Quakerism the Path-Way to Paganism, Chapter 26

Quakerism the Path-Way to Paganism · Chapter 26

p. 465CHAP. XXVI. Of Baptisme.

1. TO manifest the perfect and compleet hatred, which this Paganish Antichristian Spirit, which reigneth and rageth in the Quakers, hath at all the Insti…utions and Appointments of our Lord Jesus Christ, we have here a clear demonstration of the hieght thereof; and of their designe; as acted by the same. It will not satisfie them to plead, with other Anabaptist…, against the baptisme of Children, and so be Antipaedobaptists; but they must be Antibaptists and joyne with the late Ranters, H. Nicholas & Antinomians, as enemies to the p. 466whole of the Institution; and so not only be against all the Churches of Christ, from the very beginning of christianity to this day; but also against all the Several Sects of Anabaptists, or Catabaptists, that we have heard of; and joyn with Socinus, who at first, would have had this Ordinance wholly laid aside: And dispising Socinus & his followers policy or prudence, who afterwards perceiving what an odium this would be to all Christendome, & how detestable it would render them, condescended at length, that the outward forme should be observed; but peremptorily adhered to this, that it was no Ordinance of Jesus Christ, constantly to be observed by the Churches, by vertue of a command, but only a meer indifferent thing: These men, with gigantine audacity, dar appear, and downe right plead against any use of it at all, upon any account: whence it is evident, that they would have this Ordinance quite taken away, that so there might not be so much as an outward signe of Christianity left, or any thing remaining, that might give the least import or signification of a relation, that people have unto Jesus Christ, as being once baptized in his name, and solemnely by profession given away to Him, and publickly received in his Kingdom and visible Church, and so distinguished from such as are without. What a paganish designe this is, to take away all outward and visible discriminating difference betwixt Christians and Turks or Pagans, every one may see; Thus would they bring-in Pagans, as equally sharers of all external privileges of the Church, with Christians; that so Christ might have no distinct house, or Kingdom. This was several times hinted to us before, but now the vaile is taken off their faces, and their designe is open and manifest. Hereby also we see how near a kin this Spirit, that acteth them, is unto the Spirit, that covenanteth with and acteth in the witches; for as these miserable creatures must, in the entry of their covenanting with the Devil, renunce their bap…isme; so the Quakers, as being more active and masculine servants, will not only renunce it for themselves, but will have all others, whom they can seduce to their party, do the like; and so far as they can by their penne, make it null every where; that so the very profession of Christianity might be banished out of the world. O! what desperat Runagadoes must these men be?

2. We need not here spend time, in the confirmation of this Institution, which was never, in all the ages of the Christian world, called in question, till Antichristian Socinus, and Swenkfeldus arose, except what the Manichees of old said, and a Seck called Whippers. It cannot be denyed, that Iohn baptist had a commission from heaven to baptize. Ioh. 1:25, 26, 28, 33. Luk. 3:2, 3. Mat. 11:25. Luk: 7:29, 30. It is also certaine, that Christ, who came to fulfil all righteousness, did submit unto it. Mat. 3:13 &c. Mark. 1:9. It is likewise unquestionable, that the disciples of Christ baptized, which would not have been without his warrand; for it is said of him, that he baptized, though not in his owne person Ioh. 3:22. & 4:1, 2. And a commission is amply, & in full forme, given to the disciples, by him, after the resurrection, to baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Mat. 28:19. Mark. 16:15:16. And it is no less evident, that in obedience to this command, his Apostles did baptize, wherever they came, and made converts. Act. 2:41. & 8:12, 13, p. 46738. & 9:18. & 10:48. & 16:15, 33. & 18:8. & 22:16. 1 Cor. 1:13. What unparalleled boldness must it then be, to call this ordinance into question, which hath such a divine original, such a manifest divine warrand, and was so religiously observed by the Apostles, and by all the Churches of Christ, since their dayes, unto this very day▪ And who can sufficiently admire the madness of these men, who would have us lay aside and cast away such an ordinance, so appointed, and so observed; and which withall is so usefull and necessary, being not only ordained to be for a solemne admission of the party baptized into the visible Church. 1 Cor. 12, 13. but also to be a signe and a seal of the covenant of grace, (whereof these Quakers know nothing) Rom. 4:11. Col. 2:11, 12. And to be unto the beleever a signe & seal of his ingrafting into Christ. Gal. 3:27. Rom. 6:5. of his Regeneration Tit. 3:5. of Remission of sinnes. Mark 1:4. of his Adoption. Gal. 3:26, 27. and Resurrection unto life. 1 Cor. 15:13. And of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life Rom. 6:4, And by which, when rightly used, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred, by the holy Ghost to such (whether of age, or Infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time Gal. 3:27. Tit. 3:5. Ephes. 4:25, 26. Act. 2:38, 41. Would we but seriously ponder, What is briefly set down in answere to the 167. Question, in our Larger Catechisme, we might see what desperate enemies unto true Christianity these Quakers are, who would despoile us of this profitable and advantagious Ordinance, which might and should be improved to rich advantage. How is our baptisme to be improved by us? Answ. The needful but much neglected duty of our improving our Baptisme, is to be performed by us, all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others (Col. 2:11, 12. Rom. 6:4, 6, 11.) by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends, for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefites conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemne Vow made therein. (Rom. 6:3, 4, 5.) by being humbled by our sinful defilements, our falling short of and walking contrary to the grace of baptisme and our engagments. 1 Cor. 1:11, 12, 13. Rom. 6:2, 3) by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament (Rom. 4:11, 12. 1 Pet. 3:21.) by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin and quickning of grace (Rom. 6:3, 4, 5.) and by endeavouring to live by faith (Gal. 3:26, 27) to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness. (Rom. 6:22.) As those that have therein given up their names to Christ (Act 2:28.) and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit, into one body (1 Cor. 12:13, 25, 26, 27.

3. These things considered, and thereby it being manifestly discovered, what a relation this Ordinance hath unto the cardinal duties and privileges of Christians, to wit, Faith, Repentance, Remission of sinnes; Regeneration, Adoption, Justification, Sanctification and Salvation. Luk. 3:3. Mark 16:16. Act. 2▪ 38, 41. & 8:36, 37. & 16:14. & 18:8. & 12:6. Rom. 3:4, 5, 6. 1 Cor. 12:13. Gal. 3:27. Ephes. 4:5. Col. 2:2. 1 Pet. 3:21. And withall considering how dangerous it is to neglect it, and contemne it. Luk 7:39. And how by Christ's owne appointment, it is to be continued in his Church, untill the end of the p. 468world Mat. 28:19, 20. We see a necessitie of maintaining it; and withall have ground of hope, and confidence, that Christ, who, when he had given this in commission to his disciples, to teach all nations, baptizeing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, promised to be with them alway, even unto the end of the world, will owne this Ordinance by his power and presence, and rub shame on these professed enemies to the very name of Christianity; and defate all their desperate Counsels and Machinations. Amen.

4. It is time now we see, what this man would say. Towards the end of his harrangue, (which we have nothing to do with) with which he ushereth-in his discourse upon this subject, he tels us Pag. 165. That there have been moe contests and disputs about the Sacraments, than about any other Christian doctrine. And good man, so tender is he of the peace of Christianity, that to prevent any further disput, & to end all these many controversies, he hath found out a medium; that is, to take them away altogether; as if a man would deny all Christianity, to the end, all controversies in Christianity might cease, and we might live all together in peace, and beleeve no more of Christianity, than Pagans; such a short cut hath this man found out, to bring us all to an agreement among ourselves, by becoming all Pagans: And yet this peacable man, is a wilde man for Ismael-like, his hand is against every man, and every mans hand is against him; for all those who upon each side, maintaine these controversies; do owne their being, & would defend the same against him, & many of their controversies thereabout speak out their care to maintaine this Ordinance.

5. He taketh, in the first place, exceptions, at the name Sacrament, as not being a terme found in Scripture; So tender would he seem to be of all things: But I pray him tell me, where, in all the Scripture, readeth he of his Introversion; a very great matter with him? Where readeth he of fermentation, of the vehicle of God, and I know not how many moe? He is beholden to the Socinians for this exception: and they will tell him also, he must except against the Trinity, upon the same ground: It is a poor thing to move debates about a word, especially for him, who denieth the thing. Knoweth he not, what we mean by that word? Knoweth he not, that we are not masters of words, but that use ruleth that? But sayes he, if this name be laid aside, the controversie about the number of Sacraments is at an end, for there will be no Scripture terme found, that will give occasion to that debate. No? He is mistaken: the same debate will remaine, if instead of Sacrament, we use signes and seals of the Covenant, and these are Scripture termes, Gen. 17:7, 10. Rom. 4:12. Knoweth he not, that in that debate, the question is not about the name, but about the thing imported by the name? This he is not sensible of; for sayes he, if we define a Sacrament, to be an outward signe, whereby an inward grace is either conferred, or only signified, that will agree to many other things. No sure, if we define a Sacrament to be an outward visible signe, whereby inward grace is not only signified, but really exhibited and conferred to the worthy partakers: far less, if we define a Sacrament thus. An holy signe and seal of the Covenant of grace, representing Christ and his benefites, and confirming to the right receivers, their interest in him. Can this definition, thinks he, agree to any other thing, to Prayer, p. 469Preaching, or any good work? But, sayes he, the Spirit only is called the earnest of our inheritance, Ephes. 1:14. & 4:30. 2 Cor. 1:22. And profane men may partake of the Sacraments. Ans. That the holy Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, and doth seal believers unto the day of redemption, inwardly by his grace in the soul, and by his abideing there, as a sure and real pawn of the future inheritance, is most true; but yet the Sacraments may be and are outward seals and pledges, unto the true believer: hence 1 Cor. 10:16. the cup of blessing is called the communion of the bloud of Christ; and the bread, the communion of the body of Christ, as not only representing it, but as sealing to the beleever, his real interest in the body and blood of Christ. So also it is called the New Testament in Christs blood, 1 Cor. 11:25. As Circumcision was a signe and a seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4:11. So believers are buried with Christ in Baptisme, and risen with him, through the faith of the operation of Go…, Col. 2:12. Rom. 6:4▪ 5. Thou…h wicked persons may partake of the outward elements, yet they become no seal unto them; because the Sacraments seal only unto them, who have the righteousness of faith; and exhibite the benefites only to the worthy receivers: that is, to such as beleeve in Christ, and are united to him by faith.

5. To the end he may quite destroy and abolish this Ordinance of Baptisme, he layeth down three Propositions §. 3. the proving of which, he supposeth, will evince, that there is no such ordinance as Baptisme. The first is. That there is only one Baptisme, Ephes. 4 5. Ans. But the Scripture no where saith that there is but one Baptisme. Yet what would he make of this? Not to mention the Baptisme of affliction, Mat. 20:22. nor that extraordinary Baptisme, whereby the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost were conferred Act. 1:5 as not being here understood; because the consideration of either, or both of these, hath no interest in the argument, which the Apostle is here adduceing, to press an endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace vers. 3. The Baptisme here meaned, is the Baptisme, which we contend for, the outward signe and seal of the new Covenant, whereby all visible professours are solemnely admitted into the Church and Kingdom of Christ; And this Baptisme is one, not only because it is not to be reiterated; but because it is the same way administred, and hath the sam… ends and uses to all visible Profess…urs, unto whom Paul is here speaking: Yet we must not consider hereby the bare outward element, abstracted from what is thereby signified, or from its ends and uses, according to the Institution; but the whole Institution including both the outward element, and the thing represented and sealed thereby; or the Ordinance with its ends and uses. But our Quaker thinketh, that this will make two Baptismes, while as there is but one, as there is one faith, &c. And here lyeth the whole ground of his mistake. And upon this same ground, he might say, there were two circumcisions under the Law, because sometimes the inward grace, signified and represented by the outward act, and really bestowed upon beleevers, is called circumcision; as where mention is made of circumcision of the heart Deut. 30:6. And because the Apostle saith, Rom. 2:28, 29.—neither is that circumcision, which is outward in t…e flesh, but circumcision is that of p. 470the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God. And Col. 2:11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumsicion made without hands, in putting off the body of the sinnes of the flesh. But who would not smile at this? The Apostle saith here also, there is one faith. And upon the same ground, our Quaker might argue, that the doctrine of the Gospel, which is the object of faith, is not faith, though the same Apostle calleth it so, Gal. 1:23. and elsewhere; and that the outward Profession of the truth is not faith, though it be so called, Act, 8:13. 1 Tim. 1: ver. 19. & 3:9. & 4:1. hence the historical and temporary faith, and the faith of miracles, should be no faith; because not the faith here meaned. As also because the Apostle saith here, there is one body, he might thus reason▪ Either the mystical body of beleevers is not the body; or the universal company of Professours is not the body, But as the body here comprehendeth both, and the Faith taketh in both the outward profession, and the inward grace; so the Baptisme comprehendeth both that which is inward and outward, not the one with the exclusion of the other, as making up that one, Ordinance of Baptisme, the consideration of which, is a strong motive to union among Church-members, made partakers thereof. But he thinks, that he is confirmed in his opinion, if we say, that the water is one part of Baptisme, as being the signe, and the Spirit is the other, as being the thing signified. But we take the thing signified to be Christ and his benefites; for it sealeth to the believer an interest in him, and all the promises of the new Covenant, whereof the promise of the Spirit is a grand and comprehensive one. Let us hear his reason. For saith he, if water be the signe, it is not the mater of the one Baptisme; and the one Baptisme is to be taken for the mater, and not for the figure, type or signe. Answ. Whether he call it mater or signe (as a figure or type we owne it not) this is certain, that the outward element administred according to appointment, is the outward visible part of that Baptisme, which comprehendeth both the outward and inward part. But he supposeth, we say it is a part of the inward grace; which is his dream: and he speaketh of the inward grace, as separated, and considered wholly as distinct from the outward part; and will have it only called Christ's Baptisme: which may be true in some sense, because it is it which he doth and worketh by his Spirit: but it is not that baptisme, whereof the Apostle speaketh, Ephes. 4. that, so abstractly and separatly considered, having no force of an argument or motive in it, to press Visible Professours to an endeavouring of unity; but as conjoined with this outward administration, wherein all were solemnely dedicate to God, and whereby they were solemnely admitted as members of one visible body, and visibly separated and differenced from all the rest of the world, and so, engadged to be wholly and only the Lords, and to lay out themselves for the good one of another, and to seek by all lawful meanes possible, the welfare and felicity of the whole body, and to demeane themselves as members one of another, for the glory of their one Head Christ. This is plaine and obvious to every one, that will but open his eyes. See 1 Cor. 12:12, 13, 14, 25, 26, 27.

6. Having laid this sandy foundation, in his mistake of that one baptism mentioned by Paul, Ephes. 4: vers. 5. he procee…eth to his second Proposition p. 471Pag. 267. which is this, That this one baptisme, which is Christ's Baptisme, is not the washing of water, Mat. 3: vers. 11. Hence he argueth Pag. 268. If they, who were baptized by the baptisme of water, were not therefore baptized by the baptisme of Christ, then the baptisme of water is not the baptisme of Christ. But the first is true. Therefore &c. Againe, If they who did truely and really administrate the baptisme of water, did nevertheless declare, that they neither did nor could baptize with the baptisme of Christ; then the baptisme of water is not the baptisme of Christ But &c. Ans. This man's trumph, though he stand upon the shoulders of his friend Socinus, who spoke thus before him, is a meer glorying in a thing of nought, and both his arguments may be blowne away with one distinction; thus, if those who were baptized with the baptisme of water, were not therefore baptized with that baptisme, which Christ himself by his Spirit, and not by the ministrie of men, was to administrate, than the baptisme of water is not this baptisme, which Christ was to performe by his Spirit, without the ministrie of men, true: then the baptisme of water is not the baptisme which Christ hath instituted, this is false. The Assumption is only true in the first sense, and not in the last. And so his Conclusion proveth nothing. The baptisme of water and this baptisme, of the Spirit are different, we confesse; and the baptisme by water is not the external part of this baptisme of the Holy Ghost, nor a signe, far lesse a type or figure: nor is this baptisme of the holy Ghost the baptisme, whereof the Apostle speaketh Ephes. 4▪ 5. Nor is this baptisme that, which Christ did institute, and whereof we speak. He citeth further. Act. 1▪ 4, 5. but to no purpose, for we confess this baptisme, where with Christ was to baptize the Apostles, was far different from that, which Iohn did administrate; and from what Christs owne disciples did, and were, after his resurrection, according to his injunction, to administer, and which is it, we speak of. To the same purpose he citeth Pag. 269. Act. 11:16 whereby every one may see what that baptisme was, which is mentioned, as differing from Iohns. But what is there here to prove, that only this baptisme with the holy Ghost is to be called Christ's baptisme, and none else? or that there is no other baptisme now to be administred? And who, I pray, shall be the administrators thereof? But, saith he, if there be now but one Baptisme, as is proved, this baptisme, must be the baptisme of the Spirit. But where readeth he of but one baptisme? And as to the consequent, how doth it follow? Rather the contrary, seing that baptisme of the holy Ghost and with fire is ceased: on whom, I pray, doth the holy Ghost now fall, as it did on the Apostles Act. 2: vers 4. and on those Act. 11? who are thereby enabled to speak now with strange tongues? Are the Quakers thus baptized? why do they not evidence it by their extraordinary gifts? if not, why do they not hold one baptisme, till they get another? But then, sayes he, I… should not be Christs baptisme that remaineth. Answ. It should not be that baptisme by the …oly Ghost, which he promised to his disciples, it is true; but it is false to say it should not be that baptisme, which Christ did institute, & appoint his Apostles to administer. Read we not of some baptized in the name of Christ, who yet had received none of these gifts Act. 8:16. and yet sure, that baptisme was Christs. His following words, I have nothing to do with; for I say not, that Iohns Baptisme was a figure of this extraordinary baptisme by the holy Ghost, and by fi…e. p. 472I observe moreover another piece of this mans ignorance or deceite, whereupon he would found his discourse here: he imagineth, that these extraordiry gifts of the holy Ghost, are the same with the Spiritual things signified, conferred, and sealed in baptisme. And when the man doth shut his eyes, and then run on furiously in his blindness, what can we do, but stand by and be sorry at his folly and madness? Hence he will have none said to be baptized in the Spirit, but such as are baptized and endued with these extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; and because we admit not now such a baptisme of the Spirit, he inferreth, that we are only for the bare forme and shadow of baptisme, and he is for the substance. Who would not pity such a man, that taketh upon him to condemne, (as the Manichees did of old, and a Seck called the Whippers, that arose in the 13. Century) our baptisme; and therein to condemne all the Churches of Christ, when he hath need to goe in among the Catechumens and be catechized. I say aga…ne, if he and his fraternity be thus baptized with the Holy Ghost, as the Apostles were, and these mentioned Act. 11. Why do they not shew it? The fire in the Apostles could not be hid, they spoke with tongues; but our Quakers do no such thing (except by a new kinde of non-sense he would have us understand their speaking with tongues: And indeed they are all baptized with this baptisme) These were extraordinarily endued with learning and all abilities, to set forward the Kingdom of Christ: but our Quakers are ignorant, and yet they imagine they are learned; and with what they have, they destroy, so far as they can, this kingdom; and therefore if they be extraordinarily baptized with a S…irit, it must be with a blake Spirit, Christ's enemy. And further, the baptisme of the holy Ghost, with which the Apostles were baptized, made them not enraged against the baptisme of water, but more careful to observe it, and administrate it, according to Christ's appointment; and that even to such, as had also received that extraordinary baptisme: As Act. 11. these same persons, on whom the holy Ghost fell, were baptized with water. But it is otherwise with our Quakers, the Ghost, which they suppose themselves baptized with, is a Ghost opposite to all Christ's Appointments. Let them then consider, whence he came, and whether he leadeth them.

7. He citeth further Pag. 270. 1 Pet. 3:21. plowing with Socinus's hifer, and supposeth, that there is here given a definition of Baptisme, and it is true the Apostle sheweth what that baptisme was, which he was speaking of, to wit, not the bare outward element, and the application thereof, which alone cannot be effectual to salvation; but the principal thing here requisite is, the answer of a good conscience, which all must have, who shall expect any good of Baptisme; And thus the Apostle doth plainly establish this Ordinance, as a like figure unto that▪ whereunto Noahs Ark was a figure, which proved a mean of saving none, but faithful Noah and his family: And this truth we owne, to wit, that the outward washing of water can save none, where there is not the stipulation of a good conscience toward God. Shall we hence with Swenkfeldus (whom Calvin on the place confuteth) say, that the outward Ordinance is null? Or shall we with Papists stick in the outward element? No; Christs way is the best; we owne both what is inward, and what is outward, and p. 473give each its due place. What would our Quaker now say? He sideth with Schwenckfeldus, and Saltmarsh, and would have the outward part wholly laid aside, and why? Because Peter sayes, Baptisme is not the putting away the filth of the Flesh. Ans. Peter sayes not, that there is no putting away of the filth of the Flesh, in Baptisme; but that the baptisme, which will save, must have some other thing, then outward washing; to wit, the answere of a good conscience toward God. Againe he joyneth with Papists, and will have baptisme to be that, which was really typified by the Ark, while as it is but a corresponding exemplar, carrying some analogy or proportion therewith: let him Read Calvin & Beza on the place. But saith he, As all in the Arkwere saved by water, so all should be saved by outward washing, if that were baptisme. Answ. If we made the outward washing, as separated from the inward grace, the whole of Baptisme; the Quaker had some colour to speak thus: but when we speak of Baptisme, as saving, we comprehend both the outward washing and the inward grace, the answere of a good conscience; for where this is not, the outward washing in baptisme is ineffectual: One thing more, How will this Quaker prove, that this answere of a good conscience, is the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, which were poured forth upon the Apostles? Or is that baptisme by the holy Ghost and by fire, whereof Christ speaketh, Act. 1:4? His saying Pag. 270. that none can give this answere, but they whose soul the Spirit of God hath purified, and whose corrupt nature, the fire of his judgments hath consumed, is but to show his profane dexterity in allegorizein…, and playing with the word of truth; let him plainly tell us, if he thinketh, the Apostles had no grace, no corruption purified, until the day of Pentecost came; and so that the thing, which Christ had promised, and which then was fulfilled, was this Spirit of Sanctification, and nothing else? And if he dar not say this, let him consider, to how little purpose all this is said.

8. He citeth also, but to the same purpose (stealing from Socinus) Rom. 6:3, 4. Gal. 3:27. Col. 2:12. for the Apostle is not speaking of the outward washing, abstracted from the inward grace; but is speaking of whole baptisme, & that as a…ministred to such, as he supposed beleevers, and speaketh unto as such, pressing duties and mentioning privileges, that agree to them only: And thus all which our Quaker saith, is obviated; for we say not, that the things, there mentioned, are to be understood of bare outward washing, but of the Ordinance, which includeth the inward grace, in order to these privileges and benefites. We do not say, that all who are only outwardly washen in baptisme, are therefore crucified with Christ, or have put him on; but that baptisme sealeth this to such as do really beleeve. But let us hear his arguments. If the baptisme of water, was that one baptisme, that is, the baptisme of Christ: then as many as were baptized with water, did put on Christ. But this is false. Therefore. &c. Againe, If so many as are baptized into Christ, that is, with that one Baptisme, which is Christ's baptisme, have put on Christ, then the baptisme of water is not the one baptisme, the baptisme of Christ. But the former is true: Therefore &c. Ans. Not to trouble him with that distinction, which yet enervateth both his arguments, viz. That such as are baptized with water, and have no more, though they have not put on p. 474Christ in truth and reality; Yet they have put on Christ in profession, and thereby have publickly declared their engadgment to the duties pressed: Conforme to what was said, I Answere to his first argument thus. If the baptisme of water, abstracted and separated from the answere of a good conscience, was the baptisme of Christ, then his Minor is true: But if baptisme of water, and the answere of a good conscience, therein required, be Christ's baptisme, then it is true, that as many as are thus baptized, have put on Christ; and so his Minor is false, and his Conclusion is vaine. So as to his second arg. I Answere thus, if so many, as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, then the baptisme of water without the answer of a good conscience, is not that one baptisme; true: then the baptisme of water including the answer of a good conscience is not that one baptisme; It is false. The Minor is true of this last, but not of the former; and so againe his conclusion is a non-sequitur. Thus he may see his folly, in disioyning and separating, what should be conjunctly considered. In all this, what hath he said, to Prove, that the baptisme, whereof the Apostle speaketh in the places cited, is nothing else, then the very baptisme of the holy Ghost and of fire, wherewith the Apostles were baptized in the day of Pentecost? One might admire at this mans folly, in all this discourse; but we cannot expect better from the Quakers.

9. After this he giveth us Pag. 272. §. 5. his Third Proposition, which he hath learned, belike, of Saltmarsh the Antinomian or Familist; and it is th…s, That Iohns Baptisme was a figure of Christ's, and when Christ's, baptisme is come, the figure must cease. That is, Iohns baptisme was a figure of that baptisme with the holy Ghost and with fire, with which the Apostles were baptized on the day of Pentecost: And thus we see, that no part of this proposition is true; It is not true, (how confident so ever he be of the truth of it) that Iohns baptisme was a type of this; nor is it true, that when this came, the baptisme of water (which he meaneth, by Iohns baptisme) ceased, but rather encreased, for that very same day, there were three thousand persons baptized Act. 2:41. He proveth that Johns baptisme was a type of this, because the baptisme of water is a figure of the baptisme of the Spirit. Which is also denyed, and is but a fiction of his own braine. But he proveth his Proposition thus. No baptisme is now to be continued, but the one Baptisme of Christ: Therefore the Baptisme of water is not to be continued; for that is not Christ's baptisme. Ans. If by the one baptisme of Christ he meane, the baptisme with the holy Ghost and with fire, the Anteced. is false: if he meane the baptisme which Christ hath instituted, it is true, and his consequence is null: For baptisme with water is institute by Christ; and therefore is his, and is only that one baptisme, mentioned by Paul Ephes. 4:5. which the Quaker might see, if he would; for he dar not say, that all the members of the primitive Church and of Ephesus were baptized with the Baptisme, wherewith the Apostles were baptized on pentecost day, and some few others afterward. But he will prove that Iohn's baptisme is wholly ceased, from Iohn. 3:30. where Iohn speaking of Christ saith, he must increase, and I must decrease: As if Iohn and baptisme with water were all one, and Christ one & the same with the baptisme of the holy Ghost.

10. When this will not do, he trieth another way, and goeth about to prove, p. 475that baptisme by water is ceased, by this argument. If baptisme by water be an ordinance, that was to continue; then Christ would either have used it himself, baptizing some, contrare to Ioh. 4:2. or would have commanded his Apostles to have used it. But this I could never finde writen, sayes he, Answ. Though Christ did it not himself: Yet his disciples did it, with his warrand and approbation, at least; if not an expresse command: For though we read not of an express command given before his resurrection; Yet the usual and constant practice of the disciples, in his presence, saith, they wanted not his warrand. Neither were they …o rash, as to take up a practice in the worshipe of God, at their owne hand, and continue it, without all divine warrand: And though they had been so rash, yet we may not think, that Christ was so untender, in the matters of worshipe, and so little careful of the Christian deportment of his disciples; as not to rebuke them for will worshipe; or to suffer them to continue so long in that sin, without once challenging them, and rebuking them for it. We inferre from their continued practice, a divine warrand, till he let us see an express, or a virtual prohibition: He may thank the Socinians for this. We finde also an express command given to his Apostles, Mat. 28:18. And we finde a constant practice of this through the Acts of the Apostles; and their practice, after they were endued with an infallible Spirit, and authorized with power to establish Gospel ordinances, is warrand enough for us, though there were no more. So that this argument of his is every way weak.

11. He addeth another Socinian argument §. 6. Pag. 273. saying, that it is contrary to the nature of Christian Religion, which is pure and spiritual, And why so? This washing with water, sayes he, was a legal rite Heb. 9:10. Answ. That under the Law there were several ritual and typical washings, is true; but that the baptisme of water unto repentance, and in the name of the Father, Son and holy Ghost, was of the same nature, is not only false; but the asserting of it, is a manifest condemnation of Iohn Baptist, of Christ himself, and of his Apostles: Iohn Baptist had an express command for it; which needed not, if it had been of the same nature with the legal ritual washings: It is called the baptisme of repentance, Mark. 1▪ 4. Luk. 3:3. Act. 19:4. which we read not said of the ritual washings under the Law. It had a strick connection with his doctrine, which was not legal: hence Peter saith Act. 10▪ vers. 37.—after the baptisme, which Iohn preached. Christ himself appointed it to be observed unto the end of the world, Mat. 28:19, 20. The Apostles, who were crying downe the Law of ceremonies, did nevertheless constantly in all Churches practise this. And in their Epistles teach us, what excellent use and improvement, we are to make of it, as was seen above. All which saith, that it is a notorious untruth, to say that it is repugnant to a Gospel state. Nay the Apostle, even in that Epistle to the Hebrewes, where he is shewing the nullity of all the ceremonial rites used under the Law, now under the Gospel, asserteth the doctrine of baptismes, to be one of the foundations. Heb. 6:1, 2, And in these Epistles, where he speaketh most against the Ceremonial Law, as …o the Romans, Colossians and Galatians, he maketh honourable mention of baptisme, and pointeth forth the noble advantages had thereby, and uses that should be made thereof. And shall we think, that p. 476when Peter said to the Jewes, Act. 2:38.—Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Iesus Christ, for the remission of sinnes, he looked upon bap…isme as nothing else then as some of their legal washings? And would Christ have spoken so of it, as he doth Mark. 16:16. He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved? But to shew, that it is of the same nature with these, He saith, the mater is the same, the Author is the same: And the ends are the same, he thinks, because the end is but to signifie inward purification by outward washing. Wherein his mistake is ma…ifest, for we have shown, that our baptisme is instituted to be a signe and seal of ingrafting into Christ. Gal. 3:2. of Remission …f sins Mark 1: vers. 4. of Regeneration Tit. 3:5. of Adoption Gal. 3:26, 27. of Resurrection unto eternal life 1 Cor. 15:29. Rom. 6:5 And to point forth other duties towards members of the same body, Ephes. 4:5. 1 Cor. 12:12, 13, 14, 15. Can he demonstrate these of legal purifications? We value not his crying out, that we herein judaize, seing it is a falsly grounded blaspemous reflection, injurious to Christ and his Apostles; and therefore we may bear it the more patiently.

12. He citeth next (stealing it from Socinus) 1 Cor. 1:17. And thus argueth, If baptisme with water were a Gospel institution, Paul would have been sent to administer it But he saith the contrare. Therefore. Ans. (1.) If Paul had not been sent to baptize, why would he have done it? He tels us, that he baptized even some at Corinth. But saith our Quaker Pag. 276. this was to comply with them in their weakness, as elsewhere he circumcised Timothy And if so why did he not also circumcise some of them, as he did Timothy? Did ever the Apostle Paul practice Jewish ceremonies among the Gentiles, such as these Corinthians were, to comply with them? Why was he then so offende… at Peter Gal. 2? Timothies mother was a Jewesse, and he circumcised him because of the Jewes, which were in these quarters, Act. 16:1, 3. But hear what he saith of Titus Gal. 2:3, 4, 5. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, and that because of false brethren unawares brought in who came in privily to spie out our liberty, which we have in Christ Iesus▪ that they might bring us into bondage. To whom we gave place, by subjection, no not for an houre, that the truth of the Gospel might …ontinue with you. (2.) Not only at Corinth did Paul baptize, but elsewhere also. Act. 16: vers. 15.33. And shall we think, that Paul would have done this, without a commission? (3.) These words therefore must not be simply, but comparatively understood; as if he had said, my principal business was not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. See the like expressions Ier. 7▪ 22, 23. Ioh. 15:22▪ 24. & Hos. 6:6. I desired mercy and not sacrifice, &c. To this our Quaker saith, It is added, and the knowledge of God, more then brunt offerings, and so brunt offerings are not excluded: But there is no such thing there. But that posteriour expression learneth us, how to interprete the prior. And what sayes he to Christ's saying simply, goeye and learne what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, and that twice over Mat. 9, 13. & 12:7. and in neither of the places, addeth he the latter clause, must we therefore take his meaning to be simply this, that God would not have sacrifices, because he addeth not the explication? (4.) Why should Paul have said simply, that he was not sent to baptize? Was there any difference betwixt his commission, and the commission given to other Apostles, to whom the p. 477Preaching of the Gospel was principally committed, & baptizing as an accessory? Our Quaker answereth by saying. That though as to the preaching of the Gospel he was no less tyed than others; Yet Christ did not require of him, that he should lead his Proselyts into Iewish ceremonies and baptismes howbeit such things were permitted unto and practised by the rest among the Iewish Proselytes. But then it seemeth the other Apostles had another commission, than Paul had: and in their commission, they had power, to admit their Proselytes into the Jewish ceremonies: thus must his discourse run, if he speak sense; but he saw how odious this was and false; and therefore speaks of permission only granted to the rest, and that only among Jewish Proselytes; and yet neither hereby can he gaine any thing, for among the Jewes, Paul was as condescending as any; for he circumcised Timothy, because of the Jewes; and unto the Jewes he became a Jew, that he might gaine the Jewes, 1 Cor. 9: vers. 20. See also what he did Act. 22. which occasioned all his after trouble: The answers, which he starteth and answereth Pag. 277. I meddle not with, satisfying my self with what is said.

13. Let us now see what he saith to our Arguments. To that taken from Christs submiting himself unto Baptisme Mat. 3:13. He saith, that Christ was also circumcised and yet it will not follow, that is therefore to be continued. Answer, That Christ was under the cerem…nial Law, we know: But this baptisme was no part of the ceremonial Law, being but newly institute, and Iohn receiving a special command from heaven to go about it; and if it had been a ceremonial rite, free for any to have used, why would the Jewes have asked him, how it came to pass that he baptized, seing he was neither Christ, nor Elias, nor that Prophet; Ioh: 1:25? and why would the jewes have stood so mute at Christs question, when he asked them, whether Johns bap…isme was of God, or of men? Mat. 21:35. Mark. 11:30. Luk. 20:4. And why would Iohn have scrupled it, as he did, saying Mat. 3:14. I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Christs answere vers. 15. Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness, saith, that it was a divine institution; and that righteousness required his submission to it: but there was no divine institution, for it under the Law: therefore it must have been a Gospel institution and consequently a continueing institution, having such necessary ends and uses, as it hath: and Christ did this to consecrate our Baptisme in his own person.

14. Unto that express command of Christ to his Apostles Mat. 28.19, He granteth all, supposing that it is not meaned of baptisme with water, as not being expresly so called in the text; and remitteth the proof to us. Wherein he is beholden unto the Socinians, never man having the forehead to call this into question before them: But these things make it evident (1.) This is but an enlargment of a former commission, as to the Object, while as before they were limited to the house of Israel▪ now they are to go to all Nations; And before this we heard of their baptizeing with water, with Christs warrand & authority, so as that it was accounted Christs deed Ioh. 4:1. & 3:26. (2.) It is joyned here with discipling, disciple all nations baptizing them: and so was it formerly their way of making disciples among the Jewes, they made and baptized disciples Ioh. 4:1. p. 478(3.) Their constant after-practice declareth this to have been the meaning of the command. (4.) This is the proper acceptation and import of the word, and himself saith, that the propriety of Scripture words must not be forsaken, nor must we run to a figurative sense, unless necessity urge: Now there is no necessity apparent enforceing a figurative sense here: And all greek lexicons can tell us, that foreign & foreign signifie washing with water. (5.) This is the constant acceptation of the word in Scripture, except in three or four places, where the circumstances enforce a metaphorical acceptation, which is not in the least apparent here, (6.) The word is taken in a threefold sense only, so far as I remember, in the N. Test. as, for baptisme with water, for baptisme with the holy Ghost, and for baptisme with the cross Luk. 12:50. Now neit…er of these two last senses can be here admitted; for it cannot be meaned of baptisme with the cross, as himself will grant: nor can it be meaned of Baptisme with the holy Ghost, for these extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost were not common to all the disciples: See Act. 8:16. nor had the Apostles power of bestowing these gifts upon the disciples; nor read we that ever they baptized any that way: We read of their laying on of hands, and of the holy Ghost's coming upon some then Actor. 8: and 19. but we read not of their baptizing with the holy Ghost,

15. But he hath reasons to the contrary 1. We must not depairt from the propriety of words, till necessity force us. Answ. This is for us, for we owne the word in its proper sense: let him give us a more proper or usual sense, out of any or all Greek Authors; if he can. 2. The Baptisme, which Christ commanded his disciples, was one baptisme, Christs owne baptisme: but that was not baptisme by water, as is proved. Answ. (1.) If he thinketh, that one Baptisme only is to be called Christs baptisme, What will he say to that Luk 12:50. But I have a baptisme to be baptized with, and how am I straitned till it be accomplished? I think this must be it; for this was every way peculiar unto Christ, and to none else: and what will then become of all his former discourse? (2.) We have showne, that that one baptisme Ephes. 4:5. is only to be understood of the baptisme, we speak of; for no other was common to all professours, no other was a fit argument for unity and concord; and so no other could suite the Apostles scope there. (3.) All the three sorts of baptismes are Christs, in several senses: That baptisme of the cross, was his; because he alone, in a p…culiar manner, was to be baptized therewith: the share that others were to get thereof Mark. 10: v. 39. was but little, in comparision with what he was to suffer. Baptizing with the holy Ghost was his, because he was to bestow and poure out these gifts, as the anoynted and crowned King Ephes. 4:8, 11. &c. Baptisme with water was his also, as being instituted by him. So that this mans argueing is a manifest fallacy. 3. The Baptisme enjoyned to his disciples, was such, as who ever were thereby baptized, did put on Christ, But this cannot be said of Baptisme with water. Answ. All who are baptized with the bap…isme of water, without the inward grace, have put on Christ by profession: All who are baptized with water, having the inward grace required, have put on Christ in truth and in deed. 4. The baptisme that Christ enjoyned his disciples, was not Iohns baptisme; but the baptisme of water was p. 479Iohns. Answ. It was the same with Iohns, as to the substance, as our Divines shew against the Papists; and our Quaker, inadvertently, to destroy his own argument, proveth this Pag. 27…. yet he tels us there, that foreign is in nomen, not in nomine, and the name of the Lord, in Scripture, signifieth his power and vertue Psal. 54:3. Cant. 1:3. Prov 18 10. And so the Apostles did baptize unto this name and power, as appeareth from that word, as many of you, as are baptized, have put on Christ. Answ. By this he tacitely condemneth our manner of baptizing in the name of the Father &c. but in vaine; for the name of the Lord doth in Scripture signifie not only his power, but all that whereby he maketh himself known; but here, to be baptized in the name, or into the name, can import nothing else, then to dedicate unto God, Father, Son and holy Ghost, as is clear from that expression of Pauls 1: Cor. 1:13. were ye baptized in the name, or into the nam… of Paul? That is, were ye in baptisme consecrated unto him, as your Lord and master? The meaning cannot be, were ye baptized into his power and vertue? Nor doth that word, which he citeth, evince any such thing, for though the putting on of Christ doth not necessarily follow the outward wash…ng with water, unless we mean only an outward profession; yet it necessarily followeth the right receiving of this ordinance, according to Christs Institution; for all such as have true faith (and to none else doth baptisme seal the great things promised) do in baptisme solemnl… and formally put on Christ. And knoweth he not, that foreign is oft put for foreign? see Mark. …:1. & 13:16. & 5:34. Act. 2:31. Mark. 1:9. in Iordan, will he have this to be into the power of Iordan? But further to shew, that these words in the name of the Father &c. import no forme of words to be used, at the celebration of baptisme, he saith Pag. 280. that this is not mentioned, in the Acts, where the Apostles baptizeing is mentioned. Answ. And what then? will it follow, that they never used that manner, because it is not, in so many words, expressed? How will he prove this Consequence? He addeth, It is said of some Act. 8:16. & 19:5▪ that they were baptized in the name of Iesus. Answ. He hath this also from Socinus, but without any advantage; for these that were baptized, in the name of the Lord Jesus, were virtually baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghost: Luk is not speaking of the manner and forme of their baptisme, but only showing, that though they had been baptized and received as Christs disciples▪ yet they were not as yet made partakers of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost; which, by the way, destroyeth the ground formerly laid down by our Quaker; for we see some baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and consequently with his baptisme; who yet were not baptized with the holy Ghost, and with fire, as the Apostles were, on the day of Pentecost. And further, our Divines against the Papists, Anabaptists & Socinians, evince that that baptisme mentioned Act. 19:5. was not administered by Paul. He, saith next, that baptisme in the Spirit is here meaned: But what doth that import? It importeth to reach the hearts and soften them, saith he, Ans. That was not the work of the Apostles, nor of men: the Spirit of God alone could do that. He saith further. That men can do it instrumentally. Answ. This is true, but nothing to the purpose, unless to make Christ tautologize; for that was sufficiently p. 480expressed in that word, Teach, or disciple all nations. And to what end should Christ have said the same thing over againe? Where ever readeth he, that the Apostles are said to baptize with the Holy Ghost?

16. To the argument taken from the constant practice of the Apostles, he answereth Pag. 281. §. 9. That the contrary is made out by Paul's example: And yet Paul baptized both at Corinth & else where: & that he baptized not moe at Corinth, is nothing; for what he did not, another did; & seing there were others that went about that work, he minded that, which was more painfull. And by this constant practice of all the Apostles, we are confirmed, as we said, of the meaning of their commission Mat. 28:19. for they did it by vertue of that commission; or by vertue of no commission: If they had no commission, how could they be approven in it? They might have done it, sayes he, by permission for a time, seing they were in use of it b…fore Christs death; & because the people, being educated in, were used with these, outward ceremonies; as they used circumcision, & other legal purifications, for a time Ans. (1.) He thinks that his may be will strongly evince a must be. (2.) we shewed above, that what they did in this, before Christs death, was not by meer permission, though he & his Fathers the Socinians think so. (3.) If this practice had been only among the converted Jewes, his supposition would have some colour; but it being, also among the Gentiles, amongst whom the Apostles would bring in no such ceremonies; but only desired, that they might for a time abstaine from things offered to idols, and from blood, & from strangled Act. 15. which restraint Paul t…ok off in his Epistle to the Corinthians, his supposal is utterly destitute of reason; for we hear not of their circumciseing the Gentiles, but much to the contrary. He addeth; That it is no absurdity to say, they did not then understand the meaning of their commission; as they did not, in respect of teaching the Gentiles. Ans But though at the the first, they did not fully comply with that meaning of the enlairging of their commission; Yet afterward they came to understand it fully: But when came they to understand baptisme otherwayes? It seemeth, neither they, nor any of the Churches understood this matter till of late, that the Quakers arose; for we hear not this sense put upon the words, even by Socinus himself, which this Quaker mentioneth; And as for that word of Peter, it giveth no countenance hereunto, as we shewed: Yet he addeth some probable ground of their mistake. The Cheife of them had been Iohns disciples, and keeped a venerable esteem of Iohns Baptisme, and so took Christs spiritual baptisme, for Iohns baptizing with water. Answ. Strange confidence; Will he tell us, who these chiefe were? Where is there any coloure or probability for this consequence? What Quakers cannot do with reason, they must do, with confident and bold lies.

17. To that of Peters baptizing of Cornelius and his company, even after they had received the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost Act. 10:47, 48. he replyeth That this will only prove that Peter did for that time baptize them. Ans. Yes it will also prove, that there was a baptisme with water in use, beside the baptisme with the holy Ghost: & it will also prove, that Peter had an eye to the commission, when he saith, can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the holy Ghost, as well as we? For thereby he evinced their right to the Ordinance of baptisme, because it was manifest they were disciples, by p. 481receiving of the holy Ghost. Next he sayes, These words, and he commanded them to be baptized, p…ove only a fact, but no right; and prove not, this to be a permanent institution. Ans. How intolerable is this, that these Quakers must condemne Peter's fact, as being without warrand, when all the rest of the Apostles approved of it, in the next Chapter? And Peter there giveth the reason for what he did, saying vers. 1….—what was I, that I could withstand God? Importing that he durst do no other wayes, then he did, for as much as he saw, God had given them the like gift, as he did unto the Apostles? And when the rest heard these things, they held their peace and glorified God, saying then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life vers. 18. But our Quaker will not for all this hold his peace; bu… will condemne Peter, and all the Apostles, for company; because they rested satisfied with what Peter had done. We do not from this one single passage, prove the permanency of this Institution. But when we have the practice of all the Apostles, together with the command of Jesus Christ, and that with a promise, that he will be with his servants, in this and the rest of their ministerial work, unto the end of world; we think they must have an hard forehead, who dar call this lasting Institution into question. He addeth, why should this fact of Peter more prove the permanency of baptisme, than his compelling (which yet is more than a command) the Gentiles to be circumcised: when he did this to Cornelius, the common opinion was, that the Gentiles should be circumcised. Ans. Where readeth he, that Peter compelled the Gentiles to be circumcised? That failing of his Gal. 2:12. will not prove this much; and this was also after the unanimous resolution of the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem, Act. 15. …not to put the burden of circumcision, & other Jewish ceremonies, (beside the few excepted, for avoiding of Scandal) upon the neck of the Gentiles. And though this calumny of the Quakers had some ground, Yet the difference betwixt the one practice & the other is great: Christ by his death did break down the middle wall of partition, & so put an end to the Jewish ceremonies; but he did not so with his owne Gospel Institutions; but rather confirmed them. Where readeth he, that at that time, when Cornelius was baptized, it was the common opinion, that the Gentiles should be circumcised? And how came it, that Peter did not circumcise Cornelius, if that was the common opinion? But we must take dreames for reasons from Quakers: For it is much, that they will give any thing like a reason, though it be but a reason with a rag, and sometimes worse.

18. Against the native signification of the word foreign, I wash with water, he giveth in his exceptions Pag. 283. § 10. & saith. That baptisme with water was in use among the Iewes, before Iohn's dayes, as Paulus Riccius witnesseth, and so that ceremony gote the name from the nature of the thing. Ans. Though all this were true, it will be but a confirmation of this native signification of the word: And he and his Paulus Riccius both, will have enough to do, to make it but probable, that baptisme was in use among the Jewes, before Iohn Baptist's dayes; for as for the Jewish writings, the eldest whereof come not near to Iohn's dayes, we owe them no faith, their designe being the same with the Quakers designe, to wit, to destroy Christianity, the foundation of which was laid by Rabbi Iehuda Hakkadosh, about the year 190. or 200. when he wrote the Misnaioth or p. 482Iewish Alcoran, He addeth, Christ and his Apostles give these terms a more spiritual signification. Ans. That the word is sometimes taken figuratively, as when we read of baptizeing with the holy Ghost, and with fire, we know; as we read also of circumcision of the heart, will he therefore interpret the Law, concerning Circumcision of the heart, excluding the outward circumcision of the foreskin of the flesh? Why hath he forgoten his owne axiome, granted by all, mentioned Pag 278. that the propriety of the word should not be forsaken, nor a figurative sense admitted, unless necessity compel? May not this serve to convince him, that we must hold by the proper signification of the word, and reject his figurative, till he demonstrate the necessity. He addeth, if we hold to the etymology of the word, we must dip in baptisme. Ans. Whether we baptize by dipping or sprinkling, it is all alike to him; for neither will please him, and either will prove that baptisme is with water: Neither doth the word alwayes signify washing by dipping, in the N. T. see Mark. 7:4. Heb. 9:10. 1 Cor. 10:2. Act. 9:11, 18. As for Iohn 3:5. I shall not urge it, and so passe what he saith to it. And what followeth, is either little or nothing to the purpose, or is answered already: And as to the baptizing of Infants, we need not be at paines to prove this to him, who denieth all baptisme, whether of Infants, or of old Persons. And so we come to hear what he saith of the Lords Supper, against which he also fighteth.