holy Spirit or Deity died not with the flesh of Christ that was crucified, then the whole Saviour did not die, but what he calls the human nature. But if we take his words according to his doctrine before, (for proof that the holy Spirit or Comforter cannot save or be the Saviour,) only thus, viz. "Neither the Comforter, the holy Spirit, nor the Deity of our Lord Jesus, distinct from his manhood, or human nature, could be the Saviour."

66

This were all one as to tell us, that God cannot be the Saviour, or that God cannot save; if the holy Spirit or Deity be God. He should rather have said, that the manhood could not save without the holy Spirit, Divine power, or Deity, which alone is sufficient, (and that only which is felt and experienced in man,) to effect his salvation and deliverance from the power of sin and satan. Ye are my witnesses," saith the Lord," and my servants whom I have chosen, that ye may know and believe me and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me; I, even I, am the Lord, and beside me there is no Saviour." Isa. xliii. 10, 11. "There is no God else beside me, a just God and a Saviour.” chap. Ixv. 21. And we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe." 1 Tim. iv. 10. And how is God especially known to be the Saviour, but in saving man from sin, unrighteousness, and all guile? I will mention the loving kindness of the Lord, &c. For he said, surely they are my people, children that will not lie; so he was their Saviour." Isa. Ixiii. 7, 8. Now consider whether it be not grossly erroneous to suppose the holy Spirit or Deity cannot save, or is so deficient, distinct, or in itself! Although "God was manifest in flesh," God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself;" the Divinity and human (or earthly) nature were always distinct. And is not God omnipotent? To the only wise God our Saviour be glory and majesty, dominion and power, now and ever, Amen."

5. How the Light in man is a gift, and H. G.'s distinction between the meritorious and instrumental cause of salvation, examined.

H. G. "Art thou not able to distinguish between the giver and the gift, between the fountain and the stream." p. 7.

Answer. Yes, I do distinguish between the giver and the gift, between the fountain and the stream, between the fulness and the receiving thereof, grace for grace. But while the distinction between God and the gift of his spirit, or between Christ and his light within, seems to be no more than between the fountain and the stream, how grossly erroneous is it to conclude that the Spirit cannot be the Saviour, or that the light of

2 Y

Christ is not saving! For that is all one as to say, that either the stream is not the same water with the fountain, or that the stream cannot wash, because not the fountain or fulness. Who in his right wits will believe this?

H. G." But again it appears thou distinguishest not between the meritorious cause of man's salvation, and the instrumental, the killing of the sacrifice, and the sprinkling of the blood," &c. p. 7. 8.

Answer. Where does the scripture make this distinction, or say that the killing of the sacrifice, (which he must mean of Christ,) is the meritorious cause of man's salvation? Such like blind distinctions are fit to darken knowledge, and blind people's minds. And how gross and unchristian is it to place such a merit, or worth, upon that murderous act of killing the sacrifice, if he mean Christ, as his discourse implies? For though Christ Jesus, by that inherent holiness and original righteousness, and grace of God in him, offered and gave himself up to suffer, and tasted death for every man; yet the crucifying and killing him, according to the flesh, was an act of murderers and persecutors, who by wicked hands put him to death. So that the dignity and worth was in Christ, and on his part, through all his sufferings, and not in the act of killing him by wicked hands, nor on their parts. Howbeit, the sufferings and death of Christ were of great value with the Father, and his power did appear through all to the bruising of the serpent's bead.

And if it be the work of the Spirit to sanctify and renew us, is not this a saving work? And doth not this bring us to receive the atonement, and to enjoy peace. Those who follow and obey this Spirit for a reconciliation, (through the death of Christ,) are saved by his life. And so the work of Christ in saving and redeeming man from iniquity, and in making atonement, peace, and union between God and man, however these be directly pointed at and made way for by the suffering and death of Christ, yet they are inwardly revealed, effected, and fulfilled by the spirit or life of Christ, where the word of reconciliation is received in the heart. For Christ's appearance and suffering in the flesh, did really and directly point at those spiritual ends, (which are for man's eternal advantage,) to be fulfilled by his appearance in spirit.

6. The Lord's supper in the type and in the anti-type, the shadow and substance distinguished.

H. G. "The ordinance of the Lord's supper you call bread and wine." p. 19.

[Contradiction.] "The sign, the shadow, (speaking of their ordinances,) the substance being Christ." p. 53, 54.

G. W.'s Animadversion. Your pretended Lord's supper, then, is no more than bread and wine, the sign, the shadow, and therefore their continuation is of no necessity in the true church, which hath received Christ the substance, [thus far he cites my words, and leaves out what follows,] the living bread, who spiritually communicates his flesh aud blood, or fruit of the heavenly vine, without your shadows. And this is our Lord's supper that we partake of; and our baptism is spiritual, 1 Cor. xii. 13. Ephes. iv. 5; and as in 1 Pet. iii. 21, it is said, " to the which also the TiTUTO anti-type that now saveth us, even baptism," agreeth.

His contradiction before is between his calling their bread and wine the Lord's supper, now remaining in full force, and yet confessing them to be the sign, the shadow, and that the substance is Christ. If what you call the Lord's supper be a shadow, as of Christ to come, it cannot be that Lord's supper which remains in full force, where he is come to sup together with them who have received him in, as being the substance which ends the shadows.

But H. G. attempts to reconcile his contradiction by speaking of "sitting down under Christ's shadow." p. 9. When it is very obvious, that his sense of Christ's shadow here differs much from his sense of their pretended supper; that being a shadow of Christ the substance as to come. In the one case, shadow is metaphorical, in the other real. For were it good doctrine to say, you must sit down under Christ's shadow till he come? Or that Christ is not come to his church, while she sits down under his shadow? Or that your bread and wine," as a sign and shadow of Christ the substance," is that very shadow of his that the church is always to sit down under, while upon earth. What he saith of sitting down under his shadow, is taken out of Canticles ii. 3, "As the apple-tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons; I sat down under his shadow with delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste." See how plain it is, that the simile here is taken from sitting down under the shadow of an apple-tree, and eating of the apples. Were it good sense to say, I must sit down under the shadow of an apple-tree, and eat the fruit thereof, until the tree come, when both tree and fruit are then present? And so is Christ with his church, when she sits down under his shadow, and partakes of his living fruit, where there is then no necessity of your outside shadows. And yet H. G., in contradiction to his confessing their ordinance to be the shadow, is still imposing upon his opposer, "that the practice of it is to be kept up in the Same manner as Christ,the night before he was betrayed, instituted." p. 9. But I ask, do you Baptists observe and keep a real supper in the very same manner that Christ then did with his

disciples? Be plain and ingenuous; have you the passover at a real supper? And have you the cup both before and after supper as Christ and his disciples had? Luke xxii. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. And was all this either an institution of Christ, or of necessity to continue in the church, when Christ saith of the passover, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God?" verse 16.

The like he saith of the cup, "I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until I drink it new with you in the kingdom of God." Mat xxvi. 29. Mark xiv. 25. and Luke xxii. 10, 18. Doth not this show as much a discontinuance of the cup as of the passover? And there is no mention of Christ's taking wine, or the cup, after his resurrection, either to continue, confirm, or re-inforce it, as a commemoration of his death, when he sat at meat with them, and took bread and blessed it, and break, and gave them that their eyes were opened, and he was known of them in breaking of bread, after he was risen. Luke xxiv. 30, 31. John xxi. 13.

Howbeit, H. G. is pleased to cite Acts ii. 42, and chap. 20, to prove, that the Lord's supper, and the practice of it, is to be kept up in the same manner as Christ did the night before he was betrayed. I ask again, do you Anabaptists practice it in the same manner? And have we not the inore reason to deny your practice, if it be not in the same manner, as here pretended? In Acts ii. 42, it is said, "They continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers," wherein is no mention either of the wine, the cup, the supper, or passover. Also it is then said, that all who believed were together, and had all things common, and sold their possessions and goods. ver. 44, 45. Now, if what they did must be binding on posterity, because practised, why do not the Baptists imitate those believers in selling their possessions, &c.? But were it not a very preposterous way of arguing, to conclude a continuance of commands and duties from practices! And in Acts xx. 7, it is said Upon the first day of the week, the disciples came together to break bread," and that Paul had broken bread," (ver. 11.) according to Christ's practice after he was risen. And in 1 Cor. 11, Paul gives a recitation both of the bread and cup that Christ gave in the figure to show the Lord's death till he came; as also of the substance, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, which he was a partaker of in the mystery. But as the Corinthians were too carnal, and envying, and strife, and divisions were amongst them, and some liable to idolatry, (1 Cor. iii. 1, 3. chap. x. 14, and xi. 17, 18, 19,) the apostle said, "I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal." then they had not the clear sight of Christ as the substance,

66

So

or mystery of his body and blood; and the very stress, drift, and scope of the apostle's testimony, was to exalt the substance and mystery, and to bring them into a spiritual mind and state. For which see also, 1 Cor. x. 14, 15, 16, 17. And in 2 Cor. xiii. 5, he saith, Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith, prove yourselves; know you not your ownselves, how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates."

Now Jesus Christ is confessed to be the substance, when your pretended Lord's supper is but the sign, the shadow, or the figure; if his saying, this is my body" be but a figurative speech, according to the martyrs. p. 9. And I require this man to prove that gospel-ordinances are a shadow, as he hath confessed their supper to be.

H. G. "I would know of this man, where he reads of any thing called the Lord's supper, but this which we contend for.' page 10.

Answer. You are contending but for the shadow, but there is the Lord's supper in the mystery; for saith "the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God," "Behold I stand at the door and knock, if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him and he with me." Rev. iii. 20. Is not this the Lord's supper that is above the shadow? And Christ said, "I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom." Luke xxii. 29, 30. "Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." Is not this the Lord's supper in the mystery or anti-type? And I am the bread of life," "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever; and the bread that I give is my flesh, that I give for the life of the world. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." John vi. Is not this living bread from heaven confessed to be the substance, and the outward bread the shadow?

H. G. "I do affirm that this is spiritual," (to wit, the Lord's supper.) p. 10.

Answer. The Lord's supper, in the mystery, is spiritual, but not your bread and wine, unless they be transubstantiated, which we utterly deny.

H. G."The ordinance of water-baptism was given forth by Christ after his resurrection. Mat. xxviii. 20."

Answer. There is no mention of water, but of baptizing them SIS To ropa into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit; and this baptism was saving, but so is not your dipping.

H. G." And this of the Lord's supper Paul received of Christ sometime after his ascension. 1 Cor. ii. 23."