regard it He that eateth eateth to the Lord for he giveth God thanks and he that eateth not to the Lord he eateth not and giveth God Thanks Q. But is it not convenient and necessary that there be a Day set a part to Meet and Worship God in Did not the Apostles and Primitive Christians use to meet upon the First Day of the Week to make their Collections and to Worship A. Now concerning the Collection for the Saints as I have given Order to the Churches of Galatia 1 Cor. 16.1 even so do ye upon the First Day of the Week Let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prosper'd him that there be no Gatherings when I come CHAP. XI Concerning Baptism and Bread and Wine Question HOw many BAPTISMS are there Answer One Lord One Faith One Baptism Q. What is this Baptism A. The like Figure whereunto even Baptism doth now save us Ephes. 4.5 not the putting away the Filth of the Flesh but The Answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 3.21 22. who is gone into Heaven and is on the Right Hand of God Angels and Authorities and Powers being made subject unto him Q. What saith John the Baptist of Christ's Baptism how distinguisheth he it from his A. I indeed baptize you with Water unto Repentance but he that cometh after me is Mightier than I whose Shoes I am not worthy to bear Matth. 3.11 he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire Q. Doth not Christ so distinguish it also A. And being assembled together with them commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem 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 the Holy Ghost not many days hence Q. Doth not the Apostle Peter observe this A. And as I began to speak the Holy Ghost fell on them Acts 11.15 16. as on us at the Beginning 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 Q. Then it seems John's Baptism must pass away John's Baptism that Christ's may take place because John must decrease that Christ may increase A. He must increase but I must decrease John 30.30 Q. I perceive then many may be sprinkled with and dipped and baptized in Water Christ's Baptism and yet not truly baptized with the Baptism of Christ What are the real Effects in such as are truly baptized with the Baptism of Christ A. Know ye not that so many of us Rom. 6.3 4. as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his Death Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into Death that like as Christ was raised up from the Dead by the Glory of the Father even so we also should walk in Newness of Life For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ Gal. 2.27 have put on Christ. Buried with him in Baptism wherein also ye are risen with him Col. 2.12 through the Faith of the Operation of God who hath raised him from the Dead Q. I perceive there was a Baptism of Water which was John's Baptism and is therefore by John himself contra-distinguished from Christ's was there not likewise something of the like nature appointed by Christ to his Disciples Bread and Wine of eating Bread and drinking Wine in Remembrance of him 1 Cor. 11.23 24 25. A. For I have received of the Lord that which also I have delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus the same Night in which he was betrayed took Bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and said Take eat this is my Body which is broken for you this do in Remembrance of me After the same manner also he took the Cup when he had supped saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood This do ye as oft as ye drink it in Remembrance of me discontinued Q. How long was this to continue 1 Cor. 11 26. A. For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come Christ's coming John 14.18 23. Q Did Christ promise to come again to his Disciples A. I will not leave you Comfortless I will come to you Jesus answered and said unto him If a man love me he will keep my Words and my Father will love him and We will come unto him and make our Abode with him Inward Q. Was this an Inward Coming John 14.20 A. At that Day ye shall know that I am in my Father and ye in me and I in you Q. But it would seem this was even practised by the Church of Corinth after Christ was come inwardly was it so that there were certain Appointments positively commanded yea and Zealously and Conscientiously practised by the Saints of Old As Certain Appointments not perpetual which were not of perpetual Continuance nor yet now needful to be practised in the Church John 13.14 15. A. If I then your Lord and Master have washed your Feet ye also ought to wash one another's Feet For I have given you an Example that ye should do as I have done to you Acts 15.28 91. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater Burden than these necessary things That ye abstain from Meats offered to Idols and from Blood and from things strangled and from Fornication from which if ye keep your selves ye shall do well Fare-wel Jam. 5.14 Is any man sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him Anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord. Q. These Commands are no less positive than the other yea some of them are asserted as the very Sense of the Holy Ghost as no less necessary so Bread and Wine than abstaining from Fornication and yet the generality of Protestants have laid them aside as not of perpetual Continuance But what other Scriptures are there to shew that it is not Necessary that of Bread and Wine to Continue Rom. 14.17 A. For the Kingdom of God is not Meat and Drink but Righteousness and Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost Let no man therefore judge you in Meat or in Drink or in respect of an Holy Day Col. 2.16 20 21 22. or of the New-Moon or of the Sabbath-Days 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 Man Q. These Scriptures are very plain The Spiritual Bread and say as much for the Abolishing of this as to any Necessity
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 If it be said further That though the Baptism of John Object 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 make up the One Baptism I Answer This urgeth nothing unless it be granted also Answ. that both of them belong to the Essence of Baptism so that Baptism is not to be accounted as truly Administred where both are not which none of our Adversaries will acknowledge but on the contrary account not only all those truly Baptized with the Baptism of Christ Water Baptism is not the true Baptism of Christ. who are Baptized with Water though they be uncertain whether they be Baptized with the Spirit or not but they even account such truly Baptized with the Baptism of Christ because Sprinkled or Baptized with Water though it be manifest and most certain that they are not Baptized with the Spirit as being Enemies thereunto in their hearts by wicked Works So here by their own Confession Baptism with Water is without the Spirit Wherefore we may far safer conclude that the Baptism of the Spirit which is that of Christ is and may be without that of Water as appears in that Acts 11. where Peter testifies of these men that they were Baptized with the Spirit though not then Baptized with Water And indeed the Controversy in this as in most other things stands betwixt us and our Opposers in that they not only often-times prefer the Form and Shadow to the Power and Substance by denominating persons as Inheritors and Possessors of the thing from their having the Form and Shadow though really wanting the Power and Substance and not admitting those to be so denominated who have the Power and Substance if they want the Form and Shadow This appears evidently in that they account those truly Baptized with the One Baptism of Christ who are not baptized with the Spirit which in Scripture is particularly called the Baptism of Christ if they be only batized with Water which themselves yet Confess to be but the Shadow or Figure * The Baptism of the Spirit needeth no Sprinkling or Dipping in Water And moreover in that they account not those who are surely baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit baptized neither will they have them so denominate unless they be also Sprinkled with or Dipped in Water But we on the Contrary do always prefer the Power to the Form the Substance to the Shadow and where the Substance and Power is we doubt not to denominate the person accordingly though the Form be wanting And therefore we always seek first and plead for the Substance and Power as knowing that to be indispensibly necessary though the Form sometimes may be dispensed with and the Figure or Type may cease when the Substance and Anti-type comes to be enjoyed as it doth in this Case which shall hereafter be made appear Proof IV § IV. Fourthly That the One Baptism of Christ is not a Washing with Water appears from 1 Pet. 3.21 The like Figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us The plainest Definition of the Baptism of Christ in all the Bible not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. So plain a definition of Baptism is not in all the Bible and therefore seeing it is so plain it may well be preferred to all the coined definitions of the School-men The Apostle tells us first Negatively what it is not viz. Not a putting away of the filth of the flesh then surely it is not a Washing with Water since that is so Secondly he tells us Affirmatively what it is viz. The Answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ where he Affirmatively Defines it to be the Answer or Confession as the Syriack Version hath it of a good Conscience Now this Answer cannot be but where the Spirit of God hath purified the Soul and the Fire of his Judgment hath burned up the unrighteous nature and those in whom this Work is wrought may be truly said to be baptized with the Baptism of Christ i. e. of the Spirit and of Fire Whatever way then we take this Definition of the Apostle of Christ's Baptism it confirmeth our sentence for if we take the first or Negative part viz. That it is not a putting away of the filth of the flesh water-Water-Baptism shut out from the Baptism of Christ. then it will follow that Water Baptism is not it because that is a putting away of the filth of the flesh If we take the second and Affirmative definition to wit That it is the Answer or Confession of a good Conscience c. then Water-baptism is not it since as our Adversaries will not deny Water-baptism doth not always imply it neither is it any necessary Consequence thereof Moreover the Apostle in this place doth seem especially to guard against those that might esteem water-Water-baptism the true Baptism of Christ because lest by the Comparison induced by him in the preceeding verse betwixt the Souls that were saved in Noah's Ark and us that are now saved by Baptism lest I say any should have thence hastily concluded that because the former were saved by Water this place must needs be taken to speak of water-Water-Baptism to prevent such a mistake he plainly affirms that it is not that but another thing He saith not that it is the Water or the putting away of the filth of the flesh as accompanyed with the Answer of a good Conscience whereof the one viz. the Water is the Sacramental Element administred by the Minister and the other the Grace or thing signified Conferred by Christ but plainly That it is the putting away c. than which there can be nothing more manifest to men unprejudicate and judicious Moreover Peter calls this here which saves the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Anti-type or the thing
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 Water 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 hîc 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 yet 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 Object 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 witb 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 Baptizing signifies Dipping or Washing with Water 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 tho Baptism was used among the Jews only to signify 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-shewen So that tho 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 thô 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 that is to plunge and dip in and that was the proper use of water-Water-baptism among the Jews and also by John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immergo intingo to plunge and dip in and the Primitive Christians who used it whereas our Adversaries for the most part only Sprinkle a little Water upon the Fore-head which doth not at all answer to the word Baptism Yea those of old among Christians Those that of old used Water-baptism were dipt and plunged and those that were only sprinkled were not admitted to any Office in the Church and why 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 admitted to 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 Fifthly they object Joh. 3.5 Object V Except a man be born again of Water and of the Spirit c. hence inferring the necessity of water-Water-baptism as well as of the Spirit But if this prove any thing Answ. it will prove water-Water-baptism to be of absolute Necessity and therefore Protestants rightly affirm The Water that Regenerates is Mystical and Inward when this is urged upon them by Papists to evince the absolute Necessity of water-Water-baptism that Water is not here understood of Outward Water but mystically of an Inward Cleansing and Washing Even as where Christ 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 purify 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 * In the 4 th Book of his Instit. chap. 15. 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-Water-baptism If it be said that Water imports here necessitatem Praecepti Object though not Medii I answer That is first to take it for granted Answ. that outward Water is here understood the contrary whereof we have already proved Next Water and the Spirit are placed here together Necessitas Praecepti and Medii urged Except a man be born of Water 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
even Jesus Christ who is the Way the Truth and the Life And so as to those Examples thou givest which were witnessed thou say'st some twenty years ago We deny not but that the Lord did appear and was near the simple-hearted in that day and some who are now among the Quakers remember that day Former Feelings and Enjoyments and have a share in those feelings and enjoyments which are now and in the experience and enjoyment of them can bear a true Testimony that the feelings and enjoyments of this day unto those who follow the Lord in his leadings do far exceed what was in that day And now the Sun is set upon that day for the Lord is calling his People further and those among us who had those former feelings can witness that while they would have been tasting of that sweetness and remained still with you the Lord would not but suffered driness and barrenness to come over them and that which some time had been as a fruitful Field to become a barren Wilderness till they saw that they were not to limit him to Invented Forms but were to forsake those things in his Will in which through his Indulgence and Compassion he had sometimes appeared unto them and to be found following the footsteps of the Flock whom he is leading on to a further state in which they find the Lord appearing more gloriously than ever to their refreshment Glory to him for evermore But with you it is otherwise for who among you witness these things at this day Yea some of you are so ingenuous as to confess That ye find not these things now and that this is a cloudy and gloomy day and it shall certainly so continue unto you until ye come and walk with us in the Light of the Lord. But because ye will not but will confine the Lord in these forms whereunto ye have devoted your selves therefore is darkness over you and your Prayers are become dry and barren and full of Complaints of an Absent God And what Inward joy from God any have felt among you we cannot impute it to your Way more than what some have felt of refreshment in some other Professions and Forms can be imputed to their Way Page 30. Thou say'st It is known that we are Enemies to singing of Psalms Baptism and the Lord's Supper And because we say Baptism and the Lord's Supper that we are not against these things therefore thou callest us dis-ingenuous or such as seek to delude People Which Challenge is false and a Calumny For we do indeed own these things in the true acceptation and meaning of them and in the substance and reality and if we do so are we dis-ingenuous and deceitful because we deny them in your Acceptation which only comprehends the shadow that passeth away The Shadow for the Substance comprehended by Professors If Baptism which is really and truly the Baptism of Christ we own and participation of the Body and Blood of Christ which is really so I say if these things be really owned by us as they are indeed can we be said to deny them because we use not the shadow as ye do while ye are ignorant of and strangers to the substance Nay it may be retorted much more properly and without deceipt upon your selves that ye do but pretendly in Words own these things while indeed ye deny them So that herein ye are found to be the Equivocators who are contending for the Husk and will needs have it accounted the Kernel and there can be no errour more dangerous than to place the shadow for the substance for such as so do are those that trample upon the precious Ordinances of Jesus Christ in which the work of grace is begun and increased Page 32. To prove thy Assertions particularly Singing of Psalms as used by the Saints allowed thou beginnest saying That singing of Psalms is an Ordinance of Jesus Christ Whereby if thou understandest that singing of Psalms was used by the Saints that it is a part of God's Worship when performed in his Will and by his Spirit and that yet it may be and is warrantably performed among the Saints it is a thing denied by no Quaker so called and it is not unusual among them whereof I have my self been a witness and have felt of the sweetness and quickning vertue of the Spirit therein and at such occasions ministred And that at times David's Words may also be used as the Spirit leads thereunto and as they sute the condition of the party is acknowledged without dispute but that without the Spirit in Self-will not regarding how the thing sutes their Condition for a mixt multitude to use and sing the Expressions of blessed David we deny For that was not the Method the Apostle spoke of 1 Cor. 14.15 when he said I will sing with the Spirit and I will sing with the Vnderstanding also Therefore though singing of Psalms in the true use of them be allowable yet as used by you it is abominable and is a Mock-worship because ye cannot deny but that the Persons using it are a mixed Multitude known to be Drunkards Swearers Whoremongers c. Now such cannot praise God The Dead cannot praise God for they are dead in their sins and it is the living that praise him and not the dead Next All Lying is abomination but many times it falls out that by singing of Psalms the People come to lye in the presence of God instead of worshipping him by saying I am not puft up in mind I have no deceitful heart I water my Couch with tears and much more of this nature which were the particular Experiences of David and may be safely said by those that witness the same thing but as to you that use them are false and untrue I say as thou dost That though every Psalm does not sute our Condition yet in every Psalm there may be Meditation for Edification But this no ways meets the case for there is a great difference betwixt Meditating upon a Psalm and Singing one whereby we apply our selves to the Lord in the words of David which unless they sute our Condition cannot be done without a lye Page 33 and 34. Thou comest to prove That Baptism with water is an Ordinance of Jesus Christ for which thou givest as a Reason First Because John baptized with water and was really sent of God Which thing is not denied because John's Baptism was a Baptism with Water But that that was the Baptism which was to Continue is the matter in question To prove which thou bringest in thy Second Reason That the baptism of Christ and the baptism of John differed only in Circumstance and not in Substance because they agree in the Author in the Matter and in the End To which I Answer That though they agreed in the Author that will not conclude them to be one because by the same reason it might be said that the Old
Testament and the New are one or that Circumcision and Baptism are one The Baptism of John and of Christ differ as the Shadow and Substance for that God was the Author of both As to the Matter they are not one neither for the one was a Baptism with Water and the other a Baptism with the Spirit and with Fire as John himself distinguisheth them Mark 1.8 Now in respect Baptism with water can be administred where the other to wit with the Spirit is not therefore they are not one in Substance They also agree not in the End for the End of the one to wit Baptism with Water is but to point or shew forth the other So that as the Shadow and the Substance differ in their Ends in like manner do these two for the End of the Shadow is but to point to the Substance the End of the Substance in this thing being to cleanse and purify the heart producing that effect to such as it is truly administred unto but the Shadow is frequently administred and the heart not cleansed therefore they differ in their Ends. Now to shew that they differ in Substance it is written Acts 19.2 3 4 5. that there were of the Baptism of John who had not so much as heard of the Holy Ghost far less received it Now had the Baptism of John and the Baptism of Christ been one they could not have had the one and been altogether ignorant of the other For a Third Reason thou say'st That Jesus Christ commanded and injoined the Disciples to Baptise and that Baptizing they used Water But where he commands them to Baptise Matth. 28. there is no Command to Baptise them with Water or into Water but into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit So here is the Baptism into the Spirit but not into outward Water And the Apostles were Ministers of the Spirit and ministred the Spirit unto those who believed And though they used the Water-Baptism at times Water-Baptism used in Condescension to the Weak yet it rests to be proved that they did it in obedience to that general Command Matth. 28. and not in Condescendence to the People who had received a great Esteem of John and were so nursed up with outward Ceremonies that it was hard suddenly to wean them from such as they did the like in other Cases Which also serves for answer to thy Fourth Reason where thou instancest Peter his baptizing Cornelius after he received the Spirit For Peter's words imply no Command but only that at that occasion the thing might be done Can any man said he forbid Water that they may not be Baptised Acts 10.47 And though it be said Vers. 48. That he commanded them to be baptised in the Name of Christ yet it holds forth no Command from Christ only the thing being agreed upon that it might be done he did do it But that the Apostles received no Commission to Baptise with water Water-Baptism no Commission to the Apostles is clear from that of Paul where he saith I thank God I baptised none of you but Crispus and Gajus and the houshold of Stephanus c. for said he I was not sent to baptise but to preach the Gospel 1 Cor. 1.16 17. Now it is not questioned but his Commission was as large as any of the rest for he himself said that he was not Inferior to the chiefest of the Apostles but that he thereby denied he was sent to administer the Holy Spirit which is the Baptism of Christ is absurd to think For a Fifth Reason thou say'st It is the will of Christ that this Ordinance should continue and abide in the Church because he promised to be with his Ministers to the end of the World To which I Answer That this promise related to the Baptism of the Spirit which is Christ's Baptism is granted but that it related to the Baptism of water is denied for he was with Paul who yet professed he was not sent to Baptise with water And whereas some give their meaning to Paul his words that he was not sent only or principally to baptise with water this is an Addition to the Scripture-Words for which they can shew no sufficient ground And if men will take a liberty to Add to Scripture-Words from their own Spirit they may wrest the Scriptures to defend the worst of Opinions As when it is said Thou shalt not bow down to them nor Worship them One should put this meaning upon it Thou shalt not bow down to them nor Worship them principally and therefore would aver that Graven Images may be worshipped this were a most perverse abusing of Scripture Sixthly Thou say'st These who cast off this Ordinance do what in them lyeth to rob themselves of all the excellent ends and uses of it which are held forth in these Scripture-Expressions Answ. That such who cast off the Baptism of Christ by the Spirit may incur that hazard it is granted but that any such thing will follow from the not using of water is denied as shall appear by examining the Scriptures cited The first is Acts 2.28 Repent and be baptised every one of you for the Remission of your sins Answ. Here is no mention made of outward Water and Repentance and Remission of sins may be and are found without it and where it is both these are frequently wanting water-Water-Baptism no universal Command but to particulars But though it should be understood of outward water it is spoke but to particulars and is no universal Command The Second is 1 Pet. 3.21 The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth also save us But the very following words do give an Answer to that and clear the meaning not to be of water-Water-Baptism saying Not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Third is Acts 22.16 Arise and be baptised and wash away thy sins But that a being baptised with water is a washing away of sin thou canst not from hence prove seeing the contrary is abundantly witnessed And suppose water-Water-baptism were here to be understood it being but spoke to one infers no universal Command The Fourth is Ephes. 5. verse 26. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water But by Water cannot here be understood outward Water but that of the Word and Spirit for the next Verse speaks of presenting it without spot or wrinkle Which the outward Water cannot do see the like place John 3.5 Vnless a man be born of the Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Now if by Water here were to be understood outward Water it would infer that water-Water-baptism is absolutely necessary to Salvation which thou say'st thou canst not affirm with Papists Lastly thou citest Gal. 3.7 For as many as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ. But water-Water-baptism cannot be here understood because
many who are baptised with Water never put on Christ nor bear his Image but the Devil 's and are found doing the Devil's works So that none of these Scriptures prove the Water-baptism to be of Continual necessity in the Church for it being but a figure it was to give place to that one Baptism Eph. 4.5 And whereas it is said by some That the water-Water-Baptism and the Baptism by the Spirit is but one because of that agreement betwixt the signification of the Water and the Spirit thereby signified This is a wresting of this Scripture as much as if one should say That all the Types Figures and Shadows of the Old Testament were one with the Substance signified by them and consequently that these Types are all now to be upheld and used whereas indeed the Coming of the Substance ends the figures among which are the divers Baptisms for so should the place be translated Hebr. 9.10 which were imposed until the time of Reformation but are no longer binding since the Reformation is come Thou endest this matter with Asserting That thou canst safely say That the Spirit of God concurring with and blessing this Ordinance it is a profitable means to further our Salvation But if so be it be no Ordinance of Christ as heretofore is proved then we cannot expect that the Spirit will concur with it but indeed that he is provoked by it considering the Abuses in your Administration of it As First in administring it to Infants Sprinkling of Infants for which ye have no Command nor Example in Scripture Next In causing ignorant People to promise and engage before God that the Children shall forsake the Devil the World and the Flesh while they themselves be slaves to all the three And many more abuses as that whereby ye pretend to Inroll Children as Members of the Church of God which is pure and holy it being oftentimes an occasion of Excess and Drunkenness and is indeed rather like an Inrolling under the Devil's Banner seeing it is for most part accompanied with doing his Work Therefore it is so far from being hazardous to contemn such an Ordinance of Man that it cannot be but hurtful to continue in it In the Third place Page 39. thou comest to prove That the Lord's Supper so called is an Ordinance of Jesus Christ For which thou bringest as a First Reason That Jesus Christ was the Author and Ordainer of it But that proves not The Lord's Supper so called not perpetual That it was to be of perpetual Continuance Nor thy Second Reason for though the Disciples were bid do it in Remembrance of him they were not bid do it always Neither will Acts 2. verse 42. which thou bringest as a Third Proof serve thy turn for by comparing in with Verse 46. it is evident that their breaking of bread was their Ordinary eating for it is said They continued daily with one accord in the Temple The breaking of Bread from House to House and breaking bread from house to house did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart So that this was a daily eating from house to house and not at all such an eating as yours is which you have but once or twice or thrice in a year or at such set times as you appoint to your selves whereas theirs was an eating from house to house wherein they received food sufficient to their bodily nourishment Your eating is not so You will not have your Sacramental Bread and Wine so called to be used in private Houses or Families and your eating is rather a Mock-eating wherein you do not eat that which is sufficient to the Bodily nourishment as these did Acts 2.42 46. every one of you taking a little bread about the quantity of a Bean wherein you have no Example from the Saints but rather from the Papists who have their Wafers Again This Eating mentioned Acts 2. verse 42 46. is conjoined with this That they sold their possessions Having all things in Common and had all things in common and so they did eat together daily in common which is not like your eating Now if you would make their Example and Practice your Rule why do ye not sell your Possessions as they did and have things in Common Also why do ye not abstain from eating blood and things strangled as they did And why do ye not wash one anothers feet which they were as solemnly commanded to do as to take and eat c. John 13.14 15. If you say These things were but to continue for a time what ground have ye to affirm that these were not always to continue and those of Water-Baptism and breaking bread were to be always continued For a Fourth Reason thou say'st Paul Recommended the practice of this to the Church of Corinth Cor. 11.23 Answ. That he recommended it unto them by way of Command we deny for he delivered unto them no Command to practice it but that which he delivered unto them was the Relation of the Matter of Fact as what the Lord did in the Night wherein he was betrayed Thou say'st The Apostle doth not only here relate the Matter of Fact but likewise warrants the frequent use of this Ordinance It is one thing to warrant the use of it and far another to command the use of it We do not deny but the use of it was lawful and warrantable at that time but we say it was not commanded unto them but left or permitted to them as these words import As often as ye eat c. And again Let a man examine himself and so let him eat The words imply no Command but only that they were in the use or practice of it and being therein he gives them direction how they might use it so as not to receive hurt there-by Now that the Corinthians were weak in many things and did many things by permission is clear by the whole strain of that Epistle to them For a Fifth Reason thou say'st Thou readest not in Scripture where Christ and his Apostles did abolish it Answ. If it were so that then there was no absolute need It s Institution intimates its Abolishing for the very Institution intimates the Abolishing thereof at Christ his coming as to any Necessity by way of Command though afterwards it might have been used by permission being gradually to pass away as did other things For Circumcision was abolished by the Coming of Christ yet it was used after his Coming together with divers other Jewish Ceremonies But as concerning the Abolishing or Ending of it see 1 Cor. 10.15 16 17. I speak as unto wise men judge ye what I say the Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ And then he proceeds to shew what that Bread was For saith he we being many are one Bread Now what is that one
preparing War against all such as put not in their Mouths teaching for Hire and divining for Money p Mich. 3.5 11. Nor yet of those which teach things which they ought not for filthy Lucre's sake q Tit. 1.11 That run greedily after the Error of Balaam for Reward loving the Wages of Vnrighteousness r 2 Pet. 2.15 And through Covetousness with feigned Words making Merchandise of Souls s 2 Pet. 2.3 Men of corrupt Minds destitute of the Truth supposing that Gain is Godliness t 1 Tim. 6.5 but they know that Godliness with Contentment is great Gain u 1 Tim 6 6. and having Food and Raiment they are therewith content x 1 Tim. 6.8 ARTICLE XVII Concerning Worship THe Hour cometh and now is when the true Worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth for the Father seeketh such to worship him y John 4.23 God is a Spirit and they which worship must worship him in Spirit and in Truth z John 4 24. For the Lord is nigh to all them that call upon him to all that call upon him in Truth a Psal. 145.18 He is far from the wicked but he heareth the Prayer of the Righteous b Prov. 15.29 And this is the Confidence that we have in him that if we ask any thing according to his Will he heareth us c 1 John 5.14 What is it then We must pray with the Spirit and with the Vnderstanding also d 1 Cor. 14.15 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our Infirmities for we know not what we should pray for as we ought but the Spirit it self maketh Intercession for us with Groanings which cannot be uttered And he that searcheth the Heart knoweth what is the Mind of the Spirit because he maketh Intercession for the Saints according to the Will of God e Rom. 8.26 27. ARTICLE XVIII Concerning Baptism AS there is One Lord One Faith so there is One Baptism f Ephes. 4.5 which doth also now save us not the putting away of the Filth of the Flesh but the Answer of a Good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ g 1 Pet. 3.21 22. For John indeed baptized with Water but Christ with the Holy Ghost and with Fire h Matth. 3.1 Therefore as many as are baptized into Jesus Christ are baptized into his Death and are buried with him by Baptism into Death that like as Christ was raised up from the Dead by the Glory of the Father even so they also should walk in Newness of Life i Rom. 6.34 having put on Christ k Gal. 3.27 ARTICLE XIX Concerning Eating of Bread and Wine Washing of one anothers Feet Abstaining from things Strangled and from Blood and Anointing of the Sick with Oil. THe Lord Jesus the same Night in which he was betrayed took Bread and when he had given Thanks he brake it and said Take eat this is my Body which is broken for you this do in Remembrance of me After the same manner also he took the Cup when he had supped saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood this do ye as oft as ye drink it in Remembrance of me For as oft as ye do eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew forth the Lord's Death till he come l Cor. 11.23 24 25. Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his Hands and that he was come from God and went to God he raiseth from Supper and laid aside his Garments and took a Towel and girded himself after that he poured Water into a Bason and began to wash the Disciples Feet and to wipe them with the Towel wherewith he was girded So after he had washed their Feet and had taken his Garments and set down again he said unto them Know ye what I have done unto you Ye call me Master and Lord and ye say well for so I am If I then your Lord and Master have washed your Feet ye also ought to wash one anothers Feet For I have given you an Example that ye should do as I have done unto you m John 13 2 3 4 12 13 14 15. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater Burden than these Necessary Things That ye abstain from Meats offered to Idols from Blood and from things Strangled and from Fornication from which if ye keep your selves ye do well n Acts 15.28 29. Is any man sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them Pray over him Anointing him with Oil o James 5.14 ARTICLE XX. Concerning the Liberty of such Christians as are come to know the Substance as to the Vsing or not Vsing of these Rites and of the Observation of Days THe Kingdom of God is not Meat and Drink but Righteousness and Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost p Rom. 14 17. Let no man therefore judge us in Meat or Drink or in Respect of an Holy-Day or of the New-Moon or the Sabbath-Days q Col. 2.16 For if we be dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the World why as though living in the World are We subject to Ordinances Let us not touch or taste or handle which all are to perish with the Using after the Commandments and Doctrines of Men r Col. 2.20 21 22. For now after we have known God or rather are known of him why should we turn again unto the Weak and Beggarly Elements or desire again to be in Bondage to observe Dayes and Months and Times and Years lest Labour have been bestowed on us in vain s Gal. 4.9 10 11. If one man esteem a Day above another another esteemeth every day alike let every man be fully perswaded in his own Mind He that regardeth a Day regardeth it unto the Lord and he that regardeth not the Day to the Lord he doth not regard it t Rom. 14.5 6. ARTICLE XXI Concerning Swearing Fighting and Persecution IT hath been said by them of Old Thou shalt not Forswear thy self but shalt perform unto the Lord thine Oaths But Christ says unto us Swear not at all neither by Heaven for it is God's Throne nor by the Earth for it is his Foot-stool neither by Jerusalem for it is the City of the great King neither shalt thou swear by thy Head because thou canst not make one Hair white or black But let your Communication be Yea Yea Nay Nay for whatsoever is more than these cometh of Evil u Mat. 5 33 34 35 36 37. And James chargeth us Above all things not to swear neither by Heaven neither by the Earth neither by any other Oath but let your Yea be Yea and your Nay Nay lest ye fall into Condemnation x Jam. 5.12 Though we walk in the Flesh we are not to War after the Flesh for the Weapons of our Warfare are not to be
but one Baptism there needs no other Prop. I Proof than the Words of the Text Eph. 4.5 One Lord one Faith one Baptism where the Apostle positively and plainly affirms One Baptism prov'd that as there is but One Body One Spirit One Faith One God c. so there is but One Baptism As to what is commonly alledged by way of Explanation upon the Object 1 Text That the Baptism of Water and of the Spirit make up this One Baptism by vertue of the Sacramental Vnion I Answer This Exposition hath taken place Answ. not because grounded upon the Testimony of the Scripture but because it wrests the Scripture to make it suit to their Principle of water-Water-Baptism Whether Two Baptisms do make up the One 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 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 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 Object 2 other I Answer This yet more confirmeth our Doctrine Answ. 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 If Water be the Type the Substance must remain 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-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 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-Water-Baptism Matth. 3.11 I indeed baptize you with Water unto Repentance but he that cometh after Prop. II me is mightier than I whose shooes I am not worthy to bear he shall baptize Proof I you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire Here John mentions two manners of Baptisings That had John's Baptism had not therefore Christ's 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 If those that were baptized with the Baptism of Water were not therefore Arg. 1 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 If he that truly and really administred the Baptism of Water did notwithstanding Arg. 2 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 One Baptism is no Part nor Effect of the other 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. Who were 〈…〉 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 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 Baptiz'd with Thirdly Peter observes the same distinction Acts 11.16 Then remembred Proof III I the word of the Lord how that he said The Baptism with the Holy Ghost and that with Water differ 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
figured whereas it is usually translated as if the like Figure did now save us thereby insinuating that as they were Saved by Water in the Ark so are we now by Water-baptism But this Interpretation crosseth his sense he presently after declaring the Contrary as hath above been observed and likewise it would Contradict the Opinion of all our Opposers * The Protestants deny Water-baptism its absolute necessity to mens Salvation Altho' the Papists say none can be Sav'd without it yet grant Exceptions For Protestants deny it to be absolutly necessary to Salvation And though Papists say None are saved without it yet in this they admit an Exception as of Martyrs c. and they will not say that all that have it are Saved by water-Water-baptism which they ought to say if they will understand by Baptism by which the Apostle saith we are Saved water-Water-baptism for seeing we are saved by this Baptism as those that were in the Ark were Saved by Water that all those that were in the Ark were Saved by Water it would then follow that all those that have this Baptism are Saved by it Now this Consequence would be false if it were understood of water-Water-baptism because many by the Confession of all are baptized with Water that are not saved but this Consequence holds most true if it be understood as we do of the Baptism of the Spirit since none can have this Answer of a good Conscience and abiding in it not be Saved by it Fifthly That the One Baptism of Christ is not a Washing with Water as Proof V it hath been proved by the Definition of the One Baptism The Effects and Fruits of the Baptism of Christ. 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 saith 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 Water-baptism but of the Baptism of the Spirit because else it would follow that Which Efects water-Water-Baptism wants whosoever had been baptized with water-Water-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-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 If the Baptism with Water were the One Baptism i. e. the Baptism of Arg. 1 Christ as many as were baptized with Water would have put on Christ. But the last is false Therefore also the first And again 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 Arg. 2 Therefore also the last Prop. III § V. Thirdly Since John's Baptism was a Figure and seeing the Figure gives way to the Substance Proved albeit the thing figured remain to wit the One Baptism of Christ yet the other ceaseth which was the Baptism of John I. John's Baptism was of Christ's a Figure 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 baptising 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 Arg. There is no Baptism to continue now but the One Baptism of Christ. Therefore Water-baptism is not to continue now because it is not the Baptism of Christ. II. John's Baptism is Ceas'd our Opposers confess 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 Contradistinguisheth his Baptism from that of Christ but particularly where he saith Joh. 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-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 Matth. 28.19 c. where he bids them baptize is to be understood of water-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 5 th and 6 th 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-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 III. The Gospel puts an end to Carnal Ordinances 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 are so Washed were not thereby made perfect as pertaining to the Conscience neither are they at this day as our Adversaries must needs acknowledge and Experience abundantly sheweth So that the matter of it which is a Washing with Water and the Effects of it which is only an Outward Cleansing being still the same how comes Water-baptism to be less a Carnal Ordinance now than before If it be said That God confers inward Grace upon some that are now Object 1 baptized So no doubt he did also upon some Answ. that used those Baptisms among the Jews Or if it be said Because 't is commanded by Christ now under the New Object 2 Covenant I Answer First That 's to beg the Question of which hereafter Answ. But Secondly We find That where the Matter of Ordinances is the same and the End the same they are never accounted more or less Spiritual because of their different times Now was not God the Author of the Purifications and Baptisms under the Law Was not Water the Matter of them which is so now Was not the End of them to signify an Inward Purifying by an Outward Washing And is not that alledged to be the End still And are the necessary Effects or Consequences of it any better now Men are no more now than before by water-Water-baptism inwardly cleansed than before since men are now by vertue of water-Water-baptism as a necessary Consequence of it no more than before made Inwardly Clean And if some by God's Grace that are baptized with Water are inwardly purified so were some also under the Law so that this is not any Necessary Consequence nor Effect neither of this nor that Baptism It is then plainly Repugnant to Right Reason as well as to the Scripture-Testimony to affirm that to be a Spiritual Ordinance now which was a Carnal Ordinance before if it be still the same both as to its Author Matter and End however made to vary in some small Circumstances The Spirituality of the New Covenant and of its Worship established by Christ consisted not in such superficial Alterations of Circumstances but after another manner Therefore let our Adversaries shew us if they can without begging the Question and building upon some one or other of their own Principles denied by us wherever Christ appointed or ordained any Institution or Observation under the New Covenant as belonging to the Nature of it or such a necessary part of its Worship as is perpetually to Continue which being one in Substance and Effects I speak of necessary not accidental Effects yet because of some small difference in Form or Circumstance was before Carnal notwithstanding it was commanded by God under the Law but now is become Spiritual became commanded by Christ under the Gospel And if they cannot do this then if Water-baptism was once a Carnal Ordinance as the Apostle positively affirms it to have been it remains a Carnal Ordinance still and if a Carnal Ordinance then no necessary part of the Gospel or New Covenant-Dispensation and if no necessary part of it then not needful to Continue nor to be Practised by such as live and walk under this Dispensation But in this as in most other things according as we have often observed our Adversaries Judaize and renouncing the Glorious and Spiritual Priviledges of the New Covenant are sticking in and cleaving to the Rudiments of the Old both in Doctrine and Worship as being more suited and agreeable to their Carnal Apprehensions and Natural Senses But we on the contrary travel above all to lay hold upon and cleave unto the Light of the Glorious Gospel Revealed unto us And the Harmony of the Truth we profess in this The Law distinguisht from the Gospel may appear by briefly observing how in all things we follow the Spiritual Gospel of Christ as contradistinguished from the Carnality of the Legal Dispensation while our Adversaries through rejecting this Gospel are still labouring under the burthen of the Law which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear For the Law and Rule of the Old Covenant and Jews was Outward written in Tables of Stone and Parchments The Outward Baptism Worship Law distinguisht from the Inward So also is that of our Adversaries But the Law of the New Covenant is Inward and Perpetual written in the heart So is ours The Worship of the Jews was Outward and Carnal limited to set Times Places and Persons and Performed according to Set Prescribed Forms and Observations so is that of our Adversaries But the Worship of the New Covenant is neither limited to Time Place nor Person but is performed in the Spirit and in Truth and is not acted according to set Forms and Prescriptions but as the Spirit of God immediately acts moves and leads whether it be to Preach Pray or Sing and such is also our Worship So likewise the Baptism among the Jews under the Law was an outward Washing with outward Water only to Typifie an inward Purification of the Soul which did not necessarily follow upon those that were thus baptized But the Baptism of Christ under the Gospel is the Baptism of the Spirit and of Fire not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God and such is the Baptism that we labour to be baptized
withal and contend for Arg. § VII But again If Water-baptism had been an Ordinance of the Gospel then the Apostle Paul would have been sent to Administer it but he declares positively 1 Cor. 1.17 That Christ sent him not to Baptize but to Preach the Gospel The Reason of that Consequence is undeniable because the Apostle Paul's Commission was as large as that of any of them and consequently he being in special manner the Apostle of Christ to the Gentiles IV. That water-Water-baptism is no Badge of Christians like Circumcision of the Jews if water-Water-baptism as our Adversaries contend be to be accounted the badge of Christianity he had more need than any of the rest to be sent to baptize with Water that he might Mark the Gentiles Converted by him with that Christian Sign But indeed the Reason holds better thus that since Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles and that in his Ministry he doth through all as by his Epistles appears labour to wean them from the former Jewish Ceremonies and Observations tho' in so doing he was sometimes undeservedly judged by others of his brethren who were unwilling to lay aside those Ceremonies therefore his Commission tho' as full as to the Preaching of the Gospel and New Covenant-Dispensation as that of the other Apostles did not require of him that he should lead those Converts into such Jewish Observations and Baptisms however that Practice was Indulged in and Practised by the other Apostles among their Jewish Proselytes for which cause he thanks God that he baptized so few 1 Cor. 1.14 intimating that what he did therein he did not by vertue of his Apostolick Commission but rather in Condescendence to their Weakness Paul was not sent to baptize even as at another time he Circumcised Timothy Our Adversaries to evade the Truth of this Testimony usually alledge Object 1 That by this is only to be understood that he was not sent principally to baptize not that he was not sent at all But this Exposition since it Contradicts the positive Words of the Text Answ. 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 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 Confir I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice which is to be understood Matth. 9 13. Hos. 6.6 that God requires principally Mercy not excluding Sacrifices I say Refu◠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 If it be said That the Abuse of this Baptism among the Corinthians in Object 2 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 I Answer it is true it doth not provided the thing be lawful and necessary Answ. 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 tho 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 ver of the 3 d Ch. may appear and yet for to remove that Abuse the Apostle doth not say That Preaching is a standing Ordinanc◠and not to be forborn 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 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 That which Converts to Christ is Baptism of the Spirit 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-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 I come Part II now to consider the Reasons alledged by such as plead for water-Water-baptism which are also the Objections used against the Discontinuance of it Object I § VIII First some Object That Christ who had the Spirit above measure was notwithstanding baptized with Water As Nic. Arnold against this These John 2.34 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 Why Christ was baptized by John 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 Mat. 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 Secondly they Object Matth. 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Object II 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 What Baptism Christ doth mean in Matth. 28 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 The First is a Maxime yielded to by all that Arg. I 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 Secondly That Baptism which Christ commanded his Apostles was Arg. II 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-Water-baptism 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-Water-baptism Therefore c. Fourthly The Baptism commanded by Christ to his Apostles was not Arg. IV John's Baptism But Baptism with Water was John's Baptism Therefore c. But First they alledge That Christ's Baptism though a Baptism with Allegation I 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. I Answer as to that John's Baptism was unto Repentance Answ. 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 Of the Name of the Lord how taken in Scripture 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 Psal. 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 The Baptism into the Name what it is 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 Whether Christ did prescribe a Form of Baptism in Matth. 28 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-Water-baptism to such as they baptized with Water but tho' particular mention be made in divers places of the Acts Who were baptized and how and tho' 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 Apostle 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 great a Heresy 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 Alleg. II Secondly they say If this were not understood of Water-baptism it would be a Tautology and all one with Teaching How Teaching and Baptising differ I say Nay Baptizing with the Spirit is somewhat further than Teaching or Informing the Vnderstanding for it imports a Reaching to and melting the Heart whereby it is turned as well as the Vnderstanding 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 Alleg. 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 tho' not wrought without Christ and his Grace is Instrumentally done by Men fitted of God for that purpose and therefore no Absurdity follows The Baptism with the Spirit Ascrib'd to Godly Men as Instruments that Baptism with the Spirit should be expressed as the Action of the Apostles for tho' 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 oftentimes ascribes it to Men as being the Instruments And since Paul's Commission was To turn People from Darkness to Light tho' 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 Alleg. 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 If he had been speaking here of Water-baptism then that might have been urged Answ. 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 to the End of the World yea so long as Christ's Presence abideth with his Children Object III § IX Thirdly they Object the Constant Practice of the Apostles in the Primitive Church who they say did always Administer water-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 shewen in the Example of Paul that it was not so since it were most absurd to judge that he Converted only these 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 How the Apostles Baptized that they understood Matth. 28. of water-Water-baptism doth not hold for tho 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 But if from the Sameness of the Word because Christ bids them baptize Object and they afterwards in the Vse 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 Altho' it should be granted that for a season they did so far mistake it Answ. 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 The Apostles did scruple the Teaching the Gentiles 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 tho' 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 tho' 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 says that it is not a putting away of the filth of the flesh which certainly water-Water-baptism is But further they urge much Peter's baptising Cornelius in which they press two things First That water-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-Water-baptism to belong to the New Covenant-Dispensation nor yet to be a Perpetual standing Ordinance in the Church Whether Peter's Baptizing some with Water makes it a standing Ordinance to the Church For first all that this will amount to was That Peter at that
is no sufficient Warrant to us to do any thing The Positive Permission is when God by some Inward Evidence or Signification of his Spirit by Words or otherwise maketh us know That he Alloweth us to do such a thing although he Command it not As for Example if a Scholar should go forth out of the School without getting of his Master's Leave this is a Negative Permission and is not a sufficient Ground for the Scholar to go forth But when the Scholar cometh and saith Let me go forth and the Master answereth Thou mayest go this is a Positive Permission and not a Command Praeses And. Th. Examples are not Demonstrations G. K. But they may be used to Illustrate Praeses A. Th. But the Master saith to the Scholar Exi go forth which is in the Imperative and that signifieth to Command G. K. That is but a Grammaticism for the Imperative Mood doth not always signifie to Command but sometimes to Command and sometimes to Permit which I refer to the Judgment of School-Masters who teach the Grammar A.T. Praeses As in the third Person in the Imperative Exeat Let him go is Permissive This is rather like a Debate about Grammatications of Imperative Moods than about the Matter intended therefore come to the Purpose A. Shir. In the Prosecution of this Argument against this Thesis alledged on G. K. He will not pay his Debt because he may pretend he wants an Inspiration to do it G. K. I hope none can blame me for refusing to Pay my Debt and I pay my Debt as well as any of you nor can any be supposed that Men can want an Inspiration to do any such thing And we refer our selves to the Judgment of Discretion in all sober Persons here present Paul Gelly I have an Argument to propose for Water-baptism R. B. Then let me read the Thesis which was read and is as followeth As there is one Lord and one Faith so there is one Baptism Ephes. 4.5 which is not the putting away of the Filth of the Flesh but the Answer of a Good Conscience before God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 3.21 and this Baptism is a Holy and Spiritual Thing to wit the Baptism of the Spirit and Fire by which we are buried with him Col. 2.12 that being washed and purged from our Sins we may walk in newness of Life Rom. 6.4 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 Human Tradition for which neither Precept nor Practice is to be found in all the Scripture R. B. What hast thou against this Thesis is it not the express Words of Scripture P. G. It is true and therein we agree but I oppose your Meaning of it R. B. We make no Meaning in the Case Note That while this Young-Man was prosecuting his Argument J. L. did insolently intrude himself and interrupted him and they spoke of them three at some times for the Scripture declareth our Meaning G. K. Ye have a large Field to dispute in in the last part of the Thesis if you please where he positively affirms That Sprinkling of Infants is a meer Human Tradition Students We will not meddle with that at this Time P. G. Either you mean by this Thesis That Water-Baptism is ceased or not ceased R. B. Come on we mean It is ceased P. G. I prove it is not Ceased thus If the Presence of Christ is to continue with his Church for ever then Water-Baptism is to continue for ever But the first is true Therefore the second G. K. People take Notice he saith Water-Baptism is to continue for ever if so then we must be baptized in Heaven after this Life with Water-Baptism Stud. He means by for ever to the end of the World R. B. Having repeated the Argument I deny the sequel of the first Proposition P. G. I prove it from Matth. 28. Go Teach and Baptize all Nations c. Here Christ commanding them to Baptize sheweth he will be with them to the end of the World therefore as long as he was to be with them that Baptism was to Continue R. B. I grant the whole But the Question is If that Baptism be by Water which I deny P. G. I prove it was by Water If the Apostles baptized with Water then they were commanded to baptize with Water But the Apostles baptized with Water Therefore they were commanded to Baptize with Water R. B. Having repeated the Argument I deny the Consequence of the Proposition P. G. I prove it thus Either the Apostles did Baptize with Water by theCommand of Christ Matth. 28. Or they were ignorant of the Meaning of that Command Chuse you whether G. K. It is not a Sufficient Enumeration for they might have known the Meaning of the Command and yet Baptized with Water not for that Command but in Condescension to the Weaknesses of the Jews P.G. If they Condescended to Baptize with Water for the Weakness of the Jews though without a Command then ye ought to Baptize now with Water to Condescend to Peoples Weakness now seeing ye confess that there are who are weak both among us and your selves G. K. That will not follow more than in the Case of Circumcision for the Apostle Paul did Circumcise without a Command in Condescension to the Jews yet it followeth not that any now should Circumcise to Condescend to the people who should require it Stud. The parity is not alike because Baptism with water was Commanded to the Apostles so not Circumcision for John Baptist was sent to Baptize with Water R. B. John Baptist was not an Apostle and so not concerned in that Commission Matth. 28. And his Baptism was to decrease that the Baptism of Christ by the Holy Ghost might encrease Al. Shir. It must be Water-Baptism because the Baptizing of the Holy Ghost is ceased now G. K. People take notice he saith The Baptism of the Holy Ghost is ceased now A. Shir. It is ceased to be given by Men for do ye give the Holy Ghost by the laying on of Hands G. K. The Holy Ghost may be given without the laying on of Hands and Holy Men now are Instruments in conveying the Gifts of the Holy Ghost to others R. B. Did not Paul say Rom. 1.11 That he longed to see them to communicate some Spiritual Gift And besides as to the Matter of Condescendence Abstaining from Blood and things strangled though particularly Commanded by the Apostles yet is not now to be practised by any Condescension as your selves confess G. K. Hear what Augustine saith in the Case of Circumcision observing of Meals Drinks Washing Sacrifices c. They are to be considered in a threefold respect viz. First as Living under the Law Secondly as dead after the Death of Christ Thirdly as deadly as being once buried and being once buried they are not to be again raised
the National Teachers concerning Water-Baptism we mean the National Teachers into all the World and teach the Nations who do not so much as believe the Gospel historically If they say This was a Command to the Apostles and not to them Why are they so partial as to take one part to them and reject another But we shall now come to a more particular Examination of their Major We have told them That the Apostles baptized some with Water out of a Condescendency as Paul circumcised Timothy and not from that Command Matth. 28. which saith nothing of water-Water-Baptism Their First Reason against this is They should have Baptized with Water of their own Will and without any sufficient Authority But we deny this Consequence and they themselves have furnished us with a sufficient Answer where they say Paul Circumcised Timothy but not without a Command for the Law of Charity and other General Precepts obliged Paul so to do though it was a thing indifferent of itself The same we say as to their Baptizing with Water The Jews having so great an Esteem of Water-Baptism and thinking it necessary the Apostles used it although it was a thing indifferent of it self after Christ's Ascension and giving of the Holy Ghost the Law of Charity and other general Precepts obliging them But this proveth not That the Apostles had any Command from Matth. 28. or any such Command any where else that made Water-Baptism of it self to be a Necessary Duty to the End of the World And whereas they Query Will G. K. grant that it was once lively We answer Yes under John Yet it followeth not that it was to Continue because John had no Commssion to the Nations but only to the Jews And that the Apostles Baptized whole Families and Thousands if they so did will not prove that it was Necessary of it self more than that Circumcision was and yet even then many Thousands of believing Jews were Zealous for Circumcision see Act. 21.20 21. Yea many Bishops of Jerusalem were Circumcised after this as Eusebius relates A Condescension in the Apostles by Water-baptism The Reason therefore was That People were Zealous of Water-Baptism because of John and therefore the Apostles Condescended to it out of the Law of Charity Another Question they make Where is Water-Baptism buried We answer where the other Shadows are Buried For it was but a Shadow and Carnal Ordinance Heb. 9.10 the Greek Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again the true Water-Baptism hath been out of use all the Time of the Apostasy for the Apostate Church hath had no true Baptism and so in that respect it hath been Buried And being but a Shadow is not to be raised up again And it is observable That in the Revelation where it is prophesied of the Return and Restauration of the Church there is not any thing mentioned of the Restoring either Water-Baptism or the use of Bread and Wine as Signs c. And so their Second Reason is answered That Water-Baptism is no more to be used out of Condescendency to the Weak than Circumcision because both are long ago buried And what is buried is deadly to be raised up again as Augustin taught Their Third Reason is built on a Mistake That the Godhead of Christ or Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost were a stumbling-block to the believing Jews For of these only we are to be understood Also That the Apostles used the Words Father Son and Holy Ghost when they baptized cannot be proved far less used they the Word Trinity which was not invented long after the Apostles Days Their Second Argument That the Baptism Commanded in Matth. 28.16 is with Water resolves at last into this That it is God only and not Man who baptizes with the Holy Ghost because he is only the proper immediate efficient Cause of Baptism with the Holy Ghost But we deny the Consequence as Weak and False For there is nothing more usual The Effect ascribed unto the Instrumental Cause which is the Principal than to ascribe the Effect unto the Instrumental Cause as truly as unto the Principal Paul was sent to turn or convert the Gentiles from Darkness to Light and to open their Eyes and yet God only was the Proper and Immediate Efficient Cause of this Many more Examples could be given yea the same Reason of the Students would militate against Teaching For even outward Teaching which is by the Motion of the Holy Ghost hath a Power and Vertue in it whereof the Men who Teach are but the Instrumental Conveyers that is only from God as the Immediate Efficient Cause Another Reason they give to make all sure as they say is That it is only Christ as he is God and mightier than John who baptized with the holy Ghost Matth. 3.11 where Baptism with the Holy Ghost is peculiarly attributed to Christ. But this makes their Matter nothing more sure for although that Baptism with the Holy Ghost be peculiarly attributed to Christ as the principal Cause yet it hindereth not that Men are the Instrumental Even as Christ said It is not ye that speak and yet they also spake as Instruments It is true that John did not Baptize with the Holy Ghost as the Apostles did or rather Christ through them because John had not so powerful a Ministry given him as the Apostles of whom Christ said that they should not only do as great Works as he but greater to wit by his Power Again they Argue That giving and not granting that Baptism with the Holy Ghost could be administred by Men yet it is not Commanded here for the Words then would be full of needless Tautologies To this we Answer That this doth not follow For suppose That by Teaching and Baptizing were meant one thing how usual is it in Scripture to express one thing under divers Names without any Tautology However we believe That by Teaching and Baptizing are meant two several Things both which require the special Operation of the Holy Spirit For a Man through Teaching by the Concurrence of the Holy Ghost is first of all Convinced of the Truth and hath a ground laid in him to believe and then he is Baptized with the Holy Ghost upon his believing and obeying in what he is Convinced of Nor is this to confound the Command with the Promise for the Sense of it is this Go ye and Baptize with the Holy Ghost Instrumentally and I shall be with you as the Principal Cause to concur and assist you and thus there is no Tautology the Command and the Promise being in diverso genere id est in a different kind Their next Argument to prove John's Baptism ceased the Reason why That water-Water-Baptism is to continue to the End of the World is That God sent John to baptize with Water and Christ caused John to baptize him and commanded or causâ—ed his Apostles to Baptize with Water and these Commands were never formally Repealed nor
ceased of their own Nature Therefore c. But to this the Answer is easie For John's Baptism was no part of the Gospel-Dispensation as serving only to prepare the way to Christ and he was sent only to Baptize the Jews that Christ might be manifest to Israel Joh. 1.31 And it is called John's Baptism in distinction from that of Christ for some were baptized with it who had not Received the Holy Ghost And that Christ was baptized with Water proveth not its Continuance no more than that he was Circumcised proveth the Continuance of Circumcision That Christ Commanded his Disciples to Baptize with Water we find not and though it were it is but as at that time being under John's Dispensation but unless they can prove that Christ Commanded to Baptize all Nations with Water and that to the End of the World they gain nothing For what was Commanded only as toward the Jews doth not reach us Gentiles and so we need seek no Repeal there not having been any such Command In their answering our Retortion as touching Washing the Feet Washing of Feet and Anointing with Oil c. abolished Anointing the Sick with Oil and Abstaining from Blood and things strangled They say 1. This Retortion hath a damnable tendency for Enthusiasts may arise and plead the same way against the most necessary Truths c. We answer they have no Ground from our Retortion so to do because these things above mentioned are but Figures and such as have no Inward or Intrinsecal Goodness or Righteousness in them as the other things have which are most necessary 2. Whereas they say If these things had been Commanded and never Repealed it were better to admit and observe them than to reject Baptism c. We answer if by Repeal they mean a formal Repeal we deny that it were better for all being but figurative things and such as the inward Law of God writ in our Hearts which is the New Covenant-Dispensation doth not require of us they Cease of their own Nature and carry a virtual Repeal in their Bosome although it be not formally expressed in the Scripture as to every particular The outward Law being changed For all the things of the Ceremonial Law are not one by one particularly Repealed in the New Testament but together in one Body for the Law it self being changed the things required by it if they have no other Law to require them do Cease 3. They say That Christ in washing his Disciples Feet did two things 1. To seal up to his Disciples their part in him 2. He intended to leave them one Example of Humility and it is only this second thing which he commanded to his Disciples to wit that they should perform Acts of Humility one to another But we miss their Proof there altogether that he only Commanded this and not the Washing one anothers Feet in particular yea this Gloss expressly gives the lye to Christ his own Words Joh. 13.14 Ye also ought to wash one anothers Feet where not only an Act of Humility is signified A Spiritual washing of Feet pointed at by Christ. but an Act of Love And also by the outward Washing of the outward Feet is signified how we ought to contribute to Wash one anothers Feet in a spiritual sense that is to say by seasonable Reproofs and Exhortations to help on one another unto the Sanctification of the most-Inferiour Affections that are as it were the Feet And that Christ pointeth at such a Mystery is clear from ver 10. He that is washed needeth not save to wash his Feet Again they alledge That this Act is put Synecdochically for all other Acts of Humility But admit that it be so this proves nor that this particular Act was not Commanded when Christ Instituted the Breaking of Bread at Supper Among other Ends it had this also to signify the Vnity of Christians and how they ought to love one another shall we therefore say it is Synecdochically put for all Acts of Love but is not particularly Commanded And indeed as Washing of Feet was in use in these hot Countries before that Christ did Wash his Disciples Feet and Commanded it to them so was that in use the Chief in the Family to take Bread and break it and give to every one saying Take Eat This was in use among the Jews before Christ did so as divers Historians relate particularly Paulus Ricius de Coelesti Agricultura Again whereas they say If he had commanded so some would have observed it To this we Answer some yea many did observe it as they grant Ambrose and the Church of Millain did for if they used to do so in the Eastern Countries where there was need for it because the People ordinarily did go barefoot the Christians in that Country would use it the rather that Christ Commanded it Yea it doth appear that it was a most ordinary thing in the Primitive Times from Pauls Words 1 Tim. 5.10 where it is numbered among other Commanded Duties Washing of Feet observed by Christians in the Primitive times If she hath washed the Saints feet If it be said That they used it but not as a Sacrament We Answer we read not of the Word Sacrament in the Scripture It is enough that they used it and were Commanded so to do by Christ And it had a Spiritual Signification as well as those things they call Sacraments It is needless for us to insist more on this particular so as to refute Arguments of their own making which are none of ours wherein they fight with their own Shadow where we leave them and proceed to the other Particulars They tell us That the Command to Anoint the Sick with Oil carries a Repeal in its Bosome so we say doth John's Baptism with Water as preparing the Way to Christ who is now come And so we may return them their Axiom Cessante fine legis cessat obligatio But that Anointing with Oil was only in order to Miraculous Cures they say it without giving any Proof Ja. 5.14 For although it were confessed that it were in order to outward Healing or Curing yet it is clear from the Text that it was not Exclusive of all other things for it is not only promised That he shall be saved but if he have Committed sins they shall be forgiven him And this saving seems rather to be Spiritual than the restoring the Body to Natural Health otherwise it being absolutely promised Anointing with Oil was rather a Spiritual Saving than a Restoring the Body all Sick Persons in the Church should have been always restored to Natural Health and so none should have died And we find Anointing with Oil joined with Prayer yea We are bidden pray one for another that we may be healed Nor is this Ceased but that by the Prayers of the Godly for one that is sick and bodily diseased it pleaseth God at times so to answer them that they are Restored
to Health by the Lord and we dare our Adversaries if they will deny this altogether and this is in a true sense Miraculous Yea Instances of this kind have been even among the People called Quakers and if it were altogether Ceased according to the Students Argument Prayer at least so as to pray to God to heal any Sick Person should Cease also It is better therefore to say That Anointing with Oil is ceased as being but a Figure Abstaining from Blood and things strangled the Ceremonial Law ceased Their Repeal of the Command to abstain from Blood and things strangled is not sufficiently proved from 1 Cor. 10.25 For let any read the whole Chapter and he shall find nothing said in it of Blood or things strangled That was not the Subject he was upon but things offered to Idols which we read not that they used to strangle The Sense is plain Whatsoever is sold in the Shambles whether offered to Idols or not that eat asking no Question if it be offered to an Idol or not Beside it is not usual to sell Flesh of Beasts strangled in the Shambles for they kill them otherwise than by strangling which is hurtfull to the Meat and if selling of strangled Flesh had been usual it would have been no Transgressing the Apostle's Rule if they had any Doubt to have asked If it was strangled For many will not eat Flesh that is strangled because it is not so good Nourishment although they have no Scruple of Conscience Yea the Primitive Christians even in Tertullian's time as he sheweth in his Apology Abstained from Blood and things strangled Wherein there was a great Providence of God to clear them of that horrid Falshood as if they did drink the Blood of Children By which it is clear they did not understand Paul's Words 1 Cor. 10.25 to be any Repeal It is therefore more safe to say that it being a part of the Ceremonial Law it is Repealed with the other Figures The Words of John He must increase but I must decrease The Decrease of John's and Increase of Christ's Baptism Joh. 3.30 they will not have to be understood of John's Baptism wherein they are not only contrary to many of their own Church as could be shewn but also to the Scripture it self For it is most clear That John spake this with a particular Relation to his Baptism When they came to him and told him That Christ Baptized c. On this he said That Christ was to Increase meaning Christ's Baptism not with Water but with the Holy Ghost for Christ baptized none with Water himself and he that is his Baptism must Decrease not his true Honour and Vertue And the Disciples he gathered was unto Christ. But that John's Baptism was much practised proveth it no more a standing Command than other things of the Law In the last Place they alledge That Peter commanded Cornelius and others with him to be baptized Peter's Commanding Cornelius and them to be Baptized answered out of a necessity arising from a Divine Precept But their Proofs are weak For 1. We ought to do all things in the Name of the Lord when we eat or drink or journey but yet all things are not Commanded but some left to our Freedom 2. Peter in his Sermon told Cornelius nothing of Water-Baptism and when after he spoke of it he did not tell him That he ought to do it out of a necessity arising from a Divine Precept let them prove it if they can 3. Whereas they alledge That Peter was accused by the Disciples for administring Water-Baptism to Cornelius from Acts 11. It is a manifest Vntruth for there is no such thing either in their Accusation or his Answer as may be seen if any will read the Chapter They accused him for going in to them and eating with them and this was all the Accusation And though they had the Students Consequence doth not follow for if the Law of Charity obliged him to Baptize them his Refusal would have been a withstanding of God SECTION VII Of the MINISTRY Being an Answer to their Fifth Section Concerning the MINISTRY IN the first part of their Section they plead That a Man who is an Hypocrite and graceless may be a true and lawful Pastor yet they grant That none ought to be admitted into the Ministry but such as ex judicio charitatis id est out of the Judgment of Charity is to be esteemed truly pious By which Acknowledgment they destroy with their own Hands any seeming Strength that lies in their own Arguments as will appear by a particular Examination of them Their First Reason is taken from Many Jewish Priests and High-Priests and many Scribes and Pharisees in Christ's time who were Ministers of God's Word and yet who will say they were endued with sanctifying Grace To which we answer That they were Ministers of God's Word Ministers of the Gospel and of the Law and Shadows differ or of the Gospel is denied for they were but Ministers of the Law and legal Performances Types Figures and Shadows and as that Legal Dispensation was but Imperfect in Respect of the Gospel so the Priesthood and Ministry of it therefore both were to pass away So that to argue from the Law to the Gospel is not Equal more than to Argue that because the Ministers of the Law were Ministers of the Figures and Types that therefore the Ministers of the Gospel should be the same yea we may draw an Argument from the outward and Legal Qualifications of the Priests that none but truly Holy should or ought to be Ministers under the Gospel For as under the Law none were to be Priests but those who came of Levi a Figure of Christ Levi a Figure of Christ. so under the Gospel none are to be Ministers but who by a Spiritural Birth and Nativity are of Christ. And as under the Law none that were Lame and blind Corporally were to be Legal Ministers The Lame and Blind no Legal Ministers so under the Gospel none that are Lame and Blind Spiritually are to be Gospel-Ministers But all that want true Holiness are Lame and Blind Spiritually Therefore c. Again many of these Jewish Priests Scribes and Pharisees were openly and manifestly Impious especially in the time of Christ his being in the Flesh and could not be esteemed truly Pious in the Judgment of Charity and so if the Argument hold it proves that Men may be admitted and owned to be Ministers of the Gospel that are not Pious in the Judgment of Charity The Students plead for a Graceless Ministry The like may be said of Judas whom they take in their Second Argument to patronize a Graceless Ministry For if Judas was a Devil from the beginning certainly Christ did know him to be so and therefore could not in the Judgment of Charity esteem him to be truly Pious how could he then Admit him But as for Judas they alledge
Scriptures He Answers First That it was a singular extraordinary thing and so supposeth they might have been preserved Secondly He demands What were the hazzard to aver that they were wanting in that which they ought to have had As to the First it is but an Evasion without proof what singular and extraordinary thing is in some of Paul's Epistles which are concerning his outward occasions And if the last be admitted as I find he fears he will be forced to do it overturns his Example of Clean water passing through an unclean Pipe or else he must acknowledge the Scriptures are defiled because they come through the Apostles whom his Principles obliges him to believe not to have been perfect In his Seventh Head pag. 74. he summarily passes over and that by large omissions what is contained in the 44 45 46 and 47 pages of my last which if the Reader do but review he may easily discover that silly shift which he useth to wit That he means to be thrifty of his Paper in answering the Quakers Self-advancing Words Seeing he is such a good Manager of his Paper he might have bestowed some of that he has lavished in the large Capital Titles of his many Heads and Sections to shew the Impertinency or Vanity of my words and then he might have been the better credited after he has omitted my Answer wherein I clear the Quakers from that Calumny of exalting themselves shewing they do therein no more than all other professions have done and do do He adds with a great Exclamation Oh! it is intolerable Pride to vilifie all the Saints and Servants of God in the World and to shut them out from being of Christ's stock A strange Inference according to which we must conclude that because Luke called Theophilus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke called Theophilus most good or most good that therefore there was none good but he W. M. will do well to go back to the Grammar-School and there learn the natures of Degrees of Comparison and when he has instructed himself there he may next look over his Logicks and there he will find that Majus minus non variat speciem i. e. Less or more of a thing changeth not its nature or kind I suppose he will not deny but there are several sorts of Christians who though they do all profess Christianity yet are more or less pure in their Doctrine Discipline or Practice Is it not upon this score that the Calvinist hath separated from the Lutheran and the Presbyter from the Episcopalian Certainly W. M. himself lookt upon Independency as more pure than Presbytery when he separated with the Congregationists at Aberdeen and Communicated a-part with them and yet his practice now sheweth that he doth not exclude even Episcopacy from Christ's Stock though his Independant and Presbyterian Brethren do look upon it if not within the Walls at least in the Suburbs of Rome Neither is this Calumny against us as if we trusted in our selves that we were Righteous and despised others for so he mis-applieth the parable Luke 18.9 any other than the same which those of Rome used against the first Reformers to wit they were Proud and Boasters as if all the World had been in darkness before them Or as if they were Wiser than all the Doctors and Fathers of the Church seeking to innvovate the Order thereof which had been Confirmed by the Unanimous Consent of so many Generations It is observable How here as in other places he is so ready to lay claim to the Protestant Churches alledging That in disdain I call them their flocks which is utterly false I speak of their flocks as inferiour to the People called Quakers in point of Mortification but that I intended thereby the Protestant Churches is but his groundless Conjecture I let him understand I look not upon their flocks as deserving the name of Protestants Some Protestants degenerated in Time-Servers and that because of their shameless degenerating from such as were first so called among whom as I freely confess there were several of a heavenly and spiritual Conversation So I look upon W.M. and his Brethrens laying claim unto them but as the Jews boasting of Abraham as their Father After the same dis-ingenuous manner he concludes That the Persons he spoke of in his Dialogue as having such notable Enjoiments of and Communion with God were from Quakerism c. but answers not a word of page 28. of mine where I shew that those Professors agreed with us in many of these things wherein W.M. and his Brethren oppose us but particularly in the matter of the Spirit 's immediate Teaching It is then likely they would have been far from us especially considering that several who have received and owned the Quakers Testimony at Aberdeen are such who were the most Intimate Friends even in Spiritual Matters with these Professors whereas W. M. and some other of his Brethren who walked also among them that are not come to own the Quakers are degenerated and gone back unto that which all of them acknowledged to be Antichristian For which their gross backsliding and degenerating to use rightly his own mis-applied instance it is without doubt these Professors would have lookt upon him and his Brethren as Monstrous and abhorred their Treacherous Time-serving Turnings with the greatest detestation Head 8. page 77. He avers us to be guilty of Equivocating and that because we say We are for Baptism and yet are against Baptism with Water The corrupt Acceptation of the word Baptism denied The reason alledged is because Baptism is commonly understood of Baptism with water and therefore to understand it otherways he concludes is to speak lies in hypocrisie c. But this Conclusion is founded upon a Supposition denied by us and therefore it is a meer begging of the thing in question For since we deny that Common because corrupt Acceptation of the word Baptism and give it the true one as in its place shall be shewn therefore we are not obliged to put another meaning upon it than we are perswaded it ought to be understood But this Calumny against us as Equivocators or Liars W.M. hath also borrowed from the Papist who used to upbraid the Protestants for saying They were for or of the Catholick Church Because the Papist will have the Church of Rome only to be the Catholick Church but the Protestants denied her to be so and therefore would not call her so even as we deny the sprinkling with water to be Baptism and therefore will not account it that which it is not but reserve the name to that which truly is the thing according to the Scriptures The like may be said of the Lord's Supper I mean that which is so called Head 9. page 78. Because he can produce nothing against my Concession of singing of Psalms he suspects I mean not honestly and that because none of his spies whom he sends to our Meetings have had
occasion to be witnesses to our practice in this thing which says just nothing Why might not W. M. his Intelligencers fail him in this as well as his Brother 's David Lyall did in telling him That there was not one word spoken among the Quakers at their Meeting the 3 d of the 11 th Month 1670. Which though a manifest untruth in matter of Fact he spared not to bring forth in his Chair of Verity upbraiding the Magistrates as if God had miraculously sent an Officer to stop or impede our Worship though they had refused to do it J. Nailor's sincere Repentance The Story of J. Nailor which he subjoins any may observe to be meerly brought in to render us Odious and fill up the paper though indeed it tends no ways to our disadvantage he being in that thing and at that time altogether denied by us and hath since in print freely acknowledged his fall in that hour of Temptation of whose sincere Repentance and true return to the fellowship of the Truth we have had many evident tokens whereas were we to retort we could find a Thousand to one among your Church-members many whereof are daily knit up for Thieving Murder c. and some burnt for Witchcraft without the least sense of true Repentance For to vindicate their manner of singing with a mixt Multitude he alledgeth That all men yea all the Earth are called to praise God And though all be called to do so Singing by whar Instrument it is acceptable yet there are things absolutely needful previous to this duty And granting their want of praising to be sinful yet the way to prevent this evil is to come first to that wherein they may be in a capacity to do it acceptably Therefore saith the Apostle I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the understanding also 1 Cor. 14.15 Where he speaks of singing he always subjoins the Instrument wherewith it is altogether needful that we take it And that the same may be urged in the case of Praying without any absurdity in its place shall be shewn He says It is no more a lie to use words in singing which sute not our condition such as I water my Couch with tears My heart is not haughty than to read them But there is a great difference betwixt Reading and Singing in Reading we but relate the Conditions and Actions of others as wholly distinct and extrinsick from our selves but in Singing we do really address our selves to God as in Prayer and it is no less a lie to sing to God words that sute not our Condition than to pray with them The Saints in Scripture used such expressions as did sute the present posture of their hearts in their Spiritual Songs see Luke 1.46 and 2.29 He shall not find me in the whole Bible where they borrowed or sealed the Expressions of others Experience which no ways suted their own Condition this is a meer human Invention which has its original from the Romish Vespers and Mattins and from no other foundation Head 10. Concerning Baptism page 81. he alledgeth That John distinguisheth not the matter of his Baptism from Christ but only his work But his proof for this overthrows himself For since as he says truly John could only administer Baptism with water John's Baptism and Christ's differ in the Matter and End but Christ with the Spirit this sheweth them to have differed in the matter for without doubt John could administer the matter of his own Baptism And whereas I told him they differed in the End because the one pointed to the other even as the shadow pointed to the substance Instead of replying to this he tells me That the Scripture speaking of John 's Baptism calls it the Baptism of Repentance intimating its End was to signifie and seal Remission of Sins which likewise is the End of Christ's Baptism As this no ways answers my Argument so it makes nothing to the purpose for it is one thing to signifie Repentance and Remission of Sins and far another to know and possess it which is the End and constant fruit of Christ's Baptism Gal. 3.27 As many of you saith the Apostle as have been baptized unto Christ have put on Christ. And therefore it may be observed that without any proof he concludes that John's Baptism and Christ's agree both in the Matter and End Page 82. As a Reply to Acts 19.2 cited by me to shew And Substance that they differed in substance he saith The meaning is not that they were ignorant of the Person of the Holy Ghost Contrary to the very express Scripture-words viz. We have not so much as heard if there be any Holy Ghost He saith further That the Apostles did not a-new baptize such Persons that had been baptized with the Baptism of John In direct Contradiction to the Scripture-words verse 5. When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus W. M. contradicts the Scriptures And when Paul had laid his hands upon them the Holy Ghost came upon them Now verse 3. sheweth That they were baptized unto John's Baptism before so let him clear himself here of giving the Scripture the Lie if he can Section 2. page 83. To prove the perpetuity of water-Water-Baptism he begins with that often answered Argument of the Apostle's practice adding That though Christ Matth. 28. doth not mention Baptism with Water so neither with the Spirit alledging That thus the one may be excluded as well as the other Answ. Seeing Christ commanded them to baptize it cannot be denied but it was with his own Baptism which is that of the Spirit He adds That if Baptism of the Spirit were intended it would infer a needless Tautology in the Command of Christ as being all one with these words Go Teach Answ. Teaching and making men holy and righteous are different things Water-Baptism not commanded by Christ. For he will grant that he and his Brethren have been Teaching People these several years and yet he will have much ado to prove all their Church-members are really made Righteous and Holy Why then doth he account these two one reckoning it a Tautology to express them severally A little after he insinuates and that most falsly That I deny Peter's commanding Cornelius to be baptized Concealing my express words page 31. which are these And though it be said ver 48. that he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of Christ yet it holds forth no Command from Christ only the thing being agreed upon that it might be done he bid do it This he hath left un answered And whereas he adds That doing things in the Name of Christ is as much as his Command He bringeth no proof for giving but not granting it did hold so Matth. 18.20 in the case of Meeting that will not prove it is always so taken To evict my Objection against any determinate Commission the Apostles had of Baptizing
with Water because Paul said he was not sent to Baptize but to Preach he returns That if he had no Commission he would have Baptized none but he Baptized some which would have been of Self-will Answ. He might object the same as to Circumcision that because the Apostle Circumcised Timothy Paul was not sent to Baptize therefore he had a Commission for it he would not have done it of Self-will His Inference from Hos. 6.6 For I desire Mercy and not Sacrifice as if from thence Paul were sent principally to Baptize and not to Preach as God there required only principally Mercy not excluding Sacrifice is most Ridiculous and Inconsequential Nor is there any reason produced to shew the Party the Apostles were Commissioned to Baptize as principally as to Preach Go Preach and Baptize are knit together But the Question is Whether this be a Baptism with Water which remains yet unproved And therefore his Additions to the Scripture is no ways Justified as if Paul had been sent to Baptize with Water but not principally Page 86. He undertaketh to prove that Matth. 28.19 is meant of Water-Baptism and not of the Spirit 's Baptism the Reason alledged there Because the Baptism there mentioned is the action of the Apostles and that to Baptize with the Spirit is peculiar to Christ adding That it would be a confounding of the Duty commanded with the Promise of the Blessing annexed to it from thence he concludes That Baptism with Water is to continue to the end of the World Answ. The Reasons prove nothing and might militate the same way against Teaching which is also there Commanded as the Action of the Apostles And though it be peculiar to Christ to Teach by the Spirit that did not hinder them to do it Water-Baptism not perpetual Further the very Apostles by laying on of hands did administer the Holy Spirit and so Baptize with the Spirit Acts 10.44.19.6 And this is no confounding of the Promise with the Duty for therein was the Promise and Blessing fulfilled that they did it effectually and therefore from hence he had no ground to conclude the Perpetuity of Water-Baptism Moreover whereas he cited in his Dialogue page 39. Acts 2.28 1 Pet. 3.21 Acts 22.16 Eph. 5.26 Gal. 3.27 as holding forth the Excellent uses of water-Water-Baptism though I shew him page 5. of mine that these Scriptures are only applicable to Baptism with the Spirit and not to sprinkling with Water When page 87. he comes to Reply again he offers not in the least to prove that they are applicable to Baptism with Water which is the thing in question but tells me That those Scriptures strike against the Popish Opus operatum Quid inde What then Doth it therefore follow that they are applicable to sprinkling with Water who is so blind as not to see through such silly Subterfugies He addeth That I proceed upon a wrong Supposition as if they thought Baptism with Water were of it self effectual to cleanse the Soul Answ. I never proceeded upon such a Supposition that which I proceed upon is this Sprinkling is not the Baptism of Christ. That they should call or account sprinkling with Water the Baptism of Christ whereas the Scripture declares it not to be so 2 Pet. 3.21 Baptism is not the putting away the filth of the flesh c. And also ascribe such Scriptures to sprinkling with Water as are only applicable to the Baptism of the Spirit Now this as is said above he hath left unanswered Page 88. He saith That the one Baptism spoken of Eph. 4.5 cannot be called the Substance and Baptism with Water the Shadow because they are the same thing But this is pitifully to beg the thing in question And thus W. M's Arguments about Baptism runs round Baptism with Water is the one Baptism because the one Baptism is commanded by Christ and the one Baptism is Baptism with Water because Baptism with Water is commanded by Christ. He wholly passes by that part of page 52. of mine where I shew how absurd and Anti-scriptural their manner of Baptising is and thereby he comes the more easily to his Conclusion in this matter Head 11. Concerning the Supper page 88 89. he begins confessing That Christ's Instituting of the Supper doth not prove its Continuance and here he carps at my speaking of it with this addition The Lord's Supper so called asking Why I give it not that Name the Scripture gives it Answ. It is to be observed that where I speak of it thus page 33. of my last that it is in my Entry upon this matter addressing my self to him my words are Thou comest to prove that the Lord's Supper so called c. where I intended not that which was Instituted by Christ and had its season in the Church but that which they call so but really is not so though they seek from this to draw a Warrant for it And whereas I shew him that by Breaking of Bread The breaking of bread from house to house Acts 2.42 is meant their Ordinary Eating His Answer is That their Eating is not ordinary but Sacramental and the Text speaketh not of daily eating but a continuing daily in the Temple and that the Syriack Exposition expounds it of the Eucharist But it is in vain he thinks by his Imaginations to overturn the plain words of Scripture Acts 2.46 And they continuing daily in the Temple with one accord and breaking bread from house to house did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart Can there be any thing more plain than that their breaking of bread here was their ordinary Eating And as for his talk of Sacramental Eating where doth he read of such a phrase in all the Bible It is ill argued to say I am ignorant of the way of some Protestant-Churches who uses breaking of bread once a fortnight or once a month because I say their doing of it once or twice a year is not according to the Example of such as of old used it Page 90. he adds That though this Eating Acts 2 46. be conjoined with this that they sold their Possessions c. yet we are to follow them in the one and not in the other because the one was to Continue and not the other But for this he bringeth no proof save his own bare Assertion After the like manner page 91. he saith That though abstaining from blood and things strangled be commanded yet the Apostle Paul repeats it extending Christian Liberty to whatsoever is sold in the shambles But according to this he might argue That though abstaining from Circumcision be there commanded Paul's Circumcising no warrant for its Continuance yet Paul's Circumcising of Timothy might now warrant it And whereas he asketh If Paul Circumcised any other What if he had not Church-History tells us that many years after several Bishops of Jerusalem were circumcised it will not therefore follow that was a Repealing of the Apostle's
touching those who according to the common Opinion of Protestants have been Converted whom albeit they confess they persist always in some Misdeeds and sometimes in hainous Sins as is manifest in David's Adultery and Murder yet they assert to be perfectly and wholly Justified How comes he then so often to Complain to Expostulate so much throughout the whole Scripture with such as our Adversaries Confess to be Justified telling them That their sins separate betwixt him and them Isa. 59.2 For where there is a perfect and full Reconciliation there is no Separation Yea from this Doctrine it necessarily follows either that such for whom Christ died and whom he hath thus Reconciled never Sin or that when they do so they are still Reconciled and their Sins make not the least Separation from God yea that they are Justified in their Sins From whence also would follow this Abominable Consequence That the good Works and greatest Sins of such are alike in the sight of God seeing neither the one serves to Justify them nor the other to break their Reconciliation which occasions great Security and opens a door to every lewd Practice †Proof III. Thirdly This would make void the whole practical Doctrine of the Gospel and make Faith it self Needless For if Faith and Repentance and the other Conditions called for throughout the Gospel be a Qualification upon our part necessary to be performed then before this be performed by us we are either fully reconciled to God or but in a Capacity of being Reconciled to God he being ready to Reconcile and Justify us as these Conditions are performed Which latter if granted is according to the Truth we profess And if we are already perfectly Reconciled and Justified before these Conditions are performed which Conditions are of that Nature that they cannot be performed at one time but are to be done all one's life time then can they not be said to be absolutely Needful Which is contrary to the very express Testimony of Scripture which is acknowledged by all Christians For * Hebr. 11.6 John 3.18 Luke 13.3 Apoc. 2.5 Rom. 8.13 without Faith it is Impossible to please God They that believe not are Condemn'd already because they believe not in the Only begotten Son of God Except ye Repent ye cannot be Saved For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die And of those that were Converted I will Remove your Candlestick from you unless ye Repent Should I mention all the Scriptures that positively and evidently prove this I might transcribe much of all the Doctrinal Part of the Bible For since Christ said It is finished and did finish his Work sixteen hundred years ago and upwards if he so fully perfected Redemption then and did then actually Reconcile every one that is to be Saved not simply opening a Door of Mercy for them A Door of Mercy opened by Christ upon Repentance offering the Sacrifice of his Body by which they may obtain Remission of their Sins when they Repent and Communicating unto them a measure of his Grace by which they may see their sins and be able to Repent but really make them to be Reputed as Just The Antinomians Opinion of Reconciliation and Justification either before they believe as say the Antinomians or after they have Assented to the Truth of the History of Christ or are sprinkled with the Baptism of Water while nevertheless they are actually Vnjust so that no part of their Redemption is to be wrought by him now as to their Reconciliation and Justification then the whole doctrinal Part of the Bible is useless and of no profit in vain were the Apostles sent forth to preach Repentance and Remission of Sins and in vain do all the Preachers bestow their labour spend their lungs and give forth Writings yea much more in vain do the people spend their money which they give them for preaching seeing it is all but Actum agere but a vain and uneffectual Essay to do that which is already perfectly done without them Proof IV But lastly To pretermit their humane Labours as not worth the disputing whether they be needful or not since as we shall hereafter shew themselves Confess the Best of them is Sinful this also makes void the present Intercession of Christ for men What shall become of that great Article of Faith Christ's daily making Intercession for us by which we Affirm That he sits at the right hand of God daily making Intercession for us and for which end the Spirit it self maketh Intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered For Christ maketh not Intercession for those that are not in a possibility of Salvation that is absurd Our Adversaries will not admit that he prayed for the World at all and to pray for those that are already Reconciled and perfectly Justified is to no purpose To pray for Remission of Sins is yet more Needless if all be Remitted past present and to come Indeed there is not any solid Solving of this but by acknowledging according to the Truth that Christ by his Death removed the Wrath of God so far as to obtain Remission of sins for as many as Receive that Grace and Light that he communicates unto them and hath purchased for them by his Blood which as they believe in they come to know Remission of sins past and power to save them from sin and to wipe it away so often as they may fall into it by unwatchfulness or weakness if applying themselves to this Grace they truly Repent For to as many as receive him he gives power to become the sons of God So none are sons none are justified none reconciled until they thus receive him in that little Seed in their hearts and life Eternal is offered to those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek glory honour and immortality For if the righteous man depart from his righteousness his righteousness shall be remembred no more And therefore on the other part none are longer Sons of God and justified than they patiently continue in righteousness and well-doing And therefore Christ lives always making Intercession during the day of every man's Visitation that they may be Converted and when men are in some measure Converted he makes Intercession that they may Continue and go-on and not faint nor go back again Much more might be said to Confirm this Truth but I go on to take notice of the Common Objections against it which are the Arguments made use of to propagate the Errors Contrary to it § VI. The First and Chief is drawn from that saying of the Apostle before-mentioned 2 Cor. 5.18 19. God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself not Imputing their Trespasses unto them Object 1 From hence they seek to Infer That Christ fully perfected the Work of Reconciliation while he was on Earth I Answer If by Reconciliation be understood the Removing of Wrath
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 Pharisees the Chiefest Sect among the Jews 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 kind partly borrowed from the Jews Many things in Christendom are borrow'd from the Jews and Gentiles 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 Of Sacraments so many Controversies 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 Controversy 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 The Name of Sacrament not found in Scripture is borrow'd from the Heathens 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 But if it be said That it is not the Name but the Thing they Contend Object 1 for I Answer Let the Name then as not being Scriptural be laid aside and we shall see at first Entrance Answ. 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 If it be said That this Controversy arises from the Definition of the Thing Object 2 as well as from the Name Answ. 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 The Definition of Sacraments agrees to many other things 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 What Sealing Ordinance doth mean or Thing sealed to them Object 3 If it be said It is so to them that are faithful 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 Answ. 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 notwithstanding it go to Perdition The outward Washing doth not cleanse the Heart 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 purify 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 As to the first part these things following which are briefly comprehended Part I in the Proposition come to be proposed and proved § III. First That there is but one Baptism as well as but One Lord Prop. I One Faith c. Secondly That this one Baptism which is the Baptism of Christ is Prop. II 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 Prop. III as the Figure to give place to the Substance which though it be to continue yet the other is Ceased As for the first viz. That there is
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 thô 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 Circumcision a Seal of the first Covenant Water-baptism falsly called a Badge of Christianity Which is the Badge of Christianity 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 signify that as well I know there are divers of those called Fathers that speak much of Water-baptism What the Fathers say of Water-baptism and of the Sign of the Cross. 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 Heathenish Ceremonies introduc'd 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 Vncertain 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 Augustin doth the Pelagians for saying That Infants dying Vnbaptized may be saved And the Manichees were Condemned for denying that Grace is universally given by Baptism and Julian the Pelagian by Augustin for denying Exorcism and Insufflation in the use of Baptism All which things Protestants deny also Exorcism or Adjuration So that Protestants do but foolishly to upbraid us as if we could not shew any among the Ancients that denied Water-baptism seeing they cannot shew any whom they acknowledge not to have been Heretical in several things to have used it nor yet who using it did not use also the Sign of the Cross and other things with it which they deny There were some nevertheless in the darkest Times of Popery The Sign of the Cross. who testified against Water-baptism For one Alanus pag. 103 104 107. speaks of some in his Time Many in former Ages testified against Water-baptism that were burnt for the denying of it for they said that Baptism had no Efficacy either in Children or Adult Persons and therefore Men were not obliged to take Baptism Particularly Ten Canonicks so called were burnt for that Crime by the Order of King Robert of France as P. Pithaeus tells in his Fragments of the History of Guienne Which is also confirmed by one Johannes Floracensis a Monk who was famous at that Time in his Epistle to Oliva Abbot of the Ausonian Church I will saith he give you to understand concerning the Heresy that was in the City of Orleans on Childer-mass-day for it was true if ye have heard any thing that King Robert caused to be burnt alive nigh Fourteen of that City of the Chief of their Clergy and the more Noble of their Laicks who were hateful to God and abominable to Heaven and Earth Ten Canonicks burnt at Orleans and why for they did stiffly deny the Grace of Holy Baptism and also the Consecration of our Lord's Body and Blood The time of this Deed is noted in these words by Papir Masson in his Annals of France lib. 3. in Hugh and Robert Actum Aureliae public◠Anno Incarnationis Domini 1022. Regni Roberti Regis 28. Indictione 5. quando Stephanus Haeresiarcha Complices ejus damnati sunt exusti Aureliae Now for their calling them Hereticks and Manichees we have nothing but the Testimony of their Accusers which will no more invalidate their Testimony for this Truth against the use of Water-baptism or give more ground to charge us as being one with Manichees than because some called by them Manichees do agree with Protestants in some things that therefore Protestants are Manichees or Hereticks which Protestants can no ways shun For the Question is Whether in what they did they walked according to the Truth testified of by the Spirit in the Holy Scriptures So that the Controversy is brought back again to the Scriptures according to which I suppose I have formerly discussed it As for the latter part of the Thesis The Baptism of Infants an Humane Tradition denying the Vse of Infant-Baptism it necessarily follows from what is above-said For if Water-Baptism be Ceased then surely Baptising of Infants is not warrantable But those that take upon them to Oppose us in this matter will have more to do as to this latter part for after they have done what they can to prove Water-Baptism it remains for them to prove that Infants ought to be Baptized For he that proves Water-Baptism Ceased proves that Infant-Baptism is vain But he that should prove that Water-Baptism continues has not thence proved that Infant-Baptism is necessary That needs something further And therefore it was a pitiful Subterfuge of Nic. Arnoldus against this to say That the denying of
up out of their Grave out of Condescension to any So I say the same as of water-Water-Baptism it being once Dead and Buried is not again to be raised up now after the Apostacy P. G. I prove That water-Water-Baptism was thought needful even to those that were Baptized with the Holy Ghost Can any Man forbid Water c. as Paul said Acts 10. G. K. Say Peter not Paul P. G. Peter I say not Paul R. B. That proves not all that it was done by Necessity but to Condescend to their Weakness About this Time the Praeses And. Th. going forth said It was now five a Clock the Time appointed for the Continuance of the Dispute and so went away Nor was there any Argument farther urged G. K. Praeses Al. Skein I see there is like to be no more here but Confusion seeing the other Praeses is gone I shall only propose this Just and Reasonable Desire to these Students that since we have given them a fair Opportunity to Impugn and Oppose our Principles they also will promise us another Day to Impugn and Oppose theirs Stud. When we set out Theses then ye shall have an Opportunity to Impugn them G. K. Your Theses are set out already for your Confession of Faith is your Theses which I offer to Impugn Stud. Our Faith is Established by the Law of God and of the Nation and therefore ought not to be called in Question R. B. That it is Established by the Law of God is the thing under Debate and as for the Law of the Nation so is the Popish Faith in Italy and Spain and Mahometanism in the Turks Dominions will it therefore follow that Popery and Mahometanism are not to be called in Question or Oppugned Stud. We will come to your Meetings and Debate further with you R. B. Our Meetings are not for Debate but to Wait upon God and Worship Him but if ye please to meet us here again to Morrow we are satisfied Stud. We will not R. B. It seems ye need a longer Time to prepare you for your present Strength is all Exhausted Stud. We will come to your Meeting and wait till it be done and then Oppose you R. B. I have told you before That is not proper but on this Condition I will admit it that when I see meet I may have the like Opportunity to come to your Meetings and when your Preachers have done that I be allowed to Oppose and Impugn your Principles Stud. No no. The Confusion and Tumult encreasing through the removing of the Praeses A. Th. and divers of the Soberest People And the Students vainly boasting of their Victory Laughing Clamouring and making a Noise and telling they would cause to be publisht in Print their imaginary Victory occasioned such Lightness and Rudeness in a Rabble of the grossest Sort that were without the Bar that laying hold on a Heap of Turffs they threw many of them against us without offering the least Violence to our Opposers on the other Side So that having beat divers with hard Turffs Peates and also with Stones R. B. with divers other Friends received several Knocks in his Head and was wounded in his Hand with a Stone while as the Students the Masters of Art and their Companions who had been Disputing in Matters of Religion instead of interposing themselves to prevent stood divers of them laughing hollowing and clamouring thereat and so the Meeting broke up G. K. said to others more sober that were present These are your Church-Members This True and Impartial Account which was offered to be read to their Praeses Andrew Thomson but he declined it alledging The Matters treated of were so Extrinsick from his Emploiment and these things that took up his Head and he so apt to forget such Things that though the Matter might be True he could not Attest it neither for us nor our Opposers It was also read in Writing to some judicious and unprejudicate Persons that were present and are not of our Way and acknowledged by them to be according to their best Memory a Full and Ingenuous Account as may be further proved in case it be called in Question will we hope serve to appease these Empty Clamours which the Students vain Ostentation and the Ignorance and Prejudice of others might have raised some of whom did so little or at least will needs appear so little to understand the Matter as to affirm The Quakers were all Routed for they could prove nothing whereas we were by Mutual Agreement to be meer Defendants and not to be admitted at all to Prove but only to Answer And whether we Answered not all was urged will by this Account appear where none of the Arguments are omitted nor any whit of the Strength of them concealed As for what was or may be accounted Reflections we have not put them in the Body of the Dispute because we remember not particularly at what Time they were spoken But that we may not seem designedly to Conceal any as tending to our Disadvantage so far as we remember they were as followeth That G. K. said to J. L. He spoke more with his Fingers than his Tongue after What need he make such a Work with his Finger and affect a Canting Tone like his Master J. M. That his Head was too full of Mercury and his Heart in his Tongue whereas a Wise Man's Tongue is in his Heart Now whether J. L's extravagant Behaviour did not deserve such Checks while he oftentimes would be speaking when his Companions were and put them by with both his Elbows that he alone might be heard To which add his Forwardness in his Blasphemous Assertion above observed let the discreet and judicious Hearers judge A. Shir. said He would overturn Quakerism and he hoped in so doing to have his End J. L. That he might not miss to hit as he thought G. K. said It seemed he was an Aberdeen 's Man and would take his Word again which was noted by G. K. as being a Reflection upon the City where J. L. himself was born which G. K. was not Also A. Shir. Laughing and raising Lightness called upon G. K. speaking some Words If there was a Notar that he might take Instrument To which R. B. answered That he desired the Notar might take Instrument how Divinity-Students and Masters of Arts that were preparing themselves for the Ministry were so Light and Vnserious in Religious Matters c. But however if they have gotten such a Victory as they boast of how is that Consistent with what we are Informed of and is noised up and down in the City That Jo. Menzies their Master went within a Day or two to desire the Bishop to Complain to the Primate and King's Council and procure us to be punished for holding the Dispute And an Order That none such further be admitted And indeed if the Scholars have proved so good Disputants we think the Masters cannot in reason reason refuse this following OFFER R.
performed in Spirit and in Truth and all of us have our Share and Testimony therein as God moves thereunto Even those who are outwardly silent as these who speak when as both agree together in one Spirit and with one Heart and Soul join together in the same SECTION VI. Of BAPTISM Wherein their Fourth Section concerning Water-Baptism is Answered IN their stating the Question they say The Question is not Whether Infants ought to be Baptized Or who have the Power of Administring Baptism Whereas indeed these Two are a great part of the Question betwixt our Adversary and us For as touching Infant-Baptism R. B. his Thesis doth expresly say It is a meer Human Tradition Infant Baptism an human Tradition and it is well known that all the Quakers so called are of the same Mind and do not the Students undertake to Confute the Quakers Principles How is it then that they leave out so considerable a part of Quakerism as tâ—ey call it Is this Quakerism Canvased to pick and chuse at some and pass by others Yea Infants-Sprinkling with Water on the Forehead is so considerable a part of the Question betwixt them and us that if that be disproved or if they cannot prove that to be a Gospel-Institution they fall short exceedingly seeing that is the only Baptism in use among them of the National Church Again it is so great a part of the Question Who have the power of Administring Baptism that by this the Controversy stands or falls None have Power now to Administer Water-Baptism For one of our main Arguments against Water-Baptism as remaining a Duty upon all Christians is That none are to be found that have the Power to administer it And the Administration cannot be without a lawful Administrator The Question then really is Whether these who have no Immediate Call to administer Water-Baptism as John had have Power to administer it Again Whether those who have no other mediate Call to Baptize but what they have by the Church of Rome which is no true Church as the best Protestants affirm have power to Administer Baptism And this Question is the more proper in this Place seeing J. M. the Students Master confesseth his and his Brethrens Call and Ordination to be by the Church of Rome and that they have no other but what is conveyed down to them from the Apostles Times by that Apostate Church But let us now Examine their Arguments for water-Water-Baptism in general The First is Baptism with Water is to continue in the Church The Students Argument for its Continuance as long as Christ's Presence is to continue with his Apostles and them who teach the Doctrine that they taught But Christ's Presence is to continue with his Apostles and them who teach the Doctrine that they taught to the End of the World Therefore c. Where it is to be observed That they think all is Safe as to the Minor and therefore they altogether pass it by Now although it is sufficient to invalidate the Argument if the Major be false yet we have somewhat of great moment to say to the Minor that is enough to overturn any Baptism that they have For we put them to explain who these are That all along since the Apostles have taught the Doctrine which the Apostles taught For the Words are liable to divers Senses If they mean the Church of Rome and her Bishops and Teachers we altogether deny that they have taught the same Doctrine which the Apostles taught And we suppose the Students if they follow their Master J. M. will not affirm it And indeed for the same Reason the best primitive Protestants denied that the Church of Rome in their Day had any lawful Ordination at all seeing she continued not in the Apostles Doctrine and Faith As that famous Protestant Sadeel doth argue at great length lib. de legit voc min. where he affirmeth Sadeel's Testimony concerning a Succession of Faith from the Apostles That the Succession of Faith is as the Soul which gives Life to the Succession of the Bishops as unto a Body but that Succession without this Faith is a dead thing and unprofitable Carcase Now the same Reason doth militate as strongly against Water-Baptism and that also called the Supper upon our present Adversaries Principle That none have Power to administer the one or the other but those who have a mediate outward Call conveyed down from the Apostles by a visible Succession of ordained Bishops and Presbyters For we say There hath been no such Visible Succession nor visibly Ordained Bishops and Presbyters who all a long have had the true Faith and taught the true Doctrine of the Apostles therefore their Ordination and Power to administer the Sacraments is void and null And this is further confirmed by the Authority of Cyprian Cyprian of Baptism who taught with great Earnestness That the Baptism of all Hereticks was void and no Baptism But so it is by our Adversaries Confession That the Church and Bishops and Teachers of Rome have been Hereticks for many hundred Years before the Reformation Therefore We say then the Argument is fallacious as to the Minor supposing what is not to be supposed in their Sense viz. That either the Teachers of the Church of Rome or any other claiming a Visible and Mediate Call from the Apostles Times conveyed through a Visible Church unto them have taught the Doctrine which the Apostles taught a thing we altogether deny And it lieth on them to prove But that Christ hath had some all along who have both believed and taught the Doctrine of the Apostles and that his Presence has been with them we acknowledge but we deny that these have been all a long a Visible Church and Teachers having a Mediate Call and Ordination and in this we agree with the best Protestants For indeed the True Church hath been hid even as a few Grains of Corn among an exceeding great Quantity of Chaff and Stubble The True Church hath been hid and she who hath called herself the Church by reason of her outward Succession was not the True Church though some of the True Church lay hidden in her as Corn is hid in a great Quantity of Chaff And that the Church is properly to be placed in the alone Grains of Corn and not in the Chaff Sadeel doth also shew out of Augustine Ep. 48. Another Fault we find in the Students Argument that supposing water-Water-Baptism had been commanded to the Apostles by Christ Matth. 28. which yet we altogether deny it insinuateth That it was as long to Continue as Christ's Presence with his Church For if Teaching had Continued though Baptism with Water had Discontinued as our Adversaries grant That Anointing with Oil and miraculous Curing the Sick is discontinued yet the Promise was ground enough to encourage them And if all be still binding that Christ Commanded to his Apostles why go they not forth The Partiality of
Those only can be esteemed Charitable in point of Doctrine and truly to Commend the Love of God whose Principle is of that Extent as naturally to take in within the compass of it both such as have not arrived to their Discoveries and who are also Different in Judgment from them and that without any extraordinary and miraculous Conveyance as being the Common Means and Order of Salvation appointed by God for all and truly reaching all Moreover in the second place far less canst thou pretend to have Charity for me that wilt rob me of my Life Goods or Liberty because I cannot jump with thee in my Judgment in Religious Matters To say Thou dost it for good and out of the Love thou bearest to my Soul Is an Argument too Ridiculous to be answered unless that the so doing did Infallibly produce always a Change in Judgment The very Contrary whereof Experience has abundantly shewn and to this day doth shew seeing such Severities do oftner Confirm men in their Principles than drive them from them And then by thy own Confession thou dost not only Destroy my Body but my Soul also and canst not avoid thinking upon thy own Principle but I must be Damned If I persist in my Judgment 2. Uncharitable Deportment To destroy Men for Conscience an Act of Malice Which for thee to be the very Immediate Occasion and Author of is certainly the greatest Act of Malice and Envy that can be imagined seeing thou dost what in thee lyeth through the heat of thy Zeal and Fury to cut me off from obtaining that place of Repentance which for ought thou knowest it might please God to afford me were not my days thus shortned by thee Magistrates putting to death Malefactors for their Crimes is no Example for them to kill good Men for matters of Conscience To alledge the Example of Putting to Death Murderers and other such Profligate Malefactors which is allowably done by the general Judgment of almost all Christians from thence urging That as this is not accounted a Breach of Christian Charity so neither the other will no way serve the purpose nor yet be a sufficient Cover for this kind of Vnchristian Cruelty because the Crimes for which these are thus punished are such as are not Justified as matters of Conscience or Conscientiously practised which are unanimously Condemned not only by the Consent of all Christians but of all Men as being Destructive to the very Nature of Man-kind and to all Humane Society And 't is Confessed even by all such Malefactors themselves I know not if one of a Hundred Thousand can be Excepted and the punishment of such is Justifiable as all generally acknowledge But to kill Sober Honest good Men meerly for their Conscience is quite Contrary to the Doctrine of Christ as has been elsewhere upon other Occasions largly demonstrated This being premised I shall briefly Apply the same to the several Sorts of Christians that thence may be observed whose Principles do most exactly agree with and lead to that Vniversal Love and Charity so much in words commended by all and for the want of which every sort take so much liberty to Judge and Condemn each other There are many other particulars by which the several Sects may be Tried in this respect but these Two forementioned being the principal I shall chiefly insist upon them in this present Application To begin then with the Papists there is nothing more commonly acknowledged and assented to among them The Papists Maxim Without the Church is no Salâ—ation than that Maxim Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus without the Church there is no Salvation which Maxim in a sense I confess to be True as shall hereafter appear but according as it is understood among them it does utterly destroy this Vniversal Love and Charity For by this Church without which there is no Salvation they precisely understand the Church of Rome reckoning that whosoever are not of her Fellowship are not Saved And this must needs necessarily follow upon their Principles seeing they make the Ceremonial Imbodying in this Church so necessary to Salvation that they Exclude from it the very Children begotten and brought forth by their own Members Their Children not Excluded from their Rigour unless formally received by the Sprinkling or Baptism of Water And albeit they have a Certain place more tolerable than Hell for these Vnbaptized Infants yet hence is manifest how small their Charity is And how much it is Confined to their particular Ceremonies and Forms Since if they think Children born among them for want of this Circumstance are excluded from Heaven albeit never guilty of Actual Transgression they must needs judge that such as both want it and also are guilty of many Sins as they believe all Men are who are come to Age especially such as are not in the Church go without Remedy to Hell Secondly All Dissenters and Separatists from the Church Infidels Turks and Hereticks The Pope's Yearly Curse and Excommunication of all without them which in short are all that profess not Fellowship and Communion with the Church of Rome and own her not as their Mother are in a most solemn manner Yearly Excommunicated by the Pope And it were a most gross Inconsistency to suppose that such as are so Cursed and Excommunicated and given over to the Devil by the Father and Chief Bishop of the Church can in the Judgment of the Members be Saved especially while they think he is Approved of God and Led by an Infallible Spirit in his so Excommunicating them And lastly To suppose any such Vniversal Love or Charity as extending to Persons either without the Compass of their own Society The Foundation of the Romish Church the Superiority of Peter or Dissenting and Separating from them so as to reckon them in a capacity or possibility of Salvation were to destroy and overturn the very Basis and Foundation of the Roman Church which stands in acknowledging the Superiority and Precedency of Peter and his Successors and in believing that Infallibility is annexed thereunto Now such as are not of the Roman Society cannot do this and those that do not thus are such to whom the Church of Rome can have no Charity but must look upon them as without the Church and consequently as Uncapable of Salvation while there abiding Object If it be Objected that the Church of Rome professeth Charity to the Greek Armenian and Ethiopian Churches albeit vastly differing in many things from them Answ. I Answer that whatsoever Charity the Church of Rome either doth or ever hath professed to any of these shall be found to be always upon a supposed Acknowledgment made by them to the See of Rome The Church of Rome professing Charity to some as the Mother-Church and Apostolick Seat from thence seeking the Confirmation and Authority of their Patriarchs at least as the Romanists have sought to make the World believe how true is
while they affirm it to be the only adequate Rule of their Faith and Manners That we deny the thing truly imported by the Trinity is false As for the word Vehiculum Dei The like of Vehiculum Dei a Chariot or Vehicle signified by the Hebrew words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as having a respect to Christ's Body or Flesh and Blood from Heaven that it is a Scripture-word see Cant. 3.9 King Solomon made unto himself a Chariot of the Wood of Lebanon and v. 10. Vehiculum ejus purpureum the Hebrew words for Chariot and Vehiculum are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Appirion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Merkabh or Merkaba both which signify a Chariot and Vehicle and that by Solomon is mystically understood Christ of whom Solomon was a Figure or Type Solomon a figure of Christ. none who are spiritually minded can deny and consequently that this Chariot or Vehicle must be mystically and spiritually understood Nor can it be meant of Believers or the Church because it is said The midst of it being paved with love for the Daughters of Jerusalem i. e. for Believers so that they are received by Christ into this Chariot or Vehicle and therefore not it but distinct as the Contained is distinct from the Containing But for the further understanding of these Hebrew words see Buxtorff his Hebrew Lexicon and the Book called Apparatus in lib. Sohar part 1. p. 144. and 553. And however he might Cavil upon this Mystical Meaning yet the word is Scriptural which their Barbarism Sacrament is not And to his saying in answer to my shewing that by laying aside this Vnscriptural Term the Contest of the number of the Sacraments will evanish that it will Remain if instead of Sacrament they use Signs or Seals of the Covenant This is but his bare Assertion until he prove by clear Scripture that there are only Two Signs or Seals of the Covenant which he will find hard and yet harder that these two are they Pag. 469. n. 5. he denieth the Scripture saith There is one only Baptism instancing the Baptism of Affliction But I speak here of the Baptism of Christ in a true and proper sense and Eph. 4.5 will prove as much The One Baptism That there is one only Baptism as there is one only God which is in the next verse But before I proceed any further I must desire the Reader to observe What J. S. understands by Baptism of the holy Ghost which in his Account is Ceased how this Man speaking of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost understands it only to relate to the Extraordinary Gift of speaking with Tongues which the Apostles had and not as any thing Common to all true and really Regenerated Christians so that he concludes the Baptism with the Spirit and with Fire now to be Ceased And upon this his supposition he buildeth pag. 471-473 474-478 without so much as offering to prove it And to this he addeth a gross Lie upon me pag. 472. That I will have none to be Baptized in the Spirit but such as are endued with these Extraordinary Gifts which I never said nor believed and therefore this his false supposition I deny and consequently till next time that he take leisure to prove it all that he builds thereupon is meerly precarious and needs no further Answer John the Baptist speaking of the Baptism of Christ in general as Contradistinct from his saith He that cometh after me shall Baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire which could not have been the mark of Distinction if this had only been Restricted to what the Apostles Received the day of Pentecost and not of the Baptism wherewith Christ baptizeth all his Children But to rectify the Mistake he supposeth I am in J. B.'s One Baptism not the True One. concerning the One Baptism he tells me The One Baptism comprehendeth both the outward Element and the thing Represented and Sealed thereby but the Reasons he gives for this are so weak that thereby I am Confirmed I am not in a Mistake I might say saith he there were two Circumcisions because Circumcision is called Circumcision of the heart And what then In that sense there were Two so long as the Outward continued to wit the Outward and the Inward that of the Flesh and that of the Heart and if he can Answer this no better than by smiling at it we must pity the levity of his Spirit but not be moved by the weight of such airy Arguments What he addeth of the Object of Faith being called Faith as also the profession albeit the Apostle say there is One Faith is not to the purpose since these are included in the One true Faith the Apostle speaketh of but for him to fay That the Baptism of Water is included in the One Baptism spoken of there by the Apostle is only to beg the question And yet all he doth is strongly to Affirm this without proof So that all that he saith in Answer to me being built upon this and such like Mistakes needed in strictness no more Reply as his Answer to my Argument pag. 471. sheweth where he supposeth Two Baptisms one administred by Men another administred by Christ himself by his Spirit and not by Men That water-Water-baptism cannot be the Baptism of Christ. But he should have proved this ere he had used it as a distinction and till he do so my Argument to wit That since such as were Baptized with Water were not therefore baptized with the baptism of Christ therefore Water-baptism cannot be the Baptism of Christ will stand for all his blowing I desire the Reader take notice here of his Insinuation as if I had borrowed this Argument from Socinus which he hath over and over again afterwards as to others speaking expresly pag. 433. of my Stealing Arguments from Socinus But to shew him how unhappy he is in being so apt to speak Vntruth he may understand that I never read three Lines of Socinus's Writings hitherto nor knew what Arguments he used till now he Informs me in case his Information be true Instead of Answer to what I urge from 1 Pet. 3.21 in my Apology he giveth a Preaching made up of meer Assertions built on the former Mistakes and Railing his Answer is built upon the supposing That Water-Baptism goes to the making up of Christ's Baptism which is now to Continue which yet remains for him to prove And on the other hand supposing That I affirm that by the Answer of a good Conscience there mentioned is to be understood the Extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit which is false And upon the same two Mistakes he grounds his Answer pag. 473. N. 8. to what I urge from Gal. 3.27 and Col. 2.12 as a supplement That the putting on of Christ there mentioned by the Apostle may be understood of putting on Christ by profession though not in Truth and reality which he also
hath pag. 438 for which Exposition I shall expect his Proof next time if he have any ¶ 2. Pag. 474. He proceedeth upon the same unproved Supposition That water-Water-Baptism was Instituted by Christ and here he denies J. B.'s supposition that water-Water-baptism was Instituted by Christ Invalidated that John's Baptism was a Figure But since John's Baptism was a washing with Water and that the Apostle ascribeth the putting on Christ to the Baptism of Christ as Washing with Water typifieth or signifies the Washing of Regeneration so doth John's Baptism that of Christ. He concludeth this Paragraph with a silly Quibble where in Answer to my urging John's Words saying I must decrease and he must increase he adds J. B.'s poor Shift that by John's Decrease is not meant his Baptism c. As if John and Baptism with Water were all one and Christ one and the same with the Baptism of the Holy Ghost Poor Man he has been sore pinched when he betook himself to this silly Shift Will he say this is to be understood of John's and Christ's Persons and not of their Ministry Then we must suppose John grew less and decrepit as to his Person ever after this and Christ grew bigger and taller Let him remember to prove this when he writes next He goes on pag. 475. upon his old Mistake supposing That Water-baptism was instituted by Christ and that he gave Command to his Disciples so to Baptize and that Matt. 28.19 is to be understood of Water-Baptism all which is meerly to beg the Question He saith That to say John's Baptism is not Pure and Spiritual or that it is a Legal Rite is to Condemn John Christ and his Apostles because God gave John an express Command for it And what then The Legal Rites had a Command as well as John's Baptism God Commanded the Legal Rites also that did not hinder them from being such to say he needed not such a Command If it had of the Nature of the Legal Rites is but a presumptuous quarrelling with God seeing on all Hands it is granted he Commanded it and a meer affirming it is not such in stead of proving of it As for the Apostle his making honourable mention of Baptism in his Epistles and of its Ends which he points in several Scriptures all which is granted But it doth not thence follow that all this is to be understood of Water-Baptism and while that still remaineth the thing in debate he can prove nothing from these Scriptures But it is no wonder he thus forgets himself here as to me since in the following Words he quarrelleth with the Apostle Paul saying in Answer to his Words 1 Cor. 1. v. 17. That he was not sent to Baptize J. B. quarrelleth with the Apostle If Paul had not been sent to Baptize why would he have done it I think it needless to me to answer the Absurdity he would here fix upon the Apostle since it sufficeth me and I hope will other good Christians that the Apostle saith positively That he was not sent to Baptize And for his Baptizing of some we will suppose he had a Reason though not from his Commission which he expresly denies whatever John Brown may Brawl to the Contrary As for his saying That it seemeth then the other Apostles had another Commission than Paul had It is built upon the Supposition that they had a Commission to Baptize with Water which remains for him yet to prove And not to contend with him for brevity's sake about that of Hosea 6.6 whether not there be only to be understood of less principally yet though it were it would not follow it should be so understood here also I shew him by an Example 1 Cor. 2.5 what wild Work such an Interpretation would make if ordinarily applied but he it seems judged it most convenient not to take notice of it in this his Examen albeit in Reason he should have done it if he would give a Compleat Answer For he must either prove not always to be understood of less principally or otherwise he must bring particular Reasons why it should be so here and not that it sometimes is so understood For such a Particular will not infer the Consequence Christ submitting to Water-Baptism proves not its Continuance ¶ 3. The Reason he giveth of Chrift's submitting to Water-Baptism to prove it now to Continue is his saying For thus it becometh us to fulfil all Righteousness But may not that be applied also to Circumcision and yet its Continuance will not thence follow John's receiving a Divine Command to Baptize sheweth there was a Divine Institution for it under the Law because the Law was not as yet abrogated nor the Legal Ministration accomplished till Christ was offered up As for Christ his Consecrating it in his own Person the like may be also said of Circumcision I come now to see what he saith n. 14. to prove Matth. 28.19 to be understood of water-Water-Baptism J. B.'s further Reasons for its Continuance Examined And first after a little Railing he saith This was but an Enlargement of their former Commission as to the Object And before this we heard of their Baptizing with Water with Christ's Warrant and Authority c. Answ. We have heard him say so indeed but must wait until he prove ere we be so forward as to believe it And next what if it were all granted We heard before of the Disciples preparing and Eating the Passover with Christ's Warrant and Authority will it thence follow that that practice is still to Continue in the Church 2. Because it is joined here with Discipling and Baptizing was the way of making Disciples among the Jews So was Circumcision and that no less constantly and necessary will it therefore follow that Circumcision is to Continue 3. He saith Their Constant After-practice declareth this to be the meaning of the Command But the Apostle Paul's Practice and Testimony declareth this to be false 4. He saith This is the proper Import of the word But I deny it is so in Scripture since we see no necessity in most of the places of Scripture to understand the Word of water-Water-Baptism And when he shews the Necessity he may be answered and the Scriptures so frequently using it where Water upon all hands is confessed not to be understood prove this to be True And as for his saying That it cannot be understood here of Baptism with the Spirit it falleth to the Ground because only built upon the Supposition that that is only understood of Extraordinary Gifts He urgeth Christ's Saying Luke 12.50 I have a Baptism to be Baptized with and how am I straitned till it be accomplished As if this were to be called Christ's own Baptism and so I shall grant it with a respect to his Personal Sufferings But when I speak of Christ's own Baptism I speak of that which is his as being instituted by him for others and that Contradistinct from
John's Pag. 479. he saith The Words of Baptizing into the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 J. B's false Gloss upon the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is only to be understood of a dedicating to God and not a being Baptized into the Power and Vertue But this is his own Assertion Neither doth Paul's saying 1 Cor. 1.13 Were ye Baptized in the Name of Paul make it clear at all For making it unto Paul will render the Apostle's Argument more forcible to shew the Corinthians their Folly in saying they were of Paul or other Men into whose Power or Vertue it was absurd to say they were Baptized as must be said of all true Christians being baptized into the Name of Christ. That I Condemn their manner of Baptizing is true but that I do it because of their doing it in the Name of the Father is his false and foolish Conjecture And therefore his troubling himself to prove that is to no purpose For his saying That if Matth. 28.19 be not understood of Water-Baptism it would make a Tautology I answered that n. 8. in my Apology of Baptism and here he only repeats the Objection without taking notice of my Answer Which sheweth how defective his Examen is He goes on pag. 480. upon the Supposition That the Apostle's Baptizing with Water was not by meer permission The Apostles baptizing with Water proves it not Evangelical and yet the Apostle's Commanding the Gentiles to Abstain for a time from things strangled and from Blood which was a Jewish Rite shews their Vsing Baptism with Water doth not prove it Evangelical He confesseth here They did not fully at first comply with their Commission and he must also say they did not understand it though he would here wave it And because he knows not well what to say he falls to Rail saying He seeth what Quakers cannot do with Reason they must do with Confident and bold Lies But the Reason he gives of all this Accusation so strange Confidence is my saying That the Chief of Christ's Disciples had been John's adding Will he tell us who these Chief were Yes I will seeing he is so ignorant Joh. 1.35 37. where he may see Two of John's Disciples followed Christ one of which is expresly mentioned to be Andrew the Apostle Some of Christ's Disciples had been John's and it is there clearly enough imported that Peter was another And such may without Absurdity be accounted among the Chief of Christ's Disciples Pag. 481. He most falsly saith That I Condemn Peter and all the Apostles for resting satisfied with what he had done His saying here That they do not urge their Baptism from Peter 's Baptizing Cornelius shews he sees a Necessity of not laying great Stress upon that But for his adding That Jesus Christ hath commanded he doth but say and not prove it He saith That Gal. 2.12 will not prove that Peter constrained the Gentiles to be Circumcised But verse 14. to which my words alluded saith expresly Why Compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews and sure that was to be Circumcised For his malitious false Asseveration That we with the Jews design to destroy Christianity it needs no Reply That there were Baptisms among the Jews is clear from Heb. 6.2 albeit Paulus Riccius were not alledged to prove it nor any Debate used about the Antiquity of the Jews Writings but that some of them wrote before the year 200 Josephus's History is an Example He confesseth The Etymology of the Word inferreth Dipping and albeit we deny not that yet this sheweth with how little Reason he urgeth that Etymology upon us If the Reader will but seriously read what I have written in my Apology of Baptism he will easily find how slender his Answer is albeit I had not written this Reply SECT XIV Wherein his Twenty Seventh Chapter Intituled Of the Lord's Supper is Considered ¶ 1. THE Reader before this time hath had so much Opportunity to Discern the Temper of this Man's Spirit that he need not wonder to find him begin this Chapter of the Lord's Supper with an Heap of Railing accounting us such as Overturn Christianity and Introduce Paganism yea as are posting towards it And then having given a large accout pag. 48 484. of their Confession of Faith and larger Catechism J. B's good Experiences of this Suffer prove not its Continuance pag. 485. he comes to tell the Good Experiences many have had by their Vse of this Supper which to make strong in his Conceit he useth a Continued Style of Railing against us as Men only led by our own Imaginations and given up to the working of the Prince of Darkness And thus he goes on But such Experience albeit granted will not prove the Necessity of its Continuance for the Assembly of Divines so called in their Preface to the Directory do speak of the good which was Experienced by the Liturgy of the Church of England and of the Religious Intentions of the Compilers of it while yet they are rejecting and abolishing it as that which proved an Offence to the godly and occasioned much Mischief Therefore that is no Argument Pag. 586. N. 5. He comes to Examin what I say in the Matter and then after a Reference to his Tenth Chapter he has his Old Calumny That the Celestial Seed J. B's Railing against the Light and Spiritual Substance is nothing but the dim Light of Nature he falleth into a new Fit of Railing which holds him to the end of this Paragraph terming us such as are Judicially blinded and deluded acted and driven by the Devil into a Profane and Paganish Contradiction to the Ways of Grace And with the like Shame and upon the same old Supposition of our Exalting the Light of Nature which is most False he filleth his N. 6. and also his 7. p. 488. For what he saith there of the Absurdity of God's Revealing himself to Heathens or such as were Idolaters I have spoken before writing upon that Subject And here he Concludes That my Asserting of a Spiritual Body and Flesh of Christ at one Blow is a denying the Christ of God and overturning Christianity But instead of proving it he proposeth some Questions Had Christ two Bodies Yes and let him deny it if he dare without contradicting the Scripture Christ's Flesh which came down from Heaven was not the Flesh he took from the Virgin Mary Joh. 6.58 Christ speaks of his Flesh which came down from Heaven but this was not the Flesh he took from the Virgin Mary for that came not down from Heaven but he had a Spiritual Body in which his Soul Existed long before he took Flesh of the Virgin and we will see how John Brown proves this to be an Error in the Refutation that is promised in his Name of G. K's Book And for the rest of his Conjectures such as We have two such Bodies too is but a Fiction of his own Brain We call
the Apostle 307. Augustin's Testimony in the Case of Circumcision observing of Meats Drinks Washings and Sacrifices 586. his Zeal against Pelagius 311. Aurelia there ten Canonicks were burnt and why 593. Authority of Princes justly owned 710. B. Backsliders like Salt that hath lost its Savour 192. Baptism is one its Definition 474 476 to 483. 854 860. It is the Baptism of Christ and of the Spirit not of Water 475 to 484. The Baptism of Water which was John's Baptism was a Figure of this Baptism and is not to be continued 85 86 88 475 478 481 482 to 493 653. Baptism with Water doth not cleanse the Heart 476 479. nor is it a Badge of Christianity as was Circumcision to the Jews 484 492. That Paul was not sent to Baptize is explained 484 485 486. Concerning Water Baptism Christ speaks of Matth. 28.20 it is explained 486 487. How the Apostles Baptized with Water is explained 484 485 486 649 650. To Baptize signifies to plunge and how Sprinkling was brought in 490 491. Those of old that used Water-Baptism were plunged and they that were only Sprinkled were not admitted to an Ecclesiastick Function and why 491. Against the use of Water-Baptism many heretofore have Testified 493. Infant-Baptism is a meer humane Tradition 475 647. The Corrupt Acceptation of the Word Baptism denied 84. John's Baptism no part of the Gospel-dispensation but served only to prepare the way to Christ 651. it differs from that of the Spirit as the Shadow from the Substance 29 30. Augustin â—s Testimony of its being Ceased 586. Cyprian's Testimony of its being void 648. None are to be found that have the Power of Administring it 647. it being but a Carnal Ordinance 649. and no part of the Gospel-Dispensation 651. carrying a Repeal in its bosom 652. The Apostles had no Commission for it but was used in Condescension to the weak 31. it being a Command only to particulars 32. For sprinkling or Water-Baptism is not the Baptism of Christ 87. it being discontinued as the Offerings of old 89 147. there remains the one Baptism ibid. 169. viz. that with the Spirit which is sometimes ascribed to Godly Men as the Instruments 488. Matth. 28.19 explained 651. John 3.30 explained 653. of Baptism 856 859 830. Believers ought not to go to Law before the Unjust 208. such practice brings dishonour to the Truth 209 240. Beroeans searching Scriptures 307 757. Bible The last Translations always find fault with the first 302 303. That one Man should take the Bible and speak upon it the rest of the Congregation being denyed that priviledge is an Invention brought up in the Apostacy 12 13. Birth The spiritual birth 195. holy Birth 452. new Birth 122 163 353. see Justification The New Birth the inward Appearance of Christ and the Unity of the Saints with him 163 164. Bishop of Rome concerning his Primacy 286. how he abuseth his Authority and by what he deposeth Princes and absolveth people from the Oath of Fidelity 523. Blood To abstain from Blood and things strangled 169 193 511 513 653. Blood of Christ see Communion The Blood of Christ is felt within to wash the Conscience 10. Bloodshed and Contention about Forms of Worship 489. Body to bow the Body see Head Bonaveentur 444. Books Canonical and Apocryphal see Canon Scripture Bow to bow the Knee see Uncover the Head Bread The breaking of Bread among the Jews was no singular thing 504 507. It is now otherways performed than it was by Christ 506. whether Leavened or Vnleavened Bread is to be used Also it is hotly disputed about the manner of taking it and to whom it is to be given 506 507 169. see Communion Daily Bread in the Lord's Prayer may be Translated Supersubstantial Bread C. Calvinists see Protestants they deny Consubstantiatian 289. They maintain Absolute Reprobation 286. they think Grace is a Certain Irresistible Power and what sort of a Saviour they would have 354 355. their Faith of the Flesh and Blood of Christ 496 497 498 499. They use Leavened Bread in the Supper 507. they feign a Revealed and Secret Will in God which are Contradictory 694 695. Calvin 514. Canon Whether the Scripture be a filled up Canon 308 309 Whether it can be proved by Scripture that any Book is Canonical ibid. see Scriptures Castellio banished 527. Ceremonies see Superstition CHRIST see Communion Justification Redemption Word he sheweth himself daily revealing the Knowledge of the Father 271. without his School there is nothing learned but busie talking 271. he is the Eternal Word 274. no Creature hath Access unto God but by him 274 275. he is the Way the Truth and the Life 275. he is the Mediator between God and Man 275 368. he is God and in time he was made partaker of Man's Nature 275. yesterday to day the same and for ever 280. the Fathers believed in him and how 279 280. His Sheep hear his Voice and contemn the Voice of a Stranger 297 418 420. It is the Fruit of his Ascension to send Pastors 304 see Gifts he dwelleth in the Saints and how 334. see Birth His Coming was necessary 335. by his sacrifice we have Remission of Sins 335 358 368. whether he be and how he is in all is explained 6 63 336. being formed within he is the formal Cause of Justification 364 379. by his Life Death c. he hath opened a way for Reconciliation 379 380. his Obedience Righteousness Death and Sufferings are ours and it is explained that Paul said He filled up that which was behind of the Afflictions of Christ in his Flesh 369. how we are partakers of his Sufferings 393 394. for what end he was manifested 390 391. he delivers his own by Suffering 520. Concerning his outward and Spiritual Body 466 497. Concerning his outward and Inward Coming 510. Christ is compared to a grain of Mustard-Seed Clem. Alex 579. his Divinity and being from the beginning 162. his Appearance in the Flesh ibid. the end and use of that Appearance 163 117. his Inward Manifestation ibid. he having fulfilled the Law and the righteousness thereof gave witness to the Dispensation of the Gospel 187. Christ at this Day speaketh in his Servants and will to the end of the World 644. the Seed and Spiritual Body of Christ both in him and us belonging to Christ is as really united unto the Word as his outward Body was 628. the Seed is not our Souls The Seed and Spiritual Nature of Christ is one and the same both in him and in us ibid. Christ's outward Satisfaction is owned against the Socinians The Sufferings of Christ in Men are voluntary and yet without sin Christ's outward Sufferings at Jerusalem were necessary unto Mens Salvation ibid. the Doctrine of the Incarnation Sufferings Death Resurrection c. are necessary every where to be preached 629. Christ Crucified within 9. his Indwelling and In being differ 6 796. without Inward Holiness and Righteousness none can lay Claim to Christ