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
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-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-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-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
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-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-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-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
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
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-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-Baptism wants whosoever had been baptized with 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-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
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-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.
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-baptism is But further they urge much Peter's baptising Cornelius in which they press two things First That Water-baptism is used even to those that had received the Spirit Secondly That it is said positively he commanded them to be baptized Acts 10.47 48. But neither of these doth necessarily infer Water-baptism to belong to the New Covenant-Dispensation nor yet to be a Perpetual standing Ordinance in the Church 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
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-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-baptism as well as of the Spirit But if this prove any thing Answ. it will prove 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-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-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
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
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 water- The Partiality of
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
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-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-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
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-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-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-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-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-baptism cannot be here understood because
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
expressed by the Apostle Eph. 5.25 26 27. Even as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word That he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish Now if Christ hath really thus answered the thing he Came for then the Members of this Church are not always sinning in thought word and deed or there is no difference betwixt being sanctified and unsanctified clean and unclean holy and unholy being daily blemished with sin and being without blemish § VI. Fourthly This Doctrine renders the Work of the Ministry the Proof IV Preaching of the Word the Writing of the Scriptures and the Prayers of the holy men altogether Vseless and Ineffectual As to the first Eph. 4.11 Pastors and Teachers are said to be given for the perfection of Saints c. till we all come in the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto a measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ Now if there be a Necessity of sinning daily and in all things then there can be no perfection for such as do so cannot be esteemed perfect And if for Effectuating this perfection in the Saints the Ministry be appointed and disposed of God Pastors Teachers and Scriptures are given for the Perfecting of the Saints do not such as deny the possibility hereof render the Ministry Vseless and of no profit seeing there can be no other true Vse assigned but to lead people out of sin into righteousness If so be these Ministers assure us that we need never expect to be delivered from it do not they render their own Work needless what needs Preaching against sin for the reproving of which all preaching is if it can never be forsaken Our Adversaries are Exalters of the Scriptures in words much crying up their usefulness and perfection Now the Apostle tells us 2 Tim. 3.17 that the Scriptures are for making the man of God perfect and if this be denied to be Attainable in this life then the Scriptures are of no profit For in the other life we shall not have use for them It renders the Prayers of the Saints altogether Vseless seeing themselves do Confess they ought to pray daily that God would deliver them from evil and free them from sin by the help of his Spirit and Grace while in this world But though we might suppose this Absurdity to follow that their Prayers are without Faith yet were not that so much if it did not infer the like upon the holy Apostles who prayed earnestly for this End and therefore no doubt believed it Attainable Col 4.12 Labouring fervently for you in prayers that ye may stand perfect c. 1 Thess. 3.13 5.23 c. Proof V § VII But Fifthly This Doctrine is Contrary to Common Reason and Sense For the Two opposite Principles whereof the one Rules in the Children of Darkness Darkness and Light Sin and Righteousness Inconsistent together the other in the Children of Light are Sin and Righteousness And as they are respectively leavened and acted by them so they are accounted either as Reprobated or Justified seeing it is Abomination in the sight * Prov. 17.15 of God either to Justify the Wicked or Condemn the Just. Now to say that men cannot be so leavened with the one as to be delivered from the other is in plain words to affirm that Sin and Righteousness are Consistent and that a man may be truly termed Righteous though he be daily sinning in every thing he doth And then what difference betwixt Good and Evil Is not this to fall into that great abomination of Putting Light for darkness and calling good evil and evil good since they say The very best Actions of God's Children are defiled and polluted and that Those that sin daily in thought word and deed are good men and women the Saints and holy Servants of the Holy Pure God Can there be any thing more repugnant than this to Common Reason Since the Subject is still denominated from that Accident that doth most Influence it As a Wall is called White when there is much Whiteness and black when there is much blackness and such like But when there is more Vnrighteousness in a man than Righteousness that man ought rather to be denominated unrighteous than righteous If all daily sin where is the Righteous man then spoken of in Scripture Then surely if every man sin daily in thought word and deed and that in his Sins there is no Righteousness at all and that all his Righteous Actions are polluted and mixed with sin then there is in every man more Vnrighteousness than Righteousness and so no man ought to be called Righteous no man can be said to be sanctified or washed Where are then the Children of God Where are the purified ones where are they who were sometimes Vnholy but now Holy That sometimes were Darkness but now are Light in the Lord There can none such be found then at this rate except that Vnrighteousness be esteemed so And is not this to fall into that abomination above-mentioned of Justifying the Vngodly This certainly lands in that horrid Blasphemy of the Ranters that affirm There is no difference betwixt good and evil and that all is one in the sight of God I could shew many more Gross Absurdities Evil Consequences and manifest Contradictions plied in this sinful Doctrine but this may suffice at present by which also in a good measure The Blasphemy of the Ranters or Libertines the probation of the Truth we affirm is Advanced Yet nevertheless for the further Evidencing of it I shall proceed to the second thing proposed by me to wit To prove this from several Testimonies of the Holy Scriptures § VIII And first I prove it from the peremptory positive Command of Sect. II Christ and his Apostles seeing this is a Maxime ingraven in every man's Proof I heart naturally That no man is bound to that which is Impossible Since then Christ and his Apostles have commanded us to keep all the Commandments and to be perfect in this respect it is possible for us so to do Be ye Perfect c. Keâ—p my Commandments Now that this is thus Commanded without any Commentary or Consequence is evidently apparent from these plain Testimonies Matth. 5.48 7.21 John 13.17 1 Cor. 7.19 2 Cor. 13.11 1 John 2.3 4 5 6. 3.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. These Scriptures intimate a positive Command for it they declare the Absolute Necessity of it and therefore as if they had purposely been written to answer the Objections of our Opposers they shew the Folly of those that will esteem themselves Children or Friends of God while they do otherwise Secondly It is Possible because we receive the Gospel and Law thereof
the Words of Eternal Life which he speaketh in his Servants And as in the Days of his Flesh he was said to speak with Authority or Power and not as the Scribes and the People wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth all which import a living Influence and Vertue in the Words of Christ which the Words of the Scribes and Pharisees had not so it is at this Day For Christ doth as really speak by his Spirit in his Servants as he did in his Body of Flesh So that Paul said he spake in him and therefore his Preaching was in demonstration of the Spirit and Power And for this cause true Preachers and Prophets are called good Trees of which Men gather good Fruit whereas bad Men or evil Trees have no good Fruit True Prophets and Preachers distinguished from the fals although they have the Prophets and Apostles Words Also they are compared to wit the False Prophets to Clouds without Rain and Wells without Water although they have good Words yet they have no Rain nor Water Their whole Ministry is dry and empty of Life and Vertue But the True Prophets Ministry is as a Shower of Rain Deut. 32.2 And sometimes it is compared unto Fire as it is said in the Psalm He maketh his Angels or Messengers Spirits and his Ministers a Flame of Fire And Fire was said to go out of the Mouths of the two Witnesses Also the Influences of Life that go forth through the true Prophets in their Ministry are compared to Golden Oil and the Men are compared unto Golden Pipes Zech. 4.12 And therefore the Apostle Peter exhorted the Ministers in his Day To minister of the ability which God giveth as good Stewards of the manifold Grace of God so they ministred not only Words but Grace Many other Testimonies might be cited to prove this Truth Another Instance brought by the Students is That an Heretick forbearing Prayer a Year or two or his whole Life-time may justify himself by this Doctrine To this it was answered That though he may pretend yet he hath no just Ground from our Principle All Men are bound to pray often For we believe That all Men are bound to pray often unto God yea daily and that God doth inwardly call and move all Men often unto Prayer during the Day of their Visitation And when that is Expired or when at any other Time they want that Inward Call or Influence through Vnfaithfulness they are still bound And if they pray not they sin because they ought to have an Influence But that our Account saith All have not Vtterance to pray in Words Vtterance of Words in Prayer is no Excuse for Hereticks For they must needs acknowledge as well as we that all have not Vtterance who may be good Christians seeing some that are naturally dumb may be good Christians and yet they must confess these have not Vtterance Also many good Christians who have no Natural Impediment do want Vtterance in a Spiritual Way to speak or pray vocally in the hearing of others at some times although we believe it is given at times to all that are faithful who have no Natural Defect that they may pray vocally or in the Hearing of others But how oft it is more than we can determine seeing it is not Revealed But if any fail of this Vtterance through Vnfaithfulness their sin is nothing the less if they omit Prayer And thus their last two Instances are also Answered For we do affirm with great Freedom That all who are faithful to the Lord never want sufficient Inspiration or Influence to wait upon God fear him love him desire his Grace and divers other Inward Duties We say not All For some Inward Duties such as Meditation on a particular Subject or Place of Scripture are not always required more than it is always required to speak but if they be unfaithful we deny not but they may and will want them and in that case although they want Inspirations and Influences they are bound to pray yet not without them but with them As a Man that wanteth both Money and Goods to pay his Debt yet is bound to pay his Debt yet he must not nor ought to pay it without Money or Goods The Example is clear and the Application is easie As for that Story they bring in concerning T. M. which that their Deceit may be the more hid they do not positively affirm but only propose by way of Question Have not Quakers declared to People c. To which we Answer That we know not that any Quaker ever declared any such thing and we believe divers things in the Story are utterly false The Story about T. M. Answered for not praying in the Family as pretended If T. M. or any other of our Profession having none in the Family that can join with them in the true Spirit of Prayer but are professed Opposers of the Quakers Way be not so frequently heard pray by them is excusable by your own Way who will not readily pray in our Hearing when they have none to join with them And indeed the want of that true Vnity on the part of those who are not of our Faith doth oft hinder our Freedom to pray in their Hearing unless we have some of our Faith present to join with us We may pray for them as it pleaseth God to move us in their hearing but we cannot so properly pray with them as not being in Vnity with them Where two or three said Christ agree together to seek any thing in my name But let our Adversaries if they can shew us where in the Scripture it is commanded for any Man to pray in the Hearing of others where all present have no Agreement with him Yet we deny not but that God upon some solemn Occasion may move to such a thing especially when a publick Testimony is required as in the Case of Stephen who prayed audibly in the Hearing of others all which were so far from having any Agreement with him that they were at that time stoning him to Death Acts 7. Moreover we could easily upon a more just Ground Retort the Question upon your own Church-Members How many of your own Church-Members were not only for a Twelve month but for many twelve months never heard pray and yet they pass among you for good Christians It is well known that although ye hold Family-Prayer Morning and Evening to be a Duty and the want of it a great sin that yet many thousand Families in the Nation who belong to your Church want it and many whole Families are so grosly Ignorant that none in the Family can go about it even in that Natural Way which ye plead for As for us it doth suffice unto us God heareth Prayer in secret that God heareth us in secret although Men do not so frequently hear us Yet we own with all our Hearts publick Expressive Prayer as it is
they urge from Rom. 3.20 by the Deeds of the Law there shall no Flesh be justified Works of the Moral Law Justify not which I shew is to be understood of Works done and not by the Grace of God he answers That such are no good Works at all But may not a Man do some of the Works which even the Moral Law commands such as not to commit Murder Theft or Adultery without the Grace of God Hath not he confessed as much of some Heathens whom he judgeth not to have had the Grace of God and will he say these Works are not materially good albeit not formally with a respect to any advantage as to Salvation they receive by them And though it should be confessed That all is not always Requisite to be Antecedent to Justification which falls out to be Antecedent to Salvation yet the Question is Whether there be anything absolutely Requisite to be Antecedent to Salvation which is not also absolutely Requisite to be Antecedent to Justification If not then if Works be absolutely necessary or so far as they are absolutely necessary to Salvation they must also be so to Justification If he say other ways then as I observed before full and perfect Justification according to him must not be esteemed sufficient to Salvation J. B. pleads the Works of the Spirit to be Impure Pag. 322. N. 42. He comes to prove the Best Works even those wrought by the Spirit in the Saints to be Impure which before also he had affirmed pag. 307. there he would Infer we say the same of good Works because I affirm That Works done by Man's own Strength are polluted But it will not thence follow we believe Works done by the Grace of God to be such But for this Impurity of good Works he marks Psal. 143.2.130 3. Job 9.16 none of which speak one Word of good Works thus understood Then he mentions Esai 64.6 All our Righteousness is as filthy Rags but silently passeth over how I shew their own Authors as Calvin and Musculus c. affirm this not to be understood of Evangelical Righteousness and himself overturns what he urges from this Works of the Spirit to be pure and undefiled confessed by J. B. affirming That we ought not to call the Work of the Spirit of God in his People Filthy Rags But if they were so they might be so called and yet he overturns it further by confessing Some Works wrought by the Apostles were undefiled then all the Works wrought by the Spirit in the Saints cannot be said to be Impure which is their Assertion And the Instance of Clean Water passing through an Vnclean Pipe doth not hold which is their great probation He will not Contend with what I say about the word Merit neither hath he much against my Conclusion in this matter yet that he may end this Chapter like himself he concludeth it with a gross Lie and Railing saying I affirm A Man may be Regenerated without the least help of the Grace of God J. B's gross Lie which as I wholly abhor so there cannot be a greater Falshood alledged upon me SECT IX Wherein his Fourteenth Chapter Of Perfection is Considered ¶ 1. I Come now to his Fourteenth Chapter Of Perfection where after he has repeated my Eighth Proposition he reckons it Confidence in me to Accuse their Answer in their Larger Catechism of speaking against the Power of Divine Grace which saith That Man is not able by any Grace of God received in this Life to keep the Commands of God But in stead of justifying this Assertion he saith They are not ashamed of it Then he recurreth a little to his Author Hicks according to his Custom and falls a Railing where among other great Charges he accuseth the Quakers of Reproaching Reviling Calumnies Scolding and the like J. B. a Railer exceeding others confessed by his own Party Also pag. 329. speaking of bridling the Tongue But he of all Men should have been silent in this who is such a Railer in the Superlative Degree that some of his own Faith who have Bad enough Thoughts of the Quakers have said that he not only Equals them but Exceeds them in Railing Of his Railing in this Chapter the Reader may further observe pag. 332 345-349 Here as in his former Chapter to enervate the Perfection asserted by me he brings forth his old and often-repeated Calumny as if I asserted This Perfection to proceed meerly from the Light of Nature affirming The Light pleaded for by me p. 227. to be such His false Charges as never came from the Grace of God to be Flesh Blindness Enmity to God Natural Sensual c. affirming that I say Man is Regenerated Sanctified Justified though not one Ray of Divine Illumination hath shined into his Soul nor one Act of Grace has reached either his Intellect Will or Affection to cause this Change The like p. 331. All which is most abominable false and never either believed or asserted by me and therefore all he concludes upon this malitious Assertion falls to the Ground and needs no further Answer Next he bestows much Pains p. 328 329. to shew from the Hebrew and Greek Word that Perfection is sometimes understood of Sincerity and Integrity and Perfection in these Respects he thus Defines In Regeneration the whole Man is changed Perfection defined so that he is now born a New Creature sanctified wholly in Mind Heart Spirit Affections Consciences Memory and Body though but in a small Measure or degree and again Yielding impartial Obedience through the Grace of God unto all God's Precepts waving none But if he will stand by what he here Asserts I will desire no more albeit he falsly say in the following page That all this will not satisfy us For I would desire the next time Breaking the Commands daily c. is not Perfection nor a growing in Grace he would Reconcile this with Breaking the Commands daily in Thought Word and Deed. To prove this he insists in Contradiction to what he said before p. 330. N. 7. and his Proofs are 1 Because in Christ's House there are diverse Sizes and Degrees of Persons as Babes or little Children young Men old Men And this is not denied but the thing he should have proved is that none of those Degrees can be without daily breaking God's Commands His Second Proof is yet more rare Christians are exhorted to grow in Grace to put off the Old Man which is corrupt to put on the New Man to mortify their Members Very good But is To break the Commands daily in Thought Word and Deed the way to grow in Grace to put off the old Man and on the New If this be not to pervert Christianity what can be said to be so If Men can dream waking as he sometimes supposes he has sure been in this Posture when he brought this Proof But he adds That this Perfection rendreth Gospel-Commands useless But
of them In like manner our receiving benefits and blessings from God has a necessary respect to our Praying because if we Ask he hath promised we shall Receive Now the Communion or Participation of the flesh and blood of Christ hath no such necessary relation to the breaking of Bread and drinking of Wine For if it had any such necessary relation it would either be from the Nature of the Thing or from some Divine Precept But we shall shew it is from neither Therefore c. First It is not from the Nature of it because to partake of the flesh and blood of Christ is a Spiritual Exercise and all confess that it is by the Soul and Spirit that we become real Partakers of it as it is the Soul and not the Body that is nourished by it but to eat Bread and drink Wine is a natural Act which in it self adds nothing to the Soul neither has any thing that is Spiritual in it because the most carnal Man that is can as fully as perfectly and as wholly eat Bread and drink Wine as the most Spiritual Secondly Their relation is not by Nature else they would infer one another but all acknowledge that many eat of the Bread and drink of the Wine even that which they say is Consecrate Transubstantiate into the very Body of Christ who notwithstanding have not Life Eternal have not Christ dwelling in them nor do live by him The Patriarchs and Prophets without this Ceremony's Use were true Partakers of Christ's Flesh and Blood as all do who truly partake of the Flesh and Blood of Christ without the Vse of this Ceremony as all the Patriarchs and Prophets did before this Ordinance as they account it was Instituted Neither was there any thing under the Law that had any direct or necessary Relation hereunto thô to partake of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in all Ages was indispensibly necessary to Salvation For as for the Paschal * The Paschal Lamb 〈◊〉 End· Lamb the whole End of it is signified particularly Exod 13.8 9. to wit that the Jews might thereby be kept in remembrance of their deliverance out of Egypt Secondly It has no relation by Divine Precept for if it had it would be mentioned in that which our Adversaries account the Institution of it or else in the Practice of it by the Saints recorded in Scripture but so it is not For as to the Institution or rather Narration of Christ's Practice in this matter we have it recorded by the Evangelists Matthew Mark and Luke In the first two there is only an Account of the matter of Fact to wit That Christ brake Bread and gave it his Disciples to eat saying This is my Body Matth. 26 26. Mark 14.22 Luke 22.19 and blessing the Cup he gave it them to drink saying This is my Blood but nothing of any desire to them to do it In the last The Institution of the Supper or Narration of Christ's Practice therein after the Bread but before the blessing or giving them the Wine he bids them do it in Remembrance of him what we are to think of this Practice of Christ shall be spoken of hereafter But what necessary Relation hath all this to the Believers partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ The End of this for which they were to do it if at all is to Remember Christ which the Apostle yet more particularly expresses 1 Cor. 11.26 To shew forth the Lord's Death But to Remember the Lord or Declare his Death which are the special and particular Ends annexed to the Use of this Ceremony is not at all to partake of the Flesh and Blood of Christ neither have they any more necessary Relation to it than any other two different Spiritual Duties For thô they that partake of the Flesh and Blood of Christ cannot but Remember him yet the Lord and his Death may be Remembred as none can deny where his Flesh and Blood is not truly partaken of So that since the very particular and express End of this Ceremony may be witnessed to wit the Remembrance of the Lord's Death and yet the Flesh and Blood of Christ not partaken of it cannot have had any necessary Relation to it else the partaking thereof would have been the End of it and could not have been attained without this Participation But on the contrary we may well infer hence that since the positive End of this Ceremony is not the partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ and that whoever partakes of the Flesh and Blood of Christ cannot but Remember him that therefore such need not this Ceremony to put them in Remembrance of him But if it be said That Jesus Christ calls the Bread here his Body Object and the Wine his Blood therefore he seems to have had a special relation to his Disciples partaking of his Flesh and Blood in the use of this thing I Answer His calling the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood Answ. would yet infer no such thing tho it is not denied but that Jesus Christ in all things he did yea and from the use of all Natural things took occasion to raise the Minds of his Disciples and Hearers to Spirituals Hence from the Woman of Samaria her drawing Water The Woman of Samaria John 4.14 he took occasion to tell her of that Living Water which whoso drinketh of shall never Thirst which indeed is all one with his Blood here spoken of Yet it will not follow that that Well or Water had any necessary relation to the Living Water The Well the Loaves the Bread and Wine Christ takes occasion from to shew the Inward Feeding or the Living Water to it c. So Christ takes occasion from the Jews following him for the Loaves to tell them of this Spiritual Bread and Flesh of his Body which was more necessary for them to feed upon It will not therefore follow that their following him for the Loaves had any necessary relation thereunto So also Christ here being at Supper with his Disciples takes occasion from the Bread and Wine which was before them to signify unto them that as That Bread which he brake unto them and That Wine which he blessed and gave unto them did contribute to the preserving and nourishing of their Bodies so was he also to give his Body and shed his Blood for the Salvation of their Souls And therefore the very End proposed in this Ceremony to those that observe it is to be a Memorial of his Death But if it be said that the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16 Calls the Bread which he brake the Communion of the Body of Christ and the Cup the Communion of his Blood I do most willingly subscribe unto it but do deny that this is understood of the outward Bread neither can it be evinced but the Contrary is manifest from the Context for the Apostle in this Chapter speaks not one word of
that Ceremony For having in the beginning of it shewen them how the Jews of Old were made partakers of the Spiritual Food and Water which was Christ and how several of them through Disobedience and Idolatry fell from that good Condition he exhorts them by the Example of those Jews whom God destroyed of Old to flee those Evils shewing them that they to wit the Corinthians are likewise partakers of the body and blood of Christ of which Communion they would Rob themselves if they did Evil because they could not drink of the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils and partake of the Lord's Table and of the Table of Devils ver 21. Which shews that he understands not here the using of outward Bread and Wine because those that do Drink the Cup of Devils and Eat of the Table of Devils yea The Wickedest may take the outward Bread and Wine the Wickedest of Men may partake of the outward Bread and outward Wine For there the Apostle calls the bread One ver 17. and he saith We being many are One bread and one body for we are all partakers of that One bread Now if the bread be One it cannot be the Outward or the Inward would be excluded whereas it cannot be denied but that it 's the partaking of the Inward bread and not the Outward that makes the Saints truly One body and One bread And whereas they say that the One bread here comprehendeth both the Outward and Inward by vertue of the Sacramental Vnion The Sacramental Vnion pretended is a Figment that indeed is to affirm but not to prove As for that Figment of a Sacramental Vnion I find not such a thing in all the Scripture especially in the New Testament nor is there any thing can give a rise for such a thing in this Chapter where the Apostle as is above observed is not at all treating of that Ceremony but only from the Excellency of that Priviledge which the Corinthians had as believing Christians To partake of the flesh and blood of Christ dehorts them from Idolatry partaking of the Sacrifices offered to Idols so as thereby to offend or hurt their weak brethren Object But that which they most of all Cry out for in this matter and are always Noising is from 1 Cor. 11. where the Apostle is particularly treating of this matter and therefore from some words here they have the greatest Appearance of Truth for their Assertion As ver 27. where he calls the Cup the Cup of the Lord and saith That they who eat of it and drink it unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and ver 26. Eat and drink their own Damnation intimating hence that this hath an immediate or necessary relation to the body flesh and blood of Christ. Answ. Thô this at first View may catch the Vnwary Reader yet being well considered it doth no ways Evince the matter in Controversy As for the Corinthians being in the Vse of this Ceremony why they were so and how that obliges not Christians now to the same shall be spoken of hereafter it suffices at this time to consider that they were in the Vse of it Secondly That in the Vse of it they were guilty of and committed divers Abuses Thirdly That the Apostle here is giving them Directions how they may do it aright in shewing them the right and proper Vse and End of it These things being premised let it be observed that the very express and particular Vse of it according to the Apostle is To shew forth the Lord's Death c. But to shew forth the Lord's Death and partake of the flesh and blood of Christ are different things He saith not As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye partake of the Body and Blood of Christ but Ye shew forth the Lord's Death So I acknowledge that this Ceremony by those that practise it hath an Immediate Relation to the outward Body Death of Christ upon the Cross as being properly a Memorial of it but it doth not thence follow that it hath any inward or immediate Relation to Believers communicating or partaking of the Spiritual Body and Blood of Christ or that Spiritual Supper spoken of Rev. 3.20 For though in a general way as every Religious Action in some respect hath a common relation to the Spiritual Communion of the Saints with God so we shall not deny but this hath a relation to others Now for his calling the Cup the Cup of the Lord and saying They are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ and eat their own Damnation in not discerning the Lord's Body c. I answer that this infers no more Necessary Relation than any other Religious Act and amounts to no more than this that since the Corinthians were in the Vse of this Ceremony Christ's Act of Bread and Wine is not Obliging others and so performed it as a Religious Act they ought to do it Worthily else they should bring Condemnation upon themselves Now this will not more infer the thing so practised by them to be a necessary Religious Act obligatory upon others than when Rom. 14.6 the Apostle saith He that regardeth the Day regardeth it unto the Lord it can be thence inferred that the Days that some esteemed and observed did lay an obligation upon others to do the same But yet as he that Esteemed a Day and placed Conscience in keeping it was to Regard it to the Lord and so it was to him in so far as he dedicated it unto the Lord the Lord's Day he was to do it Worthily and if he did it Vnworthily he would be guilty of the Lord's Day and so keep it to his own Damnation so also such as observe this Ceremony of Bread and Wine it is to them the Bread of the Lord and the Cup of the Lord because they Vse it as a Religious Act and forasmuch as their End therein is To shew forth the Lord's Death and to Remember his Body that was Crucified for them and his Blood that was shed for them If notwithstanding they believe it is their Duty to do it and make it a matter of Conscience to forbear if hey do it without that due Preparation and Examination which every Religious Act ought to be performed in then instead of truly Remembring the Lord's Death and his Body and his Blood they render themselves Guilty of it as being in one Spirit with those that Crucified him and shed his Blood The Pharisees Guilt of the Blood of the Prophets though pretending with Thanksgiving and Joy to Remember it Thus the Scribes and Pharisees of Old though in Memory of the Prophets they garnished their Sepulchres yet are said by Christ to be Guilty of their Blood And that no more can be hence inferred appears from another saying of the same Apostle Rom. 14.23 He that doubteth is damned if he eat c. where he speaking of those that