the Matter they import is not there If he doth not mean That we deny a Visible Religious Society to be a Church what makes him to infer our Denyal of a Gospel-Church from our asserting it to be Invisible Two things must follow from this Reply Either a Gospel-Church is not visible and then he breaks his own Neck or not a Religious Society and so he is impious If then a Gospel-Church is a Visible Religious Society and we deny a Gospel-Church it must follow that we deny a Visible Religious Society which in John Faldo's Opinion makes up a Gospel-Church To conclude a Gospel-Church and a Visible Religious Society he makes to be quite differing things But perhaps he will come off thus I did not say ye denyed the visible religious Societies called the Churches of Asia c. but that you deny them or such as they are to be Churches But neither will this serve his turn for we both own them to have been Gospel-Churches and are taught by J. F. to believe That a gospel-Gospel-Church is not only not invisible but an other Thing then a visible religious Society too It is worth our while to hear his Reason for it Reply p. 59. Religious Societies may be as far from a Gospel-Church as half a dozen Christian Friends associated together to eat a good Dinner or carry on a Trade yet he dirts me with want of Honesty to grace his Forgery Rejoynder He might as well have said to the Ale-House or Tavern whether he invited a Friend of ours after disputing with him doubtless not out of Love to our Friend but the good Liquor a Sort of Liberty once counted Scandalous by many of his Pretensions especially when just after so serious an Exercise but it is grown familiar with Men of his Coat to fall from the Bible to the Pot and so back again But Friendly Reader what sayst thou of this Man's Evasion Who will have me to mean by visible religious Societies visible civil Societies for such I count good Men at an Ordinary or a Committee of Trade Vain and Shallow Man Did I not give Intimation enough what Religious Societies I meant when I instanced the Churches of Asia Thessalonica c. to explain what I meant thereby Whether I did play the Forger or my Adversary the Dishonest Shifter Let the Impartial Reader judge Again Reply W. P. proceeds p. 113. in the same Evil And from our asserting the Spirit to be the only Gospel-Teacher he concludes that we deny all Preaching of men though by the Spirit the four last Words though by the Spirit are added by him and meerly forged Rejoynder They may be added but not forged One would think it is only then when without the holy Ghost that we deny it by his Words and that hurts us not but I take it the other way and the Truth is it is a Mistake he commits against us where-ever the like Subjects fall in his Way for this implies as if we denyed Preaching by Inspiration and that he all along had mantained it A Doctrine he ever now and then flings in our Dish scorns and derides Thus can this Man's Conscience sail by any Wind to gain the Shore and after all these Shuffles dares to conclude That we in Terminis deny all Preachings of men because G. F. said cease from man when there is nothing more palpable then that G. F. meant man considered in his own meer Ability that is from such as the Prophet forbid not from true Prophets but our Adversary the Preachings of Men though by the Spirit of God for how can he make us to contradict our selves in saying man is the Spirits Instrument which he understands to be the Preaching of Men by the Spirit if he doth not make us deny all Preaching though by the Spirit In short I hope my Reader will think it no Forgery whatever my Adversary may who ever and anon would hide his own weakness by hard word flung upon me to amuse the credulous Reader to say that from our Asserting The Spirit to be the only Gospel-Teacher of all who believe he concludes That we deny all Preaching of Men though by the Spirit else there would be no sense in his charging us with a Contradiction because we say The Spirit is the only Teacher and yet that the Spirit teacheth by Men if he did not understand our Ceasing from Men or Denying Man's Ministry to be our Denyal of Man's Preaching by the holy Spirit But he will not give over yet These words The Spirit the only Teacher he often flings up as words indigestible by his foul and phlegmatick Stomach for upon my saying That such as preach by the Holy Spirit are rather the Instrument then the Teacher or Man is that by which the Spirit conveyeth his Teaching unto others he replyes thus Reply pag. 58. So that after W. P's own strict Account he allows their Practices viz. Preaching of Men to give the Lye every Day to their Tenets Rejoynder If Preachings of Men by the Spirit be the Preachings of Men such Preachings we shall alwayes allow and think it no Lye or Contradiction to our Tenets But if he that dictates a Letter of Intelligence be the Informer and not the Scribe the Holy Spirit must be the Teacher and Man but the Instrument True Teachings are not only Words but Matter and that accompanied with Divine Power which flow from the Eternal Spirit Men give them but the simple Covering of Expression and that by the Spirit 's appointment therefore not so properly the Teachings of Men by the Holy Spirit as the Teachings of the Holy Spirit by and through Men consequently not Man's Teachings but the Spirit 's Again Because we charge him with bringing in ot her Teachers then the Holy Spirit contrary to express Scripture the Promise of God and the very End of the Blessed Gospel he replies Reply pag. 58 59. Can you think this Man worth Disputing with who rambles and talks he cares not how If what P. said be true the Exhortations to do the Work of an Evangelist feed the Flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Over-seers were not intended of Man's Teaching but the Spirit of God only exhorted the Spirit of God to these Actions and Man had not hath not any Agency in Teaching Rejoynder But did we ever say Man had no Share in being taught whatever we have said against the utmost of man's natural Ability considered separately from God's Spirit about his Teaching We never yet said That Man was not to be taught Is there no Difference betwixt Men's Teaching without God's Spirit and Men's being taught of God's Spirit At whose Door then should we lay this Absurdity The Spirit of God exhorted the Spirit of God What an Idle Non sequitur is this Nor do we deny all Agency in Man when mannaged by the Holy Ghost A Man might as well argue following J. Faldo's Steps against the Apostle Paul when he said It is no
more I that live but Christ in me that is The Apostle had no Life in him in any sense Would this be good Doctrine But more openly do the Words of Christ lay to the Exception of such Cavillers 'T is not I that speak but the Father in me Again It is not you that speak but the Holy Gost in you For after J. Faldo's Parapharase we must either deny that Christ or his Apostles spoak those words or confess that they contradicted themselves in saying they did not speak when they did or lastly He must acknowledge to us That such Teachings and Speakings are not the Teachings and Speakings of Men but of God by and through Men. Let him first see if he can reconcile himself to these Scripture-Passages so pertinent to our Purpose and leave off his silly Shifts as easily confuted as discovered Upon my saying That we do believe that there is One and but One Universal Church the Ground and Pillar of Truth and that is in God and that the Members of it are washed in the Blood of the Lamb and grafted into the True Vine bringing forth Fruit unto Holiness p. 113. he thus replyes and I beseech my Reader to consider it Reply p. 59. If he own no other Church but this which is the Character of the invisible Church he owns not a Gospel-Church whose Order and Frame is according to the Doctrine of the Apostles and Practice of the Saints in the New-Testament Rejoynder VVe are beholden to him for this May we ever meet with such kind Adversaries It seems then my Definition hath nothing to do with the Gospel-Church VVhat is it but to say that the Gospel-Chruch is not the Pillar of Truth The Gospel-Chruch is not washed in the Blood of the Lamb The Gospel-Chruch is not grafted into the true Vine that Men may be in the Truth washed in the Blood of the Lamb grafted into the true Vine bring forth Fruit unto Holiness and yet no wayes concered in the gospel-Gospel-Church in short the gospel-Gospel-Church is not the Vniversal Church nor the invisible Church a gospel-Gospel-Church and what is his Reason if any there can be for all this pernicious and Anti-christian Doctrine Because a Gospel-Church is one whose Order and Frame is according to the Doctrine of the Apostle and Practice of the Saints Worse and worse it seems then in J. F's Sence that the Order and Frame the Doctrine of the Apostles brought the Church of Christ to and the Practice of the Saints in the New Testament had nothing to do with the Pillar of Truth dwelling in God being washed in the Blood of the Lamb grafted in the true Vine and bringing forth Fruit unto Holiness What Sort of impious Gibberish is this For according to his Notion of the Gospel-Church the most Satanical Crew may as well be of that Church as the best of Christians since the External Order at most but the Form of Godliness was and is imitable and imitated by arrant Hypocrites By this Argument Elias and the Seven Hundred who had not bowed their Knees to Baal so invisible as Elias himself knew not of them were Schâ—s maticks or Infidels to the then Jewish Church being without all Visible Church Policy or Order and the Jews that had it though Apostatized must have been God's Legal Church It will also follow that for above 1200 Years together since Christ's time there hath been no Gospel-Church yet Gospellers as their Enemies have called them which were to grant to the Roman-Catholicks all they Desire What was that Church that fled into the Wilderness It must either be the Gospel-Church or not the Gospel-Church If not the Gospel-Church then not the Christian and consequently the Antichristian-Church But that could not be because she fled from Antichrist If the Gospel-Church then may a Church be Gospel without punctuallity in visible Order for it is notorious by all Story the Remnant of the Woman's Seed who have born a faithful Testimony against the Spirit of Antichrist in their Sack-Cloth and Wilderness Estate have been destitute of that Visible Order Indeed I hitherto thought that a Gospel-Church constituted necessary external Order and not that meer external Order constitutes the Church Gospel or Evangelical But John Faldo sayes No who seems not to scruple at the Word Church but to play upon the Word Gospel as if external Order and Gospel were synonimous or of equal force whereas the Gospel is called in Scripture The Power of God to Salvation from that Spiritual Redemption it efficatiously worketh in them that receive it from the Bondage of Corruption under which they have fruitlesly laboured which is the Reason and a good one too why it signifieth Glad-Tidings since nothing can be more Joyous to a weary and heavy-loaden Sinner then to be eased of his former Iniquities by Remission and purged from the Nature and Habits of it out of the Soul by the Operation of this Heavenly and Everlasting Gospel which worthy Christopher Goad Right Spirit of Christ pag. 17. calls the forming or bringing forth of Christ in us What is all our Adversary hath said but to make Remedies against or Condescension to the Weakness of the Church's Infancy as sayes honest W. Tindal in his Works p. 9. 436 438. the only great Constitutes of a Gospel-Church By which he denyes a Gospel-Church to have been antecedent to that External Order and consequently that the Believers were not a Gospel-Church when met together on the Day of Penticost not long after since the Gospel had been many years preached Multitudes converted and many baptized by the One Spirit into the One Body of true Gospel-Fellowship before ever those Epistles were written by the Apostle Paul either to the Church at Corinth or to Timothy in which only External Order is mentioned Nay at this rate he hath Unchurched every Party in England but one if yet one may be excepted for if External Order only constitutes a Gospel-Church every Party in England differing greatly in their External Order it must follow that none but one if any one can have any just Pretence to a Compleat Gospel-Church consequently Mungrils He still forgets what he promised that None of them were further concerned against the Quakers then Vindicated Howbeit herein they may hold him excused that he hath equally unchurched Himself and these he preacheth to in Company with all other Parties in England being out of that Order But I intreat the Reader to consider what a Monster he hath made of Christ who describeth him with two such Bodies to one Head one Invisible the other Visible one washed in the Blood of the Lamb grafted into the true Vine bringing forth Fruit unto Holiness Qualifications hid from the Eye of the World as worthy John Bradford told T. Weston as in B. Martyr p. 104 312. That the Church of Christ is Invisible to him that hath not a Spiritual Eye The other constituted of People no matter how Vnregenerated if submitted to
unworthily of the Scriptures we utterly detect their Actions For his second I confess I am greatly at a stand I have travell'd several Nations convers'd with Men of most Ways of Religion read a great many Books for my time but never yet did I meet with such an Insolent Blasphemous and Scornful Expression as this I now transcrib'd word for word out of his Reply 'T is true there was an Old Peevish Priest in Ireland who to get a little Money as clearly appear'd writ an Envious Book against us in which he called the Light within an Ignis Faetuâ—â—s a Dim Light c. who lived long enough to vex himself to Death with our Answer as we are credibly informed not long surviving its Arrival and general Acceptance of most sorts of People in those Parts But never yet have I heard or read of such hard Names from the worst of our Adversaries For Tho Hicks himself in his Dialogues against us acknowledges that the Light within checketh for many Evils and excites to many good things c. It were too large to go over the Praises given it by the best Jews Gentiles and Christians Philo the Jew calls it an Immortal Precept Plotin a Gentile sayes it is the Root or Life of the Soul That this Divine Principle in Man makes a true and good Man Clemens Alexandrinus a Christian-Father speaks of it thus The Light will shine out of Darkness therefore it shines in the hidden part of Mankind in the Heart Again Man cannot be void of Divine Knowledge who naturally or as he cometh into the World partaketh of Divine Inspiration c. Thus Munster Vetablus Clarius Castellio Drusius and Codurcus upon this Passage in Job And upon whom doth not his Light arise acknowledge both its Vniversallity and Sufficiency too where obey'd I could produce a Multitude of approved Protestants without being beholding to one Papist whatever J. F. says of us in Commendation of the Universal Light within but will conclude with J. Caryl one of the most ancient and eminent Pastors of the Independent Way in his Exposition on Job and J. Owen that great Doctor of Independency in his Latin Exercitations formerly writ against the Quakers under the Name of Phanaticks a Term since bestowed and improved by he knows who upon such as need no pointing at J. Caryl on Job 32. 8. says that Wisdom and Knowledge in the Things of God come from the Inspiration or In-shining of the Light or Spirit from above And on Chap. 24. 13. That Light there mentioned shined in Wicked Men's Hearts as well as Good or to that purpose And that it is not a Natural or Proper Light as the Sun in the Firmament but such as reproved them for their Iniquity and comes from above c. J. O. abundantly confesseth to the Morallity and Vniversallity of the Light calling it also a Supernatural and Spiritual as well as Moral Light as he frequently phrases it Good Use of which hath been made by our Christian and Learned Friend Samuel Fisher in Answer to Him Rich. Baxter J. Tombs and T. Danson unto which they have never attempted any the least Reply that we hear of though it greatly concerns their Cause and Credit to do something in it For my own part I shall say no more to J. Faldo's Refutation then that he calls the Light within us by which it hath pleased God to redeem us from our Vain Conversation against the Judgment of many Good and Learned Men in several Ages A BLASPHEMER OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD A SORDID SINFUL CORRUPT AND RIDICULOUS THING for which God rebuke him But there yet remains a notable Testimony of our Friends to be consider'd which J. F. produceth to prove our great Affinity with the Papists Rep. If any pretend to be of us and in Case of Controversie will not admit to be tryed by the Church of Christ Jesus nor submit to the Judgment given by the Spirit in the Elders and Members of the Church but kick against it such we testifie ought to be rejected as Heathens Rejoyn Nothing but Rank Ranterism can call this Popery in such Disgrace or reject it as unsound as I will make appear The Church of Christ indued with his Spirit hath a Judgment This Christ allows her and that every Individual ought to rest satisfied in it in Case of Difference therefore said Christ Tell the Church and if he refuse to hear the Church then let him be as an Heathen and Publican The Saints shall judge the World and much more by their Judgment determine or reconcile things among themselves No Caution or Resolution could be more soundly and scripturally laid down First It is the Church of Christ that judges Secondly It must be the Judgment of the Church by the Holy Spirit or rather the Holy Spirit in the Church not consisting of Elders only but Elders and Members which make the whole Church Lastly The Persons rejected are such as first kick or spurn against the Admonitions of the Church of Christ VVhat Man not bereaved of his Senses or as Irreligious as a Ranter can so scornfully upbraid us with this Serious Christian and Necessary Discipline Yes J. Faldo who pretends both to his Wits and Religion dares offer something against it Rep. Oh the Charity of the Quakers Leaders All that will not submit to their little Juncto are with them numbred with Heathens and Infidels Here the poor Quakers may see the Image of the Beast among themselves Rejoyn It were well if J. Faldo would show more Charity in pretending to rebuke us for the want of it But will he allow of those Aggravations the Episcopatians and Presbyterians made upon and against the first Brownists about Gathered Churches Did not they draw as large Conclusions And had they not as much Ground for doing it as our Passage can give to J. F. since they deny'd in most harsh Terms The Church of England to be the Church of Christ The same did the People call'd Anabaptists both of the Church of England and National Presbytery But why our little Juncto otherwise call'd the Spirit of G. Fox and his Ministry or Representative Body Is not this cast out on purpose to insinuate as if G. F. with other publick Travellers in the Service of the Church were Lordly or Domineering as J. Faldo a little further calls it who rarely meddle with those things leaving every Meeting to their own Power But what Occasion had he for this Reflection of our Friends Paper even as by himâ—elf given us Doth it not mention the whole Church and afterwards explain who that Church is by those two Words Elders and Members for such is the Practice of J. F. in his pretended Discovery of us Nor iâ— there any Reason why J. F. should so much stomach the Word Heathen since he thinks it a Priviledge to be so to us at least to call us so Besides we own every such one to have a Saving
But this Shift will not serve J. Faldo's turn since G. F. meant a visible changeable and not a visible permanent Worship This Passage relates to Figurative and Temporary Services standing in those things which were but Signs of the Substance to come and which are finished by it So that the Apostle did indeed labour to bring the Jews and other weak Christians off from their Visible Typical or Legal to the more Spiritual VVorship of the Gospel not that they should be debarred from expressing that VVorship for while Bodies and Souls are together there is as I writ at large in my Answer a Necessity of some Bodily Demonstration I will yet give one Relish more of the Man 's Disingenuous Spirit before I conclude this Chapter Reply pag. 50. Before W. P. parts from this Argument be grows kind and shews the Power of Condescension to have place in him by these words Yet thus far we could go That Visible Worship as such without a due Regard to what kind of Worship it may be and what is the Root from whence it came cannot be well-pleasing to God A great Compliance indeed which is thus much just and no more a man's filling a Dung-Cart or W. P's acting on the Stage or the Table in their Meeting-place as like a Fencer as ever was seen are not Worship because seen though they should by some be so called for every thing that is seen is not therefore Worship Rejoynder His Acknowledgment of my Condescension is a small Artifice to insinuate my yielding him the Cause But what Reason he had to commend me would be better seen by considering how aptly and honestly he hath replyed to that little piece of my Answer he found in his Heart to give us He thinks to fling us off with his dirty and vain Similitudes I writ of Visible Worship as Praying Speaking c. on a Religious Account he turns it to any visible thing as Filling a Dung-Cart Acting on a Stage or Table as a Fencer Similes right-well suiting his Disposition as if I denyed that to be Worship which was seen because seen which was the farthest thing from my Thoughts and is not at all deduceable from my Words Yet hath this Man the Confidence to tell his Reader that they signifie just thus much and no more But in good Conscience Courteous Reader can this Man think to escape the Hands of God that acts with so much willful Baseness against me as to make no Difference between my saying That visible VVorship as such unless proceeding from a Right Root cannot be well-pleasing to God and saying That visible VVorship is not Worship because Visible though it should proceed from never so true a Ground which he makes my Answer to speak at least he infers so from it though â— direct Contradiction Is it one and the same thing to say Visible VVorship is not therefore true VVorship because Visible and concluding filling a Dung-Cart is not true VVorship because Visible is it honestly done to â—pply that to Acting upon Stages and Fencing which â—lly me was joyned to Worship If I had said Visible Fencing as such is not Worship because seen his â—y Shift might have had something in it but to make Difference betwixt saying that Visible Prayer is 〈◊〉 true VVorship because seen and Fencing or filling Dung-Cart is not true VVorship because seen thereby turning what I said of VVorship to every Trivial or Common Action among Men is unworthy of an Ingenuous Disputant much more an Humble Christian and least of all a Christian-Minister In short I spoak against Visible VVorship not Rightly Grounded a Position as true as Scripture it self for it is Scripture twenty times over and he twisteth it to my Denyal of VVorship because visible be it grounded as it will as his last words in the Chapter tell us For every thing sayes he as the sense of my Answer that is seen is not therefore VVorship instead of this Every VVorship that is seen is not therefore true VVorship But his extending the Major Proposition to every visible Thing and not to visible Worship only opens a Gap for his wild and extravagant Similes I will lay down our Propositions that the whole VVorld may see his Unjust VVay of Dealing with us My Proposition lay in form thus That Visible Worship which ariseth not from a Right Ground is not acceptable with God But John Faldo's Visible Worship say ariseth not from a Right Ground Therefore John Faldo's Visible Worship is not Acceptable with God The Argument as he gives it in my Name formed lies thus That which is seen is not Worship But a man's filling a Dung-Cart c. is seen Therefore Filling a Dung-Cart c. is not Worship Which Argument makes nothing Worship that is seen or visible however truly grounded because Visible instead of making such Visible Worship not true which doth not proceed from a right Root Now be pleased Friendly Reader to observe whither this Evasion drives the Matter If that which is seen be not therefore Worship as says J. F. in my Name then publick Praying or Preaching though of never so True a Kind or arising from never so Right a Ground because seen is not Worship much less True Worship By this it undeniably appears that my Adversary hath at best mistaken my Answer which abundantly confesseth as he himself hath observed in his Reply pag. 50. That there will be there must be and there ought to be a Visible Worship and that such Visible Worship only is rejected which ariseth not from a Right Ground in the Heart But how can this be if publick Praying and Preaching springing from never so spiritual a Root because seen must be no Worship which J. F. tells the World in my Name How can these so grand Opposites meet Or how is it possible to reconcile things as contrary as this William Penn owns Visible Worship William Penn denyes Visible Worship For it is no less then to make me renounâ—e Visible Worship for Visibility's sake who by my Principle and Writings hold and maintain such Visible VVorship as is of a true Nature or springs from a good and spiritual Ground So that it is not the Visibility but the Ground or Nature not being as it should be that is the Reason of our Exception Dr. Everad's Sermons Beloved I would have you ponder these things well If ye set up Ordinances c. so as to build and rest in them ye do make Idols of them or at best you play the Babes and the Children with them by resting alwayes on such Crutches and Go-bies and never come to be Young-men much less as Fathers in Christ pag. 562. And truly with some men herein lies the Top or Quintescence of their Religion making such ado about Shadows Figures and Resemblances and they let the Truth the Substance the thing pass and regard it not forasmuch as they are so zealous and hot about Forms But if they are by
constitutes an Ordinance Rejoynder He should have given my first Reason before he had pretended to answer it I further told him That water-Batism was John's the Fore-runner used figuratively and preparatively to the Visible Coming of the Messiah which being past that preparatory Dispensation is gone with it and lastly that the Fore-runner is not to continue but give way to him and his Administration that was so fore-run which were Christ and his Baptism That John was to dicrease that is Water-Baptism and Christ to increase that is his Evangelical and Spiritual Administration To all this J. Faldo sayes nothing So that he spoak Truth but by halfs that is what he said was no Answer yet it was briefly said However I do affirm that Water-Baptism is therefore Legal because Christ is not its Administrator for the Legal Dispensation came by Moses but the Evangelical by Christ not his Disciples and this not coming by Christ it cannot be Evangelical consequently no Gospel-Ordinance Besides I deny that it is Evangelical because he is not administrator for Christ is the alone Administrator of all things relating to his own Kingdom the Temple-Worship Altar Circumcision Baptism c. are invisible answerabel to the Nature of his Priesthood and Kingdom Again It is said of John That the least in the Kingdom of God is greater then â—he yet that a greater Prophet hath not risen then John the Baptist Mat. 11. 11. Now this could never be understood of John's particular Condition but of his Water-Administration therefore Water-Baptism is not Evangelical I might tell him in short That he has given away his Cause in this Particular by rancking Water-Baptism among the divers Washings pag. 50. The Apostle Hebr. 9. accounts Legal and abrogated by bringing in of a better Covenant the great Evangelical Ordinance Next let him tell me where it is that Christ commands Water-Baptism But this perhaps he thinks he hath done in his Answer to my second Reason as by him reported Reply pag. 67. Again W. P. pag. 136. saith That Baptism mentioned Mat. 28. was not the Baptism of John but Baptism of the Holy Ghost called the Promise of the Father He distinguisheth not between John's Water-Baptism and his own but betwixt any Water-Baptism at all and his own Baptism of the Holy Ghost Baptism with the Holy Ghost was not in a proper but analogical and metaphorical Sense Rejoynder John Faldo hath done ill to drop my Answer and render it so obscure if not impertinent for by making that Gap in the middle to whom can we refer that Word HE To John That cannot be how can the after Sentence relate to the former or be understood as it is But thus hath he dealt with me from time to time which I will not call Forgery but Disingenuity I am sure it is I said as he reports me That Water was not understood in that Text He shifts it off with saying That the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is not a Proper but Metaphorical Baptism But what is this to his proving That the Baptism in the Text was that of Water and not that of the Holy Ghost which was and is the Question between us I told him That Christ in all likelihood commissionated them to Baptize with that Baptism wherewith they were to be Baptized themselves my Reasons were three First Because his Baptism was That of the Holy Ghost and we are to suppose that he commanded them to Baptize with his own Baptism therefore not with Water Next Because these Words Go Teach Baptizing being some of the last words Matthew reports him to have spoken while in the VVorld they must need have relation to that Saying which Luke recordeth in Acts 1. to have fallen from him immediate before his Ascension viz. And being assembled together with them he commanded that they should not depart from Jerusalem but wait for the Promise of the Father which saith he ye have heard of me For John truly baptized with Water but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many dayes hence I say the other Passage in Matthew must needs have relation to these words inasmuch as they are by two Evangelists recorded to have been spoken immediately before his Ascension it being within four Verses of this Passage that Luke tells us He was taken up out of their Sight For in this part of Luke's Narrative the Commission given us by Matthew is wholely omitted which doubtless was spoken at the same time for we frequently find That what one Evangelist omits the other supplieth Therefore I read the words thus John indeed baptized with Water but ye shall be Baptized with the Holy Ghost Then Go teach all Nations baptizing them c. Unto all this he is so silent as if there had been no such thing observed My third Exception against Water-Baptism respecting this Text Matthew 28 That the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or into the Name c. could not be said of Water therefore no Water-Baptism which he takes a little notice of thus replying Reply pag. 67. Baptism with Water was into the Name c. as a Sign and Baptism with the Holy Ghost which is the Gifts of the Holy Ghost might also be where the Persons so gifted were not really ingrafted into Christ or sanctâ—fied Rejoynder That Baptism with Water may be into the Name of the Father is not sober unless it could baptize into the Nature of the Father for nothing less then Regeneration is wrapt up in the Text Besides that it is unworthy of the Spirituallity of Christ's Ministration and Kingdom that he should make Water-Baptism two thirds of his Commission which Men may be baptized with and yet be as great Strangers yea Enemies to Father Son and Holy Ghost as the most impious of Men. And admitting that by the Holy Ghost is to be understood the Gifts of the Holy Ghost yet is it Heterodox with a Witness to say That a Man may be baptized into them and yet remain unsanctified and ungrafled into Christ for what is it but to say That to be baptized by the Holy Ghost is not to sanctifie Men nor graft them into Christ for such hath been his Carelesness in this Expression that he hath not particularized what Gift Men may have and not be sanctified or grafted into Christ but plainly denyes in general Terms the Baptism of the Holy Ghost to be the same thing with sanctifying and grafting Men into Christ So many as were Baptized into Jesus Christ were Baptized into his Death was this done by Water where is J. F's Figure now he cast to abuse the Text Mat. 28 Again As many as have been Baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3. 27. I would fain know by what Figure J. F. makes Water-Baptism a putting on of Christ such easie putting on of Christ will fall hard one day upon such as he and the like Christians But why should I expect a better Account of these Divine Mysteries from a