vine in the kingdom Was it not spiriritual a mystery which the outward Bread Cup and Passover were but as signs or shadowes of Pr. There is no such passage written that Christ appointed it to be taken away by his suffering An. As oft as they did it it was to shew the Lords death till he came What coming and when was it or is it to be he intended Wa' st a first or a second or a third And was it inward or outward Pr Neither is the Bread and Wine a shadow Secondly For he being present and it representing him as suffered it cannot be called a shadow as of things to come An. Is the Bread and Wine the substance Then this is popish thus to deny the â—read and Wine to be a shadow and worse then the Episcopals that tell us of their Sacraments being outward and visible signes of an inward and Spiritual Grace Secondly If Christs being present makes Bread and Wine no shadow or not figurative then by the same reason the Passover which the disciples prepared to answer that part of the Law was not a shadow nor Circumcission Offerings c. when done either for Christ or in his presence which to affirm and make that the reason were grose and absurd whereas the mystery substance or end was not so fully manifest when Christ was outwardly present before his being offered up as after when they were indued with power from on high received the promise of the Comforter came to eat his flesh and drink his blood which saying the disciples for a time when he was with them were troubled at and counted hard Pr. It concerneth all who own the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures though they be for baptizing with sprinkling to propound a query to men that do with sacrilegious boldness take away the Ordinances instituted by Christ unto believers An. Is it not then sacrilegious boldness for thee and the Priests to teach or impoâ—e sprinkling Infants which is neither a Doctrine contained in Scriptures nor a baptizing believers howbeit such a great stress hath been laid on the Scriptures before as being the rule and means for Faith and Salvation revealing the Mystery for receiving Life Eâ—ernal in them Christ in them c. yet we find not sprinkling Iâ—fants in the Scriptures neither by command nor practice though so much pleaded for by one here that tels us Pag. 35. they disallow all Traditions or any unwritten rule which is not Scripture but sprinkling Infants is not Scripture but onely a Tradition of men And one main plea for it is that Infants baptisme was approved and practised in the Orthodox Church of Christ c. which is just like the Papists and Jesuits plea to believe as the Church believes taking it for granted that the Church is pure as he saith Orthodox in all her Traditions whether they be Scripture yea or nay whereas before all Traditions or any unwritten rule which is not Scripture are disallowed but instead of Scripture for proof in this matter we have mention made of the Teachers and Guides of the Church as he calls them as Tertullian Cyprian who lived about 247. after Christ and Lactanctius that lived about the year 317. As also the latter sound Fathers as he calls them as Augustin Jerom Bassil Viz. their being for Infants baptisme but what proves all this from Scripture if it be as he sayes they did Must we take it up upon an implicite faith because such and such approved of it And yet at other times lay such a stress on the Scriptures as the perfect rule of obedience of faith c. How hath E. I. undervallued the Scriptures in this matter and spoyled his own cause touching them And Do not the Papists plead for their Traditions and Ceremonys against Protestants and others in like manner as he hath done in this cause And Would he be willing to accept their Arguments against Protestants when they are of the same nature and bear the same face with his in this point Pr. That the Covenant Abraham and his Seed was under was the same in substance with that which believers now and their Seed are under and therefore the Children of believers should be under the Initial Seal of the Covenant as Abrahams were An. Where provest thou by Scriptures that sprinkling Infants is the Initial Seal of the Covenant Or that ti 's so called thou herein doest but beg the question and takest it for granted that it is the Initial Seal of the Covenant of Grace which I deny and then from thence fallatiously drawes thy inference and conclusions for its being to Believers Seed as Abrahams Children to wit the males were Circumcised and that the Covenant Abraham and his Seed was under was the same in substance with that which believers now and their Seed are under But what of this if it be granted it was Gods Covenant or Promise Must they therefore be under mans tradition which sprinkling Infants is To plead for it from believers being baptized is to ground it upon that you Priests are out of the practice of so as to that it 's not pertinent to dispute with such about it who own it not in practice but onely talk of it for a cover to a popish tradition and thereby shew their hypocrisie the more and Must now sprinckling Infants stand for the substance or antitype instead of Circumcision Or Was Circumcision the type of Infants Baptizme so called Whereas sprinckling Infants hath neither the true form nor matter of Baptisme outward in it for in the next page it 's confessed that the word in the first Language signifying Baptisme is rendered washing Mar. 7.4 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 afterwards it 's said that being washed all over best signifies our inward renovation and burial with Christ and thus contradictions and confusions are heaped up in many places And to my saying that it s not commanded under the New Covenant to Baptize Infants thou replyest the Apostle Peter Act. 2.38 39. sayes That those to whom that promise that God would be their God and the God of their Seed should be baptized but to Believers and their Seed he saith that promise belongeth c. Now let the Reader but peruse that Scripture mentioned by thee and compare thy fallacious arguing from it for Peter said Ver. 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you c. Were they Infants such as the Priests sprinkle that he bid repent How grosly hast thou perverted Scripture And Ver. 39. The promise is to you and your Children and to all that are a far off even as many as the Lord our God shall call Now What can be inferred from hence for sprinkling Infants Were all they whom God should call Infants when called Or Did Peter intend they should all have their Children sprinkled before they were called But in contradiction afterward thou sayest though there be no express command yet it s of divine institution and warrant if it be drawn
the Father the word and the spirit and those three are one Then we own what the Scriptures assert of the Deity oâ— the Father Word and the Spirit which are one this is no blasphemy no fancies as malitiously we are accused Except ye call all the words of Scriptures clearly confered together a cavilling Viz. touching three distinct Persons in the Deity c. Although the Scriptures do not in so many words make mention of the three Persons c. who are one God we disalow all Traditions or any unwritten Rule which is not Scripture Then three dictinct Persons in the Deity distinct in the personal Subsistance are not the words of the Scriptures but a Tradition and why do you then alow of that which is not Scripture but that There are three that bear record in heaven and these three are one is Scripture The Apostles telleth that the Corinthians were to shew forth Christs death till he came again The Bread spoken of to them behoved to be this of outward Bread c. It behoved to be such a coming againe as was yet future and unaccomplished in the Corinthians time Were the Corinthians then to eat and drink outwardly after their time or so long after their deceases What absurdity and grosness is here Infants Baptism was approved by the Orthodox Church and the Renouned Teachers and Guides thereof and sound Father as Tertullian Ciprian Lactant Augustine Jerom Basil c. It s derived from the Church when pure We disallow all Traditions or any un-written Rule which is not Scripture whether they be under pretence of Revelation which Enthusiasts hold or Traditions as Papists in this agree Then Infants Baptisme not being Scripture but a popish Tradition is therefore to be disalowed of Children of believers should be under the Initial Seal of the Covenant as Abrahams were Circumcision was the Seal of the old Covenant and it was administered on Males onely page 35. Circumcision of the Males onely was in its time Commanded of God which is no proof of sprinkling Infants both Males and Females which was never cammanded of God pa. 38. The Fathers or Isralites who fell into gross sins professed the same Doctrine of Salvation to profess Christ is called a drinking of Chrâ—st c Abraham and his Seed under the old Covenant had the same Mediator which is Jesus Christ he was the same yester-day to them that he is to day to believers Their having the same Mediaâ—or Jesus Christ the same c. And drinking of Christ was more then to profess him or the Doctrine of Salvation And Did such fall into gross sins What fell they from if not from Grace Ye say thereis no express command for sprinkling of the Infants of believers pa. 36 But we disalow all Traditions or any unwritten Rule which is not Scripture pa. 35. You ' have confest what I said that there is no express command for sprinkling Infants therefore in alowing of it you contradict your selves Though there be no express command yet it s of Divine Institution and Warrant if it be drawn by good consequence from the Scriptures Truths and Doctrines is to be tried by the Scriptures so far as can be found in the Scriptures page 29. Christ bid search the Scriptures they reveal the Misteries page 27. I deny any immediate teaching by God page 14. Although a great stress and necessity is laid upon the Scriptures and immediate teaching so confidently denied yet no Sprinkling Infants to be found or required in Scripture and whilst any imediate teaching is denied How is it of Divine Institution Surely Edward Jamisons consequence herein is not Divine who denies any immediate teaching pa. 37. If I had said it Viz. Infants Baptism brought them to the Church those places and many others do hold it as Gal. 3.27 it s the ordinary way of putting on Christ c. I said not that it did bring them into the Church but that it is a Seal of our entry into the Church page 26. sprinkling of water is enough to signify inward washing If it doth not bring into the Church it is but a signe of inward washing it s not a putting on Christ neither can the Scripture prove it when there is no Scripture for it and were the Scriptures deemed the ordinary way and means but now sprinkling Infants What ignorant and gross contradictions are these Ye say Baptisme doth not bring them into the Church it s a bold Sacrilegious usurpation in detracting from the words of the Book of God which shall be punished with all the curses of that Book Though there be no express command for sprinâ—ling Infants yet it s of Divine Institution if it be drawn by good consequence pa. 36. See what Curses these Priests have laid upon them that deny the Infants Baptisme their Scripturles Tradition to bring into the Church and are not they herein evidently Guilty of Sacrilegious usurpation and adding to the words of the Book of God by their false consequence Baptizing of Children or others a standing Ordinance of Christ which he hath appointed to continue to the end of the world Mat. 28. and ordinary means for Salvation Maâ— 16.16 There be no express commands for sprinkling Infants Act. 2.38 repent and be baptized Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved They to whom Repentance and Faith was preached were not Infants such as the Priests sprinkle of a few dayes old which is not the Baptisme that saveth but that of the Spirit or the answer of a good conscience is saving Page 37. That many Ministers baptize the Children of those who are prophane and drunkards and so not believers They that profess the Gospel though they be not sincere believers yet they are in this sence accounted belivers Page 85. The Children of believers should be under the Initial Seal of the Covenant to believers and their Seed that promise belongeth those to whom that promise That God would be their God and the God of their Seed should be baptized Viz. Infants who are in the Covenant with God Page 36. It seems these Priests can make believers at an easie rate whilst they can take the prophane drunkards for believers upon their professing the Gospel but surely God is not the God of the prophane and drunkards nor are they in Gods Covenant as true believers are but under Satans power and their taking it for granted that the sprinkling Infants is the Initial Seal of the Covenant is false and but a beging the question Those who are under the profession of the Gospel are to be reputed as in Covenant pa. 39. Unbelievers who have a profession and yet have not sincere faith c. are not Righteous nor Holy c. Then it is not the profession of the Gospel that makes them believers or in Covenant with God An Arminion and Popish Doctrine that believers may fall from Grace The Fathers many of them fell into gross sins as is cleared from the Histories of
which gave them forth and to him whom they testify of to wit Christ by whom they are to be fulfilled unto the true believer that reads them in a right mind and Spirit Secondly But where having Life in them Viz. in the Scriptures is laid down as following believing This is an error depending upon the former and a contradiction to the Scripture that saith That believing ye might have Life through his name he doth not say in the Scriptures nor by searching them but through his name of whom they testify and those to whom these things were written that they might beleive that Jesus is the Christ c. and have Life through his name They were in some measure prepared by the Spirit or Light of Christ allready manifested to receive those things which tendâ—d to the furtherance of their Faith and confirmation of their Belief concerning Christ that they might have life through his name Pr Whoso holdeth this denieth them really and interpretatively Answ. Is this thy proof of thy false accusation against us of denying the Scriptures that we deny them interpretatively so then our denying the Priests Interpretations upon Scripture which are not Scripture must be deemed a denial of Scriptures as if they were either the same or of equall authority with Scripture or when they tell us of finding Life in the Scriptures we must take it for granâ—ed that they mean in their Interpretations upon them whereby in many things they contradict plain Scripture as hath been proved any times so however when they bid People search the Scriptures for Life Eternal in them they intend they should take their meanings along with them and believe as they say and so people must run into an implicite Faith if they take things on their Authority and Credit for by their meanings and Interpretations they can sit as Judges over Scriptures and tell people they must give the sence and reconcile them and over the Ligâ—t and Spirit within and tell them its but an Enthusiastick Fancy but who are not so Ignâ—ble as to receive a Belief or Faith from them on such a dark implicite and slender account as this of Priests But wait in the Light of Christ within for a right understanding of things that are Spiritual relating to Faith and Salvation Such find they have cause from the certain demonstration and testimony of the Spirit of Truth within to believe Christs Light and Spirit rather then the Priests meanings and private Interpretations wrestings and perverting of Scriptures Priest It is not about the expression of the Word of God that debate should be kept up if in a sound sence granted that they are called the Words of God Answ. So Then the Scriptures are granted to be words of God why then holdst thou debate against us but to shew thy cavilling Spirit For the Word was that from whence words and Scriptures procâ—eded and came to the Prophets and Messengers of God before they spoke the words to Write them Priest Ye deny that Faith cometh by hearing of the Scriptures which is the Word of God for that we receiving them by Faith are saved which is plainly asserted Joh. 5.39 Answ. We deny that Faith comes barely by hearing the Scriptures for if it did so come then all that hear or read Scriptures must have Faith and hear the Word but we see the contrary and Christ told the Jewes they could not understand what he said because they could not hear his words and yet they could hear Scriptures and him speak outwardly to them But this is a mistery hid from such as thou art and there were those whom the Word Preached did not profit bâ—cause it was not mixt with Faith in them Priest Your selves acknowledg that they are the words of God then this or that perticular saying is the Word of God seeing there is a singular where there is a plural Answ. But Singular and Plural differs and though there be a Singular included where there is a Plural is it therefore good Logick to say that Singular includes Plural or they are both one Or to saâ— that because there are Words of God in the Scriptures and where there are words in the Plural there must needs be a word in the Singular therefore these words are the Word and so are the Scriptures Is this thy Lâ—arning and Logick Surely thou art so far from knowing the Word which lives for ever and was before either the Scriptures or words in it were given out that thou art yet as one senceless and confounded in thy expressions and cavilling against â—ruth Priest The Scriptures in the Bible are called the Word of God Mark 7.13 Answ. This is a very general expression of the Scriptures in the Bible being the Word of God when they do not say so of themselves whereas all the Scriptures in the Bible are so far from terming themselves the Word of God in such an eminent expression that they cannot all be truely termed his Words there being in many places Recorded both words of Wicked men and Devils though the Historical part that relates these things be true as to the narration of them And they Mark 7.13 that made the word of God of none effect by their Tradition and rejected his Commandment did really act contrary to the Word within which Moses preached and against the Law of God without so that 's no proof of the Scriptures in the Bible being called the Word Priest That which maketh wise to Salvation or maketh the man of God perfect c. is inspired of God that is the Word of God which maketh wise profiteth 2 Tim. 3.15 Answ. Here again hast thou fallen short of proof of thy matter for where it is said All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God c. Is is added So it 's All Scripture given by inspiration But if that must be called the Word of God in thy sence then it may be read All the Word of God is given by Inspiration of God How will that sound and signify Or All the Word of God given by inspiration of God c. See thy ignorance and impertinency for though we grant that all Scripture given by Divine Inspiration is profitable to the man of God for the making Wise to Salvation but it is through Faith which words through Faith I find theâ— to have taken little notice of if any or of his being the man of God first that knows the profit of the Scriptures which are given by Inspiration that he may be Perfect which the Priests deny in denying Perfection and that he may be thorowly furnished And many things were written and directed to the Saints and not to the world c. But what thou concludest from hence doth not follow Priest Is there any Prophesie almost or Book of the Scripture but it calleth the things contained in them the Word of God Thus saith the Lord c. Answ. For as was hinted there are many things written in the Scripture
the Name of the Lord largely demonstrate it against you Pr. The Scripture is Everlasting Viz. what is contained in them Answ. Confusion Are they both one This is like much more Pr. Is not the Gospel written by the Prophets the Scriptures written by them Aâ—sw Thâ—n Marks Writing was not the beginning of it here 's contradiction and error again the Apostle calls them the Scriptures of the Prophets but speaks of the Gospel Revelation and Mistery before see Rom. 16.25 26. where its very plain he makes a distinction between them and the Scripture Pr. I deny any immediate Teaching by God Answ. Then thou deniest God to Teach his people himself when he dwells in them wherein thou hast denied the truth of the Gospel and New Covenant Pr. Christs Immediate Teaching will no way follow for his opening the understanding to know the Scriptures for he doth by the same supernatural influence shine on the understanding and Scriptures Luk. 24.32 Answ. Doth Christ by a Supernatural Influence shine on the understanding and yet deniest thou his immediate Teaching What a Labyrinth of Confusion and Distraction art thou fallen into And it appears without this Supernatural Influence shining on the understanding the Scriptures are not truely known nor opened Pr. That Christ was first known himself or he gave the knowledg of the Scriptures The Apostle Paul Rom. 16 26. denies your consequence Answ. Have any a Supernatural knowledg or faith of the Scriptures who have not a knowledg of Christ It seemes thou hast forgotten thy former words and the Apostle doth not deny my consequence for he had a knowledg of Christ before he Preached him or writ Epistles concerning him and his knowledg of the Son of God was by his Revlation in him besides the very Order Tenour and Matter of the Apostles words cited by thee makes for me against thy self see Rom. 16.25 26. for they run thus Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the Revelation of the mistery which was kept secret since the world began But now is made manifest and by the Scriptures of the Prophets according to the commandment of the everlasting God made known to all nations for the obedience of faith c. this thou mayest peruse again to thy owne contradiction Pr. The Cause indeed must be before the Effect and yet not allwayes in order of time but of nature c. If there be a Pryority or Posteriority of Christ in the Soul certainly the Scriptures hath it in the order of nature though the Lord in the communicating the knowledg of them he is in his being first because the Cause must be before the Effect so the giver of knowledg before the knowledge given Answ. This being rightly considered we find both contradiction and Ignorance in them for Is the Cause before the Effect allwayâ—s in order of nature not of time and yet have the Scriptures the priority in the order of Nature Where learnedest thou this distinction not from the Scriptures nor from Christ Surely Christ hath the Priority in order of time for he is in his being first and if the Cause must be before the Effect alwayes in order of nature then he hath it in both for he was the cause both of Scripture and communicating the knowledg thereof as thou confessest as also that the Cause must be before the Effect so the giver of knowledg before the knowledg given And indeed He was before all things and by him all things consists and in all things he is to have the preheminence and priority Who is the First and the Last the Foundation the Beginning and the End But thy saying if there be a Priority or Posteriority of Christ in the soul certainly the Scriptures hath it in the order of nature in this thou comest off but very saintly and dubiously and bringest the controversy to no result nor clearness but art confused for if there be a Priority of Christ in the â—oul then it is not of the Scriptures it bâ—ing a Priority of Christ who also doth by a Supernatural Influence shine on the understanding c. But in these matters much might be said which time would fail thorowly to treat of Pr. The Juditious will think you a pittifull object who expose your self to shame and ludibrie c. Answ. Thy censure anâ— scorn herein I vallue not it will fall upon thy own head and theirs that have taken thy part herein Pr. Without the Sanctifying knowledge of Christ one may understand the Scriptures without error and â—angling Answ. This is both erronious and contradicts much that thou hast said before and after which I need not very often repeat Pr. Most men have both preached the Truths in the Scriptures and maintained them by Writing who never had any Sanctifying Knowledg of Christ. Answ. This is like the former and that most men have preachâ—d Truths in Scriptures is too large a word and contrary to what thou saidst before of other Nations but what do these things tend to but to set up unsanctified persons to be Preachers or Priests But too many there are of such already for of them and their pollutions many are grown sick and the earth will vomit them out and all that seek to maintain them against Christ and his Kingdom which he is setting up Pr. For Judas he preached the Truths c. The Scribes and Pharisees that sat in Moses seat preached Truths whereas Christ bad hear them Mat. 23.2 3 4. Answ. But doth this prove that Judas had no sanctifying knowledg of Christ Herein hast thou erred for Judas had part of the Ministery from which by transgression he fell Act. 1.17 25. So transgression was the caâ—â—e of his fall from the Ministery and that Scipture Mat. 23.2 3 4. proves not that Christ bad them hear the Scribes and Pharisees nor that they were true Ministers of Christ though wherein they sat in Moses seat and read or preached his Precepts when in force they were to be obeyed but Christ reprehends them in many places for corruptions got in amongst them contrary to the Law and for their vain Traditions and Precâ—pts of men and therein they were not true Ministers of the Law much less of Christ. Pr. Some preached Châ—ist out of envy and strife and not out of love c. yet preached Christ and the Scriptures without errors Phi. 1.15 16 17. Shall we say they had the Sanctifying Knowledg of Christ who had not love to him who hath not good will to him Answ. Thou hast not proved that they preached Christ and the Scriptures without Errors who were in Envy and Strife for they were guilty of Error in the ground Viz. Envy and Stâ—ife and where that is ther 's confusion and every evil work in that Christ was preached and his Name published in those dayes the Apostles rejoyced but not in the Envy and Error of such as preached him out
obey it be wicked Whereas the Apostle saith before That the doers shall be justified See how thou hast brought forth one error and falshood upon another Pr. Is not the Father distinct from the Son and the Spirit in the personal subsistance An. Where learnedst thou these words the Father distinct from the Son and Spirit in the personal subsistance these are not the words of Scripture or the words of Scripture clearly conferred together as thou sayest after but in contradiction after thou sayest although the Scripture doth not in so many words make mention of three Persons who are one God and three distinct Persons and that these cannot be three if they be not distinct for where there is no distinction there is perfect oneness c. What 's the consequence of this but that therefore there is not perfect oneness in the Deity or God-head because three distinct Persons or three distinct one from another in personal subsistance Is this good Doctrine Is not that oneness between the Father and the Son perfect And Did not Christ say I and my Father are one and prayed that his might be perfect in one as he and his Father were one And though thou hast said you disalow all Traditions or any written rule which is not Scripture and yet thou wilt use words and distinctions which are not Scripture according to thy own confession What confusion art thou â—n For whereas I answered thee that we own what the Scriptures of truth assert of the God-head Viz. That there are three that bear record in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one c. and thou thy self in the next Page sayest that both the Father the Son and the holy Ghost are a Spirit howbeit my honest answer in Scripture words would not satisfy thee but thou hast villifyed and abused me in this matter in several reproaches and slanders as with shameless rayling and deriding c. with grose evasion with not being able to answer thee with not owning what the Scriptures assert and with blaspheamous fancyes blaspheaming Jesus Christ c. All which accusations I utterly deny as thy malitious lies and slanders against me and thy bundle is stuffed with many more of like nature and if thou didst not propound any of those quarrels as not knowing the answer of them as thou sayest c. then Didest thou propound them to cavil and get some advantages to carp at For thou hast shewed thy self in prejudice against us and hast reckoned me or us as wanting Learning c how-be-it thou hast shewed such Learning as thou hast to confute me with broken School phrases and words with some few fragments and traditional distinctions patched up together which we can have no Scripture for but thy consequences which much might be said to shew the weakness and shallowness thereof Pr. Those who had Christ the living bread yet were partakers of the outward bread as the disciples were Were not the Corinthians Saints c. An. That the disciples had outward bread Who denies But that it was to continue alwayes of necessity as an Ordinance after Christ the Living Bread and Life was received in them which is the substance that 's not yet proved that the disciples were to shew forth the Lords death till he come in the observation of the Bread and Cup or supper I grant Now what and when that coming was is the matter in controversie Christ came after when he was arisen was apparent he also spiritualy came and was more fully revealed within the Saints and was their Living Bread and Life as thou grantest now when he was with the disciples at supper before he was Crucified he intended by his coming a third coming till which they were to do it which coming not being in their dayes nor is yet by your Doctrine this is no where proved in Scripture as we know Pr. Were not the Corinthians Saints called in Christ And yet the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. he gave them the Bread and Cup which Christ gave to his disciples the night he was betrayed Secondly And whereas ye say that Christs coming again was when he rose again how false is this and absurd c. An. That 's very strange Doctrine that the Apostles gave the Corinthians the Bread and Cup which Christ gave to his disciples the night he was betrayed Where was it kept in the mean time that they both should have the same Bread and Cup the one so many years after the other Where hast thou learned this amongst the Popish Traditions and Reliques But t is probable thou meanest other-wise then thy words import Secondly And Is it false and absurd to say that Christs coming again was when he rose again Did he not come again after he rose And must that be reckoned for no coming And a third coming which is not yet and Was that an outward coming till which the disciples and Corinthians were to continue the Bread and the Cup whereas that coming is not yet according to thy Doctrine The Apostle to the Corinthians told them what Christ did and spoke to the disciples in the case but we read not that he imposed it upon them to continue it all their time or till a supposed coming of Christ which is not yet come for he said to them 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 Was not this the substance Where then remained the necessity of the shadow or outward Representations or Mementoes as some calls them And When was the Church to shew forth the Life of Christ and by what if all their time they must needs and people still shew forth or represent his death and him as suffered as thou sayest by Bread and Wine Doth not the substance end the shadows And Where have you any example in Scripture for the manner of your administring Bread and Wine at certain times a year and calling it a Sacrament The Lords Supper c. Pr. The Apostle telleth that the Corinthians were to shew forth his death till he came again so it behoved to be such a coming again as was yet future and unaccomplished in the Corinthians time the Bread and Cup spoken of to the Corinthians behoved to be outward Bread as shewing forth his death Secondly Because it was the same that Christ took and devided and gave to his disciples An. What confusion's here Were they to use the outwaâ—d Bread and Cup after they were dead then If they were to observe it to a coming unaccomplished in their timâ— And if it was the same that Christ devided and gave to his disciples Was that the outward bread so given to both Or Was there not more in Christs words then the outward observation What was his Body and his Blood and the Cup of the New Testament in his Blood and the fâ—uit of the
from good consequence from the Scripture indeed I have seldom met with any that have appeared so Impertinent and Ridiculous in their consequences as thou hast done in this matter though thou countest thy consequence of Divine Authority as well as express commands But they bear no such Authority with us who see thy perverting and abusing Scriptures to maintain and patch up a popish tradition and humane invention which thou hast no express command for and then thou hast in this doubly confuted thy self for is there some command of Divine Authority now which is not Scripture when before thou laid such a great stress upon Scripture and deniedst Revelation Immediate teaching c. from the Light within and hast dirided it under the name of Enthusiasme when now thou pleads for something being of Divine Authority which is not Scripture viz your sprinkling Infants which in Page 37. thou sayest brought to the Church is the ordinary way of putting on Christ and ordinary means for Salvation and sayest we are Baptized into Jesus Christ and his death from Rom. 6. and 3. whereas before the Scriptures were cryed up as the ordinary way and meanes c. But now that which no where the Scriptures repuires and that of Rom. 6 and 3. So many of us as where baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death how impertinent is this for thy turn as if sprinkling did Baptize Infants into the death of Christ or as if the Apostles and Believers then were so baptized when Infants as thou pleadest which is absurd to imagine and I should think thou canst not really intend such a thing in this proof as sprinkling Infants which thou wouldest also make us believe is a standing Ordinance of Christ to continue till the end of the world from Mat. 28. and Mar. 16.16 where they are commanded To teach all Nations baptizing them And He that believes and is baptized shall be saved But did thâ—y go to teach Infants of a week old Or Were such the Believers that were Baptized How blind sottish and ridiculous hast thou appeared in this matter as also in counting it one while the ordinary meanes for Salvation or that which Baptizeth into the death of Christ another while as in the thirty eight Page that which signifies our putting on Christ inward washing c. so here it doth but signify inward washing and therefore is not the putting on Christ not that which brings into the Church neither doth it really signify inward washing for thou speakest as that being washed all over best signifies our inward Renovation and one while pleads for this thy pretended great Ordinance as belonging to the Seed of Believers and of such as have received the Spirit another while the Children of which are prophane and drunkards that profess the Gospel whom thou sayest are in this sence accounted Believers and thirty ninth Page reckons it not needful for Ministers to be perswaded that they are Righteous so it appeares such Ministers as thou art will be easily satisfied for their own ends and upon slender grounds receive men as Believers if they do but profess the Gospel though they be drunkards and prophane and thus the Parish Priests of the Presbyterian gang have deceitfully daubed their hâ—arers and acted like hypocrites towards those whom they knew to be drunkards prophane and so really unbelivers unholy unrighteous c. yet if they will from their teeth outward say they believe and profess the Gospel though they be known to the contrary the Priest will not deny them their Seal of the Covenant to their Children though they deem them unholy also which other whiles they deem as such a sacred thing as onely belongs to the Seed of Believers and such as are within the Covenant And another sorry shift and come off in the thirty eight Page is concerning the Jewes that fell into gross sins who all drank of the Rock which was Christ from hence thou sayest that to profess Christ is called a drinking of Christ and where provest thou that Doctrine that to profess Christ is a drinking of Christ this is a very easie way thou hast prescribed for drinking of Christ if to profess him be it and then all that profess him drink of him by this Doctrine the falshood whereof we need not say much to But whereas thou sayest concerning those Israelites That ate the same spiritual bread and drank the same spiritual drink that drank of the Rock which was Christ how-be-it thou confessest they fell into gross sins as is cleared from the History of the Books of Exod. Levit. Numb Deuteronomy and 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3 4 5. and that many of them were Idolaters lusters after evill committed fornication tempters of God murtherers as thou sayest by all which thou hast sufficiently confuted thy self and given a deadly blow to thy own Cause and proved a falling away from Grace which before was an Arminian and Popish Doctrine with thee or Damnable Popery for Was not that spiritual meat and spiritual drink and that Rock spoken of saving Grace And thy saying for Infants Baptisme that it is the Seal of the Covenant and to be given to those that are within the Covenant but Are Drunkards prophane Persons and their Seed and whole Parishes within the Covenant Compare thy matter together Yet thou hast confessed the Spirit is the inward Seal but sayest Baptisme is the outward Seal and then instead of proof askest why may not the Covenant now have outward Seales joyned with the inward Seal of the Spirit How faintly comest thou off here And Where provest thou sprinkling Infants a Seal of the New Covenant or that the Covenant hath two such Seales as thou implyest and how knowest thou that its joyned with the inward Seal of the Spirit upon the Children of drunkards and prophane persons or on such as turn drunkards swearers c. who come under this thy Seal which hath no impression of Scripture or Divine Authority in it but now seeing that to gloss over thy groundless Tradition and Confusion uttered in mantaining it thou hast often made use of divers Scriptures which the Baptists were wont to bring for Baptizing or Plunging such as repent or believe I have not entered here into controversy with rhee about that point it being not thy own but onely thou wouldest make it serve for a cover yet when thou turnest Baptist and intendest to be real in pleading for Plunging believers thou mayest let me or us know and that point probably may be treated of as whether or no it be of necessity to Salvation and so of continuance to the true Church But however under the sence of the Baptisme of the Spirit which baptizeth into one body we do know present sattisfaction and do acquiess in our Spirits above the Traditions of men and Rudiments of the world E. J. Thy Book came but to my hands this summer it seems it was delayed in the hands of some otherwise I had answered it