The Weapons of Quakerism the Weakness of Quakerism, Chapter 7

The Weapons of Quakerism the Weakness of Quakerism · Chapter 7

p. 206CHAP. VII. Of the Quakers Doctrine, of Silent Worship, and of the Sacraments.

THis Author, in the 12 Section of his Vindication, of which the first part is opposed to Mr. Broun's 22 Chapter of Silent waiting, maketh a none such clamour, as if he were without paralel traduced. We shall therefore in the first place consider the chief of these things, which he calleth Calumnies and Perversions. Whereof the first is, That he would have us to understand that Christ's Resurrection was never till now, whereas (sayes he) I only spake with reference to the time since the Apostacy. Ans. 1. Any may judge by his 11 Proposition, or yet by his chapter annexed thereto, if this be a Calumny; for whatever he there sayeth, may be as well applyed, to Heathnish, as Popish p. 207superstition, especially if the Quakers salvation of Heathens be considered. 2. He is unhappy in removing his pretended Calumny: For the Apostacy was working in the Apostles time, and consequently he sayeth nothing. 3. Make the best of it ye will, this is but only what Munser, or Iohn of Leyden said, that they might obscure these burning and shining Lights, the reformers, and marr the work in their hand. 4. Their direct opposition to the Orthodox primitive Christians, in the most weighty points of Religion; such as the Doctrine of the Trinity, Free-grace, the Sacraments, and the like sufficiently demonstrats, that they esteem none before themselves, except Arrius, or Pelagius, to have been at all in the way of God. And therefore that hitherto there hath been no spiritual resurrection. His second Calumny so called, viz. that Quakers plead only for Enthusiasms, and abstract from means, we have above evinced to be a truth, in the first and second Chapters. Moreover, he here denyeth, that studying of Sermons from the Scripture, which implyeth reading, prayer, and Meditations, and the like exercise to be means appointed by God. And thus he only confirms what he even now denyed, viz that the Quakers plead only for Enthusiasms, and abstract from means. His third Calumny, viz. that the Quakers Spiritual life is nothing but Nature ▪ w… proved above Cap. 2. to be a truth, where we shewed that all the Quakers grace and light is nothing but the small remainders of the once bright shining Image of God in man. His fourth Calumny is his own, p. 208and not his Adversaries: For his Adversary only inquireth, If this Life be common at all times to them? Hence he inferreth, that he supposeth it to be so, the contrary of which, for any thing I can learn, he supposeth, as his Query pag 414. insinuateth, His 5 Calumny. as to what truth it hath, dependeth upon the controversie of perfection, to which he referreth his Reader, and I do the like to my survey of his Vindication. His next nominal Calumny is, that his Adversary supposeth it to be their Doctrine, that there is no setting about prayers, or other duties, without a previous motion of the Spirit. Now of all things, I wonder most, that he calls this a Calumny, seing this very thing is asserted by himself, in his eleventh proposition: How he will reconcile himself with himself I know not well. Yet sure his following words are so far from mending the matter that they make it worse, which are, That they speak not of a previous motion in order of time, but in order of nature; Neither his proposition, nor any part of his Doctrine, for any thing can be learned, insinuate…h any such thing. 2. This motion must so far preceed the setting about duty, as that the persons perception of the motion must be interjacent, according to them. For they teach that before duty, we must not only be acted by the Spirit, but know that we are acted: Ergo the motion must be previous in order of time. And yet the man is so fraughted with a desire of altercation, that he must say some what, though he have not much advantage by it: otherwise he had not challenged his Adversary, as a Calumniator, while by the same very expression p. 209taxed by himself, he is forced to a distinction, unheard of heretofore as I think in this matter; and in reality a real contradiction of his own Principles. And again he alledgeth he is wronged, because his Antagonist inferreth from his words, in his eleventh Proposition; That according to him Gospel-worship putteth away all external Actions. But he needeth not grudge at this, for their practise helpeth us to expone their words. Some other things he hath which he calleth Calumnies. One thing he taketh very ill, and that is, that his Antagonist pag 418. compareth the Quakers to the old Pythonicks, because of the strange and unusual motions among them, Antick fits, and strange Pranks. I alwayes compared them in such fits to the Cumean Cybil, as she is described by Virgil in his 6 Eneid. To this he retorts the extraordinary working of the Spirit of God, mentioned in the fulfilling of the Scripture, called the Stwarton sickness: challenging us to assign a difference, between this and the strange influence of the Quakers spirit upon them, which we can with great facility do; for beside that these out-lettings of the Spirit of God, made them to cleave more closly to the Scriptures, as the only Rule, and Star, to guide them through the sea of this world, to the safe port of their eternal rest. And endeared more and more unto the Ministers of Christ Jesus, his word, and Sacraments, we mean that which the Quakers call Water-Baptism, & the Communion of the Lords Body, in Bread and Wine, as sure pledges of the Love of Christ▪ commanded by him to be used until his coming to Judgment, which are openly contemned and p. 210vilified by the Quakers; We say beside this, these outlett…ngs were far from leading them into such strange and unheard of fits, as the Quakers are put into: of which I could instance a Legion of sure Examples, see a late piece written by a new English Minister Mr. Increase Meather. See also Paget's Heresiography, where he bringeth among other strange Pranks of theirs, to which they were moved by the Spirit, One Susanna Parsons a zealous Quaker, attempting to raise one of their number, who had murdered himself, from the dead, but in vain. And this i… attested by all the Magistrats of a considerable City in England, viz. Worster Anno 1659. See also a little piece called Foot out of snare, of the strange and antick influences of this their Spirit on one Iohn Toldervei. What shall we say of Iames Naylor, who following the Light of this Spirit, did arrogat to himself divine honour at Bristol. Now though they say, he recanted this again, it is all one matter: For this Antiscriptural Spirit, which is their principal Rule, can no doubt change it self, as it seeth occasion: And having too much bewrayed it self with the grossness of its Delusion, can easily turn it self to a more subtile way of imposture. So that we may in a word say, that the difference between the workings of the Spirit of God, on his people mentioned in Scripture and these of the fa…her of lies, and deceits on the Pythonicks or Cybills, was no more palpable, than the difference between the working upon these mentioned by him, and that upon the Quakers. He sayeth moreover, that the story of Gilpin, who as Paget p. 211sheweth us, was mad through Quakerism, is refuted long ago. But forgetteth to tell by whom or where. Next he cometh to wipe off the absurdity of their silent waiting, that this their abstracting of their mind from all thoughts, so that the soul doth not at all act upon any kind of Object. Which posture they say prepareth them for the Spirits motion. And this is the result of their asserting, that a man ought to do nothing of the Service, or Worship of God, except they know that they are moved thereto by the Spirit. Now such an inturning (for he counteth it a great wrong in his Adversary to call it introversion) is not possible unto a man, except he be sleeping, as the experience of the generality of men witnesseth, who still perceive their Souls acting upon some Object, either good, or evil, except they be sleeping, or in an extasie▪ And so this is a direct following of the Heathens, who went and sleeped at the Temples, or Groves of their gods, that they might have conference with them in dreams. But they used to take sheep-skins and ly upon, as Virg. in his 7 Book, speaking of Latinus, which if the Quakers do, or not, I am uncertain. Now in his defence of this pag: 147 being challenged as guilty of this absurdity by his Antagonist, among other words, he hath these viz. If he would understand it of the old man, the man of sin, that is corrupted, we wil say with the Apostle, that it ought to be crucified, and die. And again he sayeth, that albeit in one sense, they are said to die, yet they more truely live, and exist, citing Gal. 2, 20. And this is the substance of what he sayeth, on this point. p. 212To which I answer, it is well that at length, they forsake their prime Opinion, or Characteristical note. Hitherto he with his brethren, were defending the relinquishing of all thoughts whatsoever, in order to the Spirits Motion, and our setting about of duty, now he only defendeth the leaving of Carnal thoughts. But he doth not consider, that this Cheat will easily be perceived: For there is a time to be presupposed, in which the Spirit is not moving: For I hope he moveth when, and where he listeth. Now I say at this time, as man cannot Act, yea or think warrantably, of the things of God, according to them: Because the Spirit is the principal Rule to them, therefore whatever is not done by this inward Command, is not of Faith, and consequently sin. All which they plead for. Therefore before this motion come, a man may not excercise his mind concerning religious ma…ters and thoughts, …o endeavour to love, fear, and walk with God, now is this only to relinquish carnal thoughts, or the thoughts of carnal things▪ Or was the Apostles living, or Christ in him by the life of Mortification, and Faith a meer abstracting from all Exercise of the faculties of the Soul. This I think none will say, exercising reason: And yet this he must say, if he speak according to his Principles, otherwise they will be necessi…te to let their reasonings against all worship, to which we are premoved by a sensible Enthusiasm, or Inspiration of the Spirit, fall to the ground, which is the substance of Skeen's Queries, of which he boasteth.

2. We come to the Vindication of some Arguments, p. 213which by him are called Nibling quibles.

The first is, If there be times appointed by God, then according to them the Spirit is limited. To which he answereth, that they limit times of worship so as not to exclude other times. But this answer presupposeth, that every duty doth not prerequire immediat Inspiration, which is false according to them, as George Keith endeavoureth to prove in his book of Immed: Rev: and to defend in his disput with Aberdeen Students. 2. Either these times appointed by them which recur weekly, are appointed by God, or not: If they be not, then how dare they keep them, as a thing inviolable? Seing the Lord determineth the time, as well as the nature of the worship to his people. And Ieroboam 1 Kings 13. Is condemned for appointing an Anniversary day, not appointed by God, as well as for changing the Religion. Ergo they limit the Spirit in appointing a day, perpetually recurring, or else they have a previous motion, in order to the appointing of every meeting; which he doth not assert, or grant. Here he sayeth, he followeth Calvin, in denying the Sabbaths morality, from whom, as also the generality of Protestants we differ in this matter. But that he may see his mis…ake herein, and that we neither differ from Calvin in his more deliberat thoughts, nor from the generality of Protestants: He may ready learned Crawfords Apologetical Exercitation for the morality of the Sabbath day, Cap. 2. And there beside both the Fathers, & generality of Protestants, he may find that Calvin himself, in his Commentary on the Gen: written 27 years after the Institutions, p. 214sayeth the same that we do. Let him see also most Learned Torretin on this head, who at large vindicateth Calvin from this Imputation. Next he sayeth, That none can be fitter for the Worship of God, than such as make silence, and in turning of the mind necessary to their entry to Worship. And thus he thinketh he has answered his Adversaries Argument pag 413, against their Worship, drawn from the Quakers want of preparation. But if this in turning were an abstracting from worldly things only, and looking unto God, and considering our own sinful state and frame, and the necessity of holiness, in order to approaching unto God, he would say well: But seing in the same page, and with the same breath he reasoneth against this also, ridiculously saying, that then there should be a progressus in infinitum, he only confirmeth that which we have proved before, viz. That the Quakers silent waiting is a meer Extasie, or all one with sleeping: And contradicteth what he said even now above. Here he alledgeth that the Apostles, if they had pleased, might have written moe Books of Scripture, than they wrot: and seing they wrote them not I doubt not but the Apostles, if this be true▪ may be taxed of neglect of their Duty. For I think he will not deny but these Books had bee… very useful, and that the Apostles were obliged to lay out themselves for the Churches good, … much as they could. The Scriptures brought i… his Apology for this silent waiting, he forgettet… to presse, therefore his Adversary answers to … inference from them, must stand till he find tim… p. 215to reinsta…re his Arguments. He referreth us to George Keith his way cast up, insinuating, that he is the man can prove this Silent waiting. But he will just prove it, as he has done, as soon as any judgeth his Book worthy of an answer: Otherwise might he not have borrowed some of his Brothers Arguments, to refute his Adversaries Answers; as well as throughout the whole of his Books be a debter to Pelagius, Bellarmin, Socinus, Ostorodius, Volkellius, and the like, rather than said stark nought. Here he granteth that Peter and Paul had a natural man, in which the Devil might work, and a Spiritual man, which can resist, and so contradicteth his Doct…ine of Perfection, or at least his explication of the 7 of the Rom. for if this be true, there is no ground for explaining that place of another then the Apostle himself.

His following words are arhapsodie or railing, in which he all along accuseth his adversarie, calling him, and his Brethren Priests (subintellige, of Baal, for so the Quakers speak) greedy Merchants of Babylon, persecuters, with more of such stuff. Next he granteth, that ceasing to do evil is not without all action of the Minde; E. when the Quakers think not at all, nor exercise the faculties of their soul, and consequently have no action of the mind, which is their silent waiting, they never cease to do evil. And it's like there be too much truth in this.

Because his adversarie sayeth pag 424. That watching is not a turning inward, but a looking outward p. 216also. Then sayeth he men shut up in a Dungeon could not watch Spiritually, the repeating of which is more than the refuting. For well he knew that his adversary understood by looking outwardly, minding of God, and our distance from him, and the like. Whereas what the Quakers mean by watching, and waiting, we heard above. Mr. Brown out of Doctor Stillingfleet of the Phanaticism of the Church of Rome, and out of the Sermons of one Taulerus a Phantastick Monk, applauded notwithstanding by Bellarmin, and others of the chief Papists from pag 429, to the end of that Chapter, evinceth, that the Quakers in this point, not only in substance, but for the most part in expressions, agree exactly with the wildest dottages of Popery. To which he answereth that his adversary misseth his Aim; For he cannot prove, sayeth he, that the chief preachers amongst the Quakers ever heard of Taulerus. Ans. yea on the contrary he gaineth his design, for thus it is evinced that there is a great sibness betwixt their genious's, which he confirmeth the more, while he granteth the truth of the bulk of what Taulerus sayeth.

Section II. Of Baptism.

The contempt the Quakers vent against the Sacraments is so well known, that it will be superfluous to tell the Reader in the entrie, that they deny them. See his 12. Proposition, and his Apology thereto annexed. Vindication pag 162 He cometh to urge one of his Apologetick arguments p. 217against these Sacraments in general, viz. That the many controversies among Christians about them, prove them to be a real pharisie. To which when his adversary replyeth that if this argument hold, it will overthrow all the parts of the Christian Religion. He answereth that he should not have used this argument except he had other weighty ones. And then he cryeth out upon his adversary, as shewing a malicious genious. Judge, Reader, if he had reason so to cry out, and yet no better is the ground of his complaints through the whole of this Treatise. But to the main purpose, Iulian, or Porphyry might as well have used this instance, as he; for they thought they had weighty Arguments against the Christian Religion. And he doeth but meerly think, that he hath weighty arguments against the Sacraments, as in the Sequel shall appear. However in the mean time we may observe that this argument, as the most part of the rest, is borrowed from the Pagans. For this very Argument drawn from the division of Christians, they improved what they could to overthrow Christianitie. From them the Papists borrowed it, wherewith to impugne the Protestants. And lastly the Quakers from them, and hath placed it where it was again at the first, to be a battering piece against Christianitie in general. So it hath gone from hand to hand in Circulo.

Next he cometh to vindi…at another argument borrowed from the Papists, in their pleadings for traditions against the Scriptures, viz. that the word (Sacrament) is not to be found in Scripture, p. 218(take heed to the consequence, Reader,) E. The thing is not in them. Is not this valid? But this Argument in its very defence, he is forced to let go, while he sayeth, he denyeth not the thing truly imported by the Trinity. Very well then he can say no more of the Sacraments. For the thing signified is in the Scriptures, and the words (Sign, or Seal) by which (though he denyed) we very ordinarily express that which we mean by (Sacraments) is very frequent in Scripture. And yet before he want something to say, he will cavil; though he grant all we plead for before the close, as here. Pag 163 He cometh to vindicate his meaning of some places of Scripture, brought in his Apology wherewith to overthrow Baptism, And first Eph. 4.5. where he taketh notice that his Adversary Pag 469, sayeth that the Scripture no where sayeth, there is but one only Baptism. To which he replyeth, that it will as well prove, that there is but one only Baptism, as there is one only God. Ans: First true it is, that this Phrase (one only Baptism) is not found in Scripture. 2. The one cannot be so well proved as the other. For these (ones) must be exponed, according to the subject matter, seing it is beyond debate, that it cannot be proved from this place, that there is but one only Faith, or no kinds thereof but one. The Phrase therefore (One Baptism) will no more prove, that there are not diverse kinds thereof, than the phrase (one Faith) can do it in respect of diverse kinds of Faith. If he think otherwise he ought to prove p. 219it, seing he is the opponent. Next he sayeth That his adversary understandeth the extraordinary gifts of Tongues, and the like by Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and of fire. And hence saith he, concludeth, that this Baptism is ceased. Ans. This is most true, which to prove, let him compare Act. 1.5. with Chap. 2. For he cannot deny, that the Apostles had the Spirit of God before this promise, which is together with its fulfilling, chap. 2. an explication of the like phrase in Matth, 3.11. For the clearing of which I assert, that Iohns Baptism, was no figure of the New Testament Baptism, in opposition to Papists and Quakers, who say it was only a figure of the New Testament Baptism. Otherwise if the sign, which Iohn could, only administrat, be opposed to the thing signified, we may understand the Baptism, with the Holy Ghost, and with the fire spoken of Matth. 3. of Sanctification and Mortification.

Next he sayeth, It is a lie that the Quakers would have none to be baptized, with the Spirit, but such as have extraordinary Gifts. But do they not still boast of their Revelations, and inspirations, comparing themselves to the Apostles, calling themselves perfect? and I think these are extraordinary things. And as for others beside them, they call them only carnal, and say, they are in darkness, these are the most modest of their Expressions, and yet enough to prove the thing denyed. When his Antagonist telleth him in Opposition to his saying, that if this Water-Baptism were to be accounted a true Baptism, then p. 220there should be two Baptisms, contrary to Eph. 4.5. I say when he telleth him, that it might as wel be said, that there were two Circumcisions under the Old Testament, one in the heart, another in the flesh; he granteth the Consequence, and challengeth his Adversary of Levity in using such an Argument. Well then with as little absurdity, we grant his Consequence: viz. That in some sense there are two Baptisms in the Church, though in another Sense, there be but one; viz. considered complexly of the Sign, it is understood in the place in hand; and indeed one might as well have reasoned to presse Unity among the Jews, that there was but one Circumcision, as the Apostle doth from the one Baptism. And for any thing I know, the Word Circumcision is not used in the plural Number in the Scriptures. And if he say, that it is spoken of as twofold Rom. 2.28, 29, I answer: so is Baptism spoken of. 1 Pet. 3.21.

Another Reason of his Antagonist, against his meaning of this place, is, that he may as well conclude from this place, that there is but one Faith, as that there is but one Baptism. And yet there are diverse kinds of Faith mentioned in Scripture, as sometimes, for the Doctrine of Faith Gal. 1.23. And for the outward Profession of Faith. 1 Tim. 1.19. The Faith of Miracles, or the like. To which he answereth, that all these are included in the one Faith here spoken of. And to say that Baptism with water is included in that one Baptism is a begging of the Question. p. 221Ans. It is no more a begging of the Question, than that all these kinds of Faith are included in this one Faith. If he think otherwise, let him prove it. But he thinketh it rather fit to shift, and give naked assertions. For what Reason is there why the Baptism with water is not included in this one Baptism, more than that these other kinds of Faith, are not included? He may shew this if he please, for this is that which is incumbent to him to prove: That Baptism with Water is not included, as well as these various Kinds of Faith. 2. How will he prove that the Faith of Miracles is included in this one Faith? I do believe this will trouble him. And when he has done these two, then he may bring up his Achillean Argument, viz. that such as were baptized with water were not baptised; Therefore baptism with water is not the baptism of Christ. Which Sophism might have been as well made against Circumcision as Baptism, as we have but even now shown. He is angry at his Antagonist for telling him, that he hath stollen his Arguments from Socinians, saying, he never read three lines of him. Answer, neither did ever I hear one line in Socinus his own Book, yet I have heard an hundred of Socinus his Arguments. He miserably bewrayeth his genious: For if he without reading of their Writings, still fall upon the Socinian Arguments, then how near of kin must he and they be. But this he still doth, as the whole Series of his Adversaries Book declareth, still citing the Book, and page of p. 222the Socinian Writings, where his Arguments are to be found. Which he dare not deny, whereas he should vindicat pag. 164. his Doctrine built upon 1 Pet. 3.21. he sayeth meer nothing. But only that his Adversary giveth meer Assertions. But he doth not attempt to impugn them. And is this urging, and Vindication of his Arguments. How desperat must his Cause be! When he leaveth the very place, upon which they found the Abrogation of Baptism, without attempting to prove his own meaning of it. Next I say that whatever I can build upon this place, against Baptism with Water, the same Argument might have still holden against Circumcision in the flesh: seing still it was true, that he is not a Jew, that is one outwardly, and that that is not Circumcision, which is outward in the flesh, but that he is a Jew that is one inwardly, and that is Circumcision that is of the Heart, and Spirit, and not of the Letter &c. Rom. 2.28, 29. In a word whatever they shal say against Baptism with Water, from this place of Peter, there is still as much to be said against Circumcision with hands, even during the Law, flowing from the perpetual Truth of this place of Paul to the Rom: But I think themselves will not say, it militates any thing against Circumcision made with hands, during the Law. Ergo they ought to conclude nothing from this place of Peter against Baptism with Water. Here he sayeth that his Adversaries answer to this p. 223Argument from this place of Peter. and Gal. 3: 27. Col. 2▪ 12, is built upon the Supposition, that Water-Baptism goeth to the making up of Christs Baptism. And then sayeth, he will expect his proof of his exposition of these places, is not that fair arguing, Reader, to frame an Argument from a place of Scripture, and when the Defendent denyeth such a thing followeth from this Scripture, to tell him he has lost the Cause, unless that he prove that it will not follow? But seing he is the impugner in this place, if he had not intended to expose himself, and his party to scorn, he had certainly at least attempted to prove his own Expositions of these places, and urged his two Arguments, which in his Apology were in modo & figura. But this heat of dispute was soon allayed; For so hath his Antagonist combated with him, that he essayeth not to reinforce them. See pag. 473.479. How seared must these Mens Consciences be! when they endeavour to put a cheat upon the World in so weighty a business. 2. It's most groundless to say, that there is any petitio principij here, as the Quaker insinuateth.

Next he cometh to reply to his adversaries 9. Num: Where he had evinced that Iohns Baptism was not a figure of Christs. And passing the marrow of what he had said, he only compendizeth his Apologie, saying, that Iohns Baptism was a washing with Water, & that the Apostle ascribeth the putting on Christ to the Baptism of Christ, as washing with water Typifieth or signifieth the washing of regeneration, so doth Iohns Baptism that of Christ. But p. 224all this was obviat before, while his adversary answered his Argument, wherewith he intended to prove his third proposition, denying, that the Baptism of Christ is only the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and with fire: asserting also, and that upon good grounds, that the Baptism with water is Christs Baptism instituted by Him, see the Forecited Numb.

Next I say that Iohns Baptism, as being institute by Christ, and comprehending the thing signified, is not only Baptism with water, but Christs whole true Baptism, and so this quibling is groundless.

Neither is that which followeth any solider, where he sayeth because his adversary denyeth, (he must encrease, but I must decrease) to be meaned of the abolition of Iohns Baptism, that then if this be meaned of their persons, Iohn grew more decrepit, and Christ more tall, Spectatum admissi risum teneatis? Was there not another member of the disjunction? I answer therefore to this miserable cavil, that the meaning of the place is, that the person of Christ was to grow more and more in honour, and glory, so that within a little the fame, and repute of Iohn was to be eclipsed through the brightness and splendour of Christ.

Next he sayeth, that though Iohn had a command for baptism, it will not follow that it was no legal rite. Ans. It will well follow, for all the legal Rites, such as held forth Christ, and his benefits by way of Type, to the whole Church, which each Member was to practise, were either institute by Moses, or before him. The design of p. 225which was that the people might see Christ, though darklie as in a Glass, untill the time of his coming, therefore this could not be a legal Rite, which was commanded directly at the coming of the Messias, and at his verie appearance, preaching to the world, when there could be no use of legal Rites, but these which were within a little to be abolished. 2. All the Legal Rites are abrogat in the New Testament, but no where is the command given to John recalled, and his Baptism abrogat: Otherwise let him show me the place of Scripture, (But not 1 Pet. 3.21. which they ordinarilie use.) Either immediatly given by God, or the Apostles contrary approved practise equivalent to a Command. 3. That the Baptism of John was a Gospel Ordinance is clear from Mat. 11.12, 13. Where it is said, that the Law and the Prophets prophesied until Ioh. To which place, I know they ordinarily answer, that (untill) doth not exclude John But this is refuted abundantly by the former vers. For in the time of the Law the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be said to suffer violence, and yet it suffered Violence in the dayes of John. And certain it is that this particle, if it be not taken exclusively here, can be so taken no where else in Scripture, as the collation of this with other places will evince. 4. No legal thing, person, or Rite was prophesied of in the Old Testament, but John was clearly prophesied of, as a sweet Gospel Minister▪ E. There is no reason to Judge, that John was a Legal Minister, or had Legal commands.

Next he cometh to vindicate what he deduced p. 226from 1 Cor. 1.17. Where he only seeketh to shift, neglecting whollie what his adversary sayeth, see Pag. 476. N. 12.

The first of these shiftings are, That because his Antagonist sayeth, why did Paul baptise, if he had not a Commission? He answereth, that this a quarrelling with the Apostle. What strange disingenuitie is this? To say, he quarrelleth with the Apostle, when he only quarrelled with the Quakers exposition. And upon the supposed truth of this inferred this absurditie, that the Apostle did that which he ought not to do, which being false, his exposition cannot be true. Thus a Man might say still, when one inferred an absurditie from his exposition of a place of Scripture, that he were fixing absurdities upon the Spirit of God. For he knoweth that we expone Pauls words (that he was not sent …o baptise) for the lesse principal part of his errand, according to Hos: 6.6. Matth: 9. Ier: 2.23. and many other places, even though there be no explicative clause following, as he alledgeth is in Hos. 6.6. providing that there be no absurditie following upon this gloss. And beside this, there are good reasons why we should so expone the phrase here. For first the Apostle insinuateth clearly, that all these Corinthians were Baptised, without reproving them for it. Whereas he still reproveth the Gentiles for using of, and tenaciously sticking to Jewish Rites, or any man that imposed them upon them, either by example, or doctrine, as the body of the Epistle to the Gal. doth declare. 2. he doth not say, that p. 227his Fellow-Apostles were not sent to baptise, but nameth himself alone. 3. He still did administrat this Sacrament to the Gentiles, upon their embracing of Christianity, as his recorded practise doth declare, which Mr. Brown hath shewed, but the Quaker most disingenuously passeth over; let him not therefore object, that to expone the like phrase, where the thing is said not to be, for to be less principal would make wild work: Seing we give sufficient reasons for our explication of this place, and do not plead for the phrase to be still so exponed, but only where the Nature of the subject matter will permit it.

3. He cometh pag 166. to answer our argument from Matth: 28, 19. And first he denyeth that the Apostles while Christ was with them, baptised with Christs warrand; and sayeth, he will wait his adversaries proof of it. Ans: He hath done it▪ already from Iohn 3.26 and, 4, 3. Of which places the Quaker durst not adventure to take notice. We shall therefore wait what he sayeth the next time against them. 2. He sayeth the Apostle did eat the passover with Christs warrand, yet it followeth not that we ought to do it. Ans. There is no paritie between these two practises; will he say that ever the eating of the passover was imposed upon the Gentiles as they did Baptism, as a necessarie consequent of their embracing of Christianity, as the whole Tenor of the Acts of the Apostles declareth? 2. The Passover was a Legal Custom introduced many hundreds of Years before, whereas▪ Baptism was but in its verie rise and beginning.

p. 2282. He sayeth, that though it be joyned with Discipline, as Circumcision was joyned with it among the Iews, it will no more follow that Baptism, is to be continued, then that Circumcision is to be continued. Ans: that the Baptism here spoken of, is to be continued, I think himself will not deny. We speak now of the institution of an ordinance given to the Christian Church. Therefore this his consequence of Circumcision is vain, and without the least appearance of Reason.

Lastly this Reason is wholly non-sense, for none can perceive what it levelleth at.

3. He denyeth that the Apostles constant practice can declare, that Baptism with water is the meaning of the Command. For, sayeth he, the practice and testimony of the Apostle Paul declareth this to be false. Ans: 1. That this which he sayeth of the Apostle is false, we have proved above. 2. All things practised by the Apostle must be reduced to three sorts, either commanded, permitted, or simply sinful. This last I think they will not say their practice of Baptism was, neither do they say it, but only that it was an indifferent Jewish Ri…e, permitted for the time, as Circumcision, or the like. But this is false. For either such Rites were not at all imposed on the Gentiles, Or if they were, they were after abrogated. As for example, abstinence from blood, and things strangled, enjoyned Act 15. This I say was again abrogat 1 Cor: 10. and in the Epistles to the Gal. and Tim. (2.) That it is not an indifferent Jewish Rite, clearly appeareth from this, that the p. 229reason why they impose Jewish Rites upon any Christian, whether Jew or Gentile, was to bear with the Jews for a time, and to condescend to their weakness. But the condition of baptism, was still their embracing of Christ; and the ground of it, their receiving of them into the Church. In a word Condescension to the Jews weakness, is in Scripture ever holden forth to be the ground of the imposition of Legal Rites upon Christians. So that there is mention made of this ground for every particular Rite imposed; but this condescension is never said to be the ground of imposing Baptism, but a quite other ground given, which we named already. 3. If this had been a thing only permitted for a time, and to be abrogat afterwards, then either the Apostles unrepealed practice, which they exercised toward all Christians indifferently, and that as such were not sufficient to walk by: Or else this was abrogat afterward, but the last they cannot shew from Scripture? Therefore it is false, and the first absurd. From all which it followeth, that this was a Commanded practice. And I desire any man of Reason, to Judge whether all the Apostles perpetual unrepealed practice, or these mens naked assertions, be the best Commentarie on this place. 4. He denyeth that the word Baptism, as we expone it, is taken in its proper signification, and sayeth, that it is not necessarie to take it as we do, for Baptism with water, in so many places, as it must be taken for baptism with the spirit. Ans. This a meer assertion. In opposition to which I say, that he shall not be able to give one place of p. 230Scripture, where this word is undoubtedly taken in their sense; but I shall give him two, where the word is taken in the sense, which here we plead for, and that undoubtedly. And so there is a double improprietie in the Quakers exp…sition of the word, fi…st against the Grammatical, and 2. the Scriptural propriety. We expect therefore according to his own Postulatum, that he will give some more weighty reasons the next time of this explication.

Next I reason thus. To Baptise with the Spirit is not in all the Scripture applyed to Men; Therefore it is not safe without verie solid reasons, to expone it so here.

Again, all that they understand by this Spiritual Baptism, is sufficiently expressed in the context. Er. There is no necessity to flee to this strange exposition.

Lastly This exposition is the product of the brain of Diabolick Socinus, as its first Author; which I think will make it be suspected; and (seing it wants all ground) abhorred of all the Lovers of Christ Jesus, seing this arch-enemy of his invented all the shifts and sophistry, the Devil and he could, to destroy both the God-head of Christ, and all his Ordinances. His following words are answered above.

Next as for what he sayeth in opposition to the 17. Numb. of this chap. in his 168 pag. it is so miserable, that I only desire the Reader to compare these two places together. Whereas he insinuateth in this page, that Peter Commanded expresly p. 231the Gentiles to be circumcised, which he buildeth upon Gal. 2, 12. is most false. For the reason why Paul reproved him, was his dissimulation mentioned in that chapter, and no expresse Command, if he will give us Leave to expone Scripture by Scripture. He sayeth, as if Mr. Brown had denyed it, that Iosephus writ before the 200 Year of Christ. Whereas he sayeth, that the first which wrot the Jewish Alcoran, or Misanioth, with a tendencie to destroy Christianitie, was Rabi Iehuda Hakkadosh, about the 200 year of Christ. As now the Quakers do.

SECTION II. Concerning the Lords Supper.

IT is most notour, that as the Quakers deny Baptism, so they deny the Lords Supper. See his 13 proposition, with his Apology annexed thereto, where he maketh this only to be a Legal Institution.

It will be needless for me to take Notice of what he sayeth pag 170. viz. That his Adversary pag 489, maketh a Preaching to the Devil, whereas he only inferreth from their Doctrine of Universal Salvation to every Creature, that they may preach to the Devil according to their own Principles. Hence we may learn how impudent these men are! Just as if because Robert Barclay had p. 232challenged a man of murder; he that is challenged, should conclude that Robert Barclay called himself a Murderer. As false, though not so ridiculous, is that, of which he challengeth one Preaching near Lawther. viz. that he prayed to the Devil. But he dare not name the man who did it, neither these who heard it; Therefore let him bear the just censure of a Calumniator (to say no more) until he name the man, and prove it.

When he cometh to the matter it self, he is as weak, as before he was wicked. For in stead of pressing his Argument against the Lords Supper, viz. That if there were a relation between the Body, and Blood of Christ, and the Bread, and Wine in the Sacrament, then it would either flow from the nature of the thing, or the Command. And while his Adversary denyeth, that an institution, and promise is all one with a Command. All his probation is his meer assertion, that they are in all respects one, neglecting the reason that his Adversary gave for his denyal. But why should I take notice of such a shameful Vindication, wanting the very shew and appearance of reason. To the rest of his 11 paragraph, in which by many weighty Arguments, this duty is proved from 1 Cor. 11. he sayeth only, that he speaketh not to the purpose, without so much as attempting to wipe off his reasons.

He cometh to answer his 12 number, and first sayeth, that the Blessing, and Eating, spoken of Mat: 14, 19. will as much prove a Sacrament, as these places of the Gospel, and the Epistle to the Corinthians p. 233ordinarily brought, can do it. But this Adversary never inferred any thing of this kind, from simple blessing: But from other things consi…ered with blessing, such as, This is my Body, This is my Blood, and the unrepealed Command and In…titution 1 Cor. 11, and the like. In Opposition to which, he scarcely giveth so much as a shift, and far less any solid reason. But we must excuse him, seing he doth as well as he can. His next words are a meer Compend of what he said against our meaning of 1 Cor: 11. in his Apology, without so much as attempting to answer his Adversaries 14. Num: to which I referr the Reader. He sayeth indeed, which is as good as nothing that the Institution of the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 11. was a Permission; and therefore the practise thereof was not will-worship. But upon the same account he may elude any Command in Scripture. For that there was a Command for this practice, he granteth; and that the Apostle correcteth the abuse of this practice, he granteth also, without so much as mentioning its indifferency. Neither can he shew in all the Scripture, where this Command was abrogat, or the practice prohibited, as other things indifferent were. What Titanian boldness must this then be, to say this was by meer Permission!

In Opposition to his 16 Num: where his Adversary sheweth the disparity, between Christs teaching his Apostles Humility, by his Example of washing their feet, and his Command and Institution of this Ordinance, he sayeth meer nothing, but calleth him a Pope.

p. 234In Opposition to Num 17. he sayeth he should prove from Scripture, how they are safe in practising the one part (ridiculously calling the whole Duty one part) and not the other (meaning the occasional Circumstances of time, and place, and the number of twelve, and the like, which he as foolishly calleth another part of the Institution) But his Adversary sheweth from many places of Scripture in the forecited Num: such as Act: 26: 7. 1 Cor. 11, 18. and 20. That these Circumstances are not to be observed, but left indifferent. But this man still intendeth to cheat his Reader, by passing over the Marrow of what his Adversary sayeth.

What he sayeth in Opposition to N: 18, Is a meer denyal that Act 2, 42, is meaned of the Lords Supper, without so much as the least attempt, to answer his reasons, or to Vindicat what he himself said in his Apology, in opposition to our meaning of this place, Neither is he more happy in answering his 19 Num: where he proved that in Act. 20.7. Is understood publick and Sacramental Eating. For he, according to his Custom, slighteth his reason; as the Comparer may see (what he sayeth in opposition to the follwing number▪ is of the same Nature. viz. meer Assertions, false Suppositions, such as, that the Corinthians were superstitious, in that they at all practised this Duty of the Lords Supper. Yet one thing I will take notice of, viz. how he vindicateth his Answer given to that argument, drawn from 1 Cor. 11, 26. Ye shew forth the Lords death till he come. p. 235Which is, That by Christs coming, is understood his inward, Spiritual coming. Which answer his Adversary so happily impugneth, that he on the matter sayeth nothing, except ye will call this something, viz. That Babes in Christ may have these indulged unto them: But his Answer still cutteth off Babes with the rest, seing to them Christ is come in the Spirit already. But it is needless at all to Impugn this distinction, its own groundlesness sufficiently doth it.

He cometh next to answer his 21 and 22 Num: and there he asserteth, That that which the Christians were enjoyned to Observe, Act, 15, 29. was no part of the Ceremonial Law, but an Apostolick Command and thinketh that whatever can plead for the abrogation of this Injunction, will also plead for the abrogation of the Lords Supper. But taketh no notice, that his Antagonist shewed that there is no little Vanity, and impiety in his adducing Rom. 14.17. Col. 2.16. To prove this; and therefore he shamefully passeth over what he sayeth on these places, and so giveth up this his Socinian Cause. For he that is a Socinian in this point, he doeth not deny, he sayeth, That this Command seing it was given after the out-pouring of the Spirit, hath as much of a Gospel Institution, as any thing commanded before by Christ can have. Ans. Well then I see, we will be no more troubled with quaking preachers, seing this Command Act. 15. according to himself is repealed, and yet hath as much of a Gospel Institution, as preaching hath Matth. 10. and certainly p. 236it will as well follow from Col. 2.20. that preaching of the Gospel is abrogat, and not allowed now by Christ, as from v 16, and Rom. 14, 17. that the Lords Supper is now abrogat, and not allowed by Christ. Now, let both old and new Socinians (I mean the Quakers) try to infringe this if they can. And I shall still infer the one upon as good ground, as they can do the other. Which Consideration, and Parity of places destroyeth this Socinian Conceit, say what they will in its defence.