in remembrance of Christ shewing his Death till he come which the Apostle had received of the Lord and delivered to the Corinthians which they were to examine and Eat and Drink in remembrance of Christ's Death till he come This was in 1 Cor. Then he wrote again to the Corinthians and bids them examine themselves and prove their own selves knew they not that Christ was in them except they were Reprobates So they may see that this was not a standing Form but as often as they did it they did it in remembrance of Christ till he come and then examine your selves prove your selves If Christ be not in you except ye be Reprobates so if you have him within what need you to have that which puts in remembrance of him And so if ye be risen with Christ seek those things that are above for now Bread and Wine is below which is the remembrance of his Death so that part dies with him which must have a Sign to put in remembrance of him For the Apostles forgot who said that they thought that that Man should deliver Israel Ans The substance of this is replyed unto above only I thought fit to take notice how impertinent and idle his Argument is from his comparing the first Epistle to the Corinthians with a passage in his second Epistle to them as if in his first Epistle Paul had delivered the Command or Practice of it unto them because Christ was not then come in them but when he wrote again he was come in them Which reasoning of G.F. is built on a most false Foundation for Paul did believe that Christ was as truly come in the Corinthians at his first writing as at his second for as he said unto them in his second Epistle know ye not that Jesus Christ is in you c. 2. Cor. 13.5 So he said in his first Epistle 1 Cor. 6.19 Know ye not that your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you which ye have of God c. And surely when they had the Holy Ghost in them they had Christ in them from which it appears that this Argument of G.F. is exceeding impertinent and built on a gross and manifest untruth But it was the way of G.F. What he neither did nor could prove from Scripture he would boldly persuade by his Authority and Stamp with saying This is the word of the Lord unto you and then it was no more to be questioned and if any did they were reckoned bad Spirits like Corah c. Also his saying Bread and Wine is from below and they who have Christ in them need not the Sign all this is answered above and had he not been very weak in his understanding and inconsiderate he might have easily observed that this way of his Reasoning was equally against all Outward Ministry Words and Writings which are not Christ more than Bread and Wine And are not his many Papers about Orders and Womens Dresses from below seeing they are visible things and therefore by his Arguments they should be rejected There is yet one Argument behind which I have found in a Manuscript having Humphry Norton's Name to it a Preacher of great Name formerly among the Quakers and in extraordinary repute with Edward Burrough and Francis Howgil as appeareth by their Epistles
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
the sort of Bread and Wine to be used c. Answered SECT VI. Sheweth R.B. his Mistake that the Eating in these Words Take Eat c. do this in remembrance of me was their common Eating The continuance of the Supper Argued from 1. Cor. 11.23 c. That the coming of Christ meant in these Words until he come is his outward and last coming at the end of the World SECT VII Containeth three Reasons That by his coming 1 Cor. 11.26 is meant his outward coming SECT VIII Containeth three other Reasons for the same R.B. his Argument from the Syriack Translation in 1. Cor. 11.26 c. Answered SECT IX Containeth R.B. his last Argument against the outward Baptism and Supper Answered respecting the Power to Administer them as whether Mediate or Immediate The Collective Body of the Protestant Churches may by Allusion or an Hypothesis besaid to answer to the Church of Sardis which was not blamed for Idolatry but otherwayes An Advice to all sincere Christians agreeing in Fundamentals to own one another as Brethren SECT X. Sheweth that many in the Protestant Churches can give greater Evidence of their true inward Call to the Ministry than many of the Teachers among the Quakers Want of due Administrators no Argument against Baptism and the Supper An Advertisement concerning W. Del's Book against Baptism Good Advice to the Quakers concerning those Institutions SECT XI Containeth some Arguments of G. Fox and Humphry Norton with their Answers and some dreadful Words of Humphry Norton against our Saviour's last coming though the Man was highly commended by E. Burrough and F. Howgil Great Teachers among the Qaukers SECT XII Containeth some Scripture Proofs shewing that Baptism and the Supper are Institions of Christ PART I. SECT I. An Impartial Examination and Refutation of their Arguments against Water-Baptisme IN a Book of George Whitehead's whose Title is The Authority of the true Ministry in Baptizing with the Spirit and the Idolatry of such Men as are doting about Shadows and Carnal Ordinances here note his severe Charge p. 13. he bringeth three Reasons or Arguments to prove that in the Commission which Christ gave to his Discipless in Matth. 29.19 Mark 16.18 Water-Baptisme was not intended but the Baptisme of the Spirit His first Argument is If the Baptisme which Christ commanded in Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.16 was a Baptisme without which a Man cannot be saved then it was not the Baptisme of outward Water for Water-Baptisme is not of necessity to Salvation neither is there any stress for Salvation laid upon is but it was that Baptisme without which Men cannot be saved which Christ commanded Matth. 28. therefore not Water-Baptisme I prove saith he the Minor Proposition thus No man can be saved without being Baptized into the Name of God and his Son Christ Jesus for his Name is the Word of God by which Salvation comes and by no other Name and the Lord is one and his Name one and it was into his Name that the Disciples were commanded to Baptize People Ans Here G. Whitehead would appear to be some body in Logick though it is judged by many of his Brethren to be little better than a piece of the black Art but he has in this sufficiently discovered his Ignorance both in true Divinity and true Logick The Fallacy of his Argument is in this apparent that in his supposed Proof of that he calleth the Minor Proposition he confoundeth Baptisme into the Name and the Name it self for saith he his Name is the word of God by which Salvation comes But though Salvation cometh by the word of God and none can be saved without that Word yet it doth not follow that none can be saved without such a Baptisme as the Apostles did Baptize with into the Name of that Word for as they were to Baptize into the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Name of the Father c. So they were to Teach in that Name but this proves not that they were not to teach outwardly and they were to work Miracles in that Name it doth not therefore follow that they were not to work outward Miracles visible to Men's outward sight Again G. Whitehead useth the Name word of God in a too narrow and limited Sense for the full Name of Christ is not the word only but the word made Flesh or the word having assumed the true Nature of Man and that by the Name of Christ here is understood the Name of the Man Christ who was Crucified is clear from Paul's words to the Corinthians Was Paul Crucified for you or were ye Baptized into the Name of Paul Signifying that they were Baptized into the Name of Christ Crucified which hath a necessary Relation to the Man Christ and to Christ considered as truly as Man as God and thought the word is a Name proper to the Son yet it is not the Name either of the Father or of the Holy Ghost for that were to confound and wholly to destroy the distinction of the Relative Properties of Father Son and Holy Ghost which was the Sabellian Heresie The Minor thereof of his Argument is Fallaciously proved by him and his Assertion is false viz. That the Baptisme without which Men cannot be saved was the Baptisme which Christ Commanded to the Apostles if by the words cannot be saved he means absolutely impossible for he hath not in the least proved that it was not Water-Baptisme which Christ Commanded but whereas his Argument seemeth to depend on this that becomes Water-Baptisme is not absolutely necessary to Salvation therefore Christ did not Command it But he should learn better to distinguish things absolutely necessary to Salvation and things necessary in some respect and very profitable though not of absolute necessity and the like distinction G. Whitehead must allow with respect to his and his Brethrens Ministry Preaching and Writing which they suppose Christ has Commanded them and yet he will not say his and their Ministry Preaching and Writing is absolutely necessary to any Man's Salvation Besides it doth absolutely contradict G. Whitehead's declared Principle concerning the Sufficiency of the Light within every Man to Salvation without any thing else to affirm that Men could not be saved unless the Apostles had Baptized them according to Christ's Command even supposing it had been the Baptisme of the Spirit which the Apostles had been Commanded to Administer for this World have made the Salvation of Men depend upon the Ministry of Apostles and their Successors in the outward Exercise of their Spiritual Gift of Preaching and Prayer now before the Apostles Administred this Baptisme suppose it be that of the Spirit the Men to whom they were sent had the Light in them which was sufficient to Salvation without any thing else according to G. Whitehead's Doctrine and consequently without all Ministry of the Apostles and had they never heard or seen the Apostles or any other Men had they given due Attendance and Obedience to
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
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
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
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
hath got a late Patron and Assistant a Clergy Man of the Church of England formerly though not in present Office one that calleth himself Edmund Ely's who hath Printed lately two half Sheets in Vindication of G. Whitehead's vile Error and blaming my Christian Assertion The Title of one of his half Sheets being this G. Keith's saying that the Light within is not sufficient to Salvation without something else proved to be contrary to the Foundation of the Christian Religion These two half Sheets are printed and sold by T. Soule the Quakers Printer next door to their Meeting-house in White-heart Court in Grace-church-street 1697. By which it appears they are very fond of this Patron to their Cause and particularly that G. Whitehead is so by the Commendation he gives of him in his late printed Antidote However this may seem to some an improper Digression yet if they well consider the occasion of it they will if Impartial acknowledge it both proper and convenient SECT XII AND hereby it may easily appear what Spirit hath Acted the first Teachers that appeared among the Quakers as chiefly G. F. and G. W. to oppose so keenly and earnestly the practice of those two Divine Institutions of Water-Baptism and the Supper namely to draw People into a forgetfulness of all Faith in Christ without us as he dyed and rose again and is Ascended into Heaven for the proper Memorials of Christ Crucified being rejected and laid aside as well as the Doctrin it self not only not Preached but opposed as contrary to the Scripture the drift and aim of that Spirit that hath Acted them both against the one and the other is plainly manifest and how it s opposing the Doctrin of Faith in the Man Christ without us is the great cause of its opposing these external Practices which are such proper means together with the Doctrine to propagate and preserve the true Christian Faith in the World And indeed upon that Hypothesis or Foundation laid by their principal Teachers that there is no need of Preaching Faith in the Man Christ without for Remission of Sin and eternal Salvation but the only thing needful is the Light within as it universally enlightenth all Mankind either to be Preached or Believed as a late Writer against them hath well observed these outward Practices of Water-Baptism and the outward Supper are useless and insignificant Formalities for they were never appointed to signifie Remission of Sin Justification and Salvation only by obedience to the Light within excluding the necessity of Faith in the Man Christ without us whose alone Obedience unto Death for us is the only meritorious Cause of the Remission of our Sins of Justification and eternal Salvation and of all that inward Grace and Virtue of the Holy Spirit whereby we are inwardly Sanctified and made meet to receive that eternal Inheritance But though the Spirit that first appeared to Act in these Men the first Teachers and Leaders of that People did prove it self to be Antichristian by opposing the Memorials of Christ without us yet many simple and honest hearted People knew nothing of this design and however in part leavened with that Spirit in respect of its opposition to these outward Institutions of Baptism and the Supper yet by God's great Mercy were preserved from being prevailed upon by it to oppose the Doctrine and Faith of Christ as he outwardly Suffered Dyed and Rose again and is in Heaven our Intercessor among whom I can justly and uprightly number both R.B. and my self both of us having been preserved sound in our Faith as touching the Faith in Christ without us however otherwise hurt and byassed by them in relation to these two outward Institutions of Baptism and the Supper and my Charity leads me to believe that if R.B. had lived in the Body to this day to see the ill effects that his Writing against these Divine Institutions have had and the bold opposition that many have of late more than formerly made to the necessity of the Faith in Christ Crucified and the Preaching of it even here in Christendom since the Question hath been more distinctly stated betwixt my Opposers and me touching the necessity of the Faith asserted by me and opposed by them he would have plainly seen and readily acknowledged his Error in Writing against these Divine Institutions There is yet another of their Teachers who is of late years become a Person of no small Note among the Quakers viz. John Gratton whom I cannot well pass without observing his Ignorant and Inconsiderate way of Arguing against these Divine Institutions especially as touching one of his main Arguments he hath framed from a most false and perverse Understanding of that place in Heb. 6.1 2. Therefore leaving the Principles of the Doctrin of Christ let us go on to Perfection where in his Book called John Baptist decreasing Printed many years ago and Re-printed in the year 1696 he layeth the Foundation of his Argument against Water-Baptism upon the word in that place LEAVING which he hath caused to be Printed more than once in his Book in Capital Letters for a Monument it will be of his gross Ignorance and yet bold Presumption thus to pervert the Holy Scripture from thence inferring that Water-Baptism is to be left off and laid aside for thus be argues p. 47. of the last Edition 1697. If they had been commanded by Christ to have been used to the Worlds end then why should Paul for so I call that Author have been so earnest at that day which was soon after Christ's Ascension to have had them then to leave them and to go on to a more Manful Powerful perfect State Ans At this rate of Arguing not only Water-Baptism but the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is also to be left for the Author mentions the Doctrin of Baptisms in the Plural Number which John Gratton most unfairly and falsly quotes in the Singular Baptism for Baptisms Also by the same Argument Repentance from dead works and faith towards God the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment are all to be left off from being Preached or Believed But the true Sense is obvious of the word leaving i.e. not to Treat or Write upon these first Principles further at present but to Treat of other things as when a Man hath laid the Foundation of a House he goeth on to Build a Superstructure upon it And as Ignorant and Impertinent doth he discover himself to be in his other Treatise preceeding the other of Baptism and the Supper where from the Word Elements used in Gal. 4.3 9. he concludes that Water-Baptism is one of these beggerly Elements Paul opposed because Water is an Element and after this rate divers others of their Teachers have Argued but the Word Translated Elements there Gal. 4.3 9. hath no relation to the Water-Baptism nor to the Element of Water but to Principles and Doctrins of the Jews relating to the Jewish Rites and Ceremonies the Greek
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
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
the â—ight within that that would have saved them according to G. Whitehead's Divinity without any other Baptisme outward or inward that the Apostles could Administer unto them SECT II. Next as to his second Argument from that in Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved these words do not prove that this was not Baptisme with Water for its a true Assertion he that believes and is Baptized with Water shall be saved but it will not prove that therefore Baptisme with Water is of absolute necessity to Salvation the most it proveth is that Baptisme with Water when and where it can be duly had is a means of Salvation as outward Hearing and Reading in the Holy Scriptures are means of Salvation yet not of such absolute necessity but that Men may be saved without them even as it may be truly said he that believeth and frequenteth the Meetings of the Faithful shall be saved and yet in divers Cases Men may be saved without frequenting such Meetings as when they are hindred by Sickness or Imprisonment or some other Restraint as when living in a Country where no such Meetings are to be found and that the Baptisme mentioned Mark 16. is not that which is of absolute necessity to Salvation is evident from the following Words where the word Baptized is omitted for Christ did not say he that is not baptized shall be damned but he that believeth not shall be damned the varying of the Expression sufficiently proveth that he did not mean the inward Baptisme but the outward and whereas not G. Whitehead but W. Penn and R. Barclay argue from the Particle in Greek that signifieth in English into that therefore it must be the Baptisme with the Spirit it is indeed very weakly and fallaciously argued for the same Greek Particle is found Acts 8.16 where it is said that these of Samaria who were Baptized into the Name of the Lord Jesus had not received the Holy Ghost when so Baptized till for some time after that Peter and John came unto them the Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same here and in Matth. 28.19 And any who have but a little skill in Greek know that the Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath often the same signification with the Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifieth as well in as into so that their so arguing is built on a Grammatical Quibble that is altogether groundless And for them to argue that it was not Water-Baptisme which Christ commanded to the Apostles Matth. 28.19 because of the words Baptizing into the name c. with as much colour of reason they might argue that when in James 5.14 It is said anointing them with Oyl in the name of the Lord that the anointing there meant was not an outward anointing but an inward and that the Oyl was not outward but inward Again whereas G.W. saith on this second Argument for the Saints were saved by that Baptisme which was not the putting away the filth of the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience 1. Pet. 3.21 Therefore it was not Water-Baptisme which Christ commanded in Matth. 28. c. I answer that doth no wise follow that therefore it was not Water-Baptisme SECT III. AND because I find that Robert Barclay in that Chapter of his Printed Apology reprinted by his Son Robert Barclay at London 1696 doth much insist upon this place in Peter as if it did effectually prove that Water-Baptisme is no Gospel Institution and it is a common Text the Teachers among the Quakers bring to oppose Baptisme with Water therefore I think fit the more fully to examine the Arguments brought by him from this place against it But in the first place I do apologize for my medling to answer or correct any Passages in the Books of R. Barclay whom as I did greatly love and esteem and who I believe was one of the foundest Writers among the People called Quakers so I do truly honour his memory believing that as to the main he was a true Christian though in divers things he was byassed and misled as I also was by the too great esteem that he had and too great credit he gave as I also did of those called his Elders whose gross perversions and misinterpretations of Holy Scripture we both did upon their Authority take for Divine Inspirations and I hope it may be a just Apology to me and defence against the injurious Clamours of some that may and will object it against me as a breach of Friendship to censure or correct any thing of that my deceased Friend That I do no otherwise in this Case than I would be done by for if after my decease as well as before any Friend of mine should censure and correct any Passages in any Books of mine that did justly need such Censure and Correction I and all that love me should take it as a true act of Friendship it being the best way to cover the Faults of our Friends or were it of our Parents to correct them and though Men may be dear to us yet Truth ought to be more dear nor do I thus censuring and correcting what I judge amiss in R.B. on these Heads do any more wrong to him than I do to my self whom I have impartially censured and now again do freely declaring whatever I have said or writ any where against Baptisme with Water and the Outward Supper as being no Gospel Institution was erronious and which therefore I retract and correct And where I have used divers of the same Arguments which G.W. and R.B. hath used which I find R.B. hath been more large upon than I have any where been in any of my Books therefore I shall rather consider these Arguments as brought by him than by me especially for this cause that he is jugded by many of the Quakers to have writ more forcibly against these matters than most have or then I have done R.B. thus argueth from 1 Pet. 3.21 see pag. 16. of his Sons Edition called Baptisme and the Supper substantially asserted The Apostle saith he tells us first negatively what it is not viz. not a putting away of the filth of the Flesh then surely it is not a washing with Water since that is so Answer That the Baptisme there described is not a putting away the filth of the Flesh is granted but it doth not follow that therefore it is not Water-Baptisme for though ordinary washing with Water is a doing away Bodily filthiness yet Baptisme with Water is not not ever was nay not John's Baptisme with Water for John did not say that he baptized his Disciples to wash away the filth of their Bodies but unto Repentance The description of Baptisme here given by Peter is taken from the end as is very common both in Scripture and elsewhere to describe a thing from its end now the end of Water-Baptisme as it was commanded by Christ Matth. 28.19 was not to put away