The Ancient Christian Religion, Book 4 · Treatise 2

The Ancient Christian Religion · Book 4 · Treatise 2

p. 43Christianismus Primitivus.

The Second TREATISE. The Baptist against the Quaker. BEING A Defence of the Spirit, speaking in the Scripture as aforesaid, to be the supreme Judg of Controversies in Religion, in opposition to the Spirit speaking in the Quakers, and more especially in Robert Ruckhill, and John Whitehead.

CHAP. I. Of the pernicious Queries of R. R. touching the Scriptures, especially the Books of Moses.

HAving by the Grace of God passed over the Mountains of Opposition, raised by the Papists against the Authority of the sacred Scriptures, or the Holy Ghost speaking there, &c. under the specious pretence of the Holy Ghost as speaking in the Church, that is (as they arrogate, but can never prove) the present Romish Synagogue; whose claim to that venerable Title, we trust is sufficiently disproved also.

We come now to reckon with their near Neighbours in this Point, the Quakers; who seem to have the same design against the just Authority of the Scriptures, under the pretence of advancing the Holy Spirit; But then it is likewise arrogated without due Proof, that it is the holy Spirit of God which dwelleth in the Quakers hearts; so that the Spirit speaking p. 44in the Scriptures, must only be allowed a second place, and yet this not allowed neither, but under very strange distinctions, as is manifest in sundry Pamphlets of theirs, and particularly one written by Rob. Ruckhill, and John Whitehead, intituled, The Quakers Refuge fixed upon the Rock of Ages. Where R. R. in pag. 17. first labours to deface the Books of Moses, and other parts of the sacred Scriptures, after this manner.

QUAKER.

Whether the first Penman of the Scripture was Moses, or Hermes? or whether both these are not one?

BAPTIST.

To which bold attempt, I thus answer: If Moses and Hermes be both one, then is this Query frivolous; unless perhaps he would have Moses to be Hermes, and not Hermes to be Moses; that so Moses being lost, and Hermes only a Philosopher in Egypt being found, the Books going under the name of Moses, shall be lost also; otherwise the calling the same Man Moses in one Tongue, and Hermes in another, **foreign Is Educo vel Extraho, to bring forth, draw, or pluck out. And foreign, is Nuncius, a Messenger: both fit appellations for the first Penman of the Scripture.makes not the Author differ from himself, but he is still the same Man.

But to let pass this mischievous Cavil, yet are we well assured, that Moses only was the first Penman of the Scriptures, which by God's Providence are come to our Hands, our Saviour himself being an uncontroulable Witness for us in this behalf, by his alledging the Book of Exodus, as the sayings of Moses against the Saducees, who denied the Resurrection, (like as also R. Ruckhill doth, as I shall shew in due place) see Mark 12. 26. And when Christ saith (in the person of Abraham) Luke 16. 29. They have Moses and the Prophets; How plainly doth he here avouch the Pentiteuch to be the writings of Moses, as well as the other Books of Scripture to be written by the Prophets? Also disputing about the case of Divorce; he most plainly grants, That Moses for the causes he assignes, gave them that Precept, but refers them to Genesis for the institution of Marriage. Again, Luke 24. 27. when He would make the things known to his Disciples which concerned himself, He begins at Moses, and passeth through all the Prophets, to rectifie their understandings. So that still the Books which the Jews at that time had received as the Books of Moses, are by Christ himself (who could not be deceived) made use of, as the Books of Moses also. Yea, how frequently did our Lord urge the Jews with Moses's Authority, saying, If they had believed Moses, they would have believed him also; for (saith he) he wrote of me. Peter also quotes the Book Deuteronomy, as the Book of Moses, Acts 3. Yea, it appears that places have been alledged out of all the Five Books of Moses by Christ and his Apostles, more than Fifty times in the New Testament, as may be seen in the Parallels, usually affixed to the Greek Testament. Having therefore the Authority of Christ, and his holy Writers of the New Testament, avouching Moses as the Penman of the first Books of the sacred Scripture, we explode R. R. his Query, as rude and unlearned, and formed on purpose to engender p. 45Strife; abhorring to think that our Saviour was either Unskilful, or Unfaithful, in recommending to us any suppositious Writings, in stead of the sacred Oracles.

Judg now, O Christian Reader, what Book of Scripture the Quaker can receive for Authentick, when Moses's Writings thus clearly approved by Christ and his Apostles, are thus hesitated by him; it being impossible for him to find any Book more clearly avouched, than these of Moses.

Say not here, That he that Querieth concludes nothing; but know rather that all Queries do conclude, or at least suppose a Negation, or an Affirmation: And when the form of Interrogation is Negative, it usually concludes in the Affirmative, and so the meaning of this Query is plainly thus: That Hermes was rather the first Penman of the Scripture than Moses, or else they were both one. The latter makes the Query needless, the former makes it pernitious. Let him take to which he will, he is injurious to the Christian Faith. But he leaves not thus:

QUAKER.

Or whether there are not many words contained in the Scriptures, which were not spoken by Inspiration of the holy Spirit? Whether some words were not spoken by the grand Impostor; some by wicked Men; some by wise Men, ill applied; some by good Men, ill expressed; some by false Prophets, and yet true; some by true Prophets, and yet false?

BAPTIST.

No less mischievous are these Queries than the former, having this natural tendency to prejudice the weak Reader, against the Authority of the sacred Scripture. For when he shall hear these Bug-bears, or see such ugly Shapes put upon the Scripture in sundry parts of it, he will be the less affected to the residue, as not knowing, perhaps, how to distinguish between the Precious, and what is represented by R. R. to be so vile. But he is more subtile than to tell plainly, that his design in these Questions, is to impeach the Certainty, and therewith the Authority of the Scriptures, which yet is undoubtedly his meaning; or else he speaks in the Air, and does Mischief at a venture. Now I gather the sense I here give from his Preface to these Queries, which he calls, The Controversie between the Anabaptists, &c. and the Quakers, concerning the Authority of the **I observe that he hath left off much the phrase used formerly; to wit, the Light within.holy Spirit, in judging, or discerning the Mind of God in the holy Scriptures, truly stated, &c. And presently adds, That the Scriptures, as above distinguished, are a true Record and Declaration of the Love of God, in the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind by Jesus Christ. Now I can make no English of these things taken collectively, save this, 1. He would throw aside a great part of the holy Scripture as Doubtful, particularly the Books of Moses. 2. Some part he would have to be Diabolical. 3. Some part False. 4. Some part Foolish, both in expression and application. 5. And some part little to be regarded though true, because spoken by Lyers. 6. Some part spoken by Inspiration, and so of small p. 46Authority, and so no part of the true Record, or Declaration of God's love for the Salvation of Mankind; for that, or nothing, is the implication of his Distinction.

But now it would be known, since so much of the Scripture is pack'd away by his wretched Distinction, how much of the Scripture the Quaker will own, for a true Declaration, &c. What Books by name, what Chapters, and what Verses in these Books will abide his Censure; but I expect to see an account of these things at leasure.

But now to the Queries: And supposing things to be in general as implied in these last Enquiries, (though not granting it in all Points) yet will I stand to it, That these passages are a true Record and Declaration of God's love, conducing much to the Salvation of Mankind, and written for our premonition and ensample. And this I shall make appear by a due consideration of one of the worst attempts, and mischievous discourses of the Devil himself, recounted in the holy Scripture, as Gen. 3. &c. where he falsly gives God the Lye, and deprives Adam of his Happiness, and exposes him and his Posterity to misery and death. And yet behold how gracious God was in causing this to be written, that the riches of his Grace might appear in providing a Salve for this dreadful Wound; and to cause us to hate that Enemy for ever, and to shun his Temptations. Yea, this very passage I do affirm to be written by the Inspiration of God's Spirit, or the Motion thereof; and consequently all such-like passages also. Otherwise this passage would be doubtful, and all the Historical part of the Scripture also, which declares matter of Fact: For either these things were written in the Book of God, by the Motion and Direction of his Spirit, or else they only rest on Humane Authority, and Conjecture: For it is not likely, that Moses wrote the Account he gives of the Creation, the fall of Man and Angels, the means of his Recovery, &c. upon the bare report of Men; which we know by the Fragments which Ovid and others have left, are contradictory, and incredible; and why Moses his Relation should be received, unless revealed to him by God, rather than the rest, it will be hard to render a satisfactory Reason; but when God speaketh, we must submit our Reason; by Faith receive, what by Science we cannot understand: and so it is written, Heb. 11. By Faith we understand the Worlds were made. Upon the whole matter we conclude, The Devil would gladly have had us ignorant of all his wicked Pranks; false Prophets would not have had us know how God forced them to speak against themselves; good Men would have had their Faults obscured; bad Men loved not to have theirs revealed: But God who disposeth all things well for his own Glory, and the good of Men, hath in Love and Mercy, and in Justice perpetuated the Memorial of these things respectively. And so we fear not to assert, That the same word which was maliciously contrived, and spoken first by Satan and wicked Men, and so considered, was, and is, the word of Satan. Yet as these things are recorded for our Information and Admonition, so these very things are to be believed as the Word of God, or a true Declaration of God's love to Men, who to the end they should not be ignorant of Satans devices, &c. hath exposed them to our view, that we might avoid his most specious p. 47allurements. And thus much to R. R. his Queries, which though he say, was not the subject of his Argument at that time, yet he implies, he thought of a time when to imploy his skill on such a peevish Subject, as can produce no good.

QUAKER.

R. R. premising, that though a Man have all the words of the Bible at his fingers ends, yet without a measure of the Spirit of God received, and turned unto, he cannot understand the great Mystery of Man's Salvation by Jesus Christ; thence concludes, That the Holy Spirit of God, is the only Supream Judg, Opener and Revealer of the Mind and Mystery of God, and Duty of Man treated of in the Scripture.

And then flies out into this extravagant speech; This, O ye Anabaptists, Independents, and all other Opposers of this Eternal Truth in the World, this is the true state of the great Controversie betwixt the Quakers and you; and if you joyn issue with the Quakers in this Controversie, you must do it as it is here stated, at least for substance, &c.

BAPTIST.

But by your leave R. R. I deny that this is the state of the case between the Baptists and you; for who of us ever denyed that the Spirit of God is the Supream Judg? Nay, have We not rather affirmed it? and I do also grant, That no Man can savingly understand the Scriptures, but by the help of God's Spirit opening his Understanding, to see his wretchedness, and the need of a Saviour.

But the true state of the Case is this, Whether the Spirit of God, as he speaks to Men in the Scriptures; or, the Light which every Man hath in him, be this Supream Judg? &c. We affirm the first, and deny the latter, yet giving the Light its due place in Religious Controversies; but saying withal, That that Light is not the Holy Ghost, nor given to reveal all the Will of God to Men. Now R. R. dislikes this form of speech, The Spirit speaking in the Scripture, as if it were an unusual kind of speaking, which he pretends he cannot well understand.

Sure then he hath not read the Scripture, in which this Speech at least for substance is very frequent. For Example, Psal. 95. To day if ye will hear his Voice, harden not your hearts. The Question is, Who speaks here? The Apostle answers, It is the Holy Ghost, Heb. 3. 7. Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if you will hear his Voice, harden not your hearts. Is there any thing more usual in Scripture than Thus saith the Lord; and then the speech follows. Who speaks there, I pray you, but the Lord? O! R. R. thou canst allow that to thy own Writings, which thou allowest not to the Scripture: Didst thou not entitle a Paper thou sent me, The Roaring of the Lord out of Zion? Here thou wouldst make us believe the Lord spake and roared too in thy Writing; for shame never doubt but that he speaketh in the holy Scriptures. Now we are sure that the Holy Spirit speaketh in the Scripture; but we are not sure that he speaks p. 48in thee. Nay, we are sure that the Spirit which speaks in R. R. is not the Holy Spirit, because many false things are delivered by him in this Book, and other of his Writings: and in those things at least the Holy Ghost speaks not by him, which now I come to demonstrate.

QUAKER.

R. R. gives an account in a certain Paper of his, of the Doctrine which the Quakers teach, to describe or set forth the **The Pas… is this; … Eternal …it is the …ur of … World, (and then cunningly adds) and not the visible Man exclusively considered: Which is a …olous distinction, no Man being found his Adversary; For who holds that Christ's Manhood …ed the World without the Spirit?Saviour of the World, (of which more in due place) and then tells me, The first proof for what they say, is the Witness of the Holy Spirit in their Hearts. Secondly, The solid testimony of the Scripture.

BAPTIST.

We will observe some of the odd Conceits that lie in this Passage. And first it is remarkable, How the Spirit speaking in the Quakers hearts, is preferred to the Scripture in point of proof, touching this most weighty Question, Who is the Saviour of the World? and as boldly as uncertainly concludes, That that Spirit which speaks in the Quakers hearts, is the Holy Spirit. … …peak here …y of God's …dinary way … making … the Sa… of the …ld to Men; … denying but … may mi…ulously …ke him …wn, as he …d to Paul.By which presumptuous way, any sober Man may intitle what is spoken in his heart to the Holy Ghost as well as the Quakers: And every sober Christian-Man will grant, That the first Witness which gave him intelligence concerning Christ, as God-Man the Saviour of the World, was the Spirit speaking in the Scripture, or by the preaching of the Gospel. And to this agrees Rom. 10. How shall they believe on him, of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a Preacher? And again, Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. And by the Word of God here is clearly meant, that Message which he sends to Men by his Ministers. How can he preach except he be sent? Yea, most certain it is, the first Witness that ever Man had of Christ the Saviour, is that which God spake to him Gen. 3. it was not dictated by the Spirit in his heart, for he heard the Voice of God, and was afraid, and hid himself. This did God cause to be written, and it is written for our Learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

But that we may the better see the vanity of the Quaker's pretence, we will lay by the solid Testimony a while, I mean the Scripture, and try the first Witness. And I ask R. R. himself how he can prove, without the Scripture first speak, That there was one visible Man especially to be concern'd in the Salvation of the World? 2. How, and when he was born? 3. What he did for the Salvation of the World? What is become of that visible Man? Whether he be dead or living, and where he is? How was the Eternal Spirit and Visible Man jointly concern'd in Man's Salvation? p. 49And what Laws did he give, and what Promise did he make to Men? And sith he talks of saving the World, I ask him, What he means by the World, and what he means by saving the World? If he means Mankind, I ask him, In what respect, and upon what terms Man-kind shall be saved, or whether without any terms at all? If he can satisfie these important Questions, then we ask him further, What these many other things were which Christ did, which are not written in the Scripture? And let him be sure that he speak without Book, or else confess his folly and ignorance. But now in my mind it would be necessary to know, Whether the Spirit in the Quakers hearts be good or bad, seeing the evil Spirit dwells in more than the good? Suppose now that a Jew, a Turk, and a Quaker, should meet together, and a question arise among them about the Saviour of the World. The Quaker tells the other, That the Eternal Spirit is the Saviour of the World, and not the visible Man exclusively considered. The Turk saith, See AlchoranIt is blasphemy to say that Christ is God, or that God hath a Son; and that Christ was only a good Man and a great Prophet. The Jew tells them, They are both deceived, and that Christ was an Impostor or Deceiver. And they all aver these things are evinced by the Spirit in their hearts respectively. Certainly in this difficulty, no way in an ordinary Ministry can be found to resolve the Question satisfactorily, but that which Apollos, Acts 18. 28. used, who mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the Scriptures, that Jesus was Christ. And the like did Paul, Acts 28. 23. — perswading them concerning Jesus, both out of the Law of Moses, and out of the Prophets, from morning to evening.

QUAKER.

R. R. is desirous to know my meaning in this speech, [That the Holy Spirit as he speaks in the Scriptures, is to try and judg the Spirits of Men, and particularly the Quakers Spirit, which they call the Light within] which as he desires, I will here give him in writing.

BAPTIST.

My meaning therefore is this, That the Truths made known by the Scripture (the change of Dispensations considered) are of the same Authority now, as when spoken audibly by God, by Jesus Christ, or indited by the Holy Spirit. And I explain my self thus; That when Men read these words, Exod. 20.Exod 20Thou shalt not Kill, thou shalt not Steal, thou shalt not commit Adultery, &c. These words have the same Authority, as if God should speak the same things to Men from Heaven immediately. And when we read these words, Act. 5. 30, 31.Acts 5:30Acts 5:31The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a Tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance unto Israel, and forgiveness of Sins. These words have the Authority of God in them, and are to be believed, as much as if Peter were present to speak or testifie the same thing by the Spirit immediately. Also when Men read thus, Acts 2. 38.Acts 2:38Repent and p. 50be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of Sins, &c. There is as much Authority in these words, as when they were immediately spoken by the Spirit in the Apostle; and all unrepentant, unbaptized Persons, are as much bound to receive this counsel of God, as those to whom it was immediately spoken, **Such as we are in Word, by Letters, when we are absent, such will we be also in Deed when we are present. 2 Cor. 10. 11.2 Cor 10:11and so of the rest. So that Men that hear or read those sayings, and will not believe or do them, shall be as inexcusable in the Day of Judgment, as those that rejected the same Doctrine when spoken by the Holy Ghost in the Apostles. Yea, and that these words, as they contain the mind of God, for Men to believe and obey, are Spirit and Life; and they that reject these words, holding forth the Mind of God, do resist the Spirit, and put Eternal Life from them; Because it is not the word of M…n, but in truth the Word of God, 1 Thess. 2. 13, And as this Word doth work effectually in those that believe; so without Faith it profits Men nothing; Heb. 4. 2. For the Word preached did not profit them, (not for that the Word preached wanted either Authority or Vertue, but) because it was not mixed with Faith in them that heard it.

So that I am far from saying, (as R. R. would make me say) That he that hath the Scripture, hath the Authority and Mind of the Holy Spirit; if by having it, he means in its powerful operation: No verily, R. R. hath it not so, as in part is shewed, and will more appear anon; but yet I say, the Authority of the Spirit cannot be separated from Scriptures as they reveal God's Will to us, and our Duty to God; and where its Authority and Virtue is not received by Faith unto Life, it will operate by reason of their unbelief unto Death.

QUAKER.

R. R. p. 24. tells the World, That the Anabaptists, &c. affirm, That the Scriptures are to try and judg the Holy Spirit.

BAPTIST.

I suppose no Man can shew such an Affirmation to have been made by any Baptist in England; and till he shew it, I charge it as a Slander. But this I know is the truth of our Opinion; when the Quakers tell us they have the Holy Ghost, and that what they speak they speak as they are moved by the Holy Ghost, &c. Then indeed we say we are to try what they thus tell us, by what the Spirit hath said in the Scripture; and when we find them contradict what the Spirit saith in the Scripture, or wrest and abuse those Scriptures, &c. then we reject them as vain Boasters, led by Fancies, and not by the Spirit of God: and the like we say of others, and desire others to deal no otherwise with us. As for his idle fancy, in calling a Court, and personating the Baptists by the Jews who put Christ to death, through ignorance of the Scripture: I might as justly return it upon himself, and some of his Party, as he can apply it to others. Ignorance of the Scriptures being as frequent in the Quakers as others; and thereupon their by-paths, and simple anticks are notorious.

p. 51I conclude therefore, That there is no need for me, or any Body else, **R. R. always begs what he ought to prove, whilst he takes it for granted that the Quakers have the holy Spirit, which is the thing I constantly deny:to prove that the Scriptures are to judg the holy Spirit, as he appeareth in his Servants; neither can the holy Spirit in the one, judg the holy Spirit in the other, otherwise than by discerning him: Because it is the same Spirit, and speaks the same thing in both, and yet much more fully in the Scripture, in so much that no modest Christian will pretend to know all the depths of Spiritual Mysteries therein contained. And therefore we say, That the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures, ought to be heard, rather than you, O Quakers! when you speak without, or against the Authority and Truth of them.

CHAP. II. Of the great Error of the Quakers concerning Christ, &c.

QUAKER.

IN a certain Paper written by R. Ruckhill, which was sent to me that I might Answer it; in perusing it, divers things therein I found which were very destructive to the Christian Faith. Of the substance of what I there wrote, I shall here give an account for the service of the Truth, and Church of God. The first passage, which I took more special notice of, was this:

Speaking of the Blood of Christ, he calls it, The Blood of Sprinkling, which never Mortal Eye beheld. And this he brings as the Demonstration of the Blood of Christ, which shall cleanse from all Sin.

BAPTIST.

These words, Which never Mortal Eye beheld, are most false: Because it follows necessarily, That the Blood of Christ which was shed upon the Cross, is not the Blood which cleanseth from all Sin, or else that that Blood was not seen with Mortal Eyes, both which are false. And indeed who can doubt, but when the Nails were struck through his Hands and Feet, and the Spear thrust into his holy Side, that those who were by should see (and that with Mortal Eyes) the Blood to issue forth of those Wounds? Yea, the Scripture is express for it, John 19. 34. But one of the Souldiers with a Spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out Blood and Water: and he that saw it bare record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye may believe; for these things were done that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, A Bone of him shall not be broken. And again, another Scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. And so well known was this Matter, that his Murtherers were offended, when the Apostles avouched Christ to be a Just Man; fearing that in so saying, they would bring the Blood of Christ upon them, which yet they had imprecated upon themselves, and their Children.

p. 52Now that that very Body which was slain by the Jews, and that Blood which was spilt by their wicked hands, and that Body and Blood, or Sacred Manhood only, is the Sacrifice for Sin; and that by which we are cleansed from all Sin, is a Truth so manifest, that he is more than ordinarily deluded that dares use a Pen or Tongue against it. Nevertheless, thus hath R. R. and with him, I fear, many Quakers run themselves upon this Dilemma, either to say, That Blood of Christ shed upon the Cross, was invisible to Mortal Eyes; or else, That that is not the Blood of Christ, which cleanseth from Sin, but that he had one kind of Blood visible, the other invisible; by which gross Error, he hath prophaned the Blood of Christ.

QUAKER.

Upon these words of mine, [he hath prophaned the Blood of Christ] R. Ruckhill, in his next, demands thus: What, saith he, can an unholy thing cleanse from Sin? Can any M…n bring a clean thing out of an unclean one? Is any thing therefore unholy, because Mortal Eye never beheld it? Is not the Blood of Christ which sprinkleth from an evil Conscience, rather more holy, as being the object of a more pure sight, than that of the Mortal Eye?

BAPTIST.

1. Here the Quaker plays the part of a bold Deceiver: Can he be ignorant of the Lords complaint against Israel, for prophaning his holy Name? Mal. 1. 12. & 2. 10. And yet who so absurd to think that these speeches infer, that the Name of the Lord is unholy? In like manner when, I say, he hath prophaned the Blood of Christ, I am far from supposing he can make the Blood of Christ unholy; but unhallows that precious Blood with respect to himself, whilst he looks not to be cleansed from Sin by the Blood of Christ, which was seen with Mortal Eyes. Thus hast thou, O R. R. aggravated thy Sin, by seeking to shrowd thy self under words, which yet seem but to bewray thy wilful blindness.

2. To his second. Doth R. R. suppose, that the Blood of Christ which Mortal Eyes beheld, was therefore unclean? Because as Children are partakers of Flesh and Blood, he himself likewise took part of the same? Heb. 2. Sure I am, the Text which his words allude to, imports Man's frailty and corruption by Nature. Or is it his intent to throw an absurdity upon my saying, he hath prophaned the Blood of Christ? If the first, he hath added to his former Errors, in suggesting that the visible Man (as he terms him) was some way polluted; if the second, his folly is detected in my Answer to his first Query.

3. To his third, I answer Negatively, and yet saying withal, That the Blood of Christ was not the less Holy, because it was seen with Mortal Eyes? If otherwise, How will he escape prophaning the Flesh of Christ also, for it was seen with Mortal Eyes? But it's here remarkable, that R. R. is so far from seeing his Error in his first Paper, that he perseveres in it still, after he hath been faithfully told of it.

p. 534. To his fourth Question: It is to be observed that R. R. hath transferred the Question all along, which at first was not about the Holiness, but the Visibility of the Blood of Christ, when shed upon the Cross; and his prophaning of it, by denying the Virtue of the Visible Blood of Christ to cleanse from Sin. And here again, He will needs have the Blood that cleanseth from Sin, to be the object of a more pure sight than that of the Mortal Eye, still standing to his former false saying, That the Blood of Christ which cleanseth from Sin, was never seen with Mortal Eye. Now I deny not, but that the Blood of Christ is the Object of the Eye of Faith, and so is whole Christ God-Man, and yet we affirm his Flesh and Blood too was once seen with Mortal Eyes.

QUAKER.

R. Ruckhill quotes 1 Tim. 6. 16. where Christ is called the King Immortal, Invisible, and only Wise God. And Rev. 17. 14. where he is called the Lamb, Lord of Lords, &c. And hence would strengthen his Error, reflecting upon me, as if I had censured Paul, For affirming that never Man saw the Lamb, Christ Jesus.

BAPTIST.

Though it be never so true, that Man never saw the Godhead of Christ with Mortal Eyes, yet what is this to the Point in question, which is about the Flesh and Blood only? Had Paul said, that never Man saw the Lamb of God which taketh away the Sin of the World, he had deserved censure as well as R. Ruckhill. But Paul never said so. And what then art thou, that thou darest bring in that holy Apostle as affirming such a thing, which is so contrary to the Scripture? John 1. 28. to 40. Where Mortal Men are bid to behold the Lamb of God, even with their Mortal Eyes: And John beheld the Spirit descending upon the Lamb of God even with his Mortal Eyes, and thereupon bare Record, that he was the Lamb of God. Thus hath R. R. vented most gross Errors, and falsified the holy Apostle. But he proceeds to more Iniquity.

QUAKER.

For in pag. 11. of his said Paper, he condemns the Faith of all Professors, by what Name soever distinguished, who knows no other Blood of Sprinkling than that which the Jews saw, &c.

BAPTIST.

And might he not as well condemn us for believing in no other Man Christ, or Man Anointed, than what the Jews saw? Surely had the Jews believed in the Man Christ, whom they saw made a Sacrifice for Sin, they had not been Condemned. But their sin was, that they had seen Christ, and believed not, John 6. 36. Well, Robert Ruckhill stands upon p. 54the file of such wretched Apostates, as deny to be cleansed from Sin by the visible Blood of Christ shed upon the Cross; and which pretend other Blood, and another Lamb of God, than he that was seen by Mortal Men, in the days of his Flesh: but who that is Wise, will follow such a Dreamer? Upon this absurd conceit hath he run himself, that Christ had two kinds of Flesh, and two kinds of Blood; the one visible, seen by Mortal Men; the other invisible, never seen with Mortal Eyes. Against this Vanity it was, that I intitled my Papers against him, The true Christ but one Flesh; not at all denying, but always granting the Divinity of Christ, as my Papers do sufficiently shew. O the dangerous consequence of this Conceit! Surely it tends to rob Men of the true knowledg of the Sacrifice, which was offered to take away the sins of Men; for taking away the Flesh and Blood of Christ which was visible, and there remains no other Flesh or Blood in the True Christ; for the Spirit hath not Flesh, neither Blood; in the Godhead, or Divine Nature, there is neither Flesh nor Blood. And thus we see how plainly this Quaker hath denied the Man Christ Jesus, who died upon the Cross, to be his Saviour, in such sort as not to own cleansing from his sin by Faith in his Blood seen with Mortal Eyes, to be spilt at the time of his Crucifixion. As for that Confession of Faith, which R. R. makes in his said Paper, wherein he would seem to own the True Christ, and Salvation by Faith in his Blood, &c. 'tis meer Hypocrisie, and Equivocation, as appears by what is said before, and what now presently follows.

QUAKER.

R. R. having given us a long Commentary upon John 6. where Christ told the Jews, They must eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood; he then appeals to Mens Consciences, Whether they can believe that Christ did hereby intend that Flesh and Blood which was nailed to the Cross, and visible to the Mortal Eye?

BAPTIST.

My Conscience testifies, as enlightned by the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, that it was the very same whereof he spake to the Jews, in John 6. which was afterward nailed to the Cross. First, Because Christ had no other Flesh nor Blood to offer for the Sins of Men, but that Body only, as we have shewed before; that being the one Offering by which he perfected for ever them that are Sanctified. Secondly, Because it is expresly called the Flesh of the Son of Man, John 6. 53. Verily, verily I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you. The Jews greatest blindness was about the manner of eating the Flesh of the Son of Man, &c. Which whilst they understood it not to be by Faith in him, as a Sacrifice for Sin, they erred and were offended, though our Saviour gave them a plain account of his meaning, in shewing that He spake of their Dwelling, or Abiding in him, and he in them, which is truly to believe in him who bore our Sins in his own Body on the Tree, and to have his Word and Spirit p. 55abiding in us; See Aug. Tract. in John 26. But R. R. denies this, for in page 9. he saith;

QUAKER.

It clearly appears, That the Flesh and Blood which Christ had been declaring of, was not the Flesh and Blood which mortal Eyes beheld. His reason is, Because the Lord had said, the Flesh profiteth nothing.

BAPTIST.

But how did the Flesh of Christ which was nailed to the Cross profit nothing? Surely not as the Capernaits grosly imagined, That they must eat it, as their Fathers did Manna; that is, with the Mouth of the Body. Alas! here the Flesh profits nothing. But considered, as he reconciled us to God in the Body of his Flesh through death; and as he bore our Infirmities; as he died for us, and rose again; as he ascended into Heaven in that very Body which was raised from the dead, which was visible, beheld with mortal Eyes, both before and after his Resurrection: doubtless to believe in Christ Crucified in that Visible Body, is so profitable, as without it there is no true Peace here to such as hear the Word, nor Glory hereafter. But still we see R. R. rejecting the Visible Flesh and Blood of Christ as unprofitable.

QUAKER.

R. R. having abused our Saviour's Discourse in favour of his own Absurdities, now would lean upon the Apostle Paul as a favourer of the same, because in 2 Cor. 5. 16. He saith, Wherefore henceforth know we no Man after the Flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the Flesh, yet now henceforth know we him so no more. Upon this how doth R. R. cry against us, as having but a fleshly knowledg of Christ, and that we rest upon a fleshly Christ, &c.

BAPTIST.

For a due or sound understanding of this Scripture, it is first to be considered, that Paul here says, We know no Man after the Flesh; but it would be absurd to say, the meaning must be, That no Man, or no Christian had a Body of Flesh; or that he here denies the Resurrection of the Bodies of the Saints, or other Men; for he had most plainly asserted that great Truth, in the 1 Epist. Chap. 15. therefore neither may we imagine that Paul here denies the Body of Christ to be Flesh, though glorified; much less that he denies to know him as he was crucified upon the Cross: for he tells these very Corinthians, That he determined to know nothing among them, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Neither doth he here speak against their knowing Christ in the use of Ordinances; for 1 Cor. 11. 2. he praises these Corinthians, that they kept the Ordinances as he delivered p. 56them, and particularly the breaking of Bread, or the Lord's Table: he shews them how he received it of the Lord, and delivered it to them, and instructs them in the right use of it.

I therefore conceive his meaning here to be;

1. That he knew no Man therefore to be in Christ, because born of Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh; but both Jew and Gentile, if they claim an interest in Christ, or Christian Priviledges, they must make one common claim, not after the Flesh, but by Faith and a New-Birth, as vers. 17.

2. The Jews (yea, even the Apostles themselves) did think, at least for some time, that Christ was so appropriated to their Nation, as that the Gentiles had no interest in him; but seeing that as concerning the Flesh he came of the Jews, so they thought that Repentance unto Life did only pertain to them by him. Yea, it seemed incredible even to the Believing Jews, that such a Mercy should be granted to the Gentiles, till Peter, Acts 11. by reciting the Vision which he had, when he went to preach first to the Gentiles, removed their Doubts, telling them, That he could not then fight against God, who had thus broken down the Partition-Wall between the Jews and Gentiles, or to this purpose. Now when they heard this, they glorified God, saying, Then hath God granted unto the Gentiles Repentance unto Life. So then hence forth neither Men, nor Christ, are known after the Flesh. Old things are done away. Christ is known as a common Saviour, and his Grace and Spirit made free for all Nations; he is no more to be known in such a poor latitude as the Land of Israel only; it was too light a thing for him to be given to repair the Israelites only; He shall therefore be the Salvation of God to the ends of the Earth. Now mark the parallel; as Paul knew no Man (i. e. to be a Christian) after the Flesh, yet knew him to be a Man; so though he knew not Christ after the Flesh, yet he knew him to be a Man, though glorified; for Christ lost not his Manhood by his Death, only put off Mortality, &c. as all true Christians hope to arrive at the like Immortality, through the Power of Christ's Resurrection.

About which great Gospel-Truth, we now proceed to consider the nature of R. Ruckhil's Doctrine; wherein you may expect he holds proportion with his own Rule, Admit one Absurdity, and a thousand will follow. So that though he pride up himself with Conceits, as if the Baptized Churches were declining to their Western Horizon; yet he shall find they will be able, through God's Grace, to withstand his Absurdities. Yea, they have overcome the Quakers Predecessors, the Ranters, and the Seekers; and the unbaptized Quaker shall be as one of them.

p. 57CHAP. III. Of the great Error of the Quakers touching the Resurrection of Christ, &c.

IN my first Paper I quoted Heb. 8. 4. (If he were on Earth he should not be a Priest) to prove that the Man Christ is not now upon the Earth; yet always granting his spiritual presence to be every where.

QUAKER.

For this, R. R. calls me, a pitchy dark Man, saying, He will stand to it with the last drop of his Blood, That Christ is on the Earth in the fleshly Bodies of his Saints — and other Bodies of Flesh hath he none, save that which came down from Heaven, and ascended thither again, John 3. 13.

BAPTIST.

First; Observe his subtilty in this last Clause; For he having first denied that Christ hath a Body of Flesh circumscriptible in Heaven, and consequently denied the Resurrection and Ascention of the Body of Christ, which the Jews saw with mortal Eyes, and put to death with wicked Hands; which Body all Men must grant was a Body circumscriptible; he would yet seem here to grant the thing before denied.

But why is he so prodigal of his Blood for that which no body denies? It is our constant Doctrine, That Christ dwells in his Saints by his Spirit, and by Faith: Now, I say, if he mean thus, he hath no Adversary in this particular among the Baptists. But now what shall we say to his Negation, Other Bodies of Flesh hath he none, save, &c. As for his salvo, we will consider it by and by; but here we must needs enquire what is become of that Visible Body which died upon the Cross, was buried, and rose again? Sure he will not say, That that Body dwells in the fleshly Bodies of the Saints, otherwise than by Faith: if he will allow so much, he cannot deny but that Body was circumscriptible. He will not say that Visible Body is in Heaven; he dare not say it is on the Earth: Where now will Robert Ruckhil find this Body? The Scripture tells us, It saw no corruption, for God raised him up from the dead. Sure R. R. hath lost the Body of Christ, which was once seen with mortal Eyes, and cannot tell where to find it, because he will not by Faith look into that Heaven for it which is out of all the Quakers, as well as other Men.

Here therefore we will give place a while to John Whitehead, to see if he will give us any better account of the Body of the Lord Christ.

p. 58QUAKER.

John Whitehead tells us, p. 38. That nothing which was mortal was called Christ; yet tells us, That Christ had once a mortal Body which died upon the Cross; and then tells, after a strange fashion, what became of this Body, p. 39. but first we will consider what he saith here.

BAPTIST.

Are we not come to a strange pass now, that after all thy shifting, with some falsifying too, thou art constrained to confess what I charged thee with, viz. these words, Nothing that was mortal was called Christ. Whence I inferred, That it was as if thou shouldst have said, Christ never died: and bad thee recal thy words, if thou spoke them unadvisedly. But though thy face bewrayed thy conviction, yet hadst thou not the grace to confess so great an Error; and which is as bad, thou wouldst now justifie so gross a passage in Print, and so destructive to the Christian Faith: But alas! thou dost but encrease thy folly**And this he doth by abusing Heb. 10. where he would have Christ distinguished from the Body of Christ. Which is absurd, for neither the Body nor the Spirit, distinct from each other, is the Christ, but in conjunction they are one Christ. And when we speak of the Man Christ, we intend the whole Man; and by the Death of Christ, we mean the privation of his Life for a time.Heb 10.

For the Mortal Body which died upon the Cross, thou dost not so much as vouchsafe to call it by the Name of Christ, only tellest us, Christ had a Mortal Body which died upon the Cross, but yet deniest that any thing that was mortal was called Christ. And now what is more plain, than that thou here deniest that Christ died upon the Cross? And then if Christ died not, he was not buried, he rose not again from the Dead; and then what is become of the Christian Faith?

Wherefore in direct opposition to thy Doctrine, I do affirm, That that Mortal Body which died upon the Cross, was both called Christ, and was Christ (not denying hereby his Godhead at all, which I have sufficiently asserted above) which I prove thus; That Body which was born of the Virgin Mary, and anointed with the Holy Ghost above measure, was both called Christ, and was Christ. But that Mortal Body that died for us upon the Cross, was born of the Virgin Mary, and anointed with the Holy Ghost above measure. Therefore that Mortal Body which died upon the Cross, was called Christ, and was Christ.

The first Proposition is evident Mat. 1. 21. And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his Name Jesus. Mat. 2. 1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea; and vers. 4. the same is called Christ. He demanded of them where Christ should be born? and they said unto him, in Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written by the Prophet.

2. That the Child being grown to the stature of a Man, was apparently anointed with the Holy Ghost at his Baptism, Mat. 3. and declared by Voice from Heaven to be the Son of God. And John 3. 34. God p. 59giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. And that that Mortal Body which died for us, was the same Christ which was born of the Virgin in Bethlem Judea, is clear, John 19. 25, 26. Now there stood by the Cross his Mother, and his Mother's Sister, — When Jesus therefore saw his Mother — he saith unto his Mother, Woman, behold thy Son. Acts 2. 36. Therefore let all the House of Israel (and all the Quakers too) assuredly know, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have Crucified, both Lord and Christ. And though I might trace this John Whitehead, (with whom I have had several publick Disputes) and thereby make manifest the Wiles and Equivocations, by which the Quakers work themselves (as much as they can) out of the sight of common Capacities; yet I shall at present forbear, being confident, Wise-men will understand by this one passage, that it is impossible for John Whitehead, to believe any thing soundly concerning the Lord's Christ, whilst he adheres to this most false Proposition: Nothing that was Mortal, was called Christ. Let him guild it by all the Art and Deceit imaginable, yet it is so perfectly Black and Erroneous, that it can never be set off with any shew of Truth: though truly could it be done, I think John Whitehead were as likely to do it, as any Man I know, for I am not ignorant of his Subtilty. But so it is, that nothing but a free Confession of the falshood of his Speech aforesaid, can relieve him, which I do hereby friendly advise him to; otherwise I will record him for a false Apostle, a deceitful Worker (though he carry it never so plausibly) to all Posterity. But let us now hear what is become of this Mortal Body which died upon the Cross, according to the Doctrine of John Whitehead.

QUAKER.

John Whitehead tell us, pag. 39. That he hath shewed unto the People that Eternal Life which was with the Father, as the Apostles did, 1 John 1. 1, 2. By, and in which Life, Mortality was swallowed up after Christ had finished what the Father gave him to do on Earth; then he who came down from Heaven to bring Man to God, ascended into Heaven to his Father.

BAPTIST.

John Whitehead arrogates to himself, which he can never prove. For the Apostles had seen with their Eyes, and looked upon, and their Hands had handled of the Word of Life. This is spoke of Christ, when the Apostles saw his Person, or his Glory, (which, Peter tells us, was when they were with him in the holy Mount) they were Eye-witnesses of his Majesty. Now John Whitehead never saw, nor handled Christ as the Apostles did, and therefore never shewed him as they did. It were well if so much could be said of John Whitehead, as was said by Peter of the Christians in his time, 1 Pet. 1. Whom having not seen, ye love; whom though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoyce, &c. Surely, all the sight we have now of Christ is by Faith, and all the feeling by the Operation of his Spirit; but we do not (though we stedfastly hope, to) see p. 60him as he is. Mean while it is true, Christ's Ministers do labour in the Gospel, building upon the Foundation which was laid by the Masterbuilders, the Apostles, according to the Gift of Grace bestowed on them: But to the matter in hand:

What J. W. means by Mortality, and how it was swallowed up, after Christ had done the Fathers Will on Earth, would be understood; either he means it of the state of the Body which died upon the Cross, or of the Body it self. If by Mortality, he only means those Sinless Weaknesses, which Christ was pleased to partake of with other Men (For Christ was Crucified through Weakness, 2 Cor. 13. 4.) and not the visible mortal Body it self, then I am not his Adversary; but if under the word Mortality, he holds the Body it self was swallowed up; and by the words swallowed up, he means destroyed, (as that is the sense of the Apostle, when he saith, Mortality shall be swallowed up of Life) then I confess I am his professed Adversary. For I believe that Body which was Visible, Mortal, and really Died, is yet Existent, or in Being, and Alive for evermore, as Christ himself Witnesseth, Rev. 1. I am he that Liveth and was Dead, and behold, I am Alive for evermore.

QUAKER.

J. W. tells us, pag. 40. That he several times denied my Assertion, which he sets down thus, That Christ hath now a Body of Flesh and Bones circumscript [**This he added. or limited] in that Heaven which is above, and out of every Man on Earth.

BAPTIST.

And upon this occasion, I remember well, He deridingly asked me, Where that Heaven was? And lifting up my hand and eyes towards Heaven, I pointed him to the place. Now the same Scripture which tells the Quakers, and all Men, that Christ was on Earth, tells us also that he is in Heaven; and by Earth, they all mean (I suppose) the Earth which Men inhabit. And seeing the Heaven where Angels inhabit, being opposite to this Earth, I do with as good reason understand Christ's presence now (in respect of his bodily Receptacle) to be there.

J. W. as contemptuously asked me, How big, and what a one that Body was? I told him, It was of the proper dimension of Man's Body; or in respect of Stature, like other Mens. He asked me also, What kind of Flesh Christ's Body was? I told him such Flesh as mine, or other Mens, Sin, Corruption, and all things of that nature excepted.

J. W. answered, Nay People, T. Grantham's flesh lusts against the Spirit, so did not Christ's. I told him, I had made that exception my self; and repeated my former words. He replied with the same exception, and was reproved by one Mr. Wilson of Boston, as an impertinent Person, to make no other exception than what T. G. made himself. Upon this, J. W. falls to it by that Craft, without which Quakerism would be exploded; and answers me thus: Well, Thomas, I will satisfie thee if I can. I say, Christ's Flesh was such flesh as Thomas Grantham's flesh, all corruption p. 61excepted. I began to hope we might agree, but presently perceived his Cheat, and therefore told him, If he could answer me one honest Question more, I should be satisfied; which was this. Dost not thou under these words, all Corruption excepted, except my whole Body, and the flesh of all Men. Here he would not answer me by any means, but in stead thereof, Cursed me in these words:

Thou whited Wall, God shall smite thee; the Plagues, and Curses, and Vengeance of God is thy portion. Giving his head and hand two or three motions, when he had thus done. I replied, John, I am taught of God, not to render Railing for Railing, Cursing for Cursing, but contrariwise Blessing; and therefore I desire this Folly may not be laid to thy charge. He replied, Fainer, Fainer, Fainer, &c. This account is true and faithful, which yet I had not printed, if John Whitehead had not compelled me. And more I have to say, which yet I omit, as respecting the several Debates I had with him at Spilsby.

QUAKER.

John Whitehead saith, pag. 41. T. G. hath very uncharitably resolved to believe, that I own no Body of Christ, beside his Church.

BAPTIST.

Why dost thou leave out that term, upon which depends the whole Controversie? The Question disputed at Sleeford, was this verbatim: Whether Christ hath now any Body of Flesh, beside his Church? Thou J. W. deniest it in terminis, saying, I deny that Christ hath now any Body of Flesh, beside his Church. I affirmed it, saying, Christ hath now a Body of Flesh, beside his Church; which I proved thus. Christ had such a Body of Flesh after his Resurrection, beside his Church; it was never destroyed since, therefore he hath it still. I confirmed this by sundry Scriptures; and among the rest this: Handle me, and see; for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones, as ye see I have. Thy Answer was in two things especially, First, Thou quibblest upon the Text, As ye see me to have: Intimating, that though it was so to the sight of them to whom he spake, yet not really so. Secondly, Thou sayest, I made Christ a Monster, to have two Bodies, and but one Head. I shewed thy Error, thus, That as a King might be said to be Head to the Body of his Nation, or a Body Politick, who yet consists of Flesh, &c. and a particular Body of his own, and yet be no Monster. So, Christ is Head of his Mystical Body the Church, who are Flesh as well as Spirit, and hath a particular Body of Flesh also. To this gloss upon the Text, I answered: That it was dangerous to represent Christ's Words as Delusory, or Equivocable. This account for substance, is certainly true. And thus it is evident, That through unbelief, J. W. hath lost the Body of Christ, which died for us upon the Cross.

Notwithstanding these things, both J. W. and R. R. would pretend to own the Ascension of the Man Christ, shrowding themselves under Christ's Words, John 3. 13. No Man hath ascended up to Heaven, but he p. 62that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man which is in Heaven. Now these words being spoken of that Ascension which was before the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead, doth not concern our present Controversy. For our Saviour himself testifies, long after he spake these Words, that he was not yet Ascended, John 20. 17. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not, for I am not yet Ascended: But go to my Brethren, and say unto them, I Ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Wherefore, when Christ had shewed himself alive after his Passion, and had given full and infallible Evidence of it, by Eating and Drinking with them, and Forty Days society with them, shewing them his Hands, Feet, and Side, that had been wounded upon the Cross; then did he also make them Eye-witnesses of his Ascension bodily into Heaven; Acts 1. 9. While they beheld, he was taken up, and a Cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly into Heaven, as He went up, &c. Thus is the Ascension of that visible Body of Flesh, which was nailed to the Cross, plainly asserted in the Scripture; the Authority whereof, shall cause to vanish the idle Dreams of the Quakers, who oppose this glorious Truth.

And now to the Words of Christ, John 3. 13. Christ is here shewing to Nicodemus, that he it is who was to reveal the Heavenly Doctrine of the Gospel, and the glorious things in Heaven; because no Man had that knowledg of Heaven which he had. And though he were the Son of Man, yet in regard of the Union he had with the Divine Essence, he had ascended Heaven it self, and was in Heaven; though his Humanity strictly considered, was at that time upon Earth, and conversing with Men.

Now to justifie this understanding of the Text, I refer to other Scriptures, as John 1. 18. No Man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosome of the Father, he hath declared him. Again, John 6. 46. Not that any Man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Again, Mat. 11. 27. All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no Man knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any Man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal him. These things considered, shew, That in these Speeches, he holds forth that Divine Relation which he hath to God his Father; the certain Knowledg he hath of his Will; and his continual Presence with the Father. John 8. 16. I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. But in all this, let it be well minded, how unworthily the Quakers do abuse passages of this kind, to prejudice the great truth of Christ's Ascension, in the Body of his Flesh which died upon the Cross, after his Resurrection. I return to R. Ruckhill, who sets against us in this point, with a Philosophical Syllogism, thus:

QUAKER.

Such as the Body is, such must be the Aliment whereby it subsisteth, and is nourished. But humane Bodies are of the Earth earthly, and cannot subsist without a constant supply of Aliment of the same kind. Now to affirm that the Body of Christ in Heaven hath, or needeth such a supply either of broiled p. 63Fish, or any other Maritime or Terrene Aliment, as it must do if it be a humane Body, or Earthy: However it may stand with the Faith of T. G. it is such an absurdity, as my Pen even irketh to write.

BAPTIST.

Though I pretend not to Learning or Philosophy, yet I see many Errors in this one Argument: First, The terms Humane, Earthly, and cannot, are ambiguous, considering our Subject is of the Body, as raised from the Dead, which sure differs much from the state of a Man as he comes into the World. And what can, or cannot be in this case, must not be concluded by Philosophical Demonstration, but by Divine Revelation. The Resurrection of the Body, whether it be considered in respect of Christ, or other Men, is not the effect of natural Causes, nor dependeth upon common Providences; but this Cause is to be tried according to the Word of God; and his Power to effect it. This is the ground of Faith concerning the Resurrection, Phil. 3. 21. Who shall change our vile Body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious Body, according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself. 1 Cor. 6. 24. God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own Power. Ephes. 1. 19, 20. — according to the working of his mighty Power; which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the Dead. So that this Argument may rather be exploded, as unchristian and heathenish, than to have any further answer, because it comports not with Principles of Religion; yet I shall answer it, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

And first, I deny the Major, (which he takes to be undeniable) For though the Body of Christ, was real Flesh, &c. after it was risen, and as such could and did eat terrene or maritime Food, yet it can and doth subsist without it, Mat. 26. 28. Luke 24. 42. and liveth by the Power of God, 2 Cor. 13. 4.

Secondly, I deny the Minor, in that part at least, which saith, Humane Bodies cannot subsist without aliment of the same kind. For did not that Body of Christ subsist forty days when it was mor…, without terrene Food? and cannot the same Body subsist now it is immortalized without terrene Food? What shall we say of Moses, who subsisted forty days in the Mount without Food? and of Enoch and Elias who were translated, that they should not see Death, and yet their Bodies are Flesh where-ever they are? He that believeth these Scriptures which speak of these things, cannot doubt but that God can and will cause the Bodies of Men to subsist after the Resurrection by his Power. If these Instances satisfie not, let them go to the old Cloaths of the Israelites, or their Shooes: Deut. 29. 5. And I led you forty years in the Wilderness, your Clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy Shoe is not waxen old upon thy Foot. Yea, God fed this People in such a wonderful manner in the Wilderness, as that it was an evident proof, That Man liveth not by Bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the Mouth of the Lord doth Man live, Deut. 8. 3.

Lastly; Adam in his Innocency was humane Flesh, and yet had he not p. 64sinned, he had not died; Rom. 6. 23. Mathusalem lived near 1000 years, which was the effect of a supervening Power, more than terrene Food, which is the same now that it was then.Rom 6:23For the Wages of Sin is Death: and Sin entring into the World, Death entred by Sin. Nor was it terrene Food that could have kept off old Age, but he must have lived by a supernatural Power, even the Power of God, who breathed into his Nostrils the Breath of Life, and would have perpetuated that Life (had he not sinned) for ever. And hence it undeniably follows, that seeing in the Resurrection the Bodies of the Saints shall be freed from Mortality, the effect of Sin; they shall be at least in as possible a capacity to live for ever, as Adam was in his Innocency; And as Adam had then the Tree of **Gen. 3. 22.Gen 3:22Life to support him for ever, through God's Power and Blessing communicated with it, had he not sinned; so the raised Bodies of the Saints, shall also have a Tree of ††Rev. 2. 7.Rev 2:7Life, of a more sublime nature than that in Eden, by which they shall live for ever. But here they excel Adam in his Innocency; they shall be freed from danger of Sin, and be more perfect in Body and Spirit every way, for they shall be as the Angels of God in Heaven, and not marry, nor be given in Marriage, being the Children of God, as they are the Children of the Resurrection.

CHAP. IV. Of the Errors of the Quakers concerning the Ordinances of Christ.

BAPTIST.

RIchard Ruckhil rants at a very high rate against the Baptized Churches, for that they zealously observe the Ordinances of Christ made known by the Scriptures, and particularly Baptism, and the Table of the Lord. Let us hear him speak out of his own Papers.

QUAKER.

O ungrateful Men! (saith he) unworthy (till ye repent and loath your selves) the name of Christians. Hath the afflicted persecuted Church been banished into the Wilderness for many hundred years, and now at her return, when she is expecting a far more exceeding and eternal weight of Glory, both inward and outward, which her great Afflictions have wrought for her: Will ye now, I say, allow her no better Ornaments, but those very same she wore 1600 years ago; which also for many hundred years have been revell'd in, and filthily polluted by that nasty Whore of Babylon? Poor Bride, must she now put on these old Clothes, and rotten Rags again? &c. Will ye deny this beautiful Bride, the Lamb's Wife, that priviledg which your own Wives will scorn to be denied by you? Ah how weak are your hearts, saith the Lord God?

p. 65BAPTIST.

Surely these are great swelling words of vanity; Let us see therefore a few of these many strange Conceits which lie couched in this Exclamation.

1. He pretends much skill in the time of the Churches going into, and coming out of the Wilderness. But, I believe, should a Man ask him the necessary Questions which concern these Matters, it would be long e're he gave a good Answer. Nay, should I ask him what this Wilderness is, he would hardly give account.

2. He would bear us in hand, that the Eternal weight of Glory is to be received at the return of the Church out of the Wilderness, both inward and outward, on this side the Grave. For,

3. In order to her putting on that weight of Glory, she must put off the Ordinances (which were her Ornaments) which she used 1600 years ago; as if Christ's Ordinances were an Impediment to the Churches Glory.

4. What he is forced to confess, were the Ornaments of the Primitive Church, he disdainfully calls now, Old rotten Rags and Clouts. As if 1600 years were time enough to wear out all the Churches Ornaments, and to rot them to pieces: Or, as if Time could decay the Commands of God, when yet God hath no where abrogated them; if otherwise, shew the Abrogation: This was never yet done.

5. He greatly disgusts the first Churches Ornaments, because the nasty Whore of Babylon hath revelled in them, and polluted them. Strange, that R. R. will so much as read the Scriptures! for she hath revelled in them, and abused them, as much as any Ornament which the Church had on 1600 years ago. Indeed all Ordinances (which are truly Ornaments to the Church as such) are in the Scripture, and none can abuse them so as to change or misapply them, but they abuse the Scripture; And may we not as well make use of the Commission Mat. 28. which teacheth us to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded, as well as the Quakers make use of Scriptures for their Thee and Thou? &c.

Remember, O Quakers, that the Ark was nevertheless to be honoured upon its return from Dagon's Temple. Shall Mens violating God's Commands, null his Commands? God forbid. Must you needs destroy Baptism and the Lord's Table, because others have prophaned these Holy Things? Why then do you Pray, Preach, and own the Name of Christians, seeing they have prophaned all these also? Doubtless the Quakers are worse Enemies to the Truth, than the Whore you complain of, for she gave the Ordinances of Christ good Language, though she greatly abused them. But you give them the vilest Language you can invent, and destroy the memory and use of them altogether, as much as in you lieth; to say nothing here of your intollerable enmity against the True Christ himself, and those that truly serve him.

6. By all means it's time thinks R. R. that the Church have a new Coat, her old Ornaments being rotten in his Thoughts: But stay, is not p. 66her Faith to be the same now that it was 1600 years ago? Yes, she is to contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints. Hath Christ said his Church should, have new Ornaments, to wit, Ordinances instead of them she had 1600 years ago? No, John Whitehead dare not say so, for pag. 44. he evades the Question thus; We need shew no Authority for the abrogating of that Order of Gathering, Constituting, and Governing the Church of Christ which was in the Apostles days. And then most falsly tells us, The Quakers practice doth more establish it in the Substantial Part than the Baptists. But what is this new Coat that would be known? But surely if the Church put off her Ornaments which she wore 1600 years ago, she is like to go naked for all R. R's skill in Apparel; Her Ornaments were these,

Faith, Love, Charity, Gifts, and Fruits of the Spirit, Holy Ordinances, and an Holy Life, with Patience in Afflictions, &c.

Now all these have been abused, by fained Faith, fained Love, fained Charity, fained Gifts, fained Fruits of the Spirit, fained Ordinances, fained Patience in Afflictions. And this the Scripture foreshews: Many shall say we have prophesied, cast out Devils, done wondrous Works in thy Name. Some give their Goods to the Poor, and their Bodies to be burned; and yet all this proves but fained, when God the Judg of all shall make manifest the Secrets of all Hearts.

I conclude therefore, there is no new Garment assigned the Church till she come to Heaven, no more than Israel had till they came to Canaan. 2. And that her old Ornaments will not wax old, that is, not rot: As she is glorious within, so her Raiment is of wrought Gold. 3. He that disrobes her of part of these Ancient Ornaments, endangers them all.

7. His Reason why the Church must have a new Coat, is, because our Wives will scorn to be denied such a priviledg by us. What is this? must the Church change her Ornaments as oft as Mens Wives change theirs? This is prodigiously absurd; Why did not his Pen irk to write it?

8. That which aggravates all his Vanities, is this, That he intitles them to the Lord God, as if he had writ by immediate Inspiration, in these words, Ah, how weak are your Hearts, saith the Lord God. Surely he hath spoken falsly in the Name of the Lord, who is so far from blaming, that he commends such Churches as keep the Ordinances as they were delivered to them. And we have the same ground to believe, that the Primitive Ordinances were delivered for the use of the present Churches, that we have to believe that the Primitive Faith was delivered for our use; and indeed they that forsake the one, do commonly forsake the other; as is most signally seen in the Quakers, and to be sure they are farthest off from the Ordinances.

QUAKER.

John Whitehead saith, pag. 49. That I ought not to accuse the Quakers, as opposing themselves against things required by the positive Laws, because they cannot own my Water Baptism, and breaking of Bread, in imitation of the Apostles, and Primitive Christians: No more than the Jews ought to p. 67have accused the Apostle Paul, and his fellow Labourers in the Gospel, who by the Authority and Power of Christ in them, cried down their Circumcision, Temple-Worship, and that Hand-writing of Ordinances, which was contrary to them.

BAPTIST.

When the Quakers can shew us, that there was another Prophet to succeed Jesus Christ, as Christ succeeded Moses; then it will become us to allow this comparison between Paul, &c. and John Whitehead, &c. but till then, we say, there is no comparison in the Cases at all.

Who would ever have thought, that such an impudent spirit should have appeared in John Whitehead, or any Man of Wisdom, thus to make void the Precepts of Christ! And what are we worse for Baptizing with Water, and breaking of Bread, in imitation of the Apostles, and Primitive Christians, provided our Hearts be also conscienciously satisfied, that these things are the Mind of God, concerning our obedience to him among other things, as commanded to all Christians, in the holy Scriptures, which we own as a Rule for all Saints in Religion?

Sure I am, if I may take J. W. his liberty to use the various Translations, as rendered from the Original, then we are expresly commanded to be imitators of the Apostle. But if this will not do, let him hear Montanus, (one of the honestest Interpreters extant) who reads thus, 1 Cor. 11. 1. foreign: Imitatores mei estote, sicut & ego Christi: Be ye imitators of me, as also I am of Christ. So then, Paul was an imitator of Christ, and so ought we to be, and not to despise to follow, or imitate the Apostles in Baptizing, or breaking of Bread, having good assurance that therein they follow Christ, who was Baptized himself in Water, and also gave being to the breaking of Bread. But must the Quakers needs cry down what we do, meerly because we follow Christ and his Apostles? When their Conscience knows that we do not these meerly in imitation, or because they did them, but because God's Word requires these things at our hands; yea, and that Light which God hath given us, directs us to the same. And though we grant, Christ hath Power to call his People to whatsoever is the Will of God, yet J. W. can never prove, it is God's Will that Christians should forsake the Ordinances once delivered to the Christian Churches, particularly Baptism, and the breaking of Bread.

QUAKER.

Robert Ruckhill tells the World, I have Convicted my self of gross Idolatry; and why? Because, I say, The way of Life is above to the Wise; and this I speak, it is true in favour of Baptism in Water, against those Quakers that despise and traduce it.

BAPTIST.

I could not easily think, that so innocent a passage should have been so grosly p. 68abused, as it is by these two Men, R. R. and J. W. Sure I am, there is not the least cause for this Charge, May nothing be called the Way of Life but Christ? Let us read Prov. 6. 23. For the Commandment is a Lamp; and the Law is Light; and Reproofs of Instruction are the Way of Life. Acts 2. 28. we read of the Paths of Life, in the plural Number; but there is but one Christ: So that we see the Paths of Righteousness, and Holiness, and Obedience, may, without any offence to the Spirit speaking in the Scripture, be called the Paths, or Ways, or Way of Life: Let these two Satyrs whip whilst they faint, I shall rejoyce to see their folly made manifest to all Men.

Mean while let the sober Reader know I look upon Holy Baptism no otherwise, than other Holy Commands of God are so. Nor in any other sense the Way of Life, than as it sets forth Christ and him crucified; our dying with him to the Rudiments of the World, and living a new Life. What if I had called Baptism the Way of Righteousness, it had nothing varied from my Intention, nor from Truth; yet perhaps these Men would have been offended, they have so great an hatred against the Ordinance: Yet Christ saith, John came to the People in the way of Righteousness, and himself thought it a fulfilling of Righteousness, to be baptized, as well as in other Services.

QUAKER.

R. R. says, that in the abovesaid speech, I am convicted of a ridiculous Soloecism, in terming Submersion, or plunging under Water, a way on high. Yet says, if the intelligent Reader will indulge me, the Quakers will pass it by.

BAPTIST.

Although I will not compare with R. R. for skill in Grammar, yet I will not be beholden to him, nor his Reader, for their Indulgence in this case. For though the Baptism of John was a submersion in Water upon Repentance for the Remission of Sins; yet Christ himself convicted the Opposers of it, Mat. 21.Matt 21that it was from Heaven. Christ also calls it the Luke 7.Luke 7Counsel of God. And I think the Counsel of God, and that which is from Heaven, may be said to be above without any Soloecism, otherwise Christ himself, when upon Earth, was not the way above, for he came down from Heaven. But this pragmatick Quaker having got a Toy by the end, and hoping this might disgrace me, and what I profess, knows not when to have done with it; but up it goes again in his ridiculous Queries, as if, without more ado, I must be damn'd for this passage, among gross Idolaters. I rejoyce, truly, that I am thought worthy to be thus reproached for the way of the Lord. But why should sinful Men be so enraged against this Holy Ordinance? Is it because of the thing it self? or the Authority by which we do it, as we obey the Command of God in the Scripture herein? Acts 2. 38. It is certainly this latter which offends them; Witness Robert Ruckil himself, for these following are his words.

p. 69QUAKER.

We do not, nor for all that I know never did, deny Baptism, or other Institutions, no, not in the outward Administrations, **So then the Quakers never had the leading of the Spirit in the case of Baptism.when the Spirit of the Lord leadeth into them.

BAPTIST.

The plain English of this Speech of R. R. is this, That when the Light in every Man commands Men to be baptized, and to come to the Lord's Table, &c. then R. R. will allow it. But let the Spirit speaking in the Scripture command Men to do these things, then he will not allow it, he will oppose it, nay, count them not worthy the Name of Christians if they do thus. If the Scripture commands these things, they shall be esteemed but as rotten Rags, and old Clouts; but if the Quaker's Light command it, it is well enough. Sure these Men are more than ordinarily deluded.

QUAKER.

But this slender kindess of R. R. is by him almost recalled, for thus he saith; It hitherto hath appeared, that the Spirit leads forward not backward, upward not downward. And then he presumes, that otherwise the Spirit may as well lead into Judaism, as into the Ministrations aforesaid.

BAPTIST.

Thus still the Quakers make no difference between Jewish Ceremonies and the Institutions of Christ, than which what can be said more unlike a Christian. But I deny that, for an unrepentant Person to be led to Repentance, and therewith to the Baptism of Repentance, is a backward leading, or a leading downward, but is the surest way for such to go forward and upward. Yea, suppose some be now found as plenarily endowed with the Holy Ghost, as to be enabled thereby to speak with Tongues, and to magnifie God, yet the Apostle demands, Who can forbid Water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Acts 10. This Interrogative concludes in the Negative, and is in truth to say, No Man can (or hath any authority to) forbid the use of Baptism in Water to those that have received the greatest measure of the Spirit, being such as were not before baptized with Water. But had R. R. or J. W. been by when Peter speake these words, the one would have cryed down this Ordinance, and the other told him it was to lead backward. Thus do the Quakers confront the very Apostle himself, whose words have the same force now that they had in the first delivery: and as he by the Authority of Christ commanded them then, so all such as they now ought to be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus.

So then it is directly false, that R. R. saith, the Spirit hath hitherto p. 70led from Baptism in Water, (for that is his meaning by leading backward) whereas the Text in hand shews plainly, That such as were first baptized with the Spirit, were led by the same Spirit afterward to be baptized in Water. Nay, let me further add, That it is certain no Sinner ever was rightly baptized with Water, till first he had some work of Grace on his heart by the Spirit of God. We do therefore justly reject the Spirit of R. R. and J. W. and the Quakers in general, when it thus leads Men in opposition to the Spirit as it speaks by the Apostles, and now speaketh in the Scriptures, and are sure that therein they have not the Spirit of God. John 1. He that knoweth God, heareth us, (saith the Apostle). He that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the Spirit of Truth, and the Spirit of Error.

CHAP. V. The Conclusion; shewing the true usefulness of the Light in every Man; and yet that the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, reveals things more excellent. With an Exhortation to all Christians to beware of the dangerous Errors of the Quakers.

FOr a Conclusion of this defence against the Quakers, I hold it expedient to speak something briefly concerning the Light which is in every Man. And I have given some hints above, how Robert Ruckhil hath altered the Phrase, by his frequent use of this, The Holy Spirit, instead of their old term, The Light in every Man. But these two must be distinguished: for a Man may have, or be a partaker of that Light which is in every Man, which reproveth much Evil, and directs to much Good: And yet the same Man may be sensual at the same time, having not the Spirit: Jud. Epist.For the Gift of the Holy Spirit, as it is promised in the Gospel, is not received but through Faith, Gal. 3. — That the Blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that they might receive the Promise of the Spirit through Faith. Nor do I mean the multifarious Spirits by which Men are actuated, when I speak of the Light in every Man, as R. R. rudely would interpret me; but I speak of that one common Principle of Wisdom, Justice and Purity, which God hath endowed Mankind with, which in regard of its curious measures I call the Spirits of Men, every Man having his proper portion thereof; for the which he must be accountable, as he hath improved or abused it, to the honour or dishonour of Almighty God. But yet, I say, this Light in every Man ought to be subservient to the Light of the Holy Spirit revealed by or in the Holy Scriptures. And to make this better appear, I will here insert what I have published before in this behalf.

Because every Truth ought to have its just estimation, and the design of our precedent Discourses, being not to oppose any Light which God hath ordained for Man's direction; Whether that which is common p. 71to all (ordinarily) at all times, by some called the Light within, or that which hath been manifested at sundry times, and divers manners; it shall not be inexpedient here to propose some few things: And,

1. It is certain (and not denied by the Baptized Churches) that God Almighty hath endowed Mankind with a Principle of Light, Understanding, or Judgment, to lead Men to the consideration and observation of things good and honest among themselves; and to contemplate the Divine Goodness it self, from the consideration of his wonderful Works, and to render to him the honour of his Mercies, &c.

For as there is a certain Relation between the Creator, and a rational Creature; even thence arises a necessity of Obedience on the Creature's part. Whereupon it behoveth that he know him, and in general, what is his Will whom he is to serve; and this is the great Work of the Law written in the heart of Man, Rom. 2.

2. But it is certainly in the liberty of the Creator, (who hath the fulness of Wisdom in himself) to give further, what particular discoveries of himself, and of his Will he pleaseth, or thinks most meet to communicate, beyond the extent of that common Principle of Light which he hath imparted to Mankind. And indeed thus he did from the beginning, when by a positive Law he forbad Adam to eat of one Tree in the Garden, which otherwise could have brought no inconvenience, sith it was good for Food. And therefore the forbidden Fruit was not Sin, as some of the Quakers have vainly told me; and some have writ as erroneously.

3. That there is in the Godhead the distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit; and that Man's Salvation must depend upon the Death of the Son of God; that he to that end should be born of a Woman, even the blessed Virgin, Mary by Name; that he should arise from the Dead, and ascend the Heavens; or, that he shall come again to raise the Dead, and Judg the World, are things wholly beyond the reach of the Universal Principle of Light in Man, and only known to Man by particular Revelation from the Omnipotent God; who revealed these things to the Prophets, confirmed them by his Son, and hath witnessed the same by the Apostles.

4. That the Oeconomie, Order, or Government of the Church should vary, viz. Be of one Form in the Old World, of another from Abraham till Christ; of a third, from Christ to the end of the World; are things of which the common Principle of Light in Man fails to give any account: only the Wisdom and good Pleasure of the Creator, is the ground and cause of this Alteration, to which the Light of Man's Understanding must be subordinate.

5. That Abraham must cut off the Fore-skin, and his Posterity observe the same for a Law, under pain of being cut off from the People of God, is no way perceivable by the Principle of Light in Man, but may rather seem repugnant to it, only God must not be disputed in any of his Commands, but Man with all the Light in him, must yield to his most wise Commandments.

p. 726. That the Saviour of the World should come to be baptized of John in Jordan, and that it should become all his Disciples to follow him in the same Act of Obedience; that Israel must commemorate their Deliverance out of Egypt by the Paschal Observation; and Christians their Deliverance from Sin and Satan, by the Bread and Cup in the Lord's Table, &c. are such things as no Principle of Light, common to all Men, does dictate: But he only, who without controul, might and did command Abraham to offer his own Son for a Sacrifice, required these things, and ought to be obeyed, when and in what he requireth.

7. The sum of all is this, The Universal Principle of Understanding, Light, or Judgment in Man, is capable of Improvements; and it is only improved, by how much it is subordinate to the Will of God, as well in the lesser as the greater things of his Appointment. And therefore the Quakers undeniably opposing themselves against many things required to be observed by Christians, as positive Laws of God, made known by Jesus Christ, concerning Man's Redemption, and the Order of the Church of Christ, are not obedient to, nor sincere favourers of the Light within; but are under the Spirit of Darkness and Error in such their opposition; and do vainly boast, to speak and act as moved thereunto by the Authority of Christ, and his Holy Spirit in them, when yet the Authority of Christ is full against them.

The Exhortation.

FRom the Premises, I hold my self obliged to admonish and exhort all Christians to look well to their goings; For let us know assuredly, that the days are perilous, because the time is come wherein that Doctrine which according to Godliness, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, yea, that form of sound words which was delivered to the first Christian Churches by the Apostles, which also was obeyed from the Heart, Rom. 6. that Faith once delivered to the Saints, is now in every place greatly opposed and disgusted, or lightly regarded; whilst Men are turned in to Fables and Visions of their own hearts, as was also foredeclared in the Word of Truth.

And knowing these things before, let us beware lest at any time we be led away with the Errors of these days, and so fall from that stedfastness in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, to which through the Grace of God we have attained.

And above all, let us diligently beware of those, who either directly or indirectly deny the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, whilst they believe not his Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, together with his second coming according to the Scriptures. But instead thereof, labour to refer by obscure ways, and a fair shew of words, all these things to the Work of Mortification, and what they vainly pretend to themselves, as if they could now evince that Mortality is swallowed up p. 73of Life; which vain boasts my ears have heard from some of the **Vin. Frotheringham.Quakers; and yet it is certain they shall die like other Men, and in that very day they will find these vain thoughts to perish.

Labour therefore to have a sound and distinct understanding of the great Work of Man's Redemption by Christ's Death and Blood-shed, and the Work of his Holy Word and Spirit in sanctifying the Children of God. Hold fast the first by Faith, and labour to live in the latter by blessed experience, waiting for the Adoption, as it respects the redemption of your Bodies in the glorious Resurrection of the Just, according to that working whereby our Lord Jesus Christ and God our Father is able to subdue all things unto himself.

And be not deceived by any means, with the empty boasts of those who pretend they are perfect, so as to have passed through the Resurrection; for it is one thing to rise with Christ to newness of Life, (which I hope you have attained, but I beseech you abound more and more); and another thing to be raised from Mortality to a state of Glory. And for a help in this, consider, that even Paul himself, in his greatest Attainments, wherein he heard things too hard to be uttered to the Churches, yet he tells us, He had not attained to the Resurrection of the Dead, but laboured if by any means he might attain it, Phil. 3.

Beware also of those who by consequence deny Jesus Christ to be come in the Flesh: and they are of two sorts; either those who labour to introduce Legal Ceremonies, which Christ came to abrogate, of whom there were many in the Apostles times, and I fear there are some in these days; or, who deny Christ's Institutions, for Christ denies that any can rightly call him Lord, Lord, when they do not the things which he says. And indeed, as that Holy Man, William Jeffery (Messenger to the Baptized Churches in Kent) hath well observed, That those who deny those. Ordinances which came in being when Christ came in the Flesh, and which do so plainly hold him forth as come in the Flesh, do therein in effect deny Christ to be come in the Flesh.

Now by those things which declare Christ to be come in the Flesh, I do not mean any part of the Gospel, or the Gifts thereof, exclusively from the rest, but I mean the whole form of Godliness, with the Power thereof, delivered and established by Christ, the Mediator of the New Testament; and in particular these things following.

1. Such Preaching as holds forth Christ Crucified, according to the Scriptures.

2. Such Prayer as is Spiritual, made to God in the Name of Jesus Christ.

3. Such Baptism in Water as sets forth the Death of Christ, his Burial, and Resurrection; and our Death to Sin, and rising to a new Life.

4. Such Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, as shews forth the Saints Interest in that Promise of the Holy Ghost, which Christ obtained for the comfort of the Gospel Church.

5. Such a Table of the Lord, as shews the Death of Christ upon the Cross.

p. 746. And such a Discipline as gives evidence of Christ's Authority, to purge his Church from Corruption, and to preserve Her in the purity of Doctrine and Conversation.

And thus the Holy Gospel being duly and religiously received and walked in, according to all the parts of it respectively, being attended with a constant waiting for the Son of God from Heaven, even Jesus who was raised from the Dead; ye shall be found unto Praise, and Honour, and that you have faithfully kept Christ's Ordinances, and added to your Faith, Vertue; even so an entrance shall be ministred to you abundantly into the Everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. For if any Man serve Christ, him will the Father honour, John 12. 26.