of Redemption Mark 16.1.2 2. On this day our Lord graciously and frequently appeared unto his Disciples Ioh. 20.19 3. On this day our Lord declared himself to be the Son of GOD with Power Rom. 1.4 4. On this day our Lord plentifully poured his Spirit upon his Apostles for Penticost or the fifthtieth day from the Passover is computed to have fallen out that year on this day Act. 2.1.2 Thus it is apparent that the first day of the week may beyond other dayes be peculiarly termed the Lords day To this may be subjoyned the observation of famous Beza who observes out of an ancient Greek Manuscript wherein the first day of the week is expresly called the Lords day Now this day being called the Lords it imports that the Lord is the authour and instituter of it this tittle as I remember the Lords is in the New Testament attributed but to two things namely to the Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now the Supper is called the Lords because he did institute and appoint it and so the day is called the Lords because Christ is the authour and appointer of it and therefore in keeping this day we walk obediently to the fourth Command which requires on day to be observed as a Sabbath which the Lord appointeth we then keep this day because it is a day instituted and appointed by the Lord. Neither must those two expressions the day of the Lord and the Lords day be confounded for all dayes wherein GOD executeth judgement upon sinners are dayes of the Lord Amos 5.18.20 But the Lords day mentioned Revel 1. is but one which at that time was known to the Churches to be the first day of the week Ignatius who lived in Iohns time speaking of this day saith Omnis Christi amator Dominicum celebret diem Reginam Principem dierum omnium that is let every one that loveth Christ keep holy the Lords day which is the Queen and Empress of all dayes Whereas page 61. 62. he insinuats that every day even all the dayes of our life are to be given up unto the Lord and spent in his service Answer It is true we ought daily to be employed in the worship and service of GOD But as this will not inferre that every day is to be keeps as a sabbath which must be wholly consecrated to the service of GOD so it makes nothing against the keeping of a weekly sabbath for the Jews before Christ were bound every day to serve GOD and yet they were tyed to the observance of a weekly Sabbath Thus my former charge is still made good against Quakers that it is for the inventions of men but the ordinances of Jesus Christ which they disowne HEAD XIV Concerning Original Sin which Quakers deny He affirmeth page 62. That the thing which we intend by original sin is not expressed in scripture Ans Is it not expressed in Scripture that there is corruptiō and sin in us from our conception and birth And this is that which we intend by original sin for this the Scripture is plaine Ioh. 3.6 that which is born of the flesh is flesh intimating that men by their natural birth are corrupt and fleshly Job speaking of mans birth uttereth these words who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean Job 14.4 David acknowledged that corruption and sin wherewith he was defiled from his conception Psalm 51.5 He saith the thing that we intend by original sin is that all infants are sinners before GOD onely for Adams sin Answer It seemeth he is not well acquainted with our Doctrine about original sin It is true we assert and with good warrand that Infants are guilty of Adams sin for in Adam all die and therefore in him all have sinned 1. Cor. 15.22 And though Adams first sin may be called original sin yet we distinguish of original sin it being either imputed or inherent Original sin imputed is the disobedience of Adam which is imputed to his posterity Rom. 5.19 by one mans disobedience many were made sinners Original sin inherent is that hereditary inbred corruption which we brought with us into the world and this is conveyed and derived to Infants from their immediat Parents in sin did my mother conceive me Page 63. He denyeth that the guilt of Adams first sin lyes at the door of Infants who never actually sinned Answer The Apostle confutes the Quaker Rom. 5.12 Where first he sheweth that by one man namely Adam sin came into the world Secondly That death entered the world by sin Thirdly That death i. e. lyableness to death passed upon all Fourthly The reason why death which came by the sin of one man passed upon all for that all have sinned so that Infants are not exempted from the guilt of that one mans sin which will be further clear if it be considered that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wil bear in whom thus it is varied on the margin of our books and so Beza renders it and they who are well skilled in the Greek think this the best reading Now it is onely one of three things that can be alledged for the antecedent of this relative in whom either sin or death or that one man but it is not sin for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred sin cannot answere the Greek relative because they are of different genders neither is it death as the Quakers pretend for what sense is it to say in which death all have sinned This is an improper speach It was long since observed that in peccato moriuntur homines non in morte peccant men dye in sin they are not said to sin in death and therefore this in whom hath reference to that one man namely Adam in him all without exception of Infants have sinned Object It is plaine that sin is not imputed to Infants for the Apostle saith Rom. 5.13 sin is not imputed where there is no Law now Infants are not capable of a Law Answer Infants may be considered in respect of their own persons or in respect of their representative now though Infants as to their owne proper persons be not capable of a law for they cannot discerne between their right hand and their left yet their representative was capable of a law Yea to Adam the representative of all mankind a law was actually given and this will serve to answer the Quakers two other Objections 1. Object Why should Infants be guilty of Adams sin and not of the sin of their other forefathers Answer The reason is because Adam is to be lookt upon not as a single individual person but as a publick universall person Now that Adam was a publick person representing mankind is evident from the miserable event of his sin which made not onely himself obnoxious to death but likewise his Posterity descending from him in an ordinary way Rom. 5.12 Yea such of his Posterity have come under death as never actually sinned in their
fourth Command instance in the seventh day that is for number yet it speaketh not precisely of the seventh day in order from the creation It is said six dayes shalt thou labour but the seventh is the Sabbath mark the seventh is the Sabbath the Lord saith not the seventh from the creation It is likewise worthy special observation to consider the preceptive and the benedictive part of the fourth Command or the beginning and conclusion of it In the beginning it is said Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy In the conclusion it is said Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it observe the phrase not seventh day but Sabbath day is blessed so that the fourth Command neither begins nor ends with that terme the seventh day but with that of the Sabbath day which is an evidence that the designe of this Command is not to bind the Church to a precise keeping of the seventh day from the creation for there is no express mention of that day in all the fourth Command the maine intendment therefore of the fourth Command is to prescribe a seventh day to be keept holy after six dayes labour which GOD appointeth And this to the People of GOD under the Old Testament was the seventh day of the week it being appointed by GOD in the first institution of the Sabbath Gen. 2 3. but to us it is the first day of the week the Sabbath being translated and changed to this day by divine authority as will afterwards appear 1. Object The keeping of one day of the week for a Sabbath is not perpetual but abolished Coloss 2.16.17 let no man judge you in meat or drink or in respect of a holy day or new Moon or of the Sabbath dayes Answer Here the Apostle opposeth ceremonial ordinances but not Gospel institutions Indeed the Old Anabaptists and Familists with whom Quakers go along they urged this text against all difference of dayes under the Gospel though the Apostles onely designe be to decry the several sorts of dayes which were in use among the Jews of which he gives an observable enumeratiō proceeding from their yearlie holy dayes to their monethlie new Moons and from them to their weeklie Sabbaths so that granting the weekly Sabbath to be here taken in yet it maketh nothing against the Christian Sabbath but against the old seventh day Sabbath 2. Object Rom. 14.6 plainlie holdeth forth all dayes to be alike Answer What was said before serveth to clear this Scripture it speaketh of ceremonial daies of such dayes as are in the rank with ceremonial meats and therefore opposeth not the moral weekly Sabbath 3. Object Gal. 4.10.11 Ye observe daies and moneths times and years I am affraid of you Ans There is a twofold observation of dayes moral and ceremonial now the Apostle speaketh not against the former but the latter he would not have Jewish times such a their Sabbatical yeares their annual feasts their monethlie feasts called new Moons their weeklie seventh day which is probably thought to be included in that clause ye observe dayes to be observed which the Jewish false teachers cryed up but he was far from crying down the fourth Command which is no less binding then the rest of the Decalogue it being delivered in the same majestick manner pressed with the same severitie and written by the same finger of GOD and put into the same Ark with the rest He that said Thou shalt not commit adulterie Thou shalt not steal said likewise Remember the Sabbath day keep it holy and therefore if persons take upon them to sacrifice this Command to their wild fancies they need not spare the other Commands And in very deed the Commands of GOD are little beholden either to Papists or Quakers for Papists reject the second Command and Quakers give the same usage to the fourth And this puts me in mind of a Story I have heard concerning an Honest Countrey-man who travelling on the rod there were two who denyed the Sabbath came up to him upon a designe to try his knowledge the question they propounded was concerning the number of the Commands the well meaning man knew the persons and shapt an answer sutable to their principles telling them there were eight Cōmands whereupon the Querists made sport and upbraided the poor man with his profession and his ignorance but he gravely replyed that the scripture indeed spake of ten Commands Deut. 4.13 but they had taken away one Command and the Papists another so that between them they had brought the Commands from ten to eight In his answer to Matth. 24.20 where Christ intimats the continuance of a Sabbath He saith that Sabbath is neither here nor else where said to be the first day of the week Answer Though there be no express mention in this place of the first day of the week yet in that it proves the continuance of a Sabbath it overthrowes the Quakers opinion who would be levelling all dayes making them alike And it is to be remarked that Christ was come into the world relateth the sad things which were to befal his Disciples after he was ascended to the Father and yet even then a Sabbath was in being He addeth page 60. That as the outward Jew ma◠not be put to fly on his outward Sabbath so the inward Jew desireth much more that he may keep hi◠Sabbath which is his spiritual rest in Christ Heb 4.9 Answer The Apostle in this chapter speaketh of a rest which Believers onely enter into And sheweth 1. That this rest is not the rest of the Sabbath verse 4. 2. That it is not the rest of the Land of Canaan verse 8. If Jesus that is Joshua had given them rest then would he not have spoken o◠another rest It followeth then that the rest which Believers onely shall enter into is the rest of Heaven verse 9. there remains therefore a rest for the people of GOD. Now because there is an eternal rest promised to the Believing obedient people of GOD saith this any thing why they should not observe one day of seven as a Sabbath unto the Lord Oh the conscientious keeping of the Sabbath is a comfortable evidence of those that shal be admitted to this rest SECT II. The first day of the Week is set a part for the Service of GOD by Divine Authority He addeth If we have the same authority for keeping the first day of the week as the Jews had for keeping their day then let it be produced Answer It was produced before but he would not see it however for the sake of others we shal cōsider again that Scripture Rev. 1.10 I was in the Spirit on the Lords day Now that by the Lords day is meant the first day of the week will be clear if we advert that there are peculiar grounds why this day is singularly to be called the Lords day beyond other dayes Because 1. on this day our Lord arose and ceased from the work
and the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets The Quakers themselves have not many speakers for at times they sit dumbe as if silence could promote their mutual edification Was this the Churches way Or the custome of the Apostles and primitive Christians Certainly this hemlock or invention hath sprung up since their late apostacy from the Truth Secondly They will not have the Scriptures called their Masters letter no forsooth their Masters letter is written in their hearts and there they are to find it neither is their Master seperated from them as those who use to write letters to servants to set them on work But is not Christ as much seperate from Quakers as from the seven Churches of Asia Or was he not as near those Famous Churches as them And yet they had letters sent to them from their great LORD and Master to direct them in their duty Revel 1.11 I am Alpha and Omega and what thou seest write in a book and send it unto the seven Churches which are in Asia Now will ye observe how much these persons bend their strength to evacuate the authority of the Scriptures For they say GOD requires us to do all our work by immediat counsel and direction as if by the outward command contained in the Scriptures GOD did not require any work of them yea they will not allow the Scripture precepts the name of Commands but call them the outward testimony and signification of the Command which as they say they regaird in its place that is onely when they have an inward command and so while this inward command is wanting through their neligence in waiting all that time the Scripture loseth its authority and is of no use to them Is this to regard the Scriptures Doth it not tend to forward and confirme negligent Atheists in their contemptuous slighting and undervaluing of the Scriptures Oh! that all such would read and tremble at the reading of Ioh. 12.48 he that receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him the word that I have spoken the same shal judge him at the last day Thirdly They preferre their silent waiting to the reading of the Scriptures as if we must first come to this ere we can know the Scriptures aright Now they should prove which is not so much as touched upon that their way of waiting is a meane appointed by GOD for right understanding of the Scriptures or profitable speaking concerning them Waiting in their notion is Apocriphal not warranted by any Scripture Some of them have defined it to be a silent posture of the heart without thinking good or evil It seemeth to me no better then mispēt time to be employed in seeking such a posture of heart the heart is such a stirring working thing that if it be not upon good it will be busie enough in evil as may be found in our daily experience According to Scripture faith patience and hope must be exercised in waiting Psal 40.1 Lam. 3.26 and can we be in the exercise of these graces without thinking good or evil What an odd conceit is this Fourthly Lest they should seeme to be too great enemies to the Scriptures they confess it to be their desire to try Doctrines by the Scriptures Ans If this be their desire indeed how is it then that one of the Quakers seeing a Religious woman in this Town with a Bible in her hand told her she might as well read a Latine book as that Book And why is it that they do not desire their hearers to bring their Bibles that so they may the better discerne whether the doctrines taught at their meetings be answerable to the Scriptures But happily they think not this convenient lest their juglings should be found out And I must tell the Gentle-man that though he charge us with jugling that the Quakers have been suspected from their first rise as notable juglers which R. Farmer in his Mystery of ungodlyness sheweth by this instance saith he it is usual for Quakers to say they owne the Scriptures yea we confirme and establish the Scriptures and witness the Scriptures Now saith he an honest-man that means plainly would think they believed the Scriptures to be the written Word of GOD and the rule of a Christian to walk by in things to be believed and practised But saith he these persons play the deceivers not using words in that sense they are usually understood they meane otherwise they say in express words else where the Scriptures are not the Saints rule of knowing God and living to him And indeed these are the words of one C. Atkinson a Quaker see his book called the sword of the Lord furbished in answere to the Ministers first principle and a little after he insinuats that to affirme the Scriptures to be the rule is to put darkness for light and light for darkness Now let all unbyassed persons judge whether these men put the Scriptures in their true place SECT II. Proving the Scriptures to be the Word of GOD. He addeth page 26. That every declaration of a mans mind is not his word for signs may be a declaration of his mind Ans Though a dumb man may declare his mind by signs yet this maketh nothing against the Scriptures being the word of God which are such a declaration of Gods mind as he uttered and spake If any thing can be accounted the proper word of one that must be it which he utters and speaks Now the Truths the Commands and Precepts contained in the Scriptures were uttered and spoken by God Exod. 20.1 And God spake all these words c. He saith people usually distinguish between a mans word and his write Ans True For they call the one verbum dictum a word spoken and the other verbum scriptum a word written but can it be inferred from this that the Scriptures are not the Word of GOD which he hath committed to writting for the good of his Church and People He saith the Word of GOD is like unto himself spiritual yea spirit and life and therefore cannot be read with the external senses Ans The Word of GOD is twofold 1. There is the coessential coeternal word namely JESUS CHRIST who is one with the Father this Word properly cannot be read though we may and do read of it 2. There is the Spiritual Word the temporal expressed Word or the Word written in time now the external senses may be employed in reading this Word He saith that these scriptures Hos 1.1 Joel 1.1 Esay 38.4 are understood of that word from which the scriptures were given forth Ans It is not denyed that the Lord spake by the Prophets and was the authour of giving forth the scriptures but yet that word of the Lord which came to the Prophets is not mean'd of the Word made flesh as Quakers would have it but of the mind and message of the Lord contained in Scripture Ieremiah 14.1 the word of the Lord that came to
do was to administer the outward Element but Christ could give the spirit by means of the outward Baptism so that Iohn here depresseth himself advanceth Christ it being Christ alone who bestoweth what the outward Baptism signifieth I indeed have baptized you with water but he shal baptize you with the Holy Ghost He saith they agree not in the end for the end of Iohns Baptism was but to point and shew forth the other as the end of the shadow is to point to the substance Ans The Scripture speaking of Iohns Baptism calleth it the Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins Mark 1.4 intimating that its end was to signify and seale remission of sin which likewise is the end of Christs Baptism Act. 2.38 Now Iohns Baptism and Christs agreeing not onely in the Authour but also in the matter and end this proveth thar there is no substantial difference between them Object They differ in substance for it is written Act. 19 2.3.4.5 that there were of the Baptism of Iohn who had not so much as heard of the Holy Ghost Answer The meaning is not that they heard not of the person of the Holy Ghost being Disciples and Believers they could not be totally ignorant of this doubtless they were acquainted with the Scriptures and from thence they could not but know that there was a Holy Ghost But the thing they were ignorant of was the visible miraculous and extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost which then flourished in the Church and yet were not common to all that were Baptized Act. 8.15.16 they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost for as yet he was fallen upon none of them onely they were baptized in the Name of the LORD JESUS The Apostle did not anew baptize those persons that had been baptized with the Baptism of Iohn onely he gave a right explanation of Iohns Baptism and then laid hands on them upon which followed the gifts of the Holy Ghost viz speaking with tongues and prophesying verse 6. SECT II. Shewing that Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of CHRIST and to be continued in the Church He addeth That where Christ commands his Disciples to baptize Matth. 28. there is no command to baptize with water Answ The subsequent practise of the Apostles may satisfy sober persons that Christs command had reference to baptizing with water Can there be a better comment upon the command then Apostolical practise And it is observable that when Philip had preacht Christ to the Eunuch and it would seeme had informed him of the ordinance of Baptism however it is sure the knowledge of it he had immediatly upon the sight of water he desired to be baptized Act. 8.37 see here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized And that command of Christs Matth. 28. to his Apostles as it doth not expresly speake of Baptism with water so neither of Baptism with the spirit and therefore if the Quaker exclude the one he may likewise exclude the other Object It is said baptize into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and this is Baptism with the spirit Answ This is affirmed but without proof The Name of GOD hath various acceptations and how doth he make good that it is taken here in his sense and not any other way If by baptizing into the Name of GOD he meane regenerating of men making them just and holy like GOD Then I say this was commanded before when our Lord said go teach or disciple all nations doth not this imply an endeavour to make them holy and righteous And therefore if Baptizing them into the Name of GOD import the same thing this would inferre a needless tautology in the command of Christ which the GOD of wisdom will not owne in so short a summe of words He addeth page 50. That Peters words in baptizing Cornelius after he had received the spirit imply no command Ans Is it not totidem verbis in plaine terms said he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of the LORD Act 10.48 and the Scripture phrase of doing a thing in the Name of the LORD is as much as doing it at his command and by authority and warrand from him Matth. 18.20 Where two or three are gathered together in my Name that is in obedience to my command there am I in the midst of them Object That the Apostles received no commission to baptize with water is clear from that of Paul where he saith I thank GOD I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius and the houshold of Stephanus for I was not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel 1. Cor. 1. Answer If the Apostle had no commission to baptize with water how was it then that he thus baptized some He would not have done this of his own head and self-will Paul should have sinned in baptizing any at all without commission and therefore we gather that he was sent indeed to Baptize but his principal mission was to Preach and this is not an adding to Scripture but the true meaning of it which will be further cleare by comparing it with Hos 6.6 for I desired mercy and not sacrifice Now it is certaine that sacrifice was a thing that GOD required but mercy was the principal thing it was not so much sacrifice as mercy that GOD called for Even so Christ sent Paul not so much to Baptize as to Preach he sent him principally to Preach as being a more principal work The Quakers instance about worshipping of Images is altogether impertinent the Religious worshipping of them more or less is absolutly forbidden But Paul had not such an absolute prohibition as to baptizing with water otherwise he had not adventured upon the baptizing of any He saith That Scripture Matth. 28.19 relateth to the Baptism of the Spirit and not to Baptism with Water Arsw Because this is the maine Scripture that the continuance of VVater Baptism is grounded upon it will be needful to clear that by Baptism here is intended not the Baptism of the spirit but Baptism with water For making out of which two things are to be remarked 1. That the Baptism here mentioned is held forth to be the action of the Apostles hence Christ said to them go and teach all Nations Baptizing them Now to baptize with the Spirit is spoken of as the peculiar action of Christ to ascribe to men a power of Baptizing with the Spirit is to attribute to them what is peculiar to Christ Matth. 3.11 he that cometh after me is mightyer then I he shal baptize with the Holy Ghost 2. The Baptism of the spirit is a sanctifying renewing operation of the spirit in and upon the heart Now if this Baptism were here intended then the duty commanded should be confounded with the promise for the promise is I will be with you that is by the assistance presence and powerful operation of my spirit accompanying your labours making them effectual upon
the hearts of people so that understanding the words of the Baptism of the spirit there should be a confounding of the duty commanded with the mercy and blessing promised therfore the Baptism which Christ coÌ„manded is Baptism with Water as is verified by the Apostles practise which is to continue as the Preaching of the word unto the end of the world Page 51. He undertaketh to elude the Scriptures cited by me as holding forth the excellent end and uses of Baptism the first was Act. 2.28 To this he saith that here is no mention of outward water Ans Neither is there mention of outward water 1 Cor. 1.16.17 and yet be grants that baptizing there hath reference to water 2. He saith that repentance and remission of sins may be and are found without water Baptism Ans Therefore Baptism with water is not absolutly necessary to salvation which we readily yeeld 3. He saith where Baptism with water is both these are frequently wanting Answ Ergo the Papists are in an errour who affirme that Baptism doth ex opere operato conferre grace Second Scripture is 1. Pet. 3.21 To this he saith that the words following clear the meaning not to be water Baptism not the putting away of the filth of the flesh Answ These words do indeed manifest that Baptism of it self is not available unto salvation and so the Popish opus operatum is struck at as if by the meer receiving of Baptism grace were conveyed The like may be said to what he alledges in answering the other Scriptures viz. Act. 22.6 Ephes 5.26 Gal. 3.7 in all which he proceedeth upon a wrong supposition as if we thought that Baptism of it self or by any force of the outward element of water were effectual to cleanse the soul and to work grace and regeneration Now this is far from our thoughts who make the efficacy of it to be onely the power and operation of the Holy Ghost accompanying the ordinance in the right use of it He addeth that Baptism with water is but a figure which was to give place to that one Baptism Epes 4.5 Answer This one Baptism was the Baptism which Christ commanded and it hath been cleared that this Baptism was Baptism with water so that that one Baptism cannot be called the substance and Baptism with water the shadow seeing they are the same thing and therefore it remaineth that baptism with water is an ordinance of Christ and the Lord concurring with it a profitable meane to further our Salvation And whereas he reflects upon our baptizing of Infants and the manner â—f it it must be adverted that the quarrel betwixt Quakers and us is not whether Baptism belong to Infants or whether it should be by sprinkling or dipping but they are against all Baptism with water even of adult persons not allowing this so much as the name of an ordinance of JESUS CHRIST XI HEAD Concerning the LORDS Supper He granteth page 52. that Christ was the Authour of the Lords Supper and that the Disciples were enjoyned the observance of it but he saith this provss not that it was to be of perpetual continuance Answ Hereby is proved all that was intended namely that the ordinance of the Supper hath Christ for the Instituter of it and therefore it is called the Lords Table 1. Cor. 10.21 and the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 11.20 Why then doth the Quaker vilify this Ordinance by speaking of it with that addition the Lords Supper so called cannot he find in his heart to give it that name which the Scripture giveth it He saith That by breaking bread Act. 2.42 is meant their ordinary eating Answer The eating there is not ordinary but Sacramental eating which usually is expressed by this phrase of breaking bread a part being taken for the whole Act. 20.7 1. Cor. 10.16 Neither doth Act. 2.46 make it evident that their breaking of bread was their ordinary eating This text speaketh not of dayly eating but of continuing daily in the Temple And though they did eat from house to house yet the Syriak expoundeth it expresly of the Eucharist and it is thought that the Faithful abode sometimes in one house and sometimes in another for fear of persecution It seemeth the Gentle-man knoweth not well the way of PROTESTANT CHURCHES who thinketh that their Sacramental eating is but once or twice in a year they plead that it should be often and the practise of some is answerable in that they communicate once in a fortnight and others once every moneth And albeit we do not go to this ordinance to make a full meale for our bodies liberal feeding of them at such a time would make the better part to be neglected yet as much is made use of as serveth to represent the Spiritual nourishment of Believers by Jesus Christ and more is not requisite He addeth page 53. That the eating mentioned Act. 2.46 is conjoyned with this that they sold their possessions and if we make the Apostles example and practise our rule why do we not sell our possessions as they did Answer We hold not our selves bound to follow the Saints and Apostles in every thing all their practises are not to be imitated by us And therefore we distinguish their practises some of them were accidental or occasional being occasioned by the special necessity of times and seasons these are not alwayes binding but onely when cases and seasons are alike and of this nature was their selling of their possessions Then some of their actions were upon such grounds as are of perpetual and common concernment to one Church as well a another to one Age as well as another and these actions are still obligatory thus we ought to follow them in breaking bread or in the ordinance of the Supper because this concerns the Churches of Christ in this Age as well as in their Age seeing the Lord left it as a standing and lasting monument of his love to continue untill his coming againe in the clouds as shal be made good in due time He asketh Why we do not abstaine from eating blood and things strangled as they did Answer The command in reference to these things was but temporary and there is a plaine repeale of it in that Christian liberty is extended to whatsoever is sold in the shambles of that saith the Apostle eate making no question for conscience sake 1 Cor. 10.25 He asketh againe Why we do not wash one anothers feet which they were as solemnly commanded to do as to take and eate Ioh. 13.14 Answer How is it then that we do not read in all the Scriptures that ever the Disciples practised this thing They continued in breaking bread but where is there mention of their washing the feet of one another The great designe of this command was to teach the Apostles humility and love and mutually to condescend for one anothers good even to the meanest and lowest services our Lord and Masters patern of humility should make fellow servants ashamed of