Christianismus primitivus, or, The ancient Christian religion, in its nature, certainty, excellency, and beauty, (internal and external) particularly considered, asserted, and vindicated from the many abuses which have invaded that sacred profession, by humane innovation, or pretended revelation comprehending likewise the general duties of mankind, in their respective relations : and particularly the obedience of all Christians to magistrates, and the necessity of Christian-moderation about things dispensible in matters of religion : with divers cases of conscience discussed and resolved / by Thomas Grantham ...

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 Demonstrati∣on 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 in∣deed 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.

Now 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 Sa∣cred 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 ordi∣narily 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 visi∣ble, 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, ra∣ther more holy, as being the object of a more pure sight, than that of the Mor∣tal Eye?

BAPTIST.

1. Here the Quaker plays the part of a bold Deceiver: Can he be ig∣norant 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 sup∣posing he can make the Blood of Christ unholy; but unhallows that pre∣cious 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 blind∣ness.

2. To his second. Doth R. R. suppose, that the Blood of Christ which Mortal Eyes beheld, was therefore unclean? Because as Children are parta∣kers 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 ad∣ded 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 Mor∣tal 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 per∣severes in it still, after he hath been faithfully told of it.

4. To his fourth Question: It is to be observed that R. R. hath trans∣ferred 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 Im∣mortal, Invisible, and only Wise God. And Rev. 17. 14. where he is cal∣led the Lamb, Lord of Lords, &c. And hence would strengthen his Er∣ror, 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 fal∣sified the holy Apostle. But he proceeds to more Iniquity.

QUAKER.

For in pag. 11. of his said Paper, he condemns the Faith of all Profes∣sors, by what Name soever distinguished, who knows no other Blood of Sprink∣ling 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

the 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 Drea∣mer? 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 Va∣nity 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 Sacri∣fice, 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, nei∣ther 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 ap∣peals 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, Be∣cause 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

abiding 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 decla∣ring 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 In∣firmities; 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, be∣held with mortal Eyes, both before and after his Resurrection: doubt∣less 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 Ab∣surdities, 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 con∣sidered, 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 Chri∣stian 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 de∣livered

them, and particularly the breaking of Bread, or the Lord's Ta∣ble: 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 Par∣tition-Wall between the Jews and Gentiles, or to this purpose. Now when they heard this, they glorified God, saying, Then hath God gran∣ted unto the Gentiles Repentance unto Life. So then hence forth nei∣ther 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 la∣titude 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 ar∣rive at the like Immortality, through the Power of Christ's Resurrection.

About which great Gospel-Truth, we now proceed to consider the na∣ture of R. Ruckhil's Doctrine; wherein you may expect he holds propor∣tion 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 Seek∣ers; and the unbaptized Quaker shall be as one of them.