which you profess to give A true Account of First The Propositions agreed on between your selves and your Respondent his Position and what else was precedent and preparative to the Disputation Secondly The Disputation it self and such things as were subsequent to it in each of which if I shew not that you have recorded more flat falsities and down-right untruths than one and that were too much to fall from your pens were you Ministers of Christ indeed then let my own pen record me for a lyar and my own self bear the blame of over-charging you and that for ever In order to a trial of the Truth in this case between you and me though I suppose I shall not be more critical in considering nor volumnous in dilating on them than your selves are numerous in bewraying of your own negligences ignorances contradictions fictions nakednesses and abusive shifts throughout this your three-fold thing yet I shall make little less than a totall transcription of your Papers before I have done and therin take notice of such absurdities at least whereby you most notoriously delude the world most grosly oppose the truth most unworthily wrong your Respondent and most palpably proclaim your selves to be rather true Dissemblers than true Discoverers of the Ashford Disputation and Smotherers rather than Publishers of that Gospel-truth in the point of Baptism which you pretend also to give as true an Account of to the world as of the other Report You talk first of Propositions agreed upon between your Respondent and your selves the Ministers at the Communion-Table in the Church of Ashford in Kent before the Disputation began Reply Give me leave Sirs sith silence with you may be taken else for Assent to say a word or two to this you stile your selves the Ministers both here and else-where throughout your book But if you mean Ministers of Christ and the Gospel I am yet to learn that from you which I never found you very forward to teach me viz. that you came truly and honestly by that Title you have hitherto wanted no provocation from me to prove the lawfulness of your calling I made bold to denominate you Antichristian Ministers in my Position upon the very day of the Disputation before those Thousands which you say were Auditors thereof And I have asserted the same more abundantly since in that letter to Mr. G. C. which it seems you know so well as even thence to take occasion in a Pet to publish so much as you have done of your Disputation all which is enough to give you to understand that I own you not at all in that capacity yet did you never no neither then at the Disputation nor since in your so true a Relation of it so much as once open your mouth or strike one stroke with your pen whereby to evince it that you are Christs Ministers which gives me to believe that howbeit you have a habit of calling your selves so yet you had rather men believed you on your bare words than put you to prove your selves to be so and that you are as utterly uncapable to clear it as 't is clear you are unwilling to be urged to it You speak of the Church of Ashford and a Communion-Table in it 'T were strange if I should not know what you mean thereby yet had you told this peece of your tale in other Terms it had been so much the less lyable to correction I know but one Church of Ashford that hath a Communion-Table in 't and that is those few persons who since they have gladly received the Word of Truth have been according to Christs will in that kind baptized in his name for remission of sinnes and do now continue in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking oâ— bread and prayers to which the Lord I hope will add dayly such in those parts as shall be saved in this Church there is a Communion-Table indeed even the Table of the Lord at which they meet blessing and drinking that Cup of blessing which is the Commemoration and Communion also of the blood of Christ breaking and eating that bread which is the Commemoration and Communion of the body of Christ at which you and your Respondent never yet met but may do yet in due time if the Lord please to grant you for till then surely it never will be repentance to the acknowledgement of his truth But for other Communion-Table I wot not Sirs that there is any at all at Ashford As for that common Table which stands in the great stone house where the Bells hang where the people meet once a week but never do that they should do if they were disciples of Christ indeed which house you call the Church of Ashford and I cannot but allow you so to do sith you disclaim the true one the very Steeple being well nigh as much a truly constituted Church of Christ as a parish people the one whereof is but a compacted number of dead stones in a literal sense and for the most part no less in a spiritual sense is the other besides stone Churches and wooden Priests such as if you are not yet most of the Popes children are suit well enough each with other as for that Table I say where you and your Respondent agreed better about the Articles of the Disputation then they do for ought I see to this day about that Article of faith they disputed on you had need to find some fitter phrase for it than Communion-Table for it hath long since ceased to be of any such use as for people to communicate at it The Gentleman my beloved friend that is now Resident there and President too in pretence at least as a Pastor over that flock having never administred it at all since his abode among them nor since the Classis possest him of that Relation and gave him orders to feed them with that ordinance why he doth not meddle with that service in his parish would be farre more wonderful to me then 't is had not mine own conscience been of the same constitution with his when I was with him in the same condition for as my own feet stuck once in the same stocks when I stood in Pastorall relation to parochiall people so I believe him to be further inlightned then to be free for a promiscuous admittance to the Supper of such Societies among whom he discerns not a few more goats than sheep or to hold Communion there with them whom in the Pulpit he cries out on as unbelievers as knowing well enough there 's no fellowship to be held between light and darkness believers and unbelievers in that holy ordinance yet he sprinkles the Infants of all as you also do and my self blindly did or else that parish will prove happily to hot to hold him upon what account he doth so I know not for sure it cannot be upon this because onely believers Infants are to be sprinkled The Lord open
of themselves is as seems by your selves a faith and practise against Reason why else doth reason object against it Indeed the Papists aâ—e so unreasonable in sundry articles of their faith that they hold some things not onely above but against Reason and that 's tâ—e worst that can be said of the most absurd and â—bominable tenets that are amongst them and that is so bad that even thereupon the Protestant priesthood finds occasion enough to abhor them witnesse their Tenet of transubstantiation or real presence of Christs very body in the supper of which when we say how can this be its not onely against other articles of faith viz. his bodily ascention session and local mansion in heaven but also against common sense and reason it being in reason impossible that one body should be at once in two places as well as in consubstantiation it is for two distinct bodies viz. the bread and Christs body to be at once in one place they say much what as you say here and in the lines above viz. that howbeit its difficult to understand how it should be so in Reason yet if we had learnt to believe the Scriptures which in plain terms assert the thing saying of the bread this is my body we would believe it and leave the manner of its being so to him who saies it with whom all things are possible as we do in the articles of faith e g. the resurrection of the body not asking how it can be because the Scriptures have declared it The Reformists tell them again that the resurrection of the dead is a thing not onely in respect of God who can do all things save such as imply imperfection as to lie and die c. and contradiction for its impossible utterly that pure contradictories should be both true but also in respect of the thing it self possible to be effected but the ubiquity and the actual universal eating of one and the same numerical body and so smal a body too as that of Christs and at one and the same time in so many several places are matters and fancies savouring of such contradiction and so adverse to the very nature of God that as Kekerman system log p. 42. saies Ne deus quidem producere potest et logica eas e suis excludit ordinibus such as God doth not and Reason knows not O but saith the Papists nothing but humane reason judges this impossible and repugnant to other articles of faith to whom among other things our Divines use to reply that in matters of religion and faith and things of God reason is not to be laid aside as if we were to bring bare bruit sence i. e. blind implicit faith onely to the word of God but to be used by us that we may thereby as without which we cannot distinguish truth from falshood yea to speak yet in the very words of your own author in this case I mean Vrsins Catachise to which you send us whose these words mostly are which I have already spoken see page 414.415 For even therefore was reason given us of God that we might by the light of the mind discover contradictory opinions and clearly understanding what is agreeable to the word of God and what repugnant to it may imbrace this and refuse that Hoc nisi firmum maneat nullum erit dogma tam absurdum c. Vnlesse this stand for granted no opinion though never so absurd and impious yea nothing in the sincks of all hereticks though never so impure and monstrous can be confuted out of the holy Scripture for hereticks and deceivers will reply their opinions do not contradict the word of God but onely it seems so to humane reason You see then how among your own writers the foundation of faith and true religion is laid not onely in the Scripture as the rule and fountain whence we fetch all but secondarily in sound Reason also improved in way of trial of things by it as without which no use can be made of Scripture so that though some Divines proclaim it to the whole world for so do your selves in this place that Reason it self is against them in their way and consequently that their way is against Reason and many Divines confesse their faith and religion in some articles and particles of it to be above Reason which is but a gentle-gigg too if by above Reason they mean so as that Reason cannot comprehend how they are at least conceive them possible so to be yet however farewel such a faith for ever for me as Reason fights with and far be it from me either to do or believe any thing against reason for as they that see not good ground in reason to believe what they believe can never be alwayes ready as every Christian ought to render a reasonable answer to such as ask them a Reason of the faith that is in them and are at best but implicit in believing so they who believe not only without and beyond but even against Reason it self opposing them in their faith are most unreasonable believers indeed and such as shall find that Reason as easily as they think t is answered will make good what objection it makes against the most unreasonable of them all but to leave this and to come to the discourse or ratiocination it self which followes between Reason and reasonlese for what else can I fitly stile such an Antagonist as stiffens himself against Reason and counts it nothing to refute it yea t is done here in your Review for satisfaction to the Reader as you say but t is undone again in the Re-review to the undeception of the deceived and the deceiver The objections of Reason and replies of reasonlesse and re-replies of Reasons friend are as followes Review 1 Infants have no knowledge of good or evil Ergo no faith By the same reason they should be denied to have the faculty of understanding the exercise of their faculty they have not no more have they of their faith not the act but the habit as was said before Re-Review Good Sirs consider what a reasonlesse reply to reason this is For if by faith you mean only a faculty of believing what ever in time may be told them which is the adaequate object of faith in general that is in all reasonable creatures and is de esse to them universally innate in them as a part of the rationall soul as well as the faculty of remembring what in time they may hear and of willing and chosing what in time may be propounded to them and of understanding what in time may be taught them but what is all this to your purpose who plead faiths being in some infants onely not in all when as faith in that sense is as much in all infants as in some and would if it could at all entitle such as have it to baptism entitle all mankind to baptism as well as some sith all have the faculty of
respected in baptism for not onely purgation but also mortification and the dying of the old man is proposed there c. And of spiritual circumcision Paul maketh two parts saith Zanchee the first he calleth buriall with Christ the other resurrection with him and of both these he maketh baptism the sign c. Neverthelesse our above named opposers will at no hand give way that there should be any representation or resemblance made in baptism of these two things which are the prime significations of it by putting under water and plucking out again yea they seem to chide with their several Antagonists A. R. and C. B. for offering once to urge that the outward sign ought to hold analogy or proportion with the thing signified in that particular A proportion between the sign and these things signified viz. a death burial and resurrection Mr. Blake grants there is in our way of baptism by dipping but that there need be or should be so by institution this he heares not of with patience no nor Mr. Cook neither But if it please you to have patience with me so long sith those two are the maine men that beside the Doctor whose repulse is not worth a rush so mainly oppose our Argument from Rom. 6. Col. 2. I le take the paines to transcribe their several replies and then see what strength there is in all that they say to the contrary Mr. Cooks defence is as followes What you go about to gather saith he from Col. 2.12 Rom. 6.4 I know not unlesse this that as Christ was buried abode in the grave three daies and then rose again So your party baptized must be put under the water abide there some considerable time and then come up again for if you presse a similitude of Christs death in going down into the water and of his resurrection or comming up out of the water why not also of his abode three daies by abiding three daies or some considerable time under the water which will make bad work neither can any such thing be gathered from those Scriptures I would demand two Questions saith he 1. How you gather from these places a dipping of the whole man over head and under water and that a similitude of Christs death burial and rising again to be represented by dipping in water is signified here these Scriptures shew indeed that the end of our baptism is to seal our communion with him in his death and resurrection by which we are dead to sin and raised again to holinesse but if you will presse hence a resurrection by our descending into abiding in and comming up out of the water take heed least you be one of those which adde to Gods word least he reprove you as a lyar and adde unto you the plagues written in his book for I know no word of God wherein this representation is necessarily implyed much lesse expressed Besides if you urge death and resurrection to be resembled by descension into and ascension out of the water you must urge also burial which is principally there expressed by the biding of the whole man head and all under for a time answerable to Christs three daies burial which cannot be without danger yea certainty of drowning 2. If it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christs death burial and resurrection is set before us in baptism and so of our death to sin and rising again to holinesse yet I demand why this may not as well be by infusion of water as dipping can you give me an example of so many killed and buried by immersion or dipping into the water as I can give of them that have been put to death and buried by infusion of water I am sure a whole world of men and other creatures those few that were in the Ark only excepted were buried in the universal deluge at once by infusion not by dipping so that infusion or sprinkling may as well clearly signifie death and burial as dipping and to the preservation of Noah and those that were with him in the Ark on which waters were poured from drowning the Apostle compares baptism as its Anti-type Thus far Mr. Cook p. 16 17. And then again p. 19 20.21 he undertakes further viz. to argue back again upon us at large and to prove that if there must needs be a resemblance and representation in baptism of the things that are signified therby then it may be as well nay must be rather by washing pouring sprinkling then by dipping and putting under the water sprinkling and infusion being as if not more agreeable to the nature and instiâ—ution of baptism then dipping or immersion for as the word used i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies washing so the thing represented signifyed and sealed saith he in the wonted implicit phrase in baptism is a washing 1 Cor. 6.11 ye are washed c. the washing of Regeneration 2 Tit. 5. having your bodies washed with pure water Heb. 10.22 t is a cleansing and purging 1 John 1.7 blood of Christ clenseth us from all our sinnes Heb. 9.14 blood of Christ shall purge your conscience which things viz. washing clensing purging are done as well by infusion of water saith he as dipping and though it were granted saith he that in those hot countreys they commonly washt by going down into the water and being dipt therein that will no more inforce a necessity on us of observing the same in baptism now then the examples of Christ and the Apostles gesture in the supper ties us to the same which was leaning and partly lying but it may be objected saith he that sprinkling a little water doth not so fitly represent the washing of sins away as dipping or plunging sith here the whole body is washed there the face or head onely I answer first saith he the Scripture no where requires washing of the whole body in baptism Secondly with as good reason one may plead thus that t is most convenient that at the supper every communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine and take as long as his stomack and head will hold to signifie the full refreshment of the soul with the body and blood of Christ but who would endure saith he such reasoning These outward elements of water bread and wine are for spiritual use and to signifie spiritual things so that if there be the truth of things the quantity is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end namely to represent the spiritual grace and that it be neither so little as not clearly to represent it nor so much as to take off the heart from the spiritual to the corporal thing yea the spirituall grace and visible act of God upon the soul signified and represented by the outward act of baptism viz. The application of Christs blood and donation of the spirit is exprest in Scripture by the name of powring sprinkling and that probably if not certainly with allusion to
not leaning nor yet lying for though Mr. Cook asserts with such confidence that lying was used by Christ t is undoubtedly utterly untrue what ere was the usual table gesture then is nothing to the point or if it be it is most evident it was sitting as it is now for if it was in some places the fashion to lean or ly on beds at great banquets as some tell us yet I am sure the table gesture was not lying nor leaning neither any otherwise then as we do viz. on one elbow or both when we please the Scripture saies all along that he sate Mr. Cook greeking it out in the margent as he does viz. Mat. 26.20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 14.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 22.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 14.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not help him in what he saies for if any or all of these words viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signifie to lean or lie down yet they all signifie to sit down also for they are all rendred by discumâ—o the plain english of which is to sit down and therefore also our translators do so English them and I would demand of him again as he does of A. R. p. 12. whether he thinks that our translators that have englisht them thus viz. he sate down and as they sate dovvn and he commanded the multitude to sit dovvn on the grasse knevv not hovv to render the originall in its proper signification as vvell as he Nor yet fiftly is the usuall manner of vvashing among us which you confesse is most fit to be used in baptism by povvring as vvell as dipping for povvring is and yet but in some cases onely as namely the vvashing the hands and in that very case but sometimes and seldome onely for mostly that is by dipping and this too but when the infusion is so large as totally to vvash the hands so vvashed a preparative to such a vvashing but a compleat true washing it is not of it self vvithout some subsequent act of rubbing vvhich you use not about infants faces but swilling in water is the most usual way of washing and a washing of itself some times and some times used without any after rubbing at all therefore this by Mr. Cooks own rule by right should be observed in baptism Sixthly whereas he argues from the custom of the present times to an exemption from the primitive customes and practise he might as well take upon him to say thus if any man contend for that faith way of worship way of baptism that was in the primitive and purest times and for a reformation of all things according to the word and example of the Churches the word speakâ— of it is true those Churches indeed worshipped thus were congregated thus ordered thus baptized thus viz. by dipping when they believed but sprinkling infants is the way and fashion now adaies and as for what was done of the Churches of old we have nothing to do with it and if any list to be contentions for it we have no such custom now nor the Churches of God! of which sure Mr. Cook cannot but be ashamed who hath covenanted to reforme according to the word â—itâ— a covenant keeper and a Custom-monger cannot possibly be denominated both of one Rantist Nay stay a little you 'l forget your own words I think anon did you not say your self even now that we must put difference between examples in substantiall matters and in matters meerly circumstantial we desire to keep as close as your selves can do to the primitive custom in things of weight and that there may be no variation from it without a violation of the will of Christ in any point that is positively commanded but I hope you will not make such a matter of moment of the manner of baptizing as if Chrst had injoined this way or that way of dispensation of it viz. dipping so strictly as that sprinkling may not be used nor yet sprinkling so as that dipping may not be used nay rather its a meer ceremony a prudentiall point in which the Church may use her discretion so as to dispense it either way as conveniency and charity may dispose her and no lesse is very well observed by Mr. Baxter p 135. Christ saith he hath not appointed the measure of water nor manner of washing no more then he hath appointed in the Lords supper what quantity of bread and wine each must take and as it would be but folly for any to think that men must needs fill themselves with bread and wine because it best signifies the fullnesse of Christ so it is no better to say that we must needs be washed all over because it best signifies our burial with Christ c. Christ told Peter that the washing of his feet was enough to clense all a little may signifie as well as much as a clod of earth doth in possession of much lands and a corn of pepper signifies our homage for much and much to such a purpose are those words of Mr. Cook p. 20. some of which having been quoted and spoken to before though not so satisfactorily but that they sway with me still I am almost loath to repeat them yet sith they be so among the other I can hardly decline the mentioning them once more by your leave in answer to the objection that a little water doth not so fitly and perfectly represent as dipping and plunging sith in the one the whole body is washed in the other the face or head only He saies first that the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body in baptism Secondly that with as good reason one may plead thus that at the supper it is most convenient that every Communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine and take as long as stomach and head will hold to signify the full refreshment of the soul with the body and blood of Christ but who saies he would endure such reasoning Thirdly These outward Elements of water bread and wine are for speciall use and to signify special things so that if there be the truth of things the quantity is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end namely to represent the spiritual grace and that it be neither so little as not to represent nor so much as to take of the heart from the spirituall to the corporal thing not the washing away the filth of the body in baptism nor the glutting or satisfying of the natural Appetite in the Lords Supper is to be looked after but the washing and refreshing of the Soul which may well be represented by the sprinkling of a little water eating and drinking of a little bread and wine In circumcision a little skin was cut of You see what these worthy men say you need not be so hot as you are for the ceremony if so be you keep the substance Baptist. I have received as much as all this comes to long
invisible Church and yet then when converted and baptizd neither one not the other as yet actual members of the visible stones though never so unhewn and ragged are remote matter hewn and polished stones immediate and fit matter for a building yet not a building till built together many sheep are fit matter to make a flock yet not formally a flock till they come neer together Christs visible church is Christs flock Gods house Temple building several sheep and single disciples that hear his voice believe in him and are baptized into his name for remission of sins are pecious materials and in potentiâ proximâ thereunto yet be they never so many of them not visibly actually nor formally a flock an house a Temple a Building his visible Church longer then imbodyed into fellowships nor till fitly framed together they are builded an habitation of God through the spirit Ephes. 2.20.21.22 any more then many sheep that never came neer each other are a flock and a multitude of fitted and squared stones lying a long way a sunder each from other make a building Mr. B. shall be no Champion of my choosing to mannage the matter against the non-churchers of these times for all he flourishes his sword so against them at the end of his book if he plead the cause of them so that sit down satisfyed in single fellowship between God and themselves onely living up with him in the spirit contenting themselves to believe onely and renouncing all ordinances forsaking the assembling of themselves together and all fellowship in breaking of bread and prayers if he grant the denomination of the true visible Church to such as these as well as to those that continue stedfast in the Apostles doctrine and in fellowship in breaking bread and prayers yet Mr. B. does not yet agree with me in this that the particular assemblies collectively taken are the only visible Church for indeed he is aware that it overturns all his visibilities from the bottom and layes this foundation of no salvation for infants without the visible Church on which he frames his present Argument flat on the ground to allow the bounds of the visible Church to be no broader then all the particular visible societies that are actually baptized and in formal fellowship in breaking bread and prayers so as to say he is no member of the visible Church that is not actually entred and solemnly stated in some particular congregation or other therefore being politick he premises this among the rest 3. You must understand saith he but a man may understand a little better if he will that to be a member of the visible Church is not to be a Member of any particular or politick body or society Nay more to make his own matter good and that he may find out a way of his own whereby to hope well of all the infants of believers before baptism that they may be saved for let all other dying infants damn for him he cares not for harbouring any hope of them and finding no way but one whereby to help himself to any hope of those i. e. by feigning them to be of the visible church he fetches the visible church so far that he makes it larger then the number of visible baptized ones and holds all believers infants to be in the visible Church from the womb and though in the last page but two of his book he disputes against twice entring into the visible body he feigns them to enter first into the visible church when they first enter into the world besides and before their second first entrance into the visible Church by baptism I wonder whether he hold those believers infants to be of the visible Church or no that were once alive yet dy again in the womb But for all these flim-flames Mr. Ba. will once know I hope that the true visible church is no other then all those particular politicall assemblies in which baptized believers hold fellowship together and that to be a member of the visible church is to be a member of some political society or else how can such be ruld admonisht complained on to the church as Mat. 18. and excommunicated if need be in case of obstinacy if under no Ecclesiasticall Government and yet to hope well of the salvation of all infants that dy in infancy too without either baptism or visible membership in those visible societies And if he will not agree with me about it that the visible church is all the visible assemblies of Christians onely will he agree with Dr. Featley who defines the true visible church to be where the word is truly taught and the sacraments duly administred where therefore neither word is taught nor sacraments at all administred as to unbaptized infants I judge they are not nor baptized infants neither there 's no visible church Again the universal visible church that is saith he all the assemblies of Christians in the world the visible church and all the assemblies are adaequate with him at least therefore unbaptized infants cannot be of it for they were never entred into the assemblies but if Mr. Ba. will agree with neither of us we shall perswade him I hope to agree in this with Mr. Ba. for howbeit Mr. Ba. will needs reckon upon the very unbaptized infants of believers as not in right to the visible church onely but of it in it visible members of it as as soon as born for let him study his own book how oft does he beat upon that saying there is but two states for them to be in or members of the visible kingdome of the devil or the visible church of Christ but believers infants before baptism are not in the first therefore in the visible church of Christ though I say he speak of them as in the visible church before baptism as not knowing else how to hope their salvation if they dy without it yet if any man living do deny infants or any other to be of or in the visible church before or without baptism Mr. Ba. denies it with whom how often is it exprest that baptism is the first visible entrance into it Yea to say nothing of his own definition of the visible church p. 75. to be such as were baptized and continued together in fellowship in breaking bread and prayers which ought to conclude the whole church so defined unlesse he have defined it by the halves in his plea for the continuance of baptism against the seekers p. 342.343 he saies so and saies moreover that we must not admit any to be of the body without it that it is the appointed ordinary way of ingrafting all into the body that are ingrafted and p. 24.25 he saies baptism still is to be at and not after persons are stated in the Church at and not after our admission at and not after our igrafâ—ing and entrance into the visible Church making baptism and our first being in or of the visible church so
I freely do and every one must grant and therefore what is spoken by you in proof of that might well have been spared also that the bare submission to that outward dispensation of water is not that which simply of it self and abstract from the inward i. e. the answer of a good conscience doth save us must needs be granted also but what of this will it therefore follow that it is to be omitted and not made use of at all in reason surely it cannot be so assertter for as the bare outward hearing of the word without doing it will do us no good but rather hurt yet that outward hearing is an ordinance at no hand to be neglected but necessarily to be used in order to the doing of the word without which we had better never hear for we shall not save but deceive our own souls Iam. 1.22 and shall perish in the end Mat. 7.26 and as bare outward fellowship in breaking of bread is so far from saving that we eat and drink judgement to our selves unlesse withall we discern the Lords body and be pattakers of the thing signified and yet that outward service is needful to be performed so though water baptism doth not save us ex opero operato and unlesse it be answered within by the answer of a good conscience yet what consequence is there from hence that it need not be done at all neither doth Peter altogether exclude the putting away the filth of the flesh as not to be practised and place the business of baptism wholly in the answer of a good conscience as you here say he doth but rather places the baptism that saves in both these not in either without the other yea in that he saies thus baptism doth also now save us not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience he includes the baptism with water as that which is to be done but not to be rested in as available to salvation without the other Ranterist There is no man sent by Christ to baptize so that were I never so willing to be baptized yet there is none to baptize me for though it should be granted which neverthelesse is false and cannot be evinced out of the Scripture that the Apostles were sent to baptize with water yet this doth not warrant others to do so likewise unlesse they can prove that whatsoever was spoken to the Apostles was spoken to them and by this account they must go into all Nations and make them disciples having first stayed at Ierusalem till they have been indued with power from on high for both things are injoined to the Apostles by Christ. Baptist. That the Apostles were not sent to baptize in water in such a sense as Paul saies 1 Cor. 1. Christ sent not him to baptize in i. e. to dispense that ordinance necessarily with their own hands so but that when they had preacht and converted persons to the faith others might help â—o administer it I granted above but that they were not sent to preach the Gospel i. e. the baptism of faith and repentance for remission of sins among all Nations as far as they were capable and that baptism in water was not a part of that Gospel ministration which was committed to them to command all Nations to observe and to see dispensed on all that should be discipled therein this I utterly deny and the contrary to it is so clearly evinced in the word that he that runs may read it for either Christ commanded them Mat. 28. to teach baptizing not with the spirit but in water or else Peter miserably mistook his commission that in obedience thereto presses 1000â— of people at once enquiring what they should do to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus promising onely that so doing they should not from him surely but from Christ receive the holy spirit Act. 2.39 and also concerning a people that were already baptized with the spirit asks who can forbid water why these may not be baptized commanding them who were ready to hear no more then what was commanded him of God to deliver to them Act. 10.23 to be baptized in the name of the Lord and if by the Apostles you mean the eleven onely that were within hearing when Christ spake as t is to him that is not afraid of cold water undoubtedly true that these were so as undeniable it is that others were sent to baptize in water as well as they viz. Philip that baptized the Samaritans and Eunuch Paul that baptized so many of the Corinthians as he did and Ananias that baptized him or else they made and preacht a Gospel of their own heads another Gospel and not Christs which if they did they made more hast then good speed to themselves for such as teach for doctrines of Christ their own traditions and run before they are sent do both worship God in vain and shall neither of them have any thank from him for their labour and that what was spoken to those 11 Apostles themselves as to the point of baptism was spoken also to us even to such in all Nations as being once discipled are after that enabled from God to preach the Gospel is no lâ—sse evident then all the rest Matth. 28.19 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you among which water baptism was one v. 18. and whereas you say upon this account we must go into all nations and make them disciples who doubts but that t is our duty so to do to the utmost of our power and they could do no more for that 's commanded and baptism too to be observed to the end but for their staying at Ierusalem till they were indued with power from on high and beginning first to preach there that did concern them only as a special circumstance for that time not pertaining to the substance of the service nor required of all the Apostles themselves and administrators of baptism then for if it had Ananias Philip Paul began at the wrong end of their businesse when one of them began to preach the Gospel at Samaria the other at Damascus not going up to Ierusalem first Gal. 1.17 and if not of them why it should be of us I know not Neverthelesse as to the substance of that command I grant that every one is to tarry till he be indued more or lesse with power i. e. boldnesse wisdome knowledge utterance resolution self denyall c. before he goes out as Christs Messenger to preach to the nations but being so indued and furnished must out for ought I know among all people as he hath ability and occasion beginning at the place where he is and proceeding to spread the Gospel afar off if he find not work enough neerer home Ranterist Could it be proved as it cannot that there are some sent to baptize yet even then will it not follow that I and such as I am ought to be