The Principles of the Protestant Religion Maintained, Introduction · Reflections 10 – Reflections 11
Reflections on chapt. 10. of the Sacraments &c.
The laſt Mine he has to ſpring is to demoliſh our Sacraments and Sabbaths,
Sect. 1. That the word [Sacrament] is not to be found in the New-Teſtament, we grant: but it hath obtained to be a Word uſed in the Church, for many ages to expreſs that by, which is evidently enough laid down in Scripture, nor doth he diſpute us about the Lawfulneſs of uſing ſuch words. But when he ſaith, there is no word in Scripture to anſwer that word, except the word [Myſtery,] we cannot go along with him; that the word [Myſtery] is at all uſed in this ſenſe, we ſuppoſe cannot be proved; but there are two other that are; and imply as much as we intend by a Sacrament, viz. a Sign and a Seal, which are both uſed of the Sacrament of Circumciſion, Rom. 4.11. and by parity of Reaſon are applicable to the New-Teſtament-Sacrments: that Baptiſm is ſuch a ſign: is evident from, 1. Pet. 3.21. that the Lord's Supper is ſo too, ſee 1. Cor. 11.26. for how is the Lord's death ſhewed forth in it, but by an inſtituted ſign? And when the Church of Rome can ſhew as good a plea for their other five, as we can for theſe two, we will then confeſs the injury we have done in denying them.
Sect. 2. Now for Baptiſm! What need he to combat Infant-Baptiſm? If there be no Baptiſm, then none of Infants: only he loves to be wrangling. and what Cavil againſt Sprinkling, if neither that nor Dipping be of force by Divine Inſtitution? Thus ſome muſt be meddling.
As for Sprinkling, we plead not for it; we ſay Baptiſm is a Goſpel-Ordinance; that Water is the Element to be applied, that it may be done either by Dipping into, or Pouring on of water, there being no expreſs Precept for the one more than the other; that, it being a ſign, it hath no other Efficacy than by the Bleſſing upon the Inſtitution, that as a ſign. it may ſignifie, by pouring upon one part of the Body; that the Face is moſt ready and convenient, and why may we not allude to that of Chriſt to Peter, Joh. 13.10. that we do it on the Forehead particularly, is a ſlander. When be asks us, Why John baptized Chriſt by Dipping Him in Water? We think his firſt Queſtion ſhould have been, Whether he did ſo or no? and it is certain he cannot prove that he did. Our Conſequence from infant Circumciſion to infant Baptiſm is good: for, it was the ſame Covenant, and the ſame promiſes that Abraham and we had, Circumſion was a ſign of the Righteouſneſs of Faith; and ſo is Baptiſm; and Infants are as capable of the one as of the other: and the promiſe is ſtill to our Children.
That the Baptizing of Infants was not the practice of the Church during the firſt century, is arrogantly affirmed by him, againſt Antiquity: Origen and Cyprian tell us that the Apoſtles gave order for the Baptizing of Infants: and Auguſtin tells us, Baptiſm of Infants had been univerſally practiſed in the Church ever ſince the Apoſtles.
And ſure he miſtakes when he ſaith that in Col. 2.11, 12. Neither circumciſion nor Baptiſm there mentioned is outward: Whereas the Apoſtle is arguing from the ſign, to the thing ſignified by it, in reſpect of Circumciſion; & then mentions Baptiſm it ſelf intimating that it ſignified the ſame thing, & therefore laid them under the ſame obligation to Holineſs: there is therefore a ſacramental Dying with Chriſt; becauſe in this Ordinance there is an engagement laid upon us to dye to the world. And what a poor ſhift is he put upon, when to evade Mat. 28.19. he acknowledges the Inſtitution of Baptiſm, but tells us it ſaith nothing of water? doth not the very Word imply it, and the Goſpel aſſure us that Water was the Element? Furthermore, We have two Baptiſms mentioned, Mat. 3.11. it muſt then be one of theſe two, but the Diſciples could not baptiſe with the latter, it being Chriſt's alone prerogative. In citing of Luk. 18.15, 16. he fraudulently omits that clauſe, for of ſuch is the Kingdom of God: and G. K. aſſures us that that Kingdom is on earth, as well as in Heaven; and if ſo, then they are Subjects of the priviledges of this Kingdom, as far as capable: and of the ſame import is that, Rom. 11.16. for all his cavil againſt it? nor doth it follow that they may receive the Lords ſupper as well; becauſe that is above their Capacity at preſent: a Child may be an Heir, and yet not be put into actual poſſeſſion of all that he hath a right to: and though Chriſt Himſelf baptized not, yet His Diſciples did by His Authority.
Sect. 3. That Baptiſm with water properly belonged to John's Miniſtry, is eaſier ſaid than prov'd: that It is expreſly contra-diſtinguiſh'd from Chriſt's baptiſm, by John and Chriſt Himſelf; is an errour; the outward Adminiſtration is diſtinguiſhed from the Efficacy, which depends upon Chriſt, and not on the Miniſter: but not contra-diſtinguiſhed, for theſe are two, but not contraries, but concomitants, as being indeed, two parts of the ſame Sacrament. And that it belonged not limitatively to John's Diſpenſation appears, becauſe Chriſt gave order for the Continuance of it, Mat. 28.19, 20. Philip baptized the Eunuch with water, Act. 8. Paul baptized, 1. Cor. 1.15. Nor will he ever diſprove the Baptizing with water, being appointed, Mat. 28.19. till he can prove that there is ſome other miniſterial Baptiſm, for which he muſt run to his Revelations, Ten thouſand of which are worth nothing. And what an infatuation is it to tell us, there are no other words of inſtitution, but the words of Inſtitution? What more would he have? Nor doth he evade by telling us, they could baptize with the Spirit as well as beget ſons and daughters to God; for this was done miniſterially by diſpencing the Ordinances, which Chriſt only can bleſs to that end, though He own His ſervants as workers-together with him in their place; but they ever renounced their doing any of theſe things by their own virtue. Yea, alſo Baptiſm is ſignified in Mat. 28.19. to be one way in which they made diſciples of them: But he fore-ſaw that we would tell him, that the diſciples under Chriſt's Diſpenſation, and after the Reſurrection of Chriſt, baptized with water; & has provided a fine Evaſion, viz. It was done by Toleration, as many things elſe by the Law; but we ſuppoſe that Infant-Baptiſm was not of the Law, but of the preparation of the Goſpel: yea, an Inſtitution which Chriſt Himſelf confirmed by his commands, and ſo, not a meer Toleration. And when Paul faith, he was ſent to baptize, it is meant not ſo much to baptize as to preach; he was an Apoſtle & had diverſe Miniſters waiting upon him, who were ordinarily imployed in baptizing ſuch as by his Miniſtry were prepared for it: his Thanking of God therefore that he baptized ſo few, was not becauſe the Ordinance it ſelf was not Authentick, and honourable. but becauſe as there was no neceſſity ordinarily for him to do it perſonally, ſo it eventually prevented occaſion of their naming themſelves from Paul: this Reaſon he gives 1. Cor. 1.14. if G. K.'s pretended reaſon had any weight, he had broken his Commiſſion in baptizing of any.
Somebody ows him thanks for his Charity, that allows Babes and children their Images, &c. provided they are cordially zealous for ſpiritual Baptiſm; and he grants there are ſome few ſuch (only Chriſt is little beholden to him for making a ſacred Inſtitution of His a George-on-horſeback to invite children to their books) but for us, we are not thus obliged, for we are not ſo much as babes, but meer Hypocrites, and Formaliſts: did he ever read, 1. Cor. 4.8. and Rom. 14.10. we have alwaies profeſſed our zeal for the inward Baptiſm, & our whole Miniſtry is a witneſs …o it, only we are for both Baptiſm with water and the Holy Ghoſt, and the Quakers pretend to be only for the latter; and which is moſt agreeable to the mind of Chriſt, let the Scripture determine: and indeed they thus take away the very means appointed by Chriſt for enjoying that other.
Sect. 4. Nor doth he treat the ſacred Supper with any better language. He grants That Chriſt had an outward ſupper of the Paſcal Lamb: i. e. that He had the ſign without the thing Signified; i. e. that Chriſt ate the paſſover hypocritically, which is prodigious Blaſphemy. When he ſaith, Our ſacrament hath no inward ſpiritual ſignification to us, he arrogates God's Prerogative, who only can judge the heart immediately: and his reaſon is groundleſs, for we never denied a real and ſpiritual partaking in Chriſt, though we allow it not in the Quakers carnal ſenſe, but ſpiritually.
When he takes notice of Chriſt's drinking firſt, and drinking twiſe at the Sacrament; he bewrayes his ignorance or perverſeneſs; if that place be more obſcure, it is to be interpreted by ſuch as are more clear: the other Evangeliſts mention the order of the Inſtitution; By Chriſt's firſt bleſſing and giving the Bread, and after that the Cup; and Paul, tells us he received the Order from Chriſt Himſelf thus, 1. Cor. 11.23. &c. Chriſt indeed kept two Sacraments at one Meeting, the Paſſover which He now antiquated, and the Supper which he now inſtituted; the former Cup belonged to the Paſſover, which alſo repreſented Chriſt, and Jewiſh Antiquity tell us, it was their cuſtom to conclude that Sacrament with ſuch a Cup.
In pag. 188. we have him there introducing a new Sacrament, which he tells us they have at their ordinary Meals, and the Miniſters do conſecrate them, ſometimes by Praying, ſometimes by ſilence, (a new way of Conſecration) and to this he ſhrinks up this Goſpel Ordinance; which is pure Familiſm, endeavouring to baniſh all inſtituted Worſhip out of the Church, under a pretence of continual holineſs, a fine way to extirpate Religion out of the world, by Evacuating the Appointments of Jeſus Chriſt. We beleeve that there is a ſpiritual Feeding on Chriſt, which beleevers are to practiſe daily by the exerciſe of Faith; and are Satisfied that our Eating &c. ſhould be alwais to the glory of God, and might poſſibly ſay as much of that as, and with more truth than he. But Chriſts inſtitution is ſomething beyond that, and is appointed as a ſpecial help of our Faith in theſe exerciſes, herein therefore they are behind us, they pretend to no more than we do, and in our meaſure endeavour, whereas we are alſo for the Sacred Inſtitutions of Chriſt, to help us in all other duties; and we think that our Supper is beyond theirs, as being an holy Ordinance of Goſpel Worſhip, and theirs is only the Common duty of all men: we believe that outward eating is but a ſign of the inward, and therefore not to be reſted in, but becauſe it is a ſign: and Chriſt hath enjoined the uſe of it, we dare not omit it.
That all outward Eating and Drinking is a natural and neceſſary ſign of the Inward, we utterly deny; that it is accommodable to it by way of reſemblance, we acknowledge, elſe Chriſt would not have choſen it for this end: but we uſe them for figures upon the account of His inſtitution, and not becauſe of a natural Analogy; elſe we might multiply Sacraments at pleaſure; and yet we grant it to be as much a natural ſign, as the outward world is a figure of the inward, which he ſaith Paul expreſly calls it. 1. Cor. 7.31. when there is not one ſyllable expreſly or conſequentially intimating any ſuch thing.
Sect. 5. But if the Sabbath may but be ca…hier'd, the other Ordinances will fall. Here then, his firſt cavil is againſt the firſt day of …he week, but if he decries any outward Sab…ath at all (as he calls it) the Firſt day …eeds no more Vindication than any other: …ouching the Change of the Sabbath, ſuch as …cknowledge the Sabbath to be moral & perpetual by divine precept, may find it made goo… by many, Sheppard, Owen and others. Hi… Cavil alſo againſt Rev. 1.10 hath been full… anſwered by the fore-cited Authours, and h… ſeems himſelf to grant the cauſe, for he tel… us (p. 193.) It is commendable in Chriſtian to ſet apart the firſt day of the week for reſt fro… Employments and to help the mind in its ſpiritual exerciſes: now, they muſt ſet this da… apart rather than any other, either becauſ… the day it ſelf hath ſome Betterneſs in it, o… becauſe Chriſt hath put an Excellency upo… it; the former cannot be proved, the la… ter can be only by His ſanctifying of it to … a Day of Reſt.
Nor is the Changing of the Seventh Da… which was the Jewiſh Sabbath, into the Fir… which was the Chriſtian-, to put the firſt d… of the week in the Room of Chriſt; for not … ſay, that it is hard to prove that the Seven… Day was meerly a Jewiſh Type of Chri… for it was appointed before there was a… Revelation of Chriſt, or occaſion for Hi… (viz. in Innocency;) but if it were, yet t… Sabbath it ſelf was not ſo, but a time a… pointed by Divine poſitive precept for t… performing of natural and inſtituted Dut… to God in, and is therefore of a natural a… perpetual conſideration, & cannot ceaſe to neceſſary, till ſuch duties ceaſe, or men can do them without taking time to do them in.
And is he not run quite out of breath, when he tells us that, Exod. 20.8, 9. ſaith nothing of one day in ſeven, but only of a ſeventh day, we thought that had been one day of ſeven: but ſuppoſe him to mean, that it leſt it not arbitrary, but fixed it; we may in part grant it, viz. that it fixed it to the Seventh day, which God ſaw meet to appoint, but that it neceſſitated it to the laſt of the Seven, ſo that God could not alter it to the firſt of the ſeven, there is no need to conclude, and the Scripture will prove the contrary, becauſe He did afterwards change it.
And whereas he ſo often pleads that, The Sabbath is Chriſt and nothing elſe, he poorly proves it from. Heb. 4.9.10. it is there ſaid that Chriſt entred into His reſt, and doth that mean, that he entred into Himſelf? his Aſ…erting that in the New-Teſtament there is no …utward day is nonſence; what inward day did he ever hear of? He thinks the words …utward and inward, may be applied to every …hing, but he muſt run up the folly a lit…le further; we cannot prove (ſaith he) …hat the fourth Command enjoined the Jews …o keep an outward ſeventh day: we know …hat it was a Seventh day, it is expreſly ſo ſaid, and if he can find out an inward one, it will be a rare invention: we are ſure that it was a day to be celebrated from the Evening to the Evening. Nor is his alluſion to the tenth Command of any ſtrength; that that only enjoins inward duty & not outward, is a grand miſtake: every Command of the Decalogue reſpects the actions as well as the heart, and ſo do the fourth & tenth.
Reflections on his Call.
He hath now done with his Doctrinal part, and ſhutts up all with a thing which he ſtiles, A Call & a warning to the people of Boſſton in New-England to Repent, &c. in which, by his language he arrogates to himſelf as much as any of the Prophets of old had of an immediate Miſſion from God. We ſhall not trouble our ſelves with the reviling Language he here uſeth, (Jeſus Chriſt will call him to account for that ere long) but only endeavour to make it evident by his own manner of expreſſing himſelf, that he is no true Prophet.
1. The true prophets do not uſe to ly, eſpecially in delivering their Meſſages; and that he doth egregiouſly, there hath been more than once obſerved in his book; and what doth he leſs when he here tells us that God hath enlightned us all to turn from darkneſs to light &c.?
2. True prophets do not uſe to Slander, and how often he hath done ſo by us, we have ſeen throughout the pamphlet, & here alſo, p. 200. in ſaying, that We profeſs to own Chriſt without, but do not own him within, an horrid abuſe!
3. Prophets are not wont to rail and revile, and that he doth; as if he had been educated to it, particularly p. 198. and all this he chargeth upon ſtrangers, whom he had no knowledge of.
4. Prophets uſe not to deliver falſe Doctrine & Hereſy, & ſuch is his whole Pamphlet ſtuff'd withal, in particular, that of the Light-within, which he here chargeth us for Blaſpheming, p. 198.
5. Prophets uſe not to ſpeak Nonſenſe, and that he is notoriouſly guilty of, and a Specimen of it he gives in the warning it ſelf, which he tells us he had in the Light, p. 201. where he chargeth us for calling our duties, & tells us not what we call them; though poſſiby he could not tell, for we call them, dirt, & dung, & nothing..
6. Prophets don't uſe to call men to repent of their holding the Truth as it is in JESƲS, and his Call is nothing elſe.
7. Prophets are wont to ſhew ſome Proof of their Call, but he hath ſhown none; he duplicate page duplicate page tells us indeed that it is by Immediate Revelation, but withal hath told us, that if it cannot be proved by Scripture, we are not bound to believe him: and ſo we diſmiſs him, only wiſhing him at leiſure to read, Jer. 23.31, 32. Ezek. 13.6. — 10.