Billeder på siden

is a thorough change of the mind, and that it consists in, 1. A clear sight and sense of sin. 2. Godly sorrow in the sense and burden of it. 3. In utter abhorrence and forsaking of it. And also-faith is required, and must be wrought with power in the hearts of the penitent," &c. p. 15, 16.

Mark, then, here is some debt for men to pay through the help of Christ's power and work within. But to go round again, he slights that inherent holiness which is wrought within, and accuses his sister for not having a deep dependancy on that sacrifice of Christ's “crucified body without." p. 14. The truth is, she or they that believe Christ to be rigen, and know his power in their hearts, may think it improper to have their dependaney on his body, as crucified without, but rather on him that lives for ever, as knowing the blessed effects of his sacrifice, to wit, the relief and redemption which his flesh and blood affords.

His saying “the debt is paid," and yet fearing his sister's “ remaining in prison and darkness, notwithstanding her teacher near,” (p. 14.) proves no more against the light, the inward teacher, than against Christ's sufferings. She may as well say, “ brother for all thy dependance upon the crucified body without thee, I fear thou art yet dead in thy sins and in gross darkness, and thou takest not the course to convince me, nor at all to draw my heart towards thee and thy brethren, by such sad and wicked work as thou makest against the light.”

Concerning his water baptism, it is not reasonable in him either to impose it, or judge us transgressors in not submitting to it, (p. 18, 27.) until he prove his call, or himself or any of his brethren commissioned from heaven, as John was, to administer it. For we do not own it to be Christ's baptism, and until they prove themselves so called, they should let us alone without it, we being content with the one baptism of the Spirit.


The drinking of the fruit of the vine in the Father's kingdom, and the eating of the living bread which comes down from heaven, (John vi. Luke xxii. 18, 30. Mat. 26, 29.) we are come to witness, and so to partake of the heavenly passover, and the communion of the body and blood of Christ, which wise men can judge of. (1 Cor. x. 15, 16.) And the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ we have been eye witnesses of; so that we cannot dote about signs and shadows, as you carnal professors do, whose pretended Lord's supper is but bread and wine, and no more than a sign, type, or shadow, which the clear light of the gospel and its dispensation is beyond. And in it there

is no need of those shadows for a sacred memorial of Christ's death ; for the supposed use and end thereof is better supplied by the Divine light and spirit of the everlasting gospel, which hath not only begotten in us a living memorial and sense of the death of Christ, and blessed effects thereof, but hatb also brought us to know the power of his resurrection, and our being risen with hiin. So that we are not only dead with him from the rudiments of the world, and from touching, tasting, and handling those things that perish with the using, after the commands and doctrines of men, but also being risen with Christ, we are come to set our affections on things above.

Where are those his words written in scripture, viz. that « bread and wine remain in full force until Christ's second coming in person ?” p. 19. Where do the scriptures call his second appearance a coming in person ? which was a coming to salvation. Heb. ix, 28. But this man saith, " he is not so come the second time,” which doth conclude that all the primitive believers, or christians, who so looked for his second coming, both fell short of salvation, and missed and were disappointed of their hope and expectation, which is a sad mistake.

His saying, he dare not be wise above what is written, (p. 29,) contradicts his asserting that which derogates from what is written, viz.

“ That Christ's second coming to salvation is in person, or a personal coming,” (John xvii. 11. and xiv. 19.) whereas, (nigh his departure,) he said, “I am no more in the world,” and “yet a little while and the world seeth me no more, but ye see me.” His spiritual appearance was to be in the world, and he universally to be seen in judgment.

As for that which Paul received of the Lord, 1 Cor. xi. 23, proves not that he received outward bread and wine of the Lord, to deliver to them, till Clirist's supposed coming in person again. But he received of the Lord, not only the relation how Christ took bread and the cup, &c. and so of the administration of the sign or shadow, but the communication of the mystery, viz. the body and blood of Christ. See 1 Cor. x..

And this was that bread and that cup spoken of 1 Cor. 11. 28. And he further shows what he received, and what he delivered concerning Christ and his comings, 1 Cor. xv. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.-2 Cor. xiii. 5. As for the Corinthians, many of them were carnal, and their minds too much in outward things and shadows, and some liable to run into idolatry. And the apostle in some things condescended to them as weaklings, below the spiritual and manly understanding; wherefore their practice and example is not in every thing binding to spiritual men.


H. G. asserts from Mat. xxviii. 19, 20, “ The baptism here spoken of is that of water." p. 23. “ To baptize with the holy Spirit, is the alone work of Jesus Christ ; and it never was in the power of any apostle or disciple to do it.” p. 24.

Answer. This man contrary to his pretence, here makes himself wise above what is written, in adding to the command, that it was the baptism of water, which is pot mentioned in the command; but rather it appears to be a spiritual baptism which the disciples were empowered to administer, in that they were to teach, baptizing them is où öronce, into the name, &c. which arome imports the authority and power of Christ, and sometimes Christ himself, and sometimes reverence and worship. See T. C.'s Lexicon. The man is very rash in concluding that it was never in the power of any apostle to baptize with the Holy Spirit. I ask him if the true ministers were not endued with power from on high, to turn and convert people from darkness to light, and from satan's power to God? And if so, what is this short of the Spirit's baptism.

His meaning from Paul's not being sent by Christ to baptize, but to preach the gospel, (1 Cor. i.) is that he gives us to understand, that to baptize was not the alone or chief business he was sent to do.” p. 27. “ Alone or chief business," is his own addition to Paul's words. What need he give them to understand, that to baptize was not his alone business, while they knew he was more a preacher. It is not to be supposed, that the Corinthians should think that Paul was to do nothing else but baptize or plunge them in water. But he himself gives it as the cbief reason why he baptized none but those few mentioned; namely, “ for Christ," saith be, “ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” So he did not thank God for neglecting part of his commission, in baptizing so few, but partly to prevent their wrong use thereof, and chiefly because his commission did not extend to water baptism.

And as to his allegation, to prove that the word “not," is not always used as an absolute negative, (p. 27.) he cites John vi. 27 : “Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for the meat which endureth," &c. If the occasion of these words be minded, “ not,” will prove an absolute negative in this place. Jesus was speaking to them that sought after him, because they did eat of the loaves, (ver. 26.) and were filled, for which end they ought not to have sought after him.

And admitting his instance in Adam, that he was not deceived, namely, that he was not first deceived, taking in the word “first," from the verse before; this is altogether impertinent to his purpose, about Paul's not being sent to baptize, there

being no such discovery, that Paul was sent at all to baptize, as there was of Adam's transgression, but the contrary, in that Paul expressly said, Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.



To his saying the word Christ signifies one anointed, accounting it absurd to say, the Spirit or Anointing is Christ, (p. 37.) I answer, are not the Father, the Spirit, and the Word one ? Christ, as the Son of God, is God's Anointed. And is it not granted that he was the Son of God by eternal generation ? And so was, before he took upon him that body prepared for him, called the Lord's Anointed; (Psal. ii. 2.) which word anointed, sometimes relates to his being set up; or, exalted as king. “ Yet have I set, (or anointed, Heb.) my king upon Sion, the hill of my holi

ver. vi. As also to his being endued or anointed with power from on high, which power is that divine unction. And in that Christ is called “ the power of God, and the wisdom of God,” (1 Cor. i. 24,) he may as properly be called, the Anointing, as “ where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, now the Lord is that Spirit.” This anointing is not an outward unction, nor outwardly received upon the flesh or body; but being a divine unction of glory and power from above, it is inwardly and spiritually received by an immortal seed and birth born from above, as that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. As for his terms “ human nature,” and “ glorious unity between the divine and human nature,” (p. 36.) he talks he knows not what, and beside scripture language. The word human is not by the scriptures applicable to Christ in glory, but originally relates to the earth, and so to the body of man as coming thence. But Jesus Christ was the Anointed, as he was the Son from the Father's substance, (which he was before he came in the flesh, or took upon him that body that was prepared for him,) and the Anointed, and Saviour, by the divine power given him, when in that body upon earth; though more highly exalted or anointed, as aseended far above all heavens, and exalted in the Father's glory. He is the Anointed and Saviour also, as revealed and formed in the saints ; (Gal. iv. 19.) the Anointed as set up from everlasting; the Anointed both in sufferings and in glory; the Anointed both as he came in flesh, and as coming and revealed in the spirit in bis people. And his name by which life and salvation comes, and is given, is his divine nature and power, to wbich bis name relates, that is above every other name.

One thing that H. G. and his brethren stumble at, and at which his soul is wounded, as he saith (p. 30.) is, that Christ

was never seen with an outward (or rather carnal) eye, which H. W. is accused of, for saying, “ the eternal Son of God was never seen with any carnal eye.” To which I say, they should have been so ingenuous as to have considered the intent of these words, and more candidly to have construed them thus : Christ as the eternal Word, the Lord from heaven, the only begotten of the Father in his spiritual discovery, as the image of the invisible Gud and brightness of bis glory, cannot be seen with a carnal eye. Flesb and blood bath not so revealed him ; the saving light of Christ never was nor can be reached with the carnal eye. He that seeth the Son, and believeth on him, hath everlasting life ; (John vi. 40.) and, as saith the Son of God, “ he that seeth me seeth my Father also.” Jobo xii. 45, and xiv. 9. But none can see the Father with a carnal eye, therefore none could ever see the eternal Son with their carnal eyes, in this sense of seeing, which extends to true knowing. John viii. 19, and xiv. 7. Though many saw the body or person of Christ in the days of his flesh, wherein he was crucified and put to death, The Jews and persecutors saw him in that sense with their outward eyes, when they neither truly saw nor knew him to their salvation, it being the spirit that quickeneth. And such a sight of Christ as that of his body or outward man, no reason. able man can be so absurd as to say it was not obvious to the bodily eyes, and it is equally absurd to image that any of us should intend otherwise.

Now the faith of these Baptists concerning the Son of God, according to their carnal discourse of bim, may be modelled into this or the like argument, viz. If Jesus Christ, the Son of God, be also the Son of man, glorified on the right hand of God in heaven, then he consists of an human body of flesh and bones, as some say; or of a body of flesh, blood and bones, as others say. But he is the Son of man glorified, &c. Ergo, he consists of a human body, either of flesh and bone, or of flesh, blood, and bones, in heaven.

Answer. I deny their varied consequence as inconsequent; for Christ was called the Son of man in a higher sense than this human, earthly, or carnal sense, which they represent him in, in that he himself said, “no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven,” (John iii. 13.) and “ what if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before it is the Spirit that quiekeneth, the flesh profitteth nothing." John vi. 62, 63. Who will affirm, that as he came down from heaven, or as he was before in heaven, he so consisted of a carnal human body, either made up of flesh and bone, or of flesh, blood, and bone, in their gross and carnal sense. John the Baptist had not such mean thoughts of Christ, as these carnal Baptists have, for John

« ForrigeFortsæt »