kind partly borrowed from the Jews which they more tenaciously stick to and more earnestly contend for than for the weightier Points of Christianity because that Self yet alive and ruling in them loves their own Inventions better than God's Commands But if they can by any means stretch any Scripture-practice or Conditional precept or permission fitted to the Weakness or Capacity of some or appropriate to some particular Dispensation to give some Colour for any of these their Inventions they do then so tenaciously stick to them and so obstinately and obstreperously plead for them that they will not patiently hear the most-solid Christian Reasons against them Which Zeal if they would but seriously Examine it they would find to be but the prejudice of Education and the Love of Self more than of God or his Pure Worship This is verified concerning those things which are called Sacraments about which they are very ignorant in Religious Controversies who understand not how much Debate Contention Jangling and Quarrelling there has been among those called Christians So that I may safely say the Controversie about them to wit about their Number Nature Vertue Efficacy Administration and other things hath been more than about any other Doctrine of Christ whether as betwixt Papists and Protestants or among Protestants betwixt themselves And how great prejudice these Controversies have brought to Christians is very obvious whereas the things contended for among them are for the most part but Empty Shadows and meer Out-side things as I hope hereafter to make appear to the patient and unprejudicate Reader § II. That which comes first under Observation is the Name Sacrament which is strange that Christians should stick to and Contend so much for since it is not to be found in all the Scripture but was borrowed from the Military Oaths among the Heathens from whom the Christians when they began to Apostatize did borrow many superstitious Terms and Observations that they might thereby Ingratiate themselves and the more easily gain the Heathens to their Religion which practice though perhaps intended by them for good yet as being the fruit of Humane Policy and not according to God's Wisdom has had very pernicious Consequences I see not how any whether Papists or Protestants especially the latter can in reason quarrel with us for denying this Term which it seems the Spirit of God saw not meet to inspire the Pen-men of the Scriptures to leave unto us Obj. 1 But if it be said That it is not the Name but the Thing they contend for Answ. I Answer Let the Name then as not being Scriptural be laid aside and we shall see at first Entrance how much Benefit will redound by laying aside this Traditional Term and betaking us to plainness of Scripture-Language For presently the great Contest about the Number of them will evanish seeing there is no Term used in Scripture that can be made use of whether we call them Institutions Ordinances Precepts Commandments Appointments or Laws c. that would afford ground for such a Debate since neither Papists will affirm that there are only Seven or Protestants only Two of any of these forementioned Obj. 2 If it be said That this Controversie arises from the Definition of the Thing as well as from the Name Obj. 1 It will be found otherwise For whatever way we take their Definition of a Sacrament whether as an outward visible Sign whereby inward Grace is conferred or only signified This Definition will agree to many things which neither Papists nor Protestants will acknowledge to be Sacraments If they be expressed under the Name of Sealing Ordinances as some do I could never see neither by Reason nor Scripture how this Title could be appropriate to them more than to any other Christian Religious Performance for that must needs properly be a Sealing Ordinance which makes the Persons receiving it infallibly certain of the Promise or Thing sealed to them Obj. 3 If it be said It is so to them that are faithful Answ. I Answer So is Praying and Preaching and doing of every good Work Seeing the Partaking or Performing of the one gives not to any a more certain Title to Heaven yea in some respect not so much there is no Reason to call them so more than the other Besides we find not any thing called the Seal and Pledge of our Inheritance but the Spirit of God it is by that we are said to be sealed Eph. 1. 14. 4. 30. which is also termed the Earnest of our Inheritance 2 Cor. 1. 22. and not by outward Water or Eating and Drinking which as the Wickedest of Men may partake of so many that do do notwitstanding it go to Perdition For it is not outward Washing with Water that maketh the Heart clean by which Men are fitted for Heaven And as that which goeth into the mouth doth not defile a Man because it is put forth again and so goeth to the Dung-hill neither doth any thing which Man eateth purifie him or fit him for Heaven What is said here in general may serve for an Introduction not only to this Proposition but also to the other concerning the Supper Of these Sacraments so called Baptism is always first numbered which is the Subject of the present Proposition in whose Explanation I shall first demonstrate and prove Our Judgment and then Answer the Objections and Refute the Sentiments of our Opposers Part I As to the first part these things following which are briefly comprehended in the Proposition come to be proposed and proved Prop. I § III. First That there is but One Baptism as well as but One Lord One Faith c. Secondly That this one Baptism which is the Baptism of Christ is not a washing with or dipping in Water but a being baptized by the Spirit Thirdly That the Baptism of John was but a Figure of this and therefore as the Figure to give place to the Substance which though it be to continue yet the other is ceased Prop. I As for the first viz. That there is but one Baptism there needs no other Proof than the Words of the Text Eph. 4. 5. One Lord one Faith one Baptism where the Apostle positively and plainly affirms that as there is but One Body One Spirit One Faith One God c. so there is but One Baptism Obj. 1 As to what is commonly alledged by way of Explanation upon the Text That the Baptism of Water and of the Spirit make up this One Baptism by vertue of this Sacramental Union Answ. I Answer This Exposition hath taken place not because grounded upon the Testimony of the Scripture but because it wrests the Scripture to make it suit to their Principle of Water-Baptism and so there needs no other Reply but to deny it as being repugnant to the plain words of the Text which saith not That there are Two Baptisms to wit one of Water the other of the Spirit which
BAPTISM AND THE Lord ' s Supper Substantially Asserted BEING AN APOLOGY In Behalf of the People called QUAKERS Concerning those Two Heads By ROBERT BARCLAY LONDON Printed and Sold by T. Sowle in White-Hart-Court in Gracious-Street 1696. TO THE READER Friendly Reader HAving often observed upon serious Discourse with divers Persons concerning our Principles their having received general satisfaction excepting in these Two Heads viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper and not knowing but that thou may be at a stand concerning the same I do here present thee for thy further information and satisfaction these following Sheets written and published several Years ago upon the same Subjects by my Father Robert Barclay in his Apology Dedicated to King Charles the Second The second and more particular reason of their being thus published by themselves is that being Bound up in a pretty large Book they may not be of such general Service in regard that some dissatisfied only concerning these Two Points may not much care to Buy the whole Being fully satisfied his aim in Penning them was for thy satisfaction I shall commend them no otherways than by recommending them to thy serious perusal not doubting if they be by thee received in the same Spirit of Love they were for thy sake designed they may prove advantageous I do likewise advise thee seriously to consider what woful consequence have been procured in the Titular Christian World since the first Apostacy after the Apostles Days about these things and the setting up of Forms and Ceremonies in the Church in Matters purely Religious and relying thereupon as there are too many in these Days do who by grasping at the shadow do lose the substance I pray God open the Eyes and enlighten the Understandings of such that seeing the emptiness and insufficiency as well as folly thereof they may with their whole Hearts and Souls lay hold upon him who is able to save and that to the uttermost I would have none offended that I call those Ceremomonies which they may think Essential Duties without their being first assured they are such Although I refer thee to the following Sheets for thy more particular Information yet it may not seem impertinent to put thee in mind of that saying of John the Baptist concerning himself I indeed baptize you with Water unto Repentance but he that cometh after me is mightier than I he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire Mat. 3. 11. also HE must Increase but I must Decrease John 3. 30. likewise that of Paul to the Ephesians where he notably argues as there is but one Lord one Faith so there is but one Baptism Eph. 4. 5. which the Apostle Peter positively asserts is not the washing away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God 1 Pet. 3. 21. These I leave without Commentary to thy impartial perusal It were greatly to be wished for that we who covet to be called by that Honourable Name of Christian were more inward less in show more in Substance that our Christianity were more in our Hearts and less in our Heads then would our Religion be pure and undefiled carrying along with it that Characteristick mark of visiting the Widow and the Fatherless and keeping our selves unspotted from the World this is the Description the Apostle James in his Day gave of True Religion James 1. 27. this is likewise the Path the True Christian ought now to walk in it being only as we here abide that we can stand approved in the sight of our Great Creator in which Reader as thou art found a Walker with a single Heart and Eye unto God thou wilt know an eating of the Flesh and drinking of the Blood of the Son of God by which thou vvilt knovv Life unto thy Soul according to that saying of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man there is no Life in you for saith he my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed John 6. 53. 55. This Food is Inward it is Spiritual to the Nourishment of the inner Man not perceptible to the outvvard Notions of Carnal-minded Men this is the true Supper of vvhich the Saints do feed vvhereby they are refreshed to the comforting of their Immortal Souls being the same vvhich the Saints in all Ages vvere partakers of Which that thou may come to knovv and be made partaker of by Waiting for and being Obedient unto the Appearance of his Grace Light Spirit or Word of Life in thy ovvn Soul that being the only Way is the Desire of thy Sincere Friend Robert Barclay London the 12th of the 8th Month 1695. CONCERNING BAPTISM As there is one Lord and one Faith so there is one Baptism which is not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the Answer of a good Conscience before God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And this Baptism is a Pure and Spiritual thing to wit the Baptism of the Spirit and Fire by which we are buried with him that being washed and purged from our Sins we may walk in newness of Life Of which the Baptism of John was a Figure which was Commanded for a time and not to continue for ever As to the Baptism of Infants it is a meer Humane Tradition for which neither Precept nor Practice is to be found in all the Scripture WHen God in Condescension to his chosen people the Jews did prescribe to them by his Servant Moses many Ceremonies and Observations as Types and Shadows of the Substance which in due time was to be Revealed which consisted for the most part in Washings outward Purifications and Cleansings which were to continue until the Time of the Reformation until the Spiritual Worship should be set up and that God by the more powerful pouring forth of his Spirit and guiding of that Anointing should lead his Children into all Truth and teach them to Worship him in a way more Spiritual and acceptable to him though less agreeable to the Carnal and Outward Senses Yet notwithstanding God's Condescension to the Jews in such things we see that that part in man which delights to follow its own Inventions could not be restrained nor yet satisfied with all these Observations but that often-times they would be either declining to the other Superstitions of the Gentiles or adding some New Observations and Ceremonies of their own To which they were so devoted that they were still apt to prefer them before the Command of God and that under the Notion of Zeal and Piety This we see abundantly in the Example of the Pharisees the Chiefest Sect among the Jews whom Christ so frequently reproves for making void the Commandments of God by their Traditions Matth. 15. 6 9 c. This Complaint may at this day be no less justly made as to many bearing the Name of Christians who have introduced many things of this
do make up the One Baptism but plainly that there is One Baptism as there is One Faith and One God Now there goeth not Two Faiths nor Two Gods nor Two Spirits nor Two Bodies whereof the one is Outward and Elementary and the other Spiritual and Pure to the making up of the One Faith the One God the One Body and the One Spirit so neither ought there to go Two Baptisms to make up the One Baptism Obj. 2 But Secondly If it be said The Baptism is but One whereof Water is the one part to wit the Sign and the Spirit the thing signified the other Answ. I Answer This yet more confirmeth our Doctrine For if Water be only the Sign it is not the Matter of the One Baptism as shall further hereafter by its Definition in Scripture appear and we are to take the One Baptism for the Matter of it not for the Sign or Figure and Type that went before Even as where Christ is called the One Offering in Scripture though he was Typified by many Sacrifices and Offerings under the Law we understand only by the One Offering his Offering himself upon the Cross whereof though those many Offerings were Signs and Types yet we say not that they go together with that Offering of Christ to make up the One Offering So neither though Water-Baptism was a Sign of Christ's Baptism will it follow that it goeth now to make up the Baptism of Christ. If any should be so Absurd as to affirm That this One Baptism here were the Baptism of Water and not of the Spirit That were foolishly to contradict the positive Testimony of the Scripture which saith the contrary as by what followeth will more amply appear Prop. II Proof I Secondly That this One Baptism which is the Baptism of Christ is not a Washing with Water appears first from the Testimony of John the proper and peculiar Administrator of Water-Baptism Matt. 3. 11. I indeed baptize you with Water unto Repentance but he that cometh after me is mightier than I whose shooes I am not worthy to bear he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire Here John mentions two manners of Baptisings and two different Baptisms the one with Water and the other with the Spirit the one whereof he was the Minister of the other whereof Christ was the Minister of and such as were baptized with the first were not therefore baptized with the second I indeed baptize you but he shall baptize you Though in the present time they were baptized with the Baptism of Water yet they were not as yet but were to be baptized with the Baptism of Christ. From all which I thus Argue Arg. I If those that were baptized with the Baptism of Water were not therefore baptized with the Baptism of Christ then the Baptism of Water is not the Baptism of Christ. But the first is true Therefore also the last And again Arg. II If he that truly and really administred the Baptism of Water did notwithstanding declare That he neither could nor did baptize with the Baptism of Christ Then the Baptism of Water is not the Baptism of Christ. But the first is true Therefore c. And indeed to understand it otherwise would make John's Words void of good sense For if their Baptisms had been all one why should he have so precisely Contradistinguished them Why should he have said that those whom he had already baptized should yet be baptized by another Baptism Object If it be urged That Baptism with Water was the one part and that with the Spirit the other part or Effect only of the former Answ. I Answer This Exposition contradicts the plain words of the Text. For he saith not I baptize you with Water and he that cometh after shall produce the Effects of this my Baptism in you by the Spirit c. or he shall accomplish this Baptism in you but he shall Baptize you So then if we understand the Word truly and properly when he saith I Baptize you as consenting that thereby is really signified that he did baptize with the Baptism of Water we must needs unless we offer Violence to the Text understand the other part of the sentence the same way that where he adds presently But he shall baptize you c. that he understood it of their being truly to be baptized with another Baptism than what he did baptize with Else it had been Non-sense for him thus to have Contradistinguished them Proof II Secondly This is further confirmed by the Saying of Christ himself Acts 1. 4 5. 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 th Holy Ghost not many days hence There can scarce Two places of Scripture run more parallel than this doth with the former a little before mentioned and therefore concludeth the same way as did the other For Christ there grants fully that John compleated his Baptism as to the matter and substance of it John saith he truly baptized with Water which is as much as if he had said John did truly and fully Administer the Baptism of Water But ye shall be Baptized with c. This sheweth that they were to be Baptized with some other Baptism than the Baptism of Water and that although they were formerly Baptized with the Baptism of Water yet not with that of Christ which they were to be Baptized with Proof III Thirdly Peter observes the same distinction Acts 11. 16. Then remembred I the word of the Lord how that he said John indeed Baptized with Water but ye shall be Baptized with the Holy Ghost The Apostle makes this Application upon the Holy Ghost's falling upon them whence he infers that they were then Baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit As to what is urged from his Calling afterwards for Water to it shall be hereafter spoken From all which Three Sentences relative one to another First of John Secondly of Christ and Thirdly of Peter it doth evidently follow that such as were truly and really Baptized with the Baptism of Water were notwithstanding not Baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit which is that of Christ and such as truly and really did administer the Baptism of Water did in so doing not administer the Baptism of Christ. So that if there be now but One Baptism as we have already proved we may safely conclude that it is that of the Spirit and not of Water else it would follow that the One Baptism which now continues were the Baptism of Water i. e. John's Baptism and not the Baptism of the Spirit i. e. Christ's which were most Absurd Object If it be said further That though the Baptism of John before Christ's was administred was different from it as being the Figure only yet now that both it as the Figure and that of the Spirit as the Substance is necessary to
Therefore c. Allegat I But First They alledge That Christ's Baptism though a Baptism with Water did differ from John 's because John only baptized with Water unto Repentance but Christ commands his Disciples to baptize in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost reckoning that in this Form there lieth a great difference betwixt the Baptism of John and that of Christ. Answ. I Answer as to that John's Baptism was unto Repentance the Difference lieth not there because so is Christ's also For our Adversaries will not deny but that Adult Persons that are baptized ought ere they be admitted to it to Repent and Confess their Sins yea and that Infants with a respect to and Consideration of their Baptism ought to Repent and Confess So that the difference lieth not here since this of Repentance and Confession agrees as well to Christ's as to John's Baptism But in this our Adversaries are divided for Calvin will have Christ's and John's to be all one Inst. lib. 4. cap. 15. Sect. 7 8. Yet they do differ and the difference is in that the one is by Water the other not c. Secondly As to what Christ saith in commanding them to baptize in the Name of the Father Son and Spirit I confess that states the Difference and it is great but that lies not only in admitting Water-baptism in this different Form by a bare expressing of these Words For as the Text saith no such thing neither do I see how it can be inferred from it For the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is into the Name now the Name of the Lord is often taken in Scripture for something else than a bare sound of Words or literal Expression even for his Vertue and Power as may appear from Psalm 54. 3. Cant. 1. 3. Prov. 18. 10. and in many more Now that the Apostles were by their Ministry to baptize the Nations into this Name Vertue and Power and that they did so is evident by these Testimonies of Paul above mentioned where he saith That as many of them as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ This must have been a baptizing into the Name i. e. Power and Vertue and not a meer formal Expression of Words adjoined with Water-baptism because as hath been above observed it doth not follow as a natural or necessary Consequence of it I would have those who desire to have their Faith built upon no other foundation than the Testimony of God's Spirit and Scriptures of Truth throughly to Consider whether there can be any thing further alledged for this Interpretation than what the prejudice of Education and influence of Tradition hath imposed Perhaps it may stumble the unwary and inconsiderate Reader as if the very Character of Christianity were abolished to tell him plainly that this Scripture is not to be understood of baptizing with Water and that this form of baptizing in the Name of Father Son and Spirit hath no warrant from Matth. 28. c. For which besides the Reason taken from the Signification of the Name as being the Vertue and Power above expressed let it be considered that if that had been a Form prescribed by Christ to his Apostles then surely they would have made use of that Form in the administring of Water-baptism to such as they baptized with Water but though particular mention be made in divers places of the Acts Who were baptized and how and though it be particularly expressed that they baptized such and such as Acts 2. 41 8. 12 13 38 9. 18 10. 48 16. 15 18. 8. yet there is not a Word of this Form And in two places Acts 8. 16 19. 5. it is said of some that they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus by which it yet more appears that either the Author of this History hath been very defective who having so often occasion to mention this yet omitteth so substantial a part of Baptism which were to accuse the Holy Ghost by whose guidance Luke wrote it or else that the Apostles did no ways understand that Christ by his Commission Matth. 28. did injoin them such a Form of Water-baptism seeing they did not use it And therefore it is safer to conclude that what they did in administring Water-baptism they did not by vertue of that Commission else they would have so used it For our Adversaries I suppose would judge it a great Heresie to Administer Water-baptism without that or only in the Name of Jesus without mention of Father or Spirit as it is expresly said they did in the two places above cited Allegat II Secondly They say If this were not understood of Water-baptism it would be a Tautology and all one with Teaching I say Nay Baptizing with the Spirit is somewhat further than Teaching or Informing the Understanding for it imports a Reaching to and melting the Heart whereby it is turned as well as the Understanding informed Besides we find often in the Scripture that Teaching and Instructing are put together without any Absurdity or needless Tautology and yet these two have a greater Affinity than teaching and baptizing with the Spirit Allegat III Thirdly They say Baptism in this Place must be understood with Water because it is the Action of the Apostles and so cannot be the Baptism of the Spirit which is the Work of Christ and his Grace not of Man c. Answ. I Answer Baptism with the Spirit though not wrought without Christ and his Grace is Instrumentally done by Men fitted of God for that purpose and therefore no Absurdity follows that Baptism with the Spirit should be expressed as the Action of the Apostles For though it be Christ by his Grace that gives Spiritual Gifts yet the Apostle Rom. 1. 11. speaks of his Imparting to them Spiritual Gifts and he tells the Corinthians that he had begotten them through the Gospel 1 Cor. 4. 15. And yet to beget People unto the Faith is the work of Christ and his Grace not of Men. To Convert the Heart is properly the Work of Christ and yet the Scripture often-times ascribes it to Men as being the Instruments And since Paul's Commission was to turn People from Darkness to Light though that be not done without Christ co-operating by his Grace so may also baptizing with the Spirit be expressed as performable by Man as the Instrument tho' the Work of Christ's Grace be needful to concur thereunto So that it is no Absurdity to say that the Apostles did Administer the Baptism of the Spirit Allegat IV Lastly They say That since Christ saith here that he will be with his Disciples to the end of the World therefore Water-baptism must continue so long Answ. If he had been speaking here of Water-baptism then that might have been urged but seeing that is denied and proved to be false nothing from thence can be gathered He speaking of the Baptism of the Spirit which we freely confess doth remain
hath been proved by the Definition of the One Baptism so it is also manifest from the Necessary Fruits and Effects of it which are three-times particularly expressed by the Apostle Paul As first Rom. 6. 3 4. where he saith That so many of them as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his Death buried with him by Baptism into Death that they should walk in Newness of Life Secondly to the Gal. 3. 27. he saith positively For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ and Thirdly to the Col. 2. 12. he faith That they were Buried with him in Baptism and Risen with him through the Faith of the operation of God It is to be observed here that the Apostle speaks generally without any Exclusive Term but Comprehensive of all he saith not Some of you that were baptized into Christ have put on Christ but As many of you which is as much as if he had said Every one of you that hath been baptized into Christ hath put on Christ. Whereby it is evident that this is not meant of VVater-baptism but of the Baptism of the Spirit because else it would follow that whosoever had been baptized with VVater-baptism had put on Christ and were Risen with him which all acknowledge to be most Absurd Now supposing all the Visible Members of the Churches of Rome Galatia and Coloss had been outwardly baptized with Water I do not say they were but our Adversaries will not only readily grant it but also contend for it suppose I say the Case so they will not say they had all put on Christ since divers Expressions in these Epistles to them shew the contrary So that the Apostle cannot mean Baptism with Water and yet that he meaneth the Baptism of Christ i. e. of the Spirit cannot be denied or that the Baptism wherewith these were baptized of whom the Apostle here testifies that they had put on Christ was the One Baptism I think none will call in question Now admit as our Adversaries Contend that many in these Churches who had been baptized with Water had not put on Christ it will follow that notwithstanding that Water-baptism they were not baptized into Christ or with the Baptism of Christ seeing as many of them as were baptized into Christ had put on Christ c. From all which I thus Argue Arg. I If the Baptism with Water were the One Baptism i. e. the Baptism of Christ as many as were baptized with Water would have put on Christ. But the last is false Therefore also the first And again Arg. II Since as many as are baptized into Christ i. e. with the One Baptism which is the Baptism of Christ have put on Christ Then Water-baptism is not the One Baptism viz. the Baptism of Christ. But the first is true Therefore also the last Prop. III § V. Thirdly Since John's Baptism was a Figure and seeing the Figure gives way to the Substance albeit the thing figured remain to wit the One Baptism of Christ yet the other ceaseth which was the Baptism of John That John's Baptism was a Figure of Christ's Baptism I judge will not readily be denied but in Case it should it can easily be proved from the Nature of it John's Baptism was a being baptized with Water but Christ's is a baptizing with the Spirit Therefore John's Baptism must have been a Figure of Christ's But further that Water-baptism was John's Baptism will not be denied That Water-baptism is not Christ's Baptism is already proved From which doth arise the Confirmation of our Proposition thus There is no Baptism to continue now but the One Baptism of Christ. Arg. Therefore Water-baptism is not to continue now because it is not the Baptism of Christ. That John's Baptism is Ceased many of our Adversaries confess but if any should alledge it otherwise it may be easily proved by the express words of John not only as being insinuated there where he Contradistinguished his Baptism from that of Christ but particularly where he saith John 3. 30. He Christ must Increase but I John must Decrease From whence it clearly follows that the Increasing or taking place of Christ's Baptism is the Decreasing or abolishing of John's Baptism so that if Water-baptism was a particular part of John's Ministry and is no part of Christ's Baptism as we have already proved it will necessarily follow that it is not to Continue Arg. If Water-baptism had been to continue a Perpetual Ordinance of Christ in his Church he would either have practised it himself or Commanded his Apostles so to do But that he practised it not the Scripture plainly affirms John 4. 2. And that he Commanded his Disciples to baptize with Water I could never yet read As for what is alledged that Mat. 28. 19 c. where he bids them baptize is to be understood of Water-baptism that is but to beg the Question and the grounds for that shall be hereafter examined Therefore to baptize with Water is no Perpetual Ordinance of Christ to his Church This hath had the more Weight with me because I find not any standing Ordinance or Appointment of Christ necessary to Christians for which we have not either Christ's own Practice or Command as to obey all the Commandments which comprehend both our Duty towards God and Man c. and where the Gospel requires more than the Law which is abundantly signified in the 5th and 6th Chapters of Matthew and elsewhere Besides as to the Duties of Worship he exhorts us to Meet promising his Presence commands to Pray Preach Watch c. and gives Precepts concerning some Temporary things as the Washing of one anothers Feet the breaking of Bread hereafter to be discussed only for this one thing of baptising with Water though so earnestly contended for we find not any Precept of Christ. § VI. But to make Water-baptism a necessary Institution of the Christian Religion which is Pure and Spiritual and not Carnal and Ceremonial is to derogate from the New Covenant-Dispensation and set up the Legal Rites and Ceremonies of which this of Baptism or Washing with Water was one as appears from Heb. 9. 10. where the Apostle speaking thereof saith that it stood only in Meats and Drinks and divers Baptisms and Carnal Ordinances imposed until the Time of Reformation If then the Time of Reformation or the Dispensation of the Gospel which puts an end to the Shadows be come then such Baptisms and Carnal Ordinances are no more to be imposed For how Baptism with Water comes now to be a Spiritual Ordinance more than before in the time of the Law doth not appear seeing it is but Water still and a Washing of the Outward Man and a putting away of the filth of the Flesh still And as before those that were so Washed were not thereby made perfect as pertaining to the Conscience neither are they at this day as our Adversaries must needs acknowledge
the Text and has no better Foundation than the Affirmation of its Assertors is justly rejected as spurious until they bring some better Proof for it He saith not I was not sent principally to baptize but I was not sent to baptize Confirm As for what they urge by way of Confirmation from other places of Scripture where not is to be so taken as where it 's said I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice which is to be understood that God requires principally Mercy not excluding Sacrifices Refut I say this Place is abundantly Explained by the following words and the Knowledge of God more than burnt-Offerings by which it clearly appears that burnt-Offerings which are one with Sacrifices are not Excluded But there is no such word added in that of Paul and therefore the Parity is not demonstrated to be alike and consequently the Instance not sufficient unless they can prove that it ought so to be admitted here Else we might interpret by the same Rule all other Places of Scripture the same way As where the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 2. 5. That your Faith might not stand in the Wisdom of Men but in the Power of God it might be understood it shall not stand Principally so How might the Gospel by this Liberty of Interpretation be Perverted Obj. 2 If it be said That the Abuse of this Baptism among the Corinthians in dividing themselves according to the Persons by whom they were baptized made the Apostle speak so but that the Abuse of a thing doth not abolish it Answ. I Answer It is true it doth not provided the thing be lawful and necessary and that no doubt the Abuse abovesaid gave the Apostle occasion so to write But let it from this be considered how the Apostle excludes Baptizing not Preaching though the Abuse mark proceeded from that no less than from the other For these Corinthians did denominate themselves from those different Persons by whose Preaching as well as from those by whom they were baptized they were Converted as by the 4 5 6 7 and 8. ver of the 3d Ch. may appear and yet for to remove that Abuse the Apostle doth not say he was not sent to preach nor yet doth he rejoice that he had only preached to a few because preaching being a standing Ordinance in the Church is not because of any Abuse that the Devil may tempt any to make of it to be forborn by such as are called to perform it by the Spirit of God wherefore the Apostle accordingly Chap. 3. 8 9. informs them as to that how to Remove that Abuse But as to Water-baptism for that it was no standing Ordinance of Christ but only practised as in Condescendence to the Jews and by some Apostles to some Gentiles also there so soon as the Apostle perceived the Abuse of it he let the Corinthians understand how little stress was to be laid upon it by shewing them that he was glad that he had administred this Ceremony to so few of them and by telling them plainly that it was no part of his Commission neither that which he was sent to Administer Query Some ask us How we know that Baptizing here is meant of Water and not of the Spirit Which if it be then it will exclude Baptism of the Spirit as well as of Water Answ. I Answer Such as ask the Question I suppose speak it not as doubting that this was said of Water-baptism which is more than manifest For since the Apostle Paul's Message was to turn People from Darkness to Light and Convert them to God and that as many as are thus turned and converted so as to have the Answer of a good Conscience towards God and to have put on Christ and be arisen with him in Newness of Life are baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit but who will say that only these few mentioned there to be baptized by Paul were come to this or that to turn or bring them to this Condition was not even admitting our Adversaries Interpretation as principally a part of Paul's Ministry as any other Since then our Adversaries do take this place for Water-baptism as indeed it is we may lawfully taking it so also urge it upon them Why the Word Baptism and baptizing is used by the Apostle where that of Water and not of the Spirit is only understood shall hereafter be spoken to Part. II I come now to consider the Reasons alledged by such as plead for Water-baptism which are also the Objections used against the Discontinuance of it Obj. 1 § VIII First Some Object That Christ who had the Spirit above measure was notwithstanding baptized with Water As Nic. Arnold against this These Sect. 46. of his Theological Exercitation Answ. I Answer So was he also Circumcised it will not follow from thence that Circumcision is to Continue For it behoved Christ to fulfil all Righteousness not only the Ministry of John but the Law also therefore did he observe the Jewish Feasts and Rites and kept the Passover It will not then follow that Christians ought to do so now And therefore Christ Matth. 3. 15. gives John this reason of his being baptized desiring him to Suffer it to be so now Whereby he sufficiently intimates that he intended not thereby to Perpetuate it as an Ordinance to his Disciples Obj. 2 Secondly They Object Matth. 28. 19. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Answ. This is the great Objection and upon which they build the Whole Superstructure Whereunto the first general and sound Answer is by granting the whole but putting them to prove that Water is here meant since the Text is silent of it And though in reason it be sufficient upon our part that we Concede the whole expressed in the place but deny that it is by Water which is an Addition to the Text yet I shall premise some Reasons why we do so and then consider the Reasons alledged by those that will have Water to be here understood Arg. I The First is a Maxime yielded to by all that We ought not to go from the literal signification of the Text except some urgent necessity force us thereunto But no urgent Necessity in this place forceth us thereunto Therefore we ought not to go from it Arg. II Secondly That Baptism which Christ commanded his Apostles was the one Baptism id est his own Baptism But the one Baptism which is Christ's Baptism is not with Water as we have already proved Therefore the Baptism commanded by Christ to his Apostles was not Water-baptism Arg. III Thirdly That Baptism which Christ commanded his Apostles was such that as many as were therewith baptized did put on Christ. But this is not true of Water-baptism Therefore c. Arg. IV Fourthly The Baptism commanded by Christ to his Apostles was not John's Baptism But Baptism with Water was John's Baptism
to the End of the World yea so long as Christ's Presence abideth with his Children Obj. III § IX Thirdly They Object the Constant Practice of the Apostles in the Primitive Church who they say did always Admini-Water-baptism to such as they Converted to the Faith of Christ And hence also they further urge that of Matth. 28. to have been meant of Water or else the Apostles did not understand it in that in baptizing they used Water or that in so doing they walked without a Commission I Answer That it was the Constant Practice of the Apostles is denied for we have shewn in the Example of Paul that it was not so since it were most absurd to judge that he Converted only those few even of the Church of Corinth whom he saith he baptized nor were it less absurd to think that that was a constant Apostolick Practice which he that was not Inferior to the Chiefest of the Apostles and who declares he laboured as much as they all rejoyceth he was so little in But further the Conclusion inferred from the Apostles Practice of baptizing with Water to evince that they understood Matth. 28. of Water-baptism doth not hold For though they baptized with Water it will not follow that either they did it by vertue of that Commission or that they mistook that place nor can there be any Medium brought that will infer such a Conclusion As to the other insinuated Absurdity That they did it without a Commission It is none at all For they might have done it by a Permission as being in use before Christ's Death and because the People nursed up with Outward Ceremonies could not be weaned wholly from them And thus they used other things as Circumcision and legal Purifications which yet they had no Commission from Christ to do to which we shall speak more at length in the following Proposition concerning the Supper Object But if from the Sameness of the Word because Christ bids them baptize and they afterwards in the Use of Water are said to baptize it be judged probable that they did understand that Commission Matth. 28. to authorize them to baptize with Water and accordingly practised it Answ. Although it should be granted that for a season they did so far mistake it as to judge that Water belonged to that Baptism which however I find no necessity of granting yet I see not any great Absurdity would thence follow For it is plain they did mistake that Commission as to a main part of it for a Season as where he bids them Go teach all Nations since some time after they judged it unlawful to Teach the Gentiles Yea Peter himself scrupled it until by a Vision constrained thereunto for which after he had done it he was for a season until they were better informed judged by the rest of his Brethren Now if the Education of the Apostles as Jews and their Propensity to adhere and stick to the Jewish Religion did so far influence them that even after Christ's Resurrection and the pouring forth of the Spirit they could not receive nor admit of the Teaching of the Gentiles though Christ in his Commission to them commanded them to Preach to them what further Absurdity were it to suppose that through the like Mistake the Chiefest of them having been the Disciples of John and his Baptism being so much prized there among the Jews that they also took Christ's Baptism intended by him of the Spirit to be that of Water which was John's and accordingly practised it for a season it suffices us that if they were so mistaken though I say not that they were so they did not always remain under that Mistake Else Peter would not have said of the Baptism which now saves that it is not a putting away of the filth of the Flesh which certainly Water-baptism is But further they urge much Peter's baptising Cornelius In which they press two things First That Water-baptism is used even to those that had received the Spirit Secondly That it is said positively he commanded them to be baptized Acts 10. 47 48. But neither of these doth necessarily infer Water-baptism to belong to the New Covenant-Dispensation nor yet to be a Perpetual standing Ordinance in the Church For First All that this will amount to was That Peter at that time baptized these Men but that he did it by vertue of that Commission Matth. 28. remains yet to be proved And how doth the baptising with VVater after the receiving of the Holy Ghost prove the Case more than the use of Circumcision and other Legal Rites acknowledged to have been acted by him afterwards Also no wonder if Peter that thought it so strange notwithstanding all that had been professed before and spoken by Christ that the Gentiles should be made Partakers of the Gospel and with great difficulty not without a very extraordinary Impulse thereunto was brought to come to them and eat with them was apt to put this Ceremony upon them which being as it were the particular Dispensation of John the Fore-runner of Christ seemed to have greater Affinity with the Gospel than the other Jewish Ceremonies then used by the Church but that will no ways infer our Adversaries Conclusion Secondly As to these Words And he commanded them to be baptized it declareth matter of Fact not of Right and amounteth to no more than that Peter did at that time pro hic nunc Command those persons to be baptized with Water which is not denied but it saith nothing that Peter commanded Water-baptism to be a Standing and Perpetual Ordinance to the Church neither can any Man of sound Reason say if he heed what he says that a Command in matter of Fact to Particular Persons doth infer the thing commanded to be of general obligation to all if it be not other ways bottomed upon some Positive Precept Why doth Peter's Commanding Cornelius and his Houshold to be baptized at that time infer Water-baptism to Continue more than his Constraining which is more than Commanding the Gentiles in general to be Circumcised and observe the Law We find that at that time when Peter baptized Cornelius it was not determined whether the Gentiles should not be Circumcised but on the contrary it was the most general Sense of the Church that they should And therefore no wonder if they thought it needful at that time that they should be baptized which had more Affinity with the Gospel and was a Burthen less grievous Obj. IV § X. Fourthly They Object from the Signification of the Word baptize which is as much as to Dip and Wash with Water alledging thence that the very Word imports a being baptized with Water Answ. This Objection is very weak For since baptizing with Water was a Rite among the Jews as Paulus Riccius sheweth even before the coming of John therefore that Ceremony received that Name from the Nature of the Practice as used both by the Jews and by John
Yea we find that Christ and his Apostles frequently make use of these Terms to a more Spiritual Signification Circumcision was only used and understood among the Jews to be that of the Flesh but the Apostle tells us of the Circumcision of the Heart and Spirit made without Hands So that though Baptism was used among the Jews only to signifie a Washing with Water yet both John Christ and his Apostles speak of a being baptized with the Spirit and with Fire which they make the Peculiar Baptism of Christ as contradistinguished from that of Water which was John's as is above shewn So that though Baptism among the Jews was only understood of Water yet among Christians it is very well understood of the Spirit without Water as we see Christ and his Apostles spiritually to understand things under the Terms of what had been Shadows before Thus Christ speaking of his Body though the Jews mistook him said he would Destroy this Temple and build it again in three days and many more that might be instanced But if the Etymology of the Word should be tenaciously adhered to it would militate against most of our Adversaries as well as against us For the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Immergo to plunge and dip in and that was the proper use of Water-baptism among the Jews and also by John and the Primitive Christians who used it whereas our Adversaries for the most part only Sprinkle a little Water upon the Forehead which doth not at all answer to the Word Baptism Yea those of old among Christians that used Water-baptism thought this dipping and plunging so needful that they thus dipped Children And forasmuch as it was judged that it might prove hurtful to some weak Constitutions Sprinkling to prevent that hurt was introduced yet then it was likewise appointed that such as were only sprinkled and not dipped should not be admitto have any Office in the Church as not being sufficiently baptized So that if our Adversaries will stick to the Word they must alter their Method of Sprinkling Obj. V Fifthly They Object John 3. 5. Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit c. hence inferring the necessity of Water-baptism as well as of the Spirit Answ. But if this prove any thing it will prove Water-baptism to be of absolute Necessity And therefore Protestants rightly affirm when this is urged upon them by Papists to evince the absolute Necessity of Water-baptism that Water is not here understood of Outward Water but mystically of an Inward Cleansing and Washing Even as where Christs speaks of being baptized with Fire it is not to be understood of outward material Fire but only of Purifying by a Metonymy because to purifie is a proper Effect of Fire as to Wash and make clean is of Water Therefore the Scripture alludes to Water where it can as little be so understood As where we are said to be Saved by the Washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. Yea Peter saith expresly in the place often cited as Calvin well observes That the Baptism which saves is not the putting away of the filth of the Flesh So that since Water cannot be understood of outward Water this can serve nothing to prove Water-baptism If it be said that Water imports here Object necessitatem Praecepti though not Medii I Answer That is first to take it for Answ. granted that outward VVater is here understood the contrary whereof we have already proved Next VVater and the Spirit are placed here together Except a Man be born of VVater and the Spirit where the Necessity of the one is urged as much as of the other Now if the Spirit be absolutely necessary so will also Water And then we must either say that To be born of the Spirit is not absolutely necessary which all acknowledge to be false or else that Water is absolutely necessary which as Protestants we affirm and have proved is false else we must confess that Water is not here understood of outward Water For to say that when Water and the Spirit are placed here just together and in the same manner though there be not any difference or ground for it visible in the Text or deduceable from it That the necessity of Water is here Praecepti but not Medii but the necessity of the Spirit is both Medii and Praecepti is indeed confidently to affirm but not to prove Obj. VI Sixthly and lastly They Object That the Baptism of Water is a visible Sign or Badge to distinguish Christians from Infidels even as Circumcision did the Jews Answ. I Answer This saith nothing at all unless it be proved to be a necessary Precept or part of the New Covenant-Dispensation it not being lawful to us to impose outward Ceremonies and Rites and say they will distinguish us from Infidels Circumcision was positively commanded and said to be a Seal of the first Covenant but as we have already proved that there is no such Command for Baptism so there is not any Word in all the New Testament calling it a Badge of Christianity or Seal of the New Covenant And therefore to conclude it is so because Circumcision was so unless some better Proof be alledged for it is miserably to beg the Question The professing of Faith in Christ and a holy Life answering thereunto is a far better Badge of Christianity than any outward Washing which yet answers not to that of Circumcision since that affixed a Character in the Flesh which this doth not So that a Christian is not known to be a Christian by his being baptized especially when he was a Child unless he tell them so much And may not the Professing Faith in Christ signifie that as well I know there are divers of those called Fathers that speak much of Water-baptism calling it Character Christianitatis but so did they also of the Sign of the Cross and other such things justly rejected by Protestants For the Mystery of Iniquity which began to work even in the Apostles days soon spoiled the Simplicity and Purity of the Christian Worship so that not only many Jewish Rites were retained but many Heathenish Customs and Ceremonies introduced into the Christian Worship as particularly that Word Sacrament So that it is great folly especially for Protestants to plead any thing of this from Tradition or Antiquity for we find that neither Papists nor Protestants use these Rites exactly as the Ancients did who in such things not walking by the most certain Rule of God's Spirit but doting too much upon Outwards were very Uncertain For most of them all in the Primitive Time did wholly Plunge and Dip those they Baptized which neither Papists nor Protestants do Yea several of the Fathers accused some as Hereticks in their Days for holding some Principles common with Protestants concerning it as particularly Augustine doth the Pelagians for saying That Infants dying Unbaptized may be saved And the
and among Protestants in particular have arisen but also such Absurdities irrational and blasphemous Consequences have ensued as make the Christian Religion odious and hateful to Jews Turks and Heathens The Professors of Christianity do chiefly divide in this matter into three Opinions The first is of those that say The Substance of the Bread is Transubstantiated into the very Substance of that same Body Flesh and Blood of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary and crucified by the Jews So that after the Words of Consecration as they call them it is no more Bread but the Body of Christ. The second is of such as say The Substance of the Bread remains but that also that Body is in and with and under the Bread So that both the Substance of the Bread and the Body Flesh and Blood of Christ is there also The third is of those that denying both these do affirm That the Body of Christ is not there Corporally or Substantially but yet that it is Really and Sacramentally received by the Faithful in the use of Bread and Wine But how or what way it 's there they know not nor can they tell only we must believe it is there yet so that it is only properly in Heaven It is not my Design to enter into a Refutation of these several Opinions for each of their Authors and Assertors have sufficiently Refuted one another and are all of them no less strong both from Scripture and Reason in Refuting each their contrary Party's Opinion than they are Weak in Establishing their own For I often have seriously observed in reading their respective Writings and so it may be have others that all of them do notably in so far as they Refute the contrary Opinions but that they are mightily pained when they come to Confirm and Plead for their own Hence I necessarily must conclude That none of them had attained to the Truth and Substance of this Mystery Let us see if Calvin after he hath Refuted the two former Opinions be more successful in what he affirms and asserts for the Truth of his Opinion who after he hath much laboured in overturning and Refuting the two former Opinions plainly confesseth that he knows not what to affirm instead of them For after he has spoken much and at last Concluded That the Body of Christ is there and that the Saints must needs partake thereof at last he lands in these Words Sect. 32. But if it be asked me how it is I shall not be ashamed to confess That it is a Secret too high for me to comprehend in my Spirit or explain in Words Here he deals very ingeniously and yet who would have thought that such a Man would have been brought to this Strait in the Confirming of his Opinion Considering but a little before in the same Chapter Sect. 15. he accuseth the Schoolmen among the Papists and I Confess truly In that they neither Understand nor Explain to others how Christ is in the Eucharist which shortly after he Confesseth himself he cannot do If then the School-men among the Papists do neither Understand nor yet can Explain to others their Doctrine in this matter nor Calvin can comprehend it in his Spirit which I judge is as much as not to understand it nor Express it in Words and then surely he cannot Explain it to others then no certainty is to be had from either of them There have been great Endeavours used for Reconcilement in this matter both betwixt Papists and Lutherans Lutherans and Calvinists yea and Calvinists and Papists but all to no purpose and many Forms and Manners of Expressions drawn up to which all might yield which in the end proved in vain seeing every one understood them and interpreted them their own way and so they did thereby but Equivocate and Deceive one another The Reason of all this Contention is because they all wanted a clear Understanding of the Mystery and were doting about the Shadow and the Externals For both the Ground and Matter of their Contest lies in things extrinsick from and unnecessary to the main Matter and this hath been often the Policy of Satan to busie People and amuse them with outward Signs Shadows and Forms making them Contend about that while in the mean time the Substance is neglected Yea and in Contending for these Shadows he stirs them up to the practice of Malice Heat Revenge and other Vices by which he establisheth his Kingdom of Darkness among them and ruines the Life of Christianity For there has been more Animosity and Heat about this one Particular and more Blood-shed and Contention than about any other And surely they are little acquainted with the State of Protestants Affairs who know not that their Contentions about this have been more hurtful to the Reformation than all the Opposition they met with from their common Adversaries Now all these uncertain and absurd Opinions and the Contentions therefrom arising have proceeded from their all agreeing in Two General Errors concerning this thing Which being denied and receded from as they are by us there would be an Easie Way made for Reconciliation and we should all meet in the one Spiritual and true Understanding of this Mystery and as the Contentions so would also the Absurdities which follow from all the Three forementioned Opinions Cease and fall to the ground The First of these Errors is in making the Communion or Participation of the Body Flesh and Blood of Christ to relate to that outward Body Vessel or Temple that was born of the Virgin Mary and walked and suffered in Judea whereas it should relate to the Spiritual Body Flesh and Blood of Christ even that Heavenly and Celestial Light and Life which was the Food and Nourishment of the Regenerate in all Ages as we have already proved The Second Error is In tying this Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to that Ceremony used by him with his Disciples in the breaking of bread c. as if it had only a Relation thereto or were only enjoyed in the use of that Ceremony which it neither hath nor is For this is that Bread which Christ in his Prayer teaches to call for terming it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the supersubstantial Bread as the Greek hath it and which the Soul partakes of without any relation or necessary respect to this Ceremony as shall be hereafter proved more at length These Two Errors being thus laid aside and the Contentions arising therefrom buried all are agreed in the main Positions viz. First That the body flesh and blood of Christ is necessary for the nourishing of the Soul Secondly That the Souls of Believers do really and truly partake and feed upon the body flesh and blood of Christ. But while Men are not content with the Spirituality of this Mystery going in their own Wills and according to their own Inventions to strain and
Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the World why as though living in the World are ye subject to Ordinances Touch not taste not handle not Which all are to perish with the Using after the Commandments and Doctrines of Men What can be more plain If this serve not to take away the Absolute Necessity of the use of Bread and Wine what can it serve to take away Sure I am the Reason here given is applicable to them which all do perish with the using since Bread and Wine perisheth with the using as much as other things But further if the use of Water and Bread and Wine were that wherein the very Seals of the New Covenant stood and did pertain to the Chief Sacraments of the Gospel and Evangelical Ordinances so called then would not the Gospel differ from the Law or be preferrable to it Whereas the Apostle shews the difference Heb. 9. 10. in that such kind of Observations of the Jews were as a Sign of the Gospel for that this stood only in Meats and Drinks and divers Washings And now if the Gospel-Worship and Service stand in the same where is the difference Object If it be said These under the Gospel have a Spiritual Signification Answ. So had those under the Law God was the Author of those as well as Christ is pretended to be the Author of these But doth not this contending for the use of Water Bread and Wine as necessary Parts of the Gospel-Worship destroy the Nature of it as if the Gospel were a Dispensation of Shadows and not of the Substance whereas the Apostle in that of the Colossians above-mentioned argues against the Use of these things as needful to those that are dead and arisen with Christ because they are but Shadows And since through the whole Epistle to the Hebrews he argues with the Jews to Wean them from their Worship for this Reason because it was Typical and Figurative is it agreeable to right Reason to bring them to another of the same Nature What ground from Scripture or Reason can our Adversaries bring us to evince that one Shadow or Figure should point to another Shadow or Figure and not to the Substance And yet they make the Figure of Circumcision to point to Water-Baptism and the Paschal Lamb to Bread and Wine But was it ever known that one Figure was the Antitype of the other especially seeing Protestants make not these their Antitypes to have any more Vertue or Efficacy than the Type had For since as they say and that truly That their Sacraments confer not Grace but that is conferred according to the Faith of the Receiver it will not be denied but the Faithful among the Jews received also Grace in the Use of their Figurative Worship And though Papists boast that their Sacraments confer Grace ex opere operato yet Experience abundantly proveth the contrary § X. But supposing the Use of Water-Baptism and Bread and Wine to have been in the Primitive Church as was also that of Abstaining from things strangled and from Blood the use of Legal Purifications Acts 21. 23 24 25. and Anointing of the Sick with Oyl for the Reasons and Grounds before mentioned Yet it remains for our Adversaries to shew us how they come by Power or Authority to Administer them It cannot be from the Letter of the Scripture else they behoved also to do those other things which the Letter declares also they did and which in the Letter have as much Foundation Then their power must be derived from the Apostles either Mediately or Immediately but we have shewn before in the Tenth Proposition that they have no Mediate Power because of the Interruption made by the Apostacy And for an Immediate Power or Command by the Spirit of God to Administer these things none of our Adversaries pretend to it We know that in this as in other things they make a Noise of the Constant Consent of the Church and of Christians in all Ages But as Tradition is not a sufficient Ground for Faith so in this matter especially it ought to have but small Weight for that in this Point of Ceremonies and Superstitious Observations the Apostacy began very arly as may appear in the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Colossians And we have no ground to imitate them in those things whose Entrance the Apostle so much withstood so heavily regretted and so sharply reproved But if we look to Antiquity we find that in such kind of Observances and Traditions they were very uncertain and changeable so that neither Protestants nor Papists do observe this Ceremony as They did both in that they gave it to Young Boys and to Little Children And for ought can be learned the Use of this and Infant-Baptism are of a like Age though the one be laid aside both by Papists and Protestants and the other to wit Baptism of Infants be stuck to And we have so much the less Reason to lay Weight upon Antiquity for that if we consider their Profession of Religion especially as to Worship and the Ceremorial Part of it we shall not find any Church now whether Popish or Protestant who differ nor widely from them in many things as Daleus in his Treatise concerning the use of the Fathers well Observeth and Demonstrateth And why they should Obtrude this upon us because of the Ancient's Practice which they themselves follow not or why we may not Reject This as well as they do Other Things no less Zealously practised by the Ancients there is no sufficient Reason can be assigned I shall not nevertheless doubt but that many whose Understandings have been Clouded with these Ceremonies have notwithstanding by the Mercy of God had some Secret Sense of the Mystery which they could not Clearly Understand because it was Vailed from them by their sticking unto such Outward Things And that through that Secret Sense Diving in their Comprehensions they ran themselves into these Carnal Apprehensions as imagining the Substance of the Bread was Changed or if the Substance was not changed yet the Body was there c. And indeed I am inclinable very favourably to judge of Calvin in this particular in that he deals so ingenuously to confess he neither Comprehends nor can express it in Words but yet by a feeling Experience can say The Lord is spiritually present Now as I do not doubt but Calvin sometimes had a Sense of this Presence without the Use of this Ceremony so as the Understanding given him of God made him justly reject the false Notions of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation though he knew not what to Establish instead of them If he had fully waited in that Light that makes all Things Manifest and had not laboured in his own Comprehension to settle upon that External Ceremony by affixing the Spiritual Presence as Chiefly or Principally though not only as he well knew by Experience there
or especially to relate to it he might have reached further unto the Knowledge of this Mystery than many that went before him § XI Lastly If any now at this Day from a true Tenderness of Spirit and with real Conscience towards God did practise this Ceremony in the same Way Method and Manner as did the Primitive Christians recorded in Scripture which yet none that I know now do I should not doubt to affirm but they might be indulged in it and the Lord might regard them and for a season Appear to them in the Use of these things as many of us have known him to do to us in the time of our Ignorance Provided always they did not seek to Obtrude them upon others nor Judge such as found themselves Delivered or that they do not pertinaciously adhere to them For we certainly know that the Day is Dawned in which God hath Arisen and hath Dismissed all those Ceremonies and Rites and is only to be Worshipped in Spirit and that he Appears to them who Wait upon him And that to Seek God in these things is with Mary at the Sepulcher To seek the Living among the Dead For we know that he is Arisen and Revealed in Spirit leading his Children out of these Rudiments that they may Walk with Him in his Light To whom be Glory for ever Amen THE END BOOKS Printed and Sold by T. Sowle next to the Meeting-House in White-Hart-Court in Gracious-Street THe Works of that Memorable and Ancient Servant of Christ Stephen Crisp containing also a Journal of his Life giving an Account of his Convincement Travels Labours and Sufferings in and for the Truth Price bound 5 s. A Collection of the several Writings and Faithful Testimonies of that Suffering Servant of God and patient Follower of the Lamb Humphry Smith Price bound 2 s. 6 d. A Collection of certain Epistles and Testimonies of Divine Cousolation Experience and Doctrine Written by that Faithful Patient and Long-suffering Servant of Christ William Bennit Price bound 1 s. 8 d. The Memory of the Righteous Revived being a brief Collection of the Books and written Epistles of John Camm and John Audland Together with several Testimonies relating to those two Faithful Labourers Price bound 2 s. Truth Vindicated by the Faithful Testimony and Writings of the Innocent Servant and Handmaid of the Lord Elizabeth Bathurst Deceased Price bound 1 s. A Catechism and Confession of Faith By R. Barclay Price bound 9 d. No Cross No Crown A Discourse shewing the Nature and Discipline of the Holy Cross of Christ. By W. Penn In two Parts Price 3 s. An Account of W. Penn's Travails in Holland and Germany Anno MDCLXXVII Price 2 s. A Brief Account of the Rise and Progress of the People called Quakers By W. Penn. Price 1 s. BOOKS Printed and Sold by T. Sowle in White-Hart-Court in Gracious-Street and at the Bible in Leaden-Hall-Street 1699. TRuth 's Principles Or those things about Doctrine and Worship which are most surely believed and received amongst the People of God called Quakers viz. Concerning the Man Christ His Sufferings Death Resurrection Faith in his Blood the Imputation of his Righteousness Sanctification Justification c. by John Crook To wich is added somewhat concerning the Difference between the Persuasions of Reason and the Persuasions of Faith By Isaac Penington price stitch'd 3 d. A Defence of a Paper Entituled Gospel-Truths against the Exceptions of the Bishop of Cork's Testimony Against the Quakers By W. Penn. price Bound 12 d. Anguis Flagellatus Or a Switch for the Snake Being an Answer to the Third and Last Edition of The Snake in the Grass Wherein that Author's Injustice and Falshood both in Quotation and Story are discovered and obviated And the Truth Doctrinally delivered by Us stated and maintained in Opposition to his Misrepresentation and Perversion By Joseph Wyeth To which is added a Supplement by George Whitehead The Christian Quaker and his Divine Testimony stated and vindicated from Scripture Reason and Authority By W. Penn. price Bound 2 s. England's present Interest considered with Honour to the Prince and Safety to the People In Answer to this one Question What is most Fit Easie and Safe to he done for Allaying the Heat of contrary Interests and making them Consistent with the Prosperity of the Kingdom Submitted to the Consideration of our Superiours By W. Penn. price Bound 1 s. The Tryal of Spirits both in Teachers and Hearers Wherein is held forth the clear Discovery and certain Downfal of the Carnal and Antichristian Clergy of these Nations Testified from the Word of God to the University Congregations in Cambrige Whereunto is added a plain and necessary Confutation of divers Gross Errors delivered by Mr. Sydrach Sympson in a Sermon preached to the same Congregation at the Commencement Anno MDCLIII Wherein among other things is declared that the Universities according to their present Statutes and Practices are not as he affirmed answerable to the Schools of the Prophets in the time of the Law but rather to the Idolatrous High Places And that Humane Learning is not a Preparation appointed by Christ either for the right Understanding or right Teaching the Gospel With a brief Testimony against Divinity-Degrees in the Universities As also Luther's Testimony at large upon the whole Matter And lastly The right Reformation of Learning Schools and Universities according to the State of the Gospel and the Light that shines therein All necessary for the Instruction and Direction of the Faithful in these last times By William Dell Minister of the Gospel and Master of Convil and Caius College in Cambrige price Bound 1 s. 6 d. The Defence of the People called Quakers Being a Reply to a Book lately Published by certain Priests of the County of Norfolk under the pretended Title of The Quakers Challenge And containing some brief and modest Animadversions upon the Book it self Several Certificates which Detect the Errors in those of West-Dereham and Clear the People called Quakers of the said Challenge The Letters that passed between Them and the Priests price Stitch'd 6 d. Truth and Innocency Vindicated and the People called Quakers Defended in Principle and Practice against Invidious Attempts and Calumnies Being a just Examination of two Books against the said People Entituled 1st A Brief Discovery c. by three Norfolk Priests 2d Some few of the Quakers many horrid Blasphemies c. being a Scandalous Libel Examined by George Whitehead a Servant of Christ. Containing also many of the repeated Abuses in John Meriton's Antidote and Francis Bugg's Pilgrims's Progress price 9 d. The Friendly Enquirer's Doubts and Objections answered Concerning The Light within the Word of God the Church of Christ Gospel Ministers Ordinances in General and in Particular Water-Baptism and the Lord's Supper Together with a brief Testimony against Oahs and Tithes First intended and written for the Satisfaction of some particular Acquaintance and now published for more General Serâ—â—ce By James Jackson price