yet done and on the contrary we have good ground to believe that the spiritual only is meant because it is the spiritual Baptism only which is called the Baptism of Christ in Scripture and is expresly distinguished from the Baptism of Iohn with Water and certainly the Baptism which Christ commanded was his own Baptism whereof he gave the Apostles charge to administer it as servants and instruments under him who made them Ministers of the Spirit and Power that was in him by whose Ministry others were partakers of the same But if I. A. his Argument hold good the spiritual Baptism is altogether excluded and the Apostles received no Authority to Administer the Baptism of the Spirit but only of Water and consequently they were no Minister of the Spirit for how could they Minister of the Spirit or the spiritual Baptism unless they received Authority so to do and where received they this Authority or Command if not when Christ said these words unto them Again if Christ had sent the Apostles to Baptize with Water then certainly he had sent Paul a Chief Apostle but Paul said Christ sent him not to Baptize to wit with Water But whereas I. A. doth alledge that Paul meaneth That Christ sent him not principally to Baptize I ask him Why doth he transgress his own Rule to go from the proper to the improper and unusual signification of the word not which is absolutely Negative and not Comparative and that without any urgeâ—t necessity but that of his own meer devising and that he saith Doubtless the Apostles did not Baptize without a Commission I Answer this is barely asserted without proof why might not Paul and others Baptize without a Commission to wit by a permission as well as he did Circumcise and did other things of the Law and that without any impuâ—â—tion of Will-worship Having thus Answered I. A. his Arguments I shall not need to answer his Objections or pretended refutation of our Arguments and that especially because some â— of them which he bringeth as our Arguments are not really ours and none of them he bringeth doth he fairly propose and therefore I shall refer the Reader to our other Treatises wherein our Arguments are more duly and fairly proposed without repâ—ating them here because of Brevity Only whereas he alledgeth we argue that Water-baptism is not meant Matth. 28. 19 20. because not expressed I say that Baptism with Water is not expressed nor by any true and just consequence is proved to be meant in Matth. 28. 19. and therefore we are not bound to believe that Water-baptism is there understood And I hope the intelligent and impartial Reader may see that I. A. hath not proved it to be so meant by all his endeavours and therefore not of his own mouth henceforth he is not to be believed As concerning I. A. his Fourth Section which is altogether concerning Infant-Baptism I might wave it because it proceeds upon a bare Supposition that is not proved viz. That Water-Baptism is a Gospel Precept And seeing the Controversie is most proper betwixt him and these called Anabaptists wherein we are little concerned I shall not insist to Answer every thing only I cannot but take notice of some of his most gross and impertinent Assertions and Proofs He alledgeth Baptism under the New Testament is succeeded in the room of Circumcision to this I may reply in his own language elsewhere He putteth the Plough â—before the Oxen because he supposeth still a thing without proof that Water-baptism is any New Testament Precept Again he alledgeth That Boptism with Water is come â—n the room of Circumcision because Paul saith Col. 2. 11 12. Our burial with Christ in Baptism is our Circumcision But he hath not proved that the Baptism there mentioned is Water-baptism where is his consequence for this And why doth he expound the Circumcision to be spiritual in that place and the Baptism outward and visible Is it not more proper to take them both spiritually and then his Argument doth wholly vanish And I find ask him Are all buried with Christ who are Bâ—ptized with Water if he say Not as he ought then surely the Water-baptism is not the Baptism there understood Another Argument of his is That because the Infants of Believers are probably partakers of Regeneration which is the thing sealed or signified that therefore they ought to be baptized with Water But this Argument proves as much that Infants should also have that called the Supper because Christ who was signified thereby doth as probably belong to Infants as Regeneration seeing none can have Regeneration without Christ and I would know what I. A. doth say to this or let him shew a reason why his Argument prove the one rather than the other And it seems that for that or the like reason Augustine and others of those called the Fathers were for giving that called the Supper to Infants as well as Water-baptism and in that respect was long ago really administred to them But seeing I. A. hath spent so much Paper on Water-baptism why saith he nothing to sprinkling of Infants why doth he not so much as attempt to prove that sprinkling with Water is or ever was the true form of Baptism with Water although the Question doth expresly mention it Thus we see how all along hitherto I. A. hath left the substance of the Queries unanswered CHAP. IX BEfore my Answer to I. A. his pretended Survey of the Sixth Query which is concerning that called the Sacrament of the Supper I shall premise these few particulars 1. That we do not deny but own and believe that all true Christians and Believers do eat of Christ's body and drink of his blood and that beyond or what is more than a figure or figurative Commemoration thereof to wit really and substantially yet so as spiritually and by Faith and not outwardly and with the outward or bodily mouth 2. Nor do we deny but that in all our Eatings and Drinkings we are to remember the Lords Death and so Eat with Holy Fear and Reverence and Thankfulness 3. And we deny not but that the night wherein he was betrayed he took Bread and brake it after Supper and having given Thanks he gave it unto his Apostles saying Take Eat this is my Body and likewise the Cup saying Drink ye all of it for as oft as ye Eate this Bread and Drink this Cup ye shew forth the Lords Death until he come So we grant he gave them a Commandment to do the like for sometime to come But that which is Queried is this Where is it called a Gospel Ordinance or standing Command of Christ unto the Worlds end to Eat Bread and Drink Wine after Supper in a peculiar and solemn way of Commemoration over and besides that which may and ought to be done every day And whereas Christ said Do this in remembrance of his Death till he come again It is Queried Was this coming to the end of
has died for those that perish absolutely or conditionally I Answer partly both first he hath so far died absolutely even for those as by his death and righteousness Grace is come upon them sufficient both to Faith and Salvation within their day of Grace which Grace is given them absolutely for that time and doth continue with them until the day of their Visitation be at an end and then it is taken away from them the Lord ceasing to strive with them any more for their Recovery Secondly I say Christ hath died conditionally even for those that perish that they might have been saved within their day upon the condition of their believing And whereas I. A. doth object That seeing the condition it self to wit Faith is the Gift of God then he either bestowes it upon them absolutely or conditionally if absolutely then Reprobates shall thereby be made Believers and so be saved if conditionally then the sense will be that God bestowes Faith in Christ upon Reprobates upon condition that they firâ—â— have Faith in him To which I Answer that Faith is indeed the Gift of God and God is willing to bestow it upon them and work it in them not upon the condition of their first believing before he give them to believe which I confess would imply a contradiction but the condition on which God is willing to work Faith in them is if they do not finally resist his Spirit of Grace having offered Faith unto all men which moveth and draweth or inclineth them to believe for to every one that doth not resist the motion of Gods Spirit of Grace he giveth Faith and worketh it in them And though men cannot actually do any thing that is good or acceptable unto God before they believe yet when the Visitation of God's Grace is upon them by the help thereof they may cease from resisting the Spirit of God and whereas I have heard it again urged by others Either God willeth that men should not resist the Spirit of Grace absolutely or conditionally if absolutely then say they men shall not resist it for what God willeth absolutely must certainly come to pass if conditionally then the Argument may be renewed concerning that condition and so without end To this also I Answer that God willeth absolutely that men should nâ—t or dâ— not resist his Spirit of Grace for seeing God commandeth that men do not resist it is evident that it is the absolute or positive will of God that they do not for whatever God commandeth is according to his wiâ—l But it doth not follow that whatever God willeth men to do that must certainly be done for how often do men act contrary to the Will of God in some sense although when they do so act it is not without his permissive will whereby he suffers them so to do Indeed I gâ—ant that whatever God willeth that he do himself that must certainly be done and it cannot be resisted and therefore when God punisheth the disobedient it being his own act of Justice and proceeding from his own holy and just will it cannot be resisted in that respect I have the more largely Answered this Objection because it is judged by many of the Adversary side to be unanswerable But I hope by what is said the Impartial Reader who loveth Truth may perceive that there is indeed no strength in it and it is so far from being a clear demonstration that it is nothing else but a Captious Sophism and Fallacy Moreover whereas I. A. classeth us with the Arminians and Iesuits for holding this Doctrine That Christ Died for all men I Answer seeing both Arminians and Iesuits profess to hold many other Doctrines which I. A. doth also profess as that there is one God and one Lord Jesus Christ it is no just ground of reproach to us to own that Doctrine which the Scripture doth own although Arminians and Iesuits profess to own that also But it is the greater shame to I. A. and his party who profess to be more Orthodox to be guilty in denying that which Adversaries confess we find that not only wicked men but the Devils also confessed unto Christ which yet is no reproach unto Christ nor to the true Confessors of him And lastly whereas I. A. pretendeth to Answer our Arguments For Christ his dying for all men Some of them he doth not fairly represent and others being some places of Scriptures he doth only Answer by giving us his private meanings of his own private Spirit without any convincing reason of those places of Scripture which we are no wise bound to receive And at best all his Answers proceed upon a bare Supposition that his own Principle is true which is a common Fallacy called in the Schools Petitio Principii which is to say A begging of the Question CHAP. XV. IN my Answer to I. A. his pretended Survey of the 14 th Query I purpose to use the same way as in the former viz. To lay down some Propositions which may sufficiently Answer to any thing he objects against the Universality of the saving Light and Grace of God unto all men and in so doing I shall both save my self and the Reader the pains â—o follow him in every Trivial thing that is objected PROP. 1. In the Question concerning the Universality of Gods Grace sufficient to Salvation it were altogether wisdom in our Adversaries to forbear pressing so hard in that point and so positively conclude against us and not us only but the Scripture it self That many Nations or Kingdoms of the World are utterly excluded from all sufficiency of Saving Grace and possibility of Salvation and that upon the account of wanting the Gospel outwardly preached unto them and benefit of the Scriptures Do we not read in Scripture That God hath given the Heathens to his Son for his Inheritance and the uttermost ends of the Earth for his possession And doth not Christ invite the most remote and desolate places of the Earth to come unto him saying Look unto me all ye ends of the Earth and be ye saved Mark it is not said some ends of the Earth but all ye ends of the Earth even as well those to whom the outward Testimony of Christ by the Scriptures is not come as those to whom it is come And did not Christ command That the Gospel should be preached to all Nations even those that wanted the Scriptures Testimony and therefore the Gospel did belong unto them even so to speak before it was outwardly Preached uâ—to them for because it did belong unto them therefore was it to be Preached unto them and consequently for the same reason the Gospel doth belong to many at this day to whom it is not as yet outwardly Preached and did not Paul say Rom. 1. 14. That he was a Debter both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians as concerning the Gospel And how can I. A. or any of his party who dispute so fiercely against all possibility
accusing us as being against all external Ordinances because the Query insinuates That such who are come into Death with Christ need not Bread and Wine to put them into remembrance of his Death from whence he most unjustly inferreth his consequence that we reject all outward helps and means whatsoever But doth not I. A. know that his own brethren acknowledge there is no absolute necessity of using that called the Supper so as none can be saved but such as paâ—take of it and the like may be said of any outward helps when people cannot have them But yet we say still whatever outward thing God hath Commanded us to use be it never so small or mean is in that respect both necessary and profitable unto us for there is none of God's Commands but they bring along with them a real advantage to mens Souls but I. A. hath not as yet proved it that using Bread and Wine as aforesaid is any Gospel Command Another abuse of his is that he alledgeth We reject the said practise of taking the Bread and Wine from a conceited perfection which is false for as we do not boast of our perfections so we do not reject that customâ— because of any perfection that some of us may become unto beyond others but because we cannot find it to be any Gospel Precept and therefore we cannot acknowledge it either to be necessary or profitable to the weakest Another thing he quarrelleth in the Query is That it makes to dye with Christ and to come to the Death with him all one And here he insults not a little in his knowledge of Philosophy above the Quakers for a meer Grammaticism of saying to for into which perhaps was only a fault in the Transcriber and yet we find commonly that to and into are indifferently used to signifie one thing as to come to Town is all one as to come into it and to come to Christ is all one as to come into him and when Christ said Come unto me he did certainly mean that they were to come into him Hence we read of the Saints being in Christ. And if this be I. A. his Philosophy so to quarrel at words proper enough and according to Scripture let the judicious and sober Reader judge whether some of our Friends that called his Philosophy Foolosophy had not ground so to do And whether he has not discovered more folly than true Philosophy from first to last in his Book against us In his Answer to the reason hinted in the Query from Paul's words to seek the things that are above and the things that are seen are temporal he still beggeth the Question That the outward observation of Bread and Wine is a mean which God hath appointed for the attaining the things above And in Opposition to his Assertion let him read what Paul saith Col. 2. 17. where he putteth meaâ— and drink in together with the new Moons and other legal Observations which he calleth A shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ. And seeing I. A. acknowledgeth that the Bread and Wine are but external signs and not the real body of Christ I ask him wherein then differ they from Shadows And if they be Shadows they are no part of the Gospel Dispensation according to Paul's Doctrine In the close of his pretended Survey to this Sixth Query he chargeth us most rashly and uncharitably as being related to the accuser of the Brethren as if the writer of the Queries had positively charged all the Ministers of Scotland that they never intended their Hearers should come any nearer to Christs Death than a bare Historical remembrance thereof But doth not I. A. know that to Query a thing is one and positively to conclude it far another And the Enquirer had ground so to Query because he understands that if it were the care of Preachers to bring people into the Death with Christ so as to be Crucified with him they would not plead so much for upholding a Figure or Shadow of Christ's Death to put them in remembrance of it when to suffer and die with Christ is much more effectual to remember them Nor Secondly would they plead so much for carrying a body of sin about with them while they live and that all must be under a necessity of sinning daily in Thought Word and Deed yea in whatever thay think speak or do for such a state is not consistent with a being Dead and Crucified with Christ. And Thirdly If it were their work to bring people to dye with Christ they would turn them to the Light of Christ in their Hearts and Preach it to be unto them of a saving Nature and an effectual mean to obtain the said Death with Christ which yet they do not but on the contrary deny it as meerly natural insufficient And is it not too apparent that the far greatest number of your Church Members know nothing more of Christ's Death than the History of it And whether the fault of this lye not in a very great part upon the Preachers is no small nor impertinent Question And seeing I. A. pretends so much to Scripture Rule I shall ask him a few Queries more upon the former Head First What Scripture hath he and his Brethren to call that eating of Bread and drinking of Wine once or twice in a year in the Pubâ—â—ck Assembly the Sacrament 2. What Scripture have they to instruct them how oft they should use it as once twice or four times in every year And if they have none was it not then left to people according to the Query at least as to the time 3. What Scripture have they for consecrating it or when did Christ say Before ye eat it consecrate it 4. When did Christ give only the power to a Priest or Presbyter or Ordamed Minister to Consecrate it so as without the said Consecration by some Priest or Ordained Minister it is no Sacrament And seeing every Christian may eat it as well as the Minister why may he not also consecrate it as well as he seeing every true Chrisâ—ian is a Priest 5. Where did Christ appoint that these words Take Eat this is my body should be the words of consecration and have ye not received all this from the Papists and not from Christ 6. Seeing ye commonly say that this Sacraâ—â—â—â— of the Supper is come in the room of the Passoâ—er and under the Law every Family had power without a Priest to celebrate the Passover why hath not also every Family under the Gospel 〈◊〉 much power without any Ordained Priest or Minister to celebrate that called the Supper 7. Seeing every true Christian feeds daily by Faith upon the body of Christ according to the Protestant Doctrine and ought daily to remember the Death of Christ in all their eating and drinking which is also sanctified unto them by the Word of God and Prayer what peculiar vertue or efficacy hath your sacramental eating more than ordinary eating
when done with godly Fear Prayer and Thansgiving and remembring the Lords Death 8. Seeing it is clear from Luke 22. 17 18 19 20. that Christ did take the cup twice once before he gave them the bread and once after bidding them do the same why take ye the cup but once was this only a bare circumstance 9. Is not the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 10. 15 16 17. to be understood of quite another Bread and Cup than that which is visible and outward when he saith I speak as to wise men judge ye what I say did he not say this because he was to speak of the Bread and Cup in the mysterie as it was altogether a spiritual and invisible thing to wit the real body and blood of Christ spiritually received which none but the spiritually wise could understand The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communiâ—n of the blood of Christ The bread which we Break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ For we being many are one Bread for we aâ—e all paâ—takerâ— of that one Bread Is it not clear from all this that Paul speaks not of any visible and corruptible Bread but of Christ himself as he is spiritually and invisibly received by Faith whom he calls the same spiritual meat and drink which the Father 's received of old see the same Chapter Verse 3 4. 10. Do any receive the Supper of the Lord or Sup with the Lord but such as open to him and hear his voice according to Rev. 3. 20. And is not this Supper or Supping with the Lord altogether inward spiritual and invisible Now whereas I. A. doth alledge that the Querist hath mistaken the second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians for the first because hâ— citeth these words in the second Epistle For the things that are seen are but temporal but the things which are not seen are eternal I Answer that the Apostle Paul writeth to the same purpose in the first Epistle and that much more clearly calling Christ the spiritual Meat and Drink as he is spiritually and invisibly received by Faith CHAP. X. J. A. in his pretended Survey of the seventh Query which is concerning the Sabbath-day alledgeth That the fourth Commandment requireth to keep Holy unto God one day of seven and seeing that fourth Commandment is Moral it extends to all Ages of the World But in Answer to this as that the fourth Commandment required one day in seven so it expresly mentions that day to be the seventh and not any one other of the seven for the said fourth Commandment did plainly bind the Iews to the seventh day which was not lawful for them to change to the first And whereas I. A. alledgeth That the Accomodation to the particular time or Diet to the last day of the Week is indeed Abrogated but not the substance of the Command By this he quite overturneth his former Assertion That the fourth Commandment was simply Moral for if it was simply Moral nothing of the least Circumstance of it could be Abrogated But some of I. A. his Brethremâ—are more wary and considerate who say The fourth Commandment was partly Moral and partly Ceremonial The Ceremonial part of it was that it tyed to the seventh day the Moral part of it was and is partly that it requires some competent time to be appointed for the Worship of God both private and publick laying aside all Worldly occasions for that time as well out of our Minds as hands without tying to any limited day of seventh or sixth And partly again in respect of its Spiritual signification for the outward Sabbath of the Iews was a Type or Shadow of Christ in whom all True Believers find rest to their Souls from all their heavy Labours and Toils and that Christ is the thing signified by the Sabbath is clear from Coloss. 2. 16 17. Again that neither I. A. nor his Brethren hold the first day of the Week in that strickness of a Sabbath as the fourth Commandment required is clear because the said fourth Commandment required That in it they should not do any work which elsewhere in Scripture is more particularly set down That they were not to kindle a Fire on the Sabbath and he that gathered sticks on the Sabbath-day was to be stoned to Death All which proveth that the Sabbath of the Iews was Typical and consequently that the Morallity of it was principally its Spiritual signification as it did hold forth Christ no less than the other Types and Figures But I. A. alloweth people to kindle a Fire on that day and to Boil and Roast Meat as plentifully as on other days if he be of his Brethrens mind who commonly Feast on that day and have a larger Table than at other times And although I. A. undertake the Vindication of the Church in Brittain yet he cannot be ignorant that the greatest part of his Episcopal Brethren were and are of another mind viz. That the keeping of the First day of the Week is no Moral Command else they would never have allowed Playes and Markets to be kept on that day And Calvin whose Opinions I. A. followeth but too much in other things did not hold That the keeping of the first day was any Command of God but simply that the Church had agreed to it to meet on that day And he saith plainly They might have chused another day as well as that Now the Query saith That the Saints did meet together this is Scripture so we acknowledge that the Saints did meet together on the first day of the Week and so we do according to their example and also we acknowledge that some considerable part of our life time is to be set apart for the solemn Worship and Service of God and this not only the Scripture Testimony but the Law of God in our hearts doth require And we further judge that rather more of our time is to be given to the Service of God solemnly seâ— apart from all worldly occasions now under the New Testament and that Servants and Beasts may have rest for God requireth that mercy be shewn to them also than was formerly under the Law by vertue of the fourth Commandment And therefore we have Meetings and other times of Retirement at other times of the Week than on the first day As also we do generally abstain from Bodyly Labour on the first day of the Week although we cannot call it the Christian Sabbath for that were to put it in the room of Christ But what abuse and profanity is it to pretend to set apart a day only for the Service of God and yet to spend it worse than any other day of the Week for most part to wit in Idle Communications Playes and Drinking as too many of I. A. his Brethren openly do And now let us see further what I. A. doth alledge for the first day of the Week its being appointed to be kept for a Sabbath One