SECT. I.

THE Words of the Text are these: Go ye, therefore, and Teach all Nations, Baptizing them in the Name of the Fa­ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

The Quakers will not own that the Baptism here mentioned was the Outward, or Water-baptism: Which I will endeavour to make very plain, that it was; and that in the first place,

From the Signification and Etymology of the word Baptize.

I. The word is a Greek word, and only made English by our constant usage of it: It signi­fies to Wash, and is apply'd to this Sacra­ment of Baptism, because that is an outward Washing.

To Wash and to Baptize are the very same; and if the word Baptize had been rendred into English, instead of, Go and BAPTIZE, it must have been said, Go and WASH Men, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. So that the outward Baptism, with Water, is as much here commanded, as if it had been expressed in English words, or as we can now express it.

But because the word Baptize was grown a Technical Term, in other Languages, whereby to express the Holy Sacrament of Baptism, long before our English Translation, therefore our Translators did rightly retain the word Baptize in this Text, Matth. xxviii. 19. and in other Texts which speak of that Holy Sacrament.

But in other places they translate the word Baptize, as Mark vii. 4. When they come from the Market [...], except they are Baptized, which we literally translate except they Wash. And in the same Verse, [...], &c. The Baptisms of Cups and Pots, &c. which we translate the Washing of Cups and Pots. And Heb. ix. 10. speaking of these Legal Institutions, which stood only in Meats and Drinks, and divers Washings, and carnal Ordinances, &c. the word which we here translate Washings, is, in the Original, [...], Baptisms: In Meats and Drinks, and divers Baptisms. And in the Vulgar Latin, the Greek word is retained in both [Page 3]these Texts, Mark vii. 4. Nisi Baptizentur, non Comedunt. Except they are Baptized, i. e. Wash their Hands, they eat not. And Baptismata Ca­licum, &c. The Baptisms of Cups, &c. And Heb. ix. 10. In Cibis & Pontibus, & variis Bap­tismatibus, i. e. In Meats and Drinks, and divers Baptisms. So that it is plain that the word Bap­tism, and the word Washing, tho' not the same word, have yet the self-same meaning.

2. It is true, that the word Baptism is often taken in a Figurative and Allegorical Sense, to mean the INWARD BAPTISM, the Washing, or Cleansing of the Heart: But so is the word Washing also, as often, as Jer. iv. 14. &c. And there is scarce a Word in the World but is capable of many Figurative and Allegorical Mean­ings. Thus Circumcision is very often us'd for the Inward Circumcision or Purity of the Heart. And Fire is taken to express Love, and likewise An­ger, and many other things.

But it is a receiv'd Rule for the Interpreta­tion of Scripture, and indeed of all other Wri­tings and Words, that the plain Literal Meaning is always to be taken, where there is no mani­fest Contradiction or Absurdity in it; as when a Man is said to have a Fire burning in his Breast, it cannot be meant of the Literal Fire: So when we are commanded to Wash or Circumcise our Hearts, and the like. But on the other hand, if any Man will take upon him to understand Words in a Figurative Sense, at his own will and pleasure, without an apparent Necessity from the Scope and Cohenrence, he sets up to Banter, and leaves no Certainty in any Words or Expres­sions [Page 4]in the World. Therefore I will conclude this Point of the natural Signification and Ety­mology of the word Baptize: And, unless the Quakers can shew an apparent Contradiction or Absurdity to take it in the Literal Signification, in this Text, Matth. xxviii. 19. then it must be meant of the OUTWARD WASHING or BAPTISM, because that is the only True, and Proper, and Literal Signification of the Word.

And it will be further Demonstrated in the next Section, that there can be no Contradiction or Absurdity to take it in a Literal Sense, because the Apostles, and Others thereunto Commissio­nated by them, did Practise it, in the Literal Sense.

SECT. II.

I. THat Christ did Practise Water-Baptism. It is written, John iii. 26. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, Behold, the same Baptizeth, and all Men come to him.

That this was Water-Baptism there can be no Doubt, because,

1. The Baptism with the Holy Ghost was not yet given: For that was not given till the Day of Pentecost, fifty Days after the Resurrection of Christ, as it is Recorded in the Second of the Acts. This Spiritual Baptism was promised, John xiv. 16, 26. xv. 26. xvi. 7. And the Apo­stles were commanded to tarry in the City of Jerusalem till it should come upon them, Luke xxiv. 49.

2. The Quakers allow that John did Baptize with Water, and there is no other sort of Bap­tism here mentioned, with which Christ did Bap­tize; and therefore, these Baptisms being spoke of both together, there can be no Reason to interpret the one to be with Water, and the o­ther not. It is said John iv. 1. The Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more Disciples than John. How cou'd the Pharisees hear of it, if it was not an Outward and Visible Baptism? For, as before is said, the outward and miracu­lous Effects of the Baptisms with the Holy Ghost were not then given. And since it was an Out­ward, it must be the Water-baptism, for there was then no other.

Obj. But the Quakers start an Objection here, That it is said John iv. 2. Jesus himself baptized not, but his Disciples.

1. Ans. Tho' Jesus himself baptized not, yet it is said in the Verse foregoing, that He made and baptized, i. e. those whom His Disciples, by His Order, Baptized. For, if it had not been done by His Order, it cou'd not be said that he had Baptized those whom his Disciples Baptized. But because, He that doeth a thing by Another, is said to do it Himself, therefore Christ himself [Page 6]is said to have Baptized those, whom his Disci­ples, by his Order, did Baptize.

2. Ans. That Baptizing which Christ is said to have Administred himself, John iii. 26. might have been at another Time than that which is mention'd in the 4th Chapter: And then the consequence will only be this, That, at some Times, Christ did Baptize Himself; and at other Times, he left it to his Disciples. Tho', as to our Argument, it is the same thing, whether he did it Himself, or commanded his Disciples to do it. For, either way, it is his Baptism, his Onely; his Disciples did but Administer what he commanded.

II. As Christ himself did Baptize with Water, and his Disciples, by his Commandment, while he was with them upon Earth; so did his Apo­stles, and Others thereunto by them commissio­nated, after his Death, and Resurrection, by ver­tue of his Command to them, Matth. xxviii. 19. after he was risen from the Dead.

What is said above of the Etymology and true Signification of the word Baptize, is, of it self, sufficient to prove, that by Baptism in this Text, the outward Baptism with Water is meant: espe­cially till the Quakers can shew any Contradiction or Absurdity in having the word taken in the Proper and Literal Sense, in this, and the other Texts which speak of it.

And this will be very hard to do, since, as it is just now proved, that Christ did Baptize with Water, as well as John. And what Ab­surdity or Contradiction can be alledged, that his Apostles shou'd Administer the same sort of Baptism, after his Death, as he had Practised and [Page 7]Commanded during his Life? Nay rather, what Reason can be given, why they shou'd not be the same, since the same word, i. e. Baptize, is us'd in Both, and no new Sense or Acceptation of the word is so much as hinted? And therefore to put any new Sense or Acceptation of the word, must be wholly Arbitrary and Precarious.

But, as I promis'd, I will Demonstrate yet more fully and plainly, that the Apostles did Practise the Outward, i. e. Water-baptism after CHRIST's Death.

Acts x. 47. Can any Man forbid Water, that these shou'd not be Baptized?

Acts viii. 36. As they (Philip and the Eunuch) went on their way, they came to a certain Water, and the Eunuch said, See here is Water, what doth hinder me to be Baptized? — And (Verse 38.) they went both down into the Water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he Baptized him: And when they were come up out of the WATER, &c.

Acts xxii. 16. And now why tarriest thou? A­rise and be Baptized, and Wash away thy sins.

And, to save more Quotations, the Quakers do own that the Baptism of the Corinthians, mentioned 1 Cor. i. 14. and 17. was Water-baptism.

Therefore I will conclude this Point, as unde­niable, That the Apostles did practise Water-baptism.

And the Argument from thence will lie thus: The Apostles did practise that Baptism which Christ commanded, Matth. xxviii. 19. But the Apostles did practise Water-baptism; therefore Water-baptism was that Baptism which Christ com­manded, Matth. xxviii. 19.

III. And, as the Practise of the Apostles is a most sure Rule whereby to understand the meaning of that Command which they put in execution; so the Practise of those who immedi­ately succeeded the Apostles, who were Cotem­poraries with them, and learn'd the Faith from their Mouths, is as certain a Rule to know what the Practise, and what the Sense of the Apostles were. And thus the Practise of the pre­sent Age, in the Administration of Water-baptism, is an undeniable Evidence, that this was the Practise of the last Age; the same Persons being, many of them, alive in both the last and the present Age. For one Age does not go off the World all at once, and another succeed all of perfect Age together; but there are old Men of the last Age, and young Men and Children grow­ing up to another Age all alive upon the Earth the same time; and Mankind being dispersed into far distant Countries and Climates, who know not of one another, nor hold any Corre­spondence: It is, by these means, morally im­possible for any Man or Men, to deceive us in what has been the Ʋniversal and Receiv'd Pra­ctise of the last Age, to which the present Age is so linked, that it is even a part of it: I say it is impossible for all the Fathers of the World to be suppos'd willing, or if they were, to be capable of imposing upon all younger than them­selves, namely, That they had been all Baptized, and that this was an universal receiv'd Custom; and of which Registers were always kept, in e­very Parish, of all who had been, from time to time, Baptized; and that such Registers were publick, and to be recurr'd to by all that had a [Page 9]mind to it: Every Man's reason will tell him that it is utterly impossible for such a thing to pass upon Mankind.

And as certainly as the present Age is thus as­sur'd of the Practise of the last Age, in a Thing of so publick and universal a nature; so certain­ly, and by the same Rules, must the last Age know the Practise of the Age before that; and so backward all the way to the first Institution, to the Age of Christ, and the Apostles.

The publick nature of this Water-baptism, as now practised, being an outward matter of Fact, of which Men's outward Senses, their Eyes and Ears are Judges; not like Matters of Opinion, which sort of Tares may be privately sown, and long time propagated, without any remarkable Discovery; and to this so publick matter of Fact, adding the universal Practise of it, through all the far distant Nations of Christianity: I say these two Marks make it impossible for the World to be impos'd upon, nor was it ever, or ever can be impos'd upon in any such publick Matter of Fact, so universally practised. All this makes it undeniably plain, That the last Age did practise the same outward Water-baptism which is pra­ctis'd in this Age; and that the same was, as certainly, practis'd in the Age before the last Age, and by the same Rule, in the Age before that; and so onward, as abovesaid, to the Age of the Apostles. I have made more Words of this than needed, but I wou'd render it excee­ding plain, considering with whom I have to do. And I beseech them to consider, That all the Authority which they have to Over-bal­lance all these Demonstrations, is the mad [Page 10] Enthusiasm of a Lay-Apostle, George Fox, a Me­chanick so Illiterate, that he was hardly Master of Common Sense, nor cou'd write English, or a­ny other Language; and started up amongst us in the Year 1650, (the Age of Schism and Rebellion) and Damn'd, as Apostates, all Ages since the Apostles.

In all of which no One cou'd be found (be­fore G. Fox) to bear their Testimony against this Water-baptism, tho' it was constantly and universally practised; and that Christians were then so Zealous as to contend against the least Variation or Corruption of the Faith, even un­to Death, and the most cruel sort of Martyr­dom.

Can any Man imagin, that if Water-baptism were a Human Invention, or Superstitiously either Continu'd or Obtruded upon the Church, no One shou'd be found, for 1650 Years, to open his Mouth against it; when Thousands sacrific'd their Lives, for Matters of much less Impor­tance?

But I have over-labour'd this Point, to any Man who will give himself leave to make use of his Reason. Therefore I will proceed to the next Section.

SECT. III.

THere goes no more towards the proving of this, than to shew, First, That the Church is an Outward and Visible Society. 2dly, That Baptism was appointed and us'd for Initia­ting or Admitting Men into the Church.

First, That the Church is an Outward and Vi­sible Society. Our Saviour calls it, A City that is set on a Hill (Matth. v. 14.) The Quakers them­selves are an Outward and Visible Society; and so are all those who bear the Name of Churches upon Earth. They cou'd not otherwise be Churches. For that implies a Society of People; and every Society in the World, is an Outward and Visible Thing.

And, as it is so, has an Outward and Visible Form of admitting Men into it: For otherwise it wou'd not be known who are Members of it. Every Society is Exclusive of all others who are not of that Society; otherwise it cou'd not be a Society: For that supposes the Men of that Society, to be thereby distingushed from other Men: And that supposes as much that there must be some Outward and Visible Form where­by to Initiate Men, and intitle them to be Mem­bers [Page 12]of such a Society; otherwise it cou'd not be known who were Members of it, and who were not; and it wou'd thereby ipso facto cease to be a Society; for it cou'd not then be di­stinguish'd from the rest of Mankind: as a Ri­ver is lost in the Sea, because it is no longer distinguished from it, but goes to make up a part of it.

From hence it appears, that the Church, be­ing an Outward and Visible Society, must have some Outward and Visible Form to Initiate Men, and make them Members of that Society.

2dly, That Baptism was that Outward Form. All the several Baptisms that were before Christ's, were all meant for Initiating Forms. The Jews had a Custom long before Christ, to Initiate the Proselites or Converts to their Religion, not only by Circumcision, but by Baptizing, or Washing them with Water. The same was the meaning of John's Baptism, to make Men his Disciples. And the same was the meaning of Christ's Bap­tism, to initiate Men into the Christian Religion, and make them Disciples of Christ.

Hence Baptizing Men, and making them Dis­ciples, mean the same thing. Thus John iv. 1. it is said, That Jesus made and baptized more Disciples than John. That is, he baptized them Disciples, which was the Form of Making them such. If any will say, that he Baptized them to be Disciples to John, that will be answer'd Sect. VI. But as to the present Point, it is the same thing whose Disciples they were made; for we are now only to shew that Baptism, in the gene­ral, was an Initiated Form.

And when Christ practised it, as well as John, as this Text does expresly declare, no Reason can be given that he did not use it as an Initia­ting Form, as well as John; especially when the Text does express that he did make them Disci­ples, by Baptizing of them, as above is shewn.

And pursuant to this, when Christ sent his Apostles to convert all Nations, his Commission of Baptizing was as large as that of Teaching, Matth. xxviii. 19. Go TEACH all Nations, BAP­TIZING them, &c. i. e. Baptizing all who shall receive your word. And accordingly it is said, Acts ii. 41. They that received the word were bap­tized. Pursuant to what the Apostle had preached to them Verse 28. Repent and be Bap­tized.

And accordinly we find it the constant Custom to baptize all that were converted to the Faith. Thus Paul, tho' miraculously converted from Hea­ven, was commanded to be baptized, Acts xxii. 16. And he baptized Lydia, and the Jaylor, and their Housholds, as soon as he had converted them, Acts xvi. 15, 33. And the Corinthians, Acts xviii. 8. And the Disciples of John, who had not yet been made Christians, Acts xix. 5. Philip did Baptize the Eunuch, as soon as he be­lieved in Christ, Acts viii. 37, 38. And Peter, immediately upon the Conversion of Cornelius, and those with him, said, Can any Man forbid Water, that these shou'd not be baptiz'd? Acts x. 47.

It wou'd be endless to enumerate all the like Instances of Baptism, in the New Testament. And it was always us'd as an Initiating Form.

3dly, Baptism was not only an Initiating Form: But it serv'd for nothing else. For it was ne­ver to be repeated. As a Man can be born but once into this World, so he can be but once re­generated, or born into the Church; which is therefore, in Scripture, call'd the New Birth.

It is said of the other Sacrament (of the Lord's Supper) as often as ye eat this Bread, &c. 1 Cor. xi. 26. This was to be often repeated.

Baptism is our Admission, Initiation, or Birth, into the Society of the Church; and accordingly once only to be administred. The Lord's Supper is our Nourishment and Daily Food in it; and therefore to be often repeated.

And as of our Saviour's, so of other Baptisms, of John's, and the Jews, they being only Initia­ting Forms, they were not repeated. The Jews did not Baptize their Proselites more than once. And John did not Baptize his Disciples more than once. So neither were Men twice Baptized into the Christian Faith, more than they were twice Circumcised, or Admitted into the Church, before Christ.

Thus having proved, First, That the Church is an Outward and Visible Society. 2dly, That Baptism was the Initiating Form of Admitting Men into that Society. 3dly, That it was only an Initiating Form. I think the Consequence is un­deniable, that this Baptism must be an Outward and Visible Form: Because otherwise it cou'd be no Sign or Badge of an Admission into an Out­ward and Visible Society; for such a Badge must be as Outward as the Society.

Again, Acts of inward Faith are, and ought to be often repeated: Therefore this Baptism, which cou'd not be repeated, cou'd not be the In­ward, but the Outward Baptism.

And thus having prov'd that Baptism com­manded Matth. xxviii. 19. to be the Outward, that is, Water-baptism: 1st, From the true and proper Etymology and Signification of the Word. 2dly, From the Practise of CHRIST, and his Apostles, and the whole Christian Church after them. And, 3dly, From the Nature of the Thing, Baptism being an Ordinance appointed only for Initiating Men into an Outward and Visi­ble Society; and therefore never to be repeated: Having thus prov'd our Conclusion from such plain, easie, and certain Topicks; I will now proceed to those Objections (such as they are) which the Quakers do set up against all these clear Demonstrations. And shall accordingly, in the first place, take notice of their groundless Pretence in making that BAPTISM commanded in the Holy Gospel, and proved and ORDINANCE External and Visible, to be understood only of the Inward and Spiritual BAPTISM, not with WATER, but the HOLY GHOST.

SECT. IV.

THey say this; and that is all. They neither pretend to answer the Arguments brought against them, such as these before-mentioned; nor give any Proof for their own Assertion. On­ly they say so; and they will believe it; and there is an End of it.

And truly there shou'd be an End of it, if only Disputation, or Victory were my Design: For to what non plus can any Adversary be re­duc'd beyond that of neither Answering, nor Proving?

But because the Pains I have taken is only in Charity for their Souls, I will over-look all their Impertinency, and deal with them as with weyward Children, humour them, and follow them thro' all their Windings and Turnings; and submit to over-prove, what is abundantly prov'd already. Therefore, since they can give no Reason why that Baptism commanded Matth. xxviii. 19. shou'd be meant only of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost; and wou'd be content that we shou'd leave them there, as obstinate Men, and pursue them no further; but let them perswade those whom they can perswade: By which Me­thod (unhappily yielded to them) they have [Page 17]gain'd and secur'd most of their Proselites, by keeping them from Disputing or Reasoning; and by perswading them to hearken only to their own Light within: To rescue them out of this Snare, I will be content to undertake the Nega­tive (tho' against the Rules of Argument,) and to prove, that the Baptism commanded Matth. xxviii. 19. was not the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. For,

First, To Baptize with the Holy Ghost is pe­culiar to Christ alone. For none can Baptize with the Holy Ghost, but who can send and be­stow the Holy Ghost. Which is Blasphemy to al­cribe to any Creature.

Christ has indeed committed the Administra­tion of the Outward Baptism with Water to his Apostles, and to Others by them thereunto or­dained; and has promised the Inward Baptism of the Holy Ghost to those who shall duly receive the Outward Baptism.

But this cannot give the Apostles, or any o­ther Ministers of Christ, the Title of Baptizing with the Holy Ghost; tho' the Holy Ghost may be given by their Ministration. For they are not the Givers, that is Blasphemy.

And pursuant to this, it is observable, that none is ever said, in the Scripture, to Baptize with the Holy Ghost but Christ alone: The same is he who Baptizeth with the Holy Ghost, John i. 33.

And therefore, if that Baptism commanded Matth. xxviii. 19. was the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, it wou'd follow that the Apostles cou'd baptize with the Holy Ghost, which is Blas­phemy to assert.

2dly, It is written, John iv. 2. That Jesus himself baptized not, but his Disciples. If this was not meant of Water-baptism, but of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost; then it will follow, That Christ did not baptize with the Holy Ghost, but that his Diseiples did.

This, in short, may suffice in return to a meer Pretence, and proceed we next to consider, if their main Argument also prove as unsupported and precarious.

SECT. V.

1st, IT is so extreamly Childish, that if it were not His, no Reader wou'd Pardon me for Answering to it. Yet since they do insist upon it, let them take this easie Answer: That John's Water-baptism is ceased; but not Christ's Water-baptism. All outward Baptisms were Water-baptisms, as the word Baptism signifies, ( See Sect. I.) The Jews Baptism was Water-baptism, as well as John's. And by this Argument of Barclay's, the Jews and John's may be prov'd to be the same. Thus. The Jews Baptism was Water-baptism: [Page 19]but John's Baptism was Water-baptism: therefore John's Baptism was the Jews Baptism.

And thus, Christ's Baptism was John's, and John's was the Jews, and the Jews was Christ's; and they were all one and the self-same Bap­tism, because they were all Water-baptisms.

So without all Foundation is this great Rock of the Quakers, upon which they build their main Battery against Water-baptism.

2dly, It will be proper here to let them see (if they be not wilfully ignorant) what it is which makes the Difference of Baptisms: not the outward Matter in which they are admi­nistred (for that may be the same in many Ba­ptisms, as is shewn.) But Baptisms do differ, 1. In their Authors. 2. In the different Form, in which they are adminstred. 3. In the dif­ferent Ends for which they were instituted.

And in all these the Baptism of Christ does differ vastly from the Baptisms both of John and the Jews,

• 1. As to the Author: The Baptism of the Jews was an Addition of their own to the Law; and had no higher Author that we know of. But John was sent by God, to baptize, John i. 33. And it was Christ the Lord who was the Author of the Christian Baptism.
• 2. As to the Form: Persons were baptized unto those whose Disciples they were admitted by their Ba­ptism. Thus the Proselites to the Jewish Religion were baptized unto Moses. And Men were made Disciples to John, by his Baptism. But the Chri­stian Baptism alone is administred in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This is the Form of the Christian Baptism, and which does distinguish it from all other Baptisms [Page 20]whatever.
• 3. The End of the Christian Bap­tism is as highly distant and different from the Ends of other Baptisms, as their Authors differ.

The End of the Jewish Baptism was to give the baptized a Title to the Privileges of the Law of Moses. And the End of John's Baptism was to point to HIM who was to come; and to pre­pare Men, by Repentance, for the Reception of the Gospel. But the End of CHRIST's Baptism was to Instate Us into all the Unconceivable Glories, and High Eternal Prerogatives which be­long to the Members of his Body, of his Flesh, and of his Bones, Eph. v. 30. That we might receive the Adoption of Sons, Gal. iv. 5. Henceforth no more Servants, but Sons of God! and Heirs of Heaven! These are Ends so far transcendent a­bove the Ends of all former Baptisms, that, in comparison, other Baptisms are not only less, but none at all; like the Glory of the Stars, in presence of the Sun; they not only are a lesser Light, but when he appears, they become alto­gether invisible.

And as a Pledge or Fore-taste of these Future and Boundless Joys, The Gift of the Holy Ghost is given upon Earth; and is promis'd as an Ef­fect of the Baptism of Christ. As Peter preach'd, Acts ii. 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And Gal. iii. 27. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.

This of the Gift of the Holy Ghost was not ad­ded to any Baptism before Christ's; and does re­markably distinguish it from all others.

SECT. VI.

THis is a Pretence of the Quakers when they find themselves distressed with the clear Proofs of Christ and the Apostles having administred Water-baptism. They say that this was John's Baptism, because it was Water-bap­tism. And, as before observ'd Sect. IV. they only say this, but can bring no Proof. But they put us, here again, upon the Negative, to prove it was not.

As to their Pretence that it was John's Bap­tism, because it was Water-baptism, that is an­swered in the last Section.

And now to gratifie them in this (tho' un­reasonable) Demand, I will give these follow­ing Reasons why the Baptism which Christ and his Apostles did practise, was not John's Bap­tism.

1st, If Christ did baptize, with John's Bap­tism; then he made Disciples to John, and not to himself. For it is before shewn Sect. III. Num. ii. & iii, That Baptism was an Initiating Form, and nothing else, whereby Men were ad­mitted to be Disciples to him unto whom they were baptized. Thus the Jews who were bapti­zed unto Moses said, We are Moses's Disciples. John ix. 28. And those whom John baptized, were called the Disciples of John. And there [Page 22]needs no more to shew that Christ did not bap­tize with the Baptism of John, than to shew that the Disciples of Christ and of John were not the same, which is made evident from John i. 35, 37. where it is told that two of John's Disciples loft him, and followed Jesus. And Matth. xi. 2. John sent two of his Disciples to Jesus. And the Disciples of Christ lived under a different Oeco­nomy, and other Rules than either the Disciples of John, or of the Pharisees, to shew that they were under another Master. And the Disciples of John were scandaliz'd at it, Matth. ix. 14. Then came to him (JESUS) the Disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy Disciples fast not?

Therefore the Disciples of Christ and of John were not the same: and therefore Christ did baptize Men to be his own Disciples, and not to be the Disciples of John: and therefore the Baptism of Christ was not the Baptism of John.

2dly, If Christ did baptize with John's Baptism, the more he baptized, it was the more to the Honour and Reputation of the Baptism of John: But Christ's baptizing was urg'd, by the Disci­ples of John, as a lessning of John, John iii. 26. Therefore the Baptism with which Christ did baptize cou'd not be the Baptism of John. Tho' it be said John iv. 2. That Jesus himself baptized not, but his Disciples: (For so the Apostles and o­ther Ministers of Christ have baptized more into the Faith of Christ, than Christ himself has done:) Yet here is no ground of Jealousie or Rivalship to Christ, because the Administration of Christ's Baptism, is all to the Honour and Glory of Christ: And therefore Christ's baptizing more Disciples [Page 23]than John, cou'd be no Lessning of John, but ra­ther a Magnifying of him so much the more, if Christ had baptized with John's Baptism.

3dly, When John's Disciples had told him of Christ's out-rivalling him, by baptizing more than he, John answer'd, He must increase, but I must decrease, John iii. 30. But if CHRIST did baptize with the Baptism of John, then John still increased, and CHRIST decreased. For,

4thly, He is greater who institutes a Baptism, than those who only administer a Baptism of ano­ther's appointment: Therefore if Christ did baptize with the Baptism of John, it argues John to be greater than Christ, and Christ to be but a Minister of John.

5thly, All the Jews who had been baptized with the Baptism of John, did not turn Christians; therefore John's Baptism was not the Christian-baptism.

6thly, Those of John's Disciples, who turn'd Christians, were baptized over again, in the Name of Christ; of which there is a remarkable In­stance, Acts xix. to v. 7.20. But the same Bap­tism was never repeated (as is shewn above, Sect. III. Numb. iii.) therefore the Baptism which the Apostles did administer, was not John's Ba­ptism.

7thly, The Form of the Baptism which Christ commanded Matth. xxviii 19. was, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: But that was not the Form of John's Baptism: Therefore that was not John's Baptism. See what is before said Sect. V. Numb. ii. of the Difference of Baptisms, as to the Author, the Form, and the End of each Baptism: And, [Page 24]in all these Respects, it is made apparent that the Baptism which was practis'd by Christ and the Apostles, was not the Baptism of John.

To all these clear Arguments the Quakers, without answering to any of them, do still insist, That the Water-baptism which the Apostles did administer, was no other than John's Bap­tism. That they had no Command for it; on­ly did it in Compliance with the Jews, as Paul circumcis'd Timothy ( Acts xvi. 3.) And purify'd himself in the Temple ( Acts xxi. 21, to 27.) But this is all Gratis Dictum; here is not one word of Proof: And they might as well say, That the Apostles PREACHING was only in Com­pliance with the Jews, and that it was the same with John's PREACHING; for their Commis­sions to Teach, and to Baptize were both given in the same Breath, Matth. xxviii. 19. Go ye — TEACH all Nations, BAPTIZING them, &c.

Now why the Teaching here shou'd be Christ's, and Baptizing only John's, the Quakers are de­sir'd to give some other Reason besides their own Arbitrary Interpretations; before which no Text in the Bible, or any other Writing can stand.

Besides, I wou'd inform them, That the Greek word [...], in this Text, which we Translate Teach, signifies to make Disciples; so that the literal, and more proper reading of that Text is, Go and Disciple all Nations, or make Disciples of them, baptizing them, &c.

If it be ask'd, Why we shou'd Translate the Word [...], Matth. xxviii. 19. by the [Page 25]Word Teach, if it means to Disciple a Man, or make him a Disciple?

I Answer: That Teaching was the Method whereby to Perswade a Man, to Convert him, so as to make a Disciple of him. But the Form of Admitting him into the Church, and actually to make him a Disciple, to give him the Privile­ges and Benefits of a Disciple, was by Baptism.

Now the Apostles being sent to Teach Men, in order to make them Disciples; therefore in­stead of Go, Disciple Men, we Translate it, Go, Teach, as being a more Familiar Word, and bet­ter understood in English.

Tho' if both the Greek words [...], and [...], in this Text, were Translated Literally, it would obviate these Quaker-Ob­jections more plainly: For then the Words wou'd run thus; Go and Admit all Nations to to be my Disciples, by Washing them with Wa­ter, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [...], Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

Here the Word [...], i. e. Teaching, is plainiy distinguished from [...], to Disciple them; tho' our English renders them both by the Word Teaching, and makes a Tautology: Go Teach all Nations — Teaching them.

But, as a Child is Admitted into a School be­fore it be Taught: So Children may be Admit­ted into the Pale of the Church, and be made Disciples, by Baptism, before they are Taught. Which shews the meaning of these two Words, i. e. Discipling, and Teaching, to be different. [Page 26]Because, tho' in Persons Adult, Teaching must go before Discipling; yet in Children (who are within the Covenant, as of the Law, to be Ad­mitted at Eight Days old, by Circumcision; so under the Gospel, by Baptism) Discipling goes before Teaching: And that Discipling is only by Baptism.

But to return. The Quakers are so hard put to it, when they are press'd with that Text, Acts x. 47. Can any forbid Water, &c? That they are forced to make a Suppose (without any ground or appearance of Truth) That these Words were an Answer to a Question. And that the Question was, Whether they might not be Baptized with John's Baptism? And that this proceeded from a Fondness the Jews had to John's Baptism. And that the Apostle Peter only Comply'd with them out of Condes­cension, as Paul Circumcis'd Timothy.

Answ. 1. Cornelius, and those whom Peter Baptized, Acts x. were Gentiles and not Jews: They were Romans, and therefore cannot be supposed to have had any Longing after John's Ba­ptism; none of them having ever own'd it, or having been Baptized with it.

2. The Gentile Converts to Christianity, refus'd to submit to the Jewish Circumcision, or any of their Law ( Acts xv.) And therefore it is not to be imagin'd, that they wou'd be fond of any of the Baptisms which were us'd among the Jews.

3. Even all the Jews themselves, no not the Chief and Principal of them, neither the Phari­sees [Page 27]nor Lawyers did submit to John's Baptism, Luke vii. 30.

4. The Ethiopian Eunuch requested Baptism from Philip ( Acts viii.) And it cannot be sup­pos'd, that the Ethiopians had more knowledge of John's Baptism, or regard for it, than the Romans, or great part of the Jews themselves.

5. There is no ground to suppose that St. Peter's words, Can any Man forbid Water? &c. were an Answer to any Question that was ask'd him. The most forcible Affirmation being often express'd by way of Question.

Can any Man forbid Water? That is, No Man can forbid it. And for the saying, Then answer­ed Peter. There is nothing more familiar in the New Testament, than that Expression when no Question at all was asked. See Matth. xi. 25. xii. 38. xvii. 4. xxii. 1. Mark xi. 14. xii. 35. xiv. 48. Luke vii. 40. xiv. 3, 4, 5. xxii. 51. John v. 17, 19.

6. Granting a Question was ask'd, and that Cornelius, as well as the Ethiopian, had desir'd Baptism, why must this be constru'd of John's Baptism? Especially considering, that Peter, in that same Sermon which Converted Cornelius (Acts x. 37.) told them that the Gospel which he Preached unto them, was that which was published, after the Baptism which John Preached. What Argument was this for Cornelius to re­turn back again to John's Baptism? Or, if he had desir'd it, why shou'd we think that Peter wou'd have Comply'd with him; and not rather have reprov'd him, and carry'd him beyond it, to the Baptism of Christ: as Paul did ( Acts xix.) [Page 28]to those who had before receiv'd the Baptism of John?

7. But as to the Compliance which the Quakers wou'd have to John's Baptism; and which they compare to Paul's Complyance in Circumcising Timothy: I will shew the great Disparity.

• First, The Law was more universally receiv'd than John's Baptism: For many and the Chief of the Jews did not receive John's Baptism, as above-observ'd.
• Secondly, The Law was of much longer stand­ing: John's Baptism was like a Flash of Lightning, like the Day-Star, which usher'd in the Sun of Righteousness, and then disappear'd: But the Law continu'd during the long Night of Types and Shadows, many hundreds of Years.
• Thirdly, John did no Miracle ( John x. 41.) But the Law was delivered, and propagated by many Ages of Miracles. 'Twas enjoyn'd under Penalty of Death, to them and their Posterities; whereas John's Baptism lasted not one Age, was intended only for the Men then present, to point out to them the Messiah, then already come, and ready to appear: And no outward Penalties were annexed to John's Law; People were only Invited, not Compell'd to come unto his Baptism: But to neglect Circumcision, was Death, Gen. xvii. 14. Exod. iv. 24.

The Preaching of John was only a Warning; let those take notice to it that wou'd:

Whereas the Law was pronounced by the Mouth of God Himself, in Thunder and Lightning, and out of the midst of the Fire, upon Mount Si­nai, in the Audience of all the People: And [Page 29]so terrible was the Sight, that Moses said, I ex­ceedingly fear and quake, Heb. xii. 21. For from God's Right Hand went a Fire of Law for them, Deut. xxxiii. 2.

From all these Reasons, we must suppose the Jews to be much more Tenacious of the Law, than of John's Baptism; and to be brought off with greater difficulty from their Circumci­sion, which had descended down to them all the way from Abraham, 430 Years before the Law, (Gal. iii. 17.) than from John's Baptism, which was but of Yesterday; and never receiv'd by the Chief of the Jews. And therefore there was much more reason for Paul 's Complying with the Jews in the Case of Circumcision, than in that of John's Baptism, as the Quakers sup­pose.

When Christ came to fulfil the Law, he did it with all regard to the Law, (Matth. v. 17, 18, 19.) He destroy'd it not with Violence, all at once; but fulfill'd it leasurely and by degrees: Ʋt cum honore Mater. Synagoga sepeliretur. The Synagogue was the Mother of the Church; and therefore it was fitting that she shou'd be bury'd with all Decency and Honour.

This was the Reason of all those Complyances with the Jews, at the beginning, to wear them off, by degrees, from their Superstition to the Law.

Tho' in this some might Comply too far: And there want not those who think that Paul's Circumcising of Timothy (Acts xvi. 3.) was as faulty a Complyance, as that which he blam'd Peter (Gal. ii.) For that of Paul's is not Commended, in the Place where it is men­tioned.

And now I appeal to the Reason of Man­kind, whether Objections thus pick'd up from such obscure and uncertain Passages, ought to over­balance Plain and Positive Commands, which are both back'd and explain'd by the Practise of the Apostles, and the Ʋniversal Church after them? All which I have before Demonstrated of Ba­ptism.

8. But however the Quakers may argue from Paul's Complyance with the Jews, the Reader has reason to complain of my Complyance with Them: For, after all that has been said, there is not one single Word in any Text of the New Testament that does so much as hint at any such thing, as that Peter's Baptizing of Corne­lius, or Philip's Baptizing of the Eunuch, was in any sort of Complyance unto John's Baptism. This is a perfect Figment, out of the Quaker's own Brain, without any Ground or Founda­tion in the World: And therefore there was no need of Answering it at all, otherwise than to bid the Quakers prove their Assertion, That these Baptisms were in Complyance with John's, which they cou'd never have done.

Whereas it is plain from the Words of the Text ( Acts xvi. 3.) that Paul's Circumcising Ti­mothy, was in Complyance with the Jews: It is expresly so said, and the Reason of it given, because, tho' his Mother was a Jewess, yet his Father was a Greek; and therefore, because of the Jews which were in those Quarters (says the Text) he Circumcised Timothy, that these Jews might Hear and Receive him, which, otherwise, they wou'd not have done. Now let the Qua­kers shew the like Authority, that the Baptisms [Page 31]of Cornelius, of the Eunuch, and of the Corinthi­ans, Acts xviii. 8. (For that too they acknow­ledge to have been Water-baptism, as I will shew presently) let the Quakers shew the like Au­thority, as I have given for the Circumcision of Timothy being in Complyance with the Jews, let them shew the like, I say, that the foresaid Baptisms were in Complyance with John's, and then they will have something to say. But till then, this Excuse, or Put-off of theirs, is nothing else but a hopeless Shift of a desperate Cause, to suppose, against all sense, that these Gentiles ( Romans, Ethiopians, and Corinthians) de­sir'd John's Baptism, who rejected all the Laws and Customs of the Jews.

SECT. VII.

FRom this Passage they argue, That Water-baptism was not commanded by Christ, be­cause here St. Paul says, That he was not sent to Baptize; and that he thanks God, that he baptized so few of them. But,

In Answer to this, I will first of all premise, That a bare Objection, without some Proof on the other side, does neither justifie their Cause, nor overthrow ours: For when a thing is Pro­ved Affirmatively, it cannot be overthrown by Negative Difficulties which may be Objected.

You must dissolve the Proofs which are brought to support it: Nothing else will do.

For what Truth is there so evident in the World, against which no Objection can be rais'd?

Even the Being of a God has been disputed against by these sort of Arguments; that is, by raising Objections, and starting Difficulties, which may not easily be Answer'd: But while those Demonstrative Arguments, which Prove a God, remain unshaken, a thousand Difficulties are no Disproof.

And so, while the Command of Christ, and the Practise of his Apostles, and of all the Chri­stian World, in pursuance of that Command, are clearly Prov'd, no Difficulty from an obscure Text, can shake such a Foundation.

But I lay down this, only as a general Rule; because this Method is so much made use of by the Quakers (and others) who never think of Answering plain Proofs; but by raising a great Dust of Objections, wou'd bury and hide what they cannot Disprove.

I say, that I only mind them at present, of this fallacious Artifice; for I have no use for it as to these Texts objected, to which a very plain and easie Answer can be given. And,

First, I would observe, how the Quakers can understand the Word Baptize to mean Water-baptism, or no Water-baptism, just as the Texts seem to favour their cause, or otherwise.

For there is no mention of Water in either of the Texts objected, only the single word Baptize. And why then must they construe [Page 33]these two Texts only, of all the rest in the New Testament, to mean Water-baptism? Why? but only to strain an Objection out of them a­gainst Water-baptism?

But will they let the Word Baptize signifie Water-baptism, in other places, as well as in these?

They cannot refuse it with any shew or co­lour of Reason. They must not refuse it in Acts xviii. 8. where the Baptizing of Crispus (men­tion'd in the first of the Texts objected) is re­corded. And there, it is not only said of Cris­pus, that he was baptized, but that many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized. By which, the Quakers cannot deny Water-baptism to be meant, since they construe it so, 1 Cor. i. 14.

Secondly, We may further observe, that in the Text, Acts xviii. 8. Crispus is only said to have believed, which was thought sufficient to infer, that he was baptized; which cou'd not be, unless all that believed, were baptized: Which, no doubt, was the Case, as it is written, Acts xiii. 48. As many as were ordained to Eternal Life, believed, And (Ch. ii. 41.) They that received the Word, were baptized. And (V. 47.) The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved.

So that this is the Climax or Scale of Reli­gion. As many as are ordained to Eternal Life do believe: And they that believe, are baptized: And they that are baptized, are added to the Church.

And to shew this receiv'd Notion, That who­ever did believe was baptized, when Paul met some Disciples who had not heard of the Holy Ghost, Acts xix. 3. he did not ask them whe­ther they had been baptized, or not? He took that for granted, since they believed. But he asks, Ʋnto what were ye baptized? Supposing that they had been baptized.

Thirdly, Here then this Objection of the Qua­kers, has turn'd into an invincible Argument a­gainst them.

They have, by this, yielded the whole Cause: For if the Baptism, 1 Cor. i. 14. be Water-baptism, then that Baptism, Acts xviii. 8. must be the same: And consequently all the other Baptisms, mention'd in the Acts, are, as these, Water-baptisms also.

But, besides the Quakers Confession (for they are unconstant and may change their Minds) the thing shews it self, that the Baptism men­tion'd, 1 Cor. i. 14. was Water-baptism; because Paul there thanks God that he baptized none of them but Crispus and Gaius. Wou'd the A­postle thank God that he had baptized so few, with the Holy Ghost? Or wou'd he repent of baptizing with the Holy Ghost? Therefore it must be the Water-baptism which was here spoke of.

Fourthly, But now, what is the Reason, that he was glad he had baptized so few with Water-baptism? And he gives the Reason, in the very next words. (V. 15.) Lest any shou'd say, that I had baptized in mine own Name. What was [Page 35]the occasion of this Fear? It is told from V. 10. That there were great Divisions and Contentions among these Corinthians, and that these were grounded upon the AEmulations that arose a­mong them, in behalf of their several Teachers. One was for Paul, another for Apollos, others for Cephas, and others for Christ.

This wou'd seem, as if the Christian Religion had been contradictory to it self:

As if Christ, and Cephas, and Paul, and Apol­los had set up against one another:

As if they had not all taught the same Do­ctrine:

As if each had preach'd up himself, and not Christ:

And had baptized Disciples, each in his own Name, and not in Christ's; and had begot Fol­lowers to himself, and not to Christ.

To remove this so horrible a Scandal, St. Paul argues with great zeal, (V. 13.) Is Christ divided? (says he) Was Paul Crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the Name of Paul? I thank God, that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say, That I had baptiz'd in mine own Name.

There needs no Application of this, the Words of the Apostle are themselves so plain.

He did not thank God, that they had not been baptized; but that He had not done it.

And this, not for any slight to Water-baptism; but to obviate the Objection of his baptizing in his own Name.

Fifthly, By the way, this is a strong Argu­ment for Water-baptism: Because the Inward [Page 36]Baptism of the Spirit, cometh not with Observation and Shew, but is within us, Luke xvii. 20, 21. Nor is it done in any Body's Name, it is an inward O­peration upon the Heart.

But the outward Baptism is always done in some Name or other; in his Name whose Disciple you are thereby made and Admitted.

Therefore it must, of necessity, be the out­ward Baptism, of which St. Paul here speaks; because it was outwardly Administred, in such an outward Name. And he makes this an Argu­ment that he had not made Disciples to himself, but to Christ; because he did not baptize them in his own Name, but in Christ's.

Now this had been no Argument, but perfect Banter, if there had been no outward Baptism, that the People cou'd have both seen and heard. How otherwise cou'd they tell in what Name, or no Name they were baptized, if all was Inward and Invisible?

But I need not prove what the Quakers grant and contend for, that all this was meant of Water-baptism; because otherwise their whole Objecti­on, from this place, does fall.

VI. But they wou'd infer as if no great stress were laid upon it; because that few were so bap­tized.

I Answer, That there is nothing in the Text which does infer, that few of these Corinthians were baptized.

St. Paul only thanks God, that he himself had not done it, except to a few, for the Reasons before given: But Acts xviii. 8. it is said, That [Page 37]besides Chrispus, whom Paul himself baptized, MANY of the Corinthians wer baptized.

Nay, they were all baptized, as many as be­lieved, as before is prov'd. And, in this very place, St. Paul taking it for granted, that all who believed, were baptized, which I have alrea­dy observ'd from his Question to certain Disci­ples, Acts xix. 3. not whether they were bapti­zed, but unto what, i. e. In what Name, they had been baptized? So here, 1 Cor. i. 13. He does not make the Question, whether they had been baptized? That he takes for granted. But in what Name, were ye baptized? Which supposes, not only that all were baptized, but likewise that all who were baptized, were baptized in some outward Name; and therefore that it was the Outward, i. e. Water-baptism.

VII. But the second Text objected, V. 17. is yet to be accounted for; where St. Paul says, Christ sent me not to Baptize, but to Preach the Gospel. This he said in justification of himself for having baptiz'd so few in that place; for which he blesses God, because, as it happened, it prov'd a great justification of his not baptizing in his own Name.

But then, on the other hand, here wou'd seem to be a Neglect in him of his Duty: For if it was his Duty to have baptized them all, and he baptized but a few, here was a great Neg­lect.

In Answer to this, we find, that there was no Neglect in not baptizing them, for that, not a few, but many of the Corinthians were baptized, Acts xviii. 8. that is, as many as believed, as be­fore is shewn.

But then who was it that baptized those many? For St. Paul baptized but a few.

I Answer. The Apostle employ'd others, un­der him, to Baptize.

And he vindicates this, by saying, That he was not sent to Baptize, i. e. principally and chiefly; that was not the chief part of his Commission: But the greater and more difficult part was that of Preaching, to Dispute with, Perswade and Con­vert the Heathen World. To this, great Parts, and Courage, and Miraculous Gifts were necessa­ry: But to Administer the outward Form of Ba­ptism to those who were Converted, had no Diffi­culty in it; requir'd no great Parts, or Endow­ments, only a lawful Commission to Execute it.

And it wou'd have taken up too much of the Apostles time, it was impossible for them to have baptized, with their own Hands, those vast Multitudes whom they Converted. Christianity had reach'd to all Quarters of the then known World, as far almost, as at this Day, before the Apostles left the World. And cou'd Twelve Men Baptize the whole World? Their Progress was not the least of their Miracles: The Bread of Life multiply'd faster, in their Distribution of it, than the Loaves by our SAVIOUR's Break­ing of them. St. Peter Converted about Three Thousand at one Sermon, Acts ii. 41. And at another time about Five Thousand, Ch. iv. 4. Multitudes both of Men and Women, Ch. v. 14. Many more than the Apostles cou'd have coun­ted; much more than they cou'd have baptized; for which if they had stay'd, they had made slender Progress. No. The Apostles were sent, as loud Heraulds, to Proclaim to all the Earth, [Page 39]to run swiftly, and gather much People; and not to stay (they cou'd not stay) for the bapti­zing with their own Hands, all that they Con­verted: They left that to others, whom they had ordain'd to Administer it. Yet not so, as to exclude themselves; but they themselves did Baptize, where they saw occasion, as St. Paul here did BAPTIZE Crispus and Gaius, and the House of Stephanas, some of the Principal of the Corinthians. Not that he was oblig'd to have done it himself, having others to whom he might have left it: For he was not sent, that is, put under the Necessity to Baptize with his own Hands, but to Preach, to Convert others, that was his principal Province, and which he was not to neglect, upon the account of bapti­zing, which others could do as well as he.

But if you will so understand the Words of his not being sent, i. e. that it was not within his Commission, that he was not Impower'd by Christ, to Baptize, then it wou'd have been a Sin, and great Presumption in him, to have bap­tized any body.

Nay more. This Text, thus understood, is flatly contradictory to Matth. xxviii. 19. which says, Go, Baptize: And this says, I am not sent to Baptize.

These are contradictory, if by, I am not sent, be understood, I have not Power or Commission to Baptize.

But by, I am not sent, no more is meant in this Text, than that baptizing is not the chief or principal part of my Commission. As if a Gene­ral were accused for Mustering and Listing Men in his own Name, and not in the King's, and [Page 40]he shou'd say, in Vindication of himself, that he had never listed any, except such and such Officers; for that he was not sent to Muster, or Drill Men, or to Exercise Troops or Regiments, but to Command the Army: Wou'd it follow from hence, that he had not Power to Exercise a Troop or a Regiment, or that it was not with­in his Commission? Or if a Doctor of Physick shou'd say, that it was not his Part to com­pound Medicines, and make up Drugs (that was the Apothecary's Business) but to give Prescri­ptions; wou'd any Man infer from this, that he might not Compound his own Medicines if he pleas'd?

Or if (to come nearer) a Professor of Divinity, or a Bishop, shou'd say, That he was not sent to Teach School; this wou'd not imply that he might not Keep School; nay, he ought, if there were no others to do it: So the Apostle of the Gentiles was not sent to spend his Time in Ba­ptizing, Visiting the Sick, or other Parts of his Duty (which others might perform) so as to hinder his great Work in Converting of the Gentiles: All of whom he cou'd not Baptize, nor Visit all their Sick: Yet both these were within his Commission, and he might and did Execute them where he saw occasion. As if all the Sick in London shou'd expect to be Visited by the Bi­shop of London; and all the Children shou'd be brought to be baptized by him; he might well say, That he was not sent to Baptize, or to Visit their Sick, but to look after his Episcopal Fun­ction: And send them for these Offices, to o­thers, under him: and yet this wou'd no ways imply, that these Offices were not within the [Page 41] Episcopal Commission; or that he was not sent both to Baptize, and to Visit the Sick: But only that he was not sent principally and chiefly to Ba­ptize, or to Visit the Sick.

And as to that Phrase of being sent; we find it us'd in this same sense, to mean only being chiefly and principally sent. Thus, Gen. xlv. 8. Joseph said to his Brethren. It was not you that sent me hither, but God. It was certainly his Brethren who sent him, for they sold him into Egypt: But it was not They, principally and chiefly, but God, who had other and extraordinary Ends in it.

Adam was not deceived (says the Apostle, 1 Tim. ii. 14.) but the Woman being deccived, was in the Transgression. Adam was deceived, and fell as well as the Woman; but the meaning is, he was not first, or principally deceived.

Again. As for you who stick so close to the Letter (when it seemeth to serve your turn) Go ye and learn what that meaneth, I WILL HAVE MERCY AND NOT SACRIFICE, Math. ix. 13.

By which it cannot be understood, that God did not require Sacrifice; for he commanded it upon Pain of Death. Yet he says, ( Jer. vii. 22.) I spake not unto your Fathers, nor commanded them — concerning Burnt-Offerings, or Sacrifices: But this thing Commanded I them, saying, Obey my Voice, &c. according as it is written (1 Sam. xv. 22.) To obey is better than Sacrifice.

By all which cannot be meant, that God did not Command the Jews concerning Burnt-Offe­rings and Sacrifices (for we know how particu­larly they were commanded) but that the out­ward [Page 42]Sacrifice was not the chief and principal part of the Command; which respected chiefly the inward Sacrifice and Circumcision of the Heart.

Which when they neglected, and lean'd whol­ly to the Outward, then God detests their Obla­tions, Isa. i. 14. Your new Moons, and your ap­pointed Feasts my Soul hateth, I am weary to bear them. And he says, V. 12. Who hath required this at your Hand?

It was certainly God who had requir'd all these things at their hands; but these outward Per­formances (tho' the Neglect or Abuse of them was punished with Death) yet they were not the chief and principal part of the Command, being intended chiefly for the sake of the Inward and Spiritual Part: From which when they were se­parated, they were (like the Body, when the Soul is gone) a dead and a loathsome CARCASS of Religion: And which God is therefore said, not to have commanded, because he did not Command them without the other: As he made not the Body without the Soul; yet he made the Body as well as the Soul.

VIII. And as there is Soul and Body in Man, so (while Man is in the Body) there must be a Soul and Body of Religion; that is, an outward and an inward WORSHIP, with our Bodies as well as our Souls.

And as the Separation of Soul and Body in Man, is called Death; so is the Separation of the outward and the inward Part of Religion, the Death and Destruction of Religion.

The outward is the Cask, and the inward is the Wine. The Cask is no Part of the Wine; but if [Page 43]you break the Cask, you lose the Wine. And as certainly, whoever destroys the outward Insti­tutions of Religion, lose the inward Parts of it too.

As is sadly experienc'd in the Quakers, who, having thrown off the outward Baptism, and the other Sacrament of Christ's Death, have, there­by, lost the inward thing signify'd, which is, the PERSONAL Christ, as Existing without all other Men, and having so Suffer'd, Rose, Ascen­ded, and now, and for ever, Sitteth in Heaven, in his true proper Human Nature, WITHOUT all other Men. This the Quakers will not own (except some of the New Separation) and this they have lost, by their Neglect of those out­ward Sacraments, which Christ appointed for this very End (among others) that is, as Remem­brances of his Death: For it had been morally impossible for Men, who had constantly and with due Reverence, attended these holy Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, ever to have for­got his Death, so lively represented before their Eyes, and into which they were baptized; or to have turn'd all into a meer Allegory, perform'd within every Man's Breast, as these Quakers have done.

But the Enemy has perswaded them to break the Cask, and destroy the Body of Religion; whereby the Wine is spilt, and the Soul of Reli­gion is fled from them: And by neglecting the outward Part, they have lost the whole Inward, and Truth of Religion; which is a true Faith in the OUTWARD Christ, and in the Satisfaction made for our Sins, by his Blood OUTWARDLY shed; and in his Intercession, in our Nature, as our [Page 44] High-Priest, at his Father's Right Hand, now, in Heaven; into which Holy of Holies, He has car­ry'd his own Blood of Expiation, once offer'd up­on the Cross, and presents it, for ever, as the A­tonement and full Satisfaction for the Sins of the whole World; but apply'd only by true Faith and Repentance, thereby, becomes fully Effectual to the Salvation of every Faithful Penitent.

This is the only true Christian Faith: And from this the Quakers have totally fallen; and that chiefly, by their Mad throwing off the OUTWARD Guards, Preservatives, Fences, Sa­craments, and Pledges of Religion. And those OUTWARD Means of Grace, which Christ has commanded, and given us as the only OUT­WARD GROUNDS for our Hope of Glory. For how can that Man get to Heaven, who will not go the way that Christ has appointed; who came down from Heaven, on purpose to shew and lead us the way thither; yet we will be wiser than he, find fault with his Institutions, as being too much upon the Outward; and think that we can and may Spiritualize them finer, and make the way shorter than he has done.

IX. But to return, if the Quakers cou'd find such Texts concerning Baptism, as I have shewn above concerning Sacrifices, as if it were said, That God did not command Baptism; that he hated it, and was weary to bear it, that he would not have it, &c. If such Texts cou'd be found, How wou'd the Quakers triumph! Who wou'd be able to stand before them! And yet, if such were found, they wou'd prove no more against the outward BAPTISM, than they did against [Page 45]the outward SACRIFICES, i. e. That if any re­garded nothing else in Baptism, than the out­ward Washing, it wou'd be as hateful to God, as the Jewish Sacrifices, when they regarded nothing more in them but the Outward.

And it may be truly said, That God did not Command either such Sacrifices, or such a Bap­tism; because he commanded not the Outward a­lone, but with respect unto, and chiefly for the sake of the Inward.

And, therefore, as all these, and other the like Expressions in the Old Testament did not at all tend to the Abolition, only to the Rectifica­tion of the Legal Sacrifices: So, much less, can that single Expression, 1 Cor. i. 17. of Paul's saying (upon the occasion, and in the sense a­bovemention'd) that he was not sent to Baptize, but to Preach; much less can this infer the Abo­lition of Baptism; being as positively comman­ded, as Sacrifices were under the Law, and as certainly practis'd by the Apostles, as the Sacrifices were by the Levitical Priests.

X. Now suppose that I should deny, that OUTWARD Sacrifices were ever commanded; or, that the Jews did ever practise them: And shou'd Interpret all that is said of Sacrifices, only of the Inward, as the Quakers do of Baptism; and I shou'd produce the Texts above-quoted to prove that God did not command Sacrifices, which are much more positive than that single one which is strain'd against Baptism: I say, sup­pose that I shou'd be so Extravagant as to set up such a Notion, what Method (except that of Bedlam, which, in that Case, wou'd be most [Page 46]proper) cou'd be taken to convince me? And suppose I shou'd gain as many Proselytes as G. Fox has done: And we shou'd boast our Numbers, and Light within, &c. wou'd not this following Method be taken with us?

• 1st, To see how Sacrifices are actually us'd now in those Parts of the World where they do Sacrifice. And being convinc'd that these do use outward Sacrifices, and understand the first Command to Sacrifice, in that sense, to in­quire
• 2dly, Whether they did not receive this from their Fathers, so upward, to the first Institution? And is not this the surest Rule to find out the meaning of the first Command? viz. How it was understood and practis'd by those to whom the Command was first given; and from them, through all Ages since. Upon all which Topicks, the present Water-baptism, now us'd, may be as much demonstrated to be the same which was practis'd by the Apostles, and consequently, which was commanded by Christ, as the outward Sacri­fices can be shewn to have been, at first, comman­ded to the Jews, and practis'd by them.

XI. And as for that precarious Plea, before confuted, of the Baptism which the Apostles pra­ctis'd, being only a Complyance with the Jews; there is more Pretence to say, that the Jewish Sacrifices were in Complyance with the Heathen Sacrifices, which were long before the Levitical Law.

I say, there is more Pretence for this, but not more Truth. More Pretence, because it has been advanced of late, by Men of greater Figure than [Page 47] Quakers, That the Levitical Sacrifices were com­manded by God, in Complyance with the Gentile Sacrifices, which were before used.

But this is a Subject by it self. I now only shew the Quakers, that there is more ground to spiri­tualize away Sacrifices from the Letter, than Baptism; more Pretence for it from Texts of Scri­pture, and from some odd Opinions of some Lear­ned Men.

And if the Denial of OUTWARD Sacrifices wou'd be counted (as the like of Baptism was, when first started) to be nothing short of Mad­ness, the continuance of that Distraction for 46 Years together (as in the Case of Baptism) might make it more familiar to us, but would abate nothing of the Ʋnreasonableness.

XII. I believe the Reader, by this time, can­not but think that I have taken too much need­less Pains, in Answer to that Objection of St. Paul's saying that he was not sent to Baptize, but to Preach: But I speak to a sort of Men, who are us'd to Repetitions, and will not take a Hint (unless it be on their side) and therefore I enlarge more than I wou'd do, if I were writ­ing to any others. But I think I have said e­nough, even to them, to shew, that the Mea­ning of the Apostle in this Text, was only to pre­fer the Office of Preaching, before that of Bap­tizing. But I must withal desire them to take notice, that the Preaching, that is, Publishing of the Gospel, at first to Heathens, was a very diffe­rent thing, and of much greater Necessity, than those set Discourses, which we now call Preaching in Christian Auditories.

XIII. Let me (to conclude) add one Argu­ment more, from this Text, 1 Cor. i. 17. why that Baptism, mention'd Matth. xxviii. 19. can­not be meant of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. Because if when Christ sent his Apostles to Bap­tize, the meaning was (as the Quakers wou'd have it) to Baptize with the Holy Ghost; then the Apostle Paul said in this Text, 1 Cor. i. 17. That he was not sent to Baptize with the Holy Ghost. Which sense, since the Quakers will not own, they cannot reconcile these Texts, with­out confessing, That that Text, Matth. xxviii. 19. was not meant of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and then it must be meant of the Water-baptism.

SECT. VIII.

THE Words of the Text are these. The like Figure whereunto (i. e. the Ark) even Bap­tism, doth also now save us (not the putting away of the Filth of the Flesh, but the Answer of a Good Conscience towards God) by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

From whence the Quakers argue thus: That Baptism doth not consist in the outward Washing, but the inward.

And so far they argue right, That the inward is the chief and principal part; and therefore, that if any regard only the outward Washing of the Skin, in Baptism, they are indeed frustrated [Page 49]of the whole Benefit of it, which is altogether Spiritual.

And it has been observ'd Sect. VII. latter part of Numb. vii. That if only the outward Part of the Sacrifices, or Circumcision, and other Institutions under the Law, were regarded, they were hateful to God, and he rejected them; tho', at the same time, he commanded the Perfor­mance of them, under the Penalty of Death.

Thus it is in the Institutions of the Gospel. The Inward and Spiritual Part is the chief; and for the sake of which only, the Outward is com­manded: But this makes the Outward necessary, instead of throwing it off; because (as it was under the Law) the Outward was ordained as a Means whereby we are made Partakers of the Inward: And therefore, if we neglect and de­spise the Outward, when we may have it, we have no Promise in the Gospel to Intitle us to the Inward: As he that neglects the Means, has no Reason to expect the End. It is true, a Mi­racle may do it; but it is Presumption, and Tem­pting of God, to neglect the Outward Means of God's Appointment, in expectation of his Mira­culus Interposition, against the Method which he has commanded. As if provoking of God, did Intitle us the more to his Protection! Or, as if we were Wiser than He, to mend and alter his Institutions, and dispense with them, at our Plea­sure!

Here let it be minded, that the Ark is put on­ly as a Type of Baptism: Therefore Baptism is the more worthy, and more necessary. And to neg­lect Baptism, is to venture swimming in the De­luge, without the Ark.

SECT. IX.

I. THE Words of the Text are these. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; whence the Quakers argue thus. That Water-baptism is one Baptism, and the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, is another Baptism; because the one is the Outward, and the other the Inward Baptism; and outward and inward are two Things: There­fore that these must be two Baptisms: which, they say, is contrary to this Text, that says, the Christians have but ONE Baptism, as they have but ONE Lord, and ONE Faith.

II. I Answer. Outward and Inward are two Things; but yet they hinder not the Ʋnity of that which is compos'd of Both. Thus Soul and Body are two Things, and of Natures the most different of any two Things in the World; yet they hinder not the Ʋnity of the Man, who is compos'd of Both. Nay, it is the Composi­tion of these Two that makes up the One MAN; insomuch, that when these Two are Divided, the MAN is no more; for it is nothing else which we call Death, but the Separation of Soul and Body.

And (as before shewn, Sect. VII. Num. VIII.) while there is Soul and Body in Man, there must be a Soul and Body of Religion, that is, an Out­ward and an Inward Part of Religion: And if we [Page 51]destroy the Outward, we shall lose the Inward; because the Outward was design'd for the Safety and Preservation of the Inward.

It is true, that the Inward is the Chief and Principal Part, as of Man, so of his Religion: But this does not infer, that the Outward is not likewise necessary. We are commanded, Rom. xii. 1. to Present our Bodies a living Sacrifice, and this is call'd our Reasonable Service. For, is it not Reasonable, that, since our Bodies are God's Creatures, as well as our Souls, He should have the Adoration and Service of our Bodies, as well as of our Souls?

There is no Outward or Publick WORSHIP but by our Bodies; we cannot otherwise express the INWARD Devotion and Adoration of our Minds.

And this is so Natural, that whoever has a due Reverence and Awe of the Divine Majesty, cannot help to Express it Outwardly, by the A­doration of his Body, in his Approaches to God, even tho' in Private. As our Blessed Saviour, in His Agony, fell prostrate upon His Face to the Earth.

And whoever deny the Outward Worship to God, or perform it slovenly, and carelesly, it is a full Demonstration that they have no True and Real Devotion, or Just Apprehension of the Al­mighty.

Therefore the Outward Part of Religion must, by no means, be let go, because the Inward cer­tainly dies, when the Outward is gone.

But the Outward and the Inward WORSHIP of God are not Two Worships, but only Two Parts of the same Worship. As Soul and Body [Page 52]are not Two Men, but Two Parts of the same Man; so the Adoration of this One Man, Out­wardly in his Body, and Inwardly in his Soul, is not Two Worships, but Two Parts of the SAME Worship.

III. There is but one Faith, yet this Faith con­sists of several Parts. There is a Faith in God, of which the Heathens do partake: There is a Faith in Christ, which denominates Men Chri­stians: Yet these are not Two Faiths in a Chri­stian, but Two Parts of the SAME Faith. There is likewise a Faith in the Promises of the Gospel; and that what is therein Commanded, is from God: And there are Degrees of this Faith, of which one Christian does partake more than another. And yet to Christians there is but One Faith.

The Belief of a God, and of Christ, are Two Faiths or Beliefs, because many do Believe a God, who do not Believe in Christ: Yet, in a Christian they are not Two Faiths, but One Faith; because the one, that is, the Faith in Christ, does suppose the other, that is, the Belief of a God; it only Adds to it, and Builds upon it. And this makes them no more Two. Faiths, than building an House a Story higher makes it Two Houses.

IV. There is but One Lord, that is Christ; yet He consists of an Outward and an Inward Part, of Body and Soul. Nay more, of both the Divine and Human Natures. I might urge the different Persons in the One Divine Nature; but this will be no Argument to the Quakers, who Deny it. But they Deny not (seemingly at [Page 53]least) the Divinity of Christ; and therefore, as this Lord is but One, tho' consisting of several Natures; and His Faith and Worship but One, tho' consisting of several Parts; why may not His Baptism be likewise One, tho' consisting of an Outward and an Inward Part?

V. There was an Outward and an Inward CIR­CUMCISION, as well as an Outward and Inward BAPTISM; yet no Man will say, that there were Two Circumcisions under the Law. As lit­tle Reason is there to say, That there are Two Baptisms under the Gospel. See what is before said, Sect. VII. Num. X, and XI, of the stronger Pre­sumptions to deny the Outward SACRIFICES under the Law, than the Outward BAPTISM un­der the Gospel.

VI. Let me add, that Circumcision was dis­continu'd 40 Years in the Wilderness ( Josh. v. 5.) yet this was made no Argument against the Re­viving and Continuance of it afterwards.

But Baptism has not been discontinu'd one Year, nor at all in the Christian Church, since its first Institution by Christ.

If the Quakers cou'd find such a Discontinuance of Baptism, as there was of Circumcision, they wou'd make great Advantage of it; tho' it cou'd be no more an Argument in the one case, than in the other.

But since they have not even this small Pre­tence against it, the Constant and Ʋninterrupted Practice of Baptism, in all Christian Churches, thro' all Ages, is an Irrefragable Argument against [Page 54]them; and shews them to be Dissonant from the whole Church of CHRIST.

SECT. X.

I. I Cou'd not have imagin'd that this shou'd have been made an Objection, if I had not seen it urg'd as such, in a Book Printed in the Year, 1696, Intituled, John Baptist's Decreasing, &c. By John Gratton. Where he urges mighti­ly this Text, as a plain Prohibition to the fur­ther Continuance of Baptism. He lays great stress upon the Word Leaving. Therefore Leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto Perfection. LEAVING (saith he, pag. 45.) Mark, LEAVING the Principles, &c. And Ba­ptism being nam'd in the second Verse, he in­fers, That the Apostle here Commands to leave off the Practice of Baptism, which, he says, had been Indulg'd to the first Converts to Christianity, with other Jewish Ceremonies. As to the sup­posed Indulging of Baptism, on account of its being a Jewish Ceremony, it is answer'd before, Sect. VI. pag. 19, 20, 21. But now as to this Inference from Heb. vi. 1. John Gratton says, P. 47. That this word LEAVING seems to entail the foregoing words in the Chapter before, where he (the Apostle) had been telling them of their Chil­dishness (he mentions the Doctrine of Baptism, which cannot prove the Imposing of Water-Baptism, any more than all the rest) and was now for bringing [Page 55]them on to a further State, where they might know Perfection—And it seems clear to me, that there was some need for those things, they had so long lain like Children weak, and Babes in, to be left. Therefore leaving these, let us go on to Perfe­ction; and saith further; This will we do, if God permit: But if they had been commanded by Christ, to have been used to the World's End, then why shou'd Paul have been so earnest at that Day, which was soon after Christ's Ascension, to have had them then to leave them? These are his words, and a great deal more to the same purpose. And in the same Page, he ranks Baptism with Circumcision, Passover, and other Jewish Rites.

II. But it is very wonderful, how any Man cou'd shut his Eyes so hard, as to oversee not only the whole Scope, but the very Words of this Text. Can such a Blindness be other than wilful? The Apostle was reproving some of the Hebrews for their slender Proficiency in the Knowledge of the Gospel. And that he cou'd not lead them to the Higher Mysteries, they hardly yet being well fixed in the very Rudi­ment and Fundamentals of Christianity: As if one shou'd say, That he would make an ill Doctor of Divinity who had not yet learned his Ca­techism.

For the Apostle in the former Chapter having treated of the Mysterious Parallel 'twixt Christ and Melchisedec, he stops short, Ver. 11, upon the account of their Incapacity, of whom (that is, of Christ and Melchisedec) we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing: For when for the time ye ought to be Tea­chers, [Page 56]ye have need that one teach you again, which be the first Principles of the Oracles of God. Then he goes on to provoke them to a further Profi­ciency in the words of the Text we are now considering, Therefore (says he) leaving the Prin­ciples of the Doctrin of Christ, let us go on unto Perfection, not laying again the Foundation of Re­pentance from dead Works, and of Faith towards God, of the Doctrin of Baptisms, and of laying on of Hands, and of the Resurrection of the Dead, and of Eternal Judgment. And this will we do, if God permit.

Here is the Doctrine of Baptism placed in the very Heart of the Fundamentals of Christia­nity; yet the Quakers would filch it out from amongst all the rest, and refer it alone to the Ceremonials of the Law spoken of in the former Chapter. This was drop'd at a venture; for the former Chapter treats only of the Melchise­decal Priesthood, which was no Part of the Law; and there are none of the Legal Types or Cere­monies so much as mention'd in it. Yet Baptism in the next Chapter must refer to them!

There cannot be a greater Confession to Bap­tism than this Objection of the Quakers; nor a stronger Proof for the Necessity of it, than to see it rank'd with these most-acknowledg'd Foundations of Christian Religion, and call'd one of the First Principles of the Oracles of God.

III. And as to the word Leaving, upon which this Author lays so great a stress, in this Text, as if it meant Forsaking and Abandoning, it is strange that he should bring in the Apostle Ex­horting to Leave off, and Forsake the Principles [Page 57]of the Doctrine of Christ! But Leaving there is very plainly meant of leaving or intermitting (as the Vulgar renders it) to treat further at that time of these Principles, which the Apostle is so far from forsaking, that he fixes them as the Foundation; which he says he will not lay again, as supposing it laid already; but built further upon it, improve and carry up the Superstructure. So that this Leaving, is only leaving or ceasing to Discourse further upon these Principles, Inter­mittentes Sermonem, intermitting or breaking of the Debate. Which is litterally, according to the Greek [...], leaving that Word or Subject of which he then spoke, he went on to discourse of other things.

The Reader could not forgive this Trifling in me, to prove things which are self-evident, if he did not see that I am forc'd to it.

However, this Advantage is gain'd by it, to see the very slender Foundations upon which the Quakers build their Objections against Baptism; which they must either grant to be one of the Principles of Christianity, or that Faith and Repen­tance are not.

IV. But indeed (it is frightful to say it, I pray God they may seriously consider of it) they have, together with Baptism, thrown off all the other Principles of the Doctrin of Christ, See The Snake in the Grass, 1st Part, or Preface, p. 313, 314. 2d Part, p. 40, 41, 61, 62. which are mention'd in this Text. 1. Repentance. Against this they have set up a Sinless Perfection, which needeth no Repentance. They never beg Pardon for Sin, supposing they have none; and mock at us for saying, Lord have Mercy upon us; and upbraid our Liturgy for having a Confession of [Page 58] Sin in it. Edward Burrough, pag. 32. of his Works, Printed 1672, says, That God doth not accept of any, where there is any failing, or who doth not fulfil the Law, and doth not Answer every Demand of Justice. Part 1. p. 330, 331. 2. Faith towards God. This is the Chri­stian Faith; or Faith in God through Christ. But the Quakers say, That they can come to God Immediately, without the Mediation of Christ, and therefore they do not Pray to Christ, whom they utterly deny to be that Person who suffer'd for them upon the Cross; as Mr. Penn in his Serious Apology, p. 146.

They make Christ to be nothing else than what they call The Light Within; which, they say, is sufficient of it self, without any thing else, to bring us to God; and that whoever fol­lows it, needs no other Help.

Now they say, That all the Heathens, every Man that is born into the World, has this Light Within, that is, Christ; and, that this Light Within is sufficient for his Salvation, with­out any thing else: Whereby they take away any Necessity of an Outward Christ to dye for our Sins, and make the Heathen Faith as good as the Christian: And therefore they have taken away that Christian Faith towards God, which is the Second of the Principles mention'd in this Text. The Third is Baptism, which they open­ly disclaim. The Fourth is, the laying on of Hands, that is, the Ordination, Confirmation, and Absolution of the Church, which are all per­form'd by laying on of Hands. And how much soever the Quakers and others do despise them, yet the Apostle here reckons them among the Fundamentals: For the Government and Discipline [Page 59]of the Church are Essential to it, as it is a Socie­ty, it could not otherwise be a Society. Num. 16, & 17 Ch▪ The Sin of Korah was nothing but concer­ning Church-Government. And Aaron's Rod that Budded, in confirmation of his Priesthood, was ordained to be kept for ever in the Ark, for a Token against the Rebels; so are they call'd, who Rebell'd against that Priesthood which God had then appointed by Moses; and the Sin can­not be less to Rebel against that Priesthood which Christ himself appointed. Which is shewn more at large in the Discourse mention'd in the Advertisement.

Now if Aaron's Rod, that is, Church-Govern­ment, was one of the Three sacred Depositums which were ordain'd to be kept in the Ark, why should we wonder to see it hear placed among the Fundamentals of Christianity? Heb. ix. 4.

The Pot of Manna, Aaron's Rod, and the Ta­bles of the Covenant, were all that was kept in the Ark.

Which shews Church-Government to be Neces­sary next to our Manna, the very support of our Life; and the best Guard to preserve the Deca­logue, i. e. our Duty to God and Man.

V. And tho' the Quakers cry down Church-Authority in others, yet they magnifie it as much in themselves as any Church whatsoever.

The Ingenious W. P. in his Judas and the Jews, writing against some Dissenters amongst the Quakers, asserts the Authority of the Church very high, and the Power of the Elders in the Church, p. 13. and presses that Text, Matth. xviii. 17. Tell it unto the Church, to extend to Matters of Faith and Worship, as well as to Private Injuries [Page 60]or Offences amongst Christians. That Christ (says he) as well gave His Church Power to Reject as to Try Spirits, is not hard to prove. That notable Passage, Go, tell the Church, does it to our hand: For if in case of private Offences betwixt Brethren, the Church is made Absolute Judge, from whom there is no Appeal in this World; how much more in any the least case that concerns the NATURE, BEING, FAITH, and WORSHIP of the Church her self?

But the Case was quite alter'd when he came to Answer that same Text, as urged against the Quakers by the Church; which he does in his Address to Protestants, p. 152, 153, & 154. of the Second Edition in Octavo, printed 1692. And then that Text does not relate at all to Faith or Worship, but only to private Injuries. For having deny'd the Authority of the Church in Matters of Faith, he puts the Objection thus against himself: But what then can be the meaning of Christ's Words, Go, tell the Church? Very well. I Answer (says he, p. 153.) 'Tis not about Faith, but Injury, that Christ speaks; and the place explains it self, which is this; Moreover, if thy Brother shall TRESPASS against THEE, go and tell him his FAULT, between thee and him alone. Here is Wrong, not Religion; Injustice, not Faith or Conscience concern'd; as some would have it, to maintain their Church-Power. — The words TRESPASS and FAULT prove abundantly, that He only meant Private and Personal Injuries; and that not only from the common and undenia­ble signification and use of the words TRESPASS and FAULT, but from the way Christ directs and commands for Accommodation, viz. That the Per­son [Page 61]wronged speak to him that commits the Injury, alone; if that will not do, that he take one or two with him: But no Man can think, that if it re­lated to FAITH or WORSHIP, I ought to Receive the Judgment of one, or two, or three, for a suffi­cient Rule. — Therefore it cannot relate to Mat­ters of FAITH, and Scruples of CONSCIENCE, but PERSONAL and PRIVATE INJURIES.

Thus he. But tho' the Judgment of one, two, or three, is not of it self a sufficient Rule, (none ever said it was) yet may not one, two, or three ADMONISH one another, even in Matters of Faith and Worship, as well as of Private Injuries, and, in case of Refractoriness and Obstinacy, bring the Cause before the Church? Lev. xix. 17. Thou shalt in any wise Rebuke thy Neighbour, and not suffer Sin upon him. Yet was not the Judgment of every Man a sufficient Rule to his Neighbour. And our Sa­viour's commanding to bring the Cause finally before the Church, shews plainly, that the Judg­ment of the one, two, or three, was not meant for a sufficient Rule, that is, the ultimate De­cision.

But in Answer to Mr. Penn's Argument, That this Text, Tell it unto the Church, was meant only of Private Injuries, I shall repeat but his own words before quoted, and grant, that as it was meant of Private Injuries, so, as Mr. Penn very well infers, How much more in any the least Case that concerns the Nature, Being, Faith, and Worship of the Church her self?

But, to return. The fifth Article in that E­numeration of Fundamentals, Heb. vi. 1, & 2. is, The Resurrection of the Dead; which the Quakers [Page 62]do likewise deny; as it is fully prov'd in The Snake in the Grass, Par. 2. Sect. 13.

The last is that of Eternal Judgment, which depends upon the former, and may be made one with it; and is likewise deny'd by the Qua­kers, that is, turn'd into Hymeneus and Philetus's Sense, of an Inward only and Spiritual Resurrection or Judgment perform'd within us. I have fre­quently heard Quakers say, that they expected no other Resurrection or future Judgment, than what they had attain'd already, that is, the Re­surrection of Christ, or the Light; and the Judg­ment or Condemnation of Sin, in their Hearts.

George Whitehead, in his Book call'd The Na­ture of Christianity, &c. printed 1671, p. 29, thus ridicules it: Dost thou (says he to his Op­ponent) look for Christ, as the Son of Mary, to Appear outwardly, in a Bodily Existence, to save thee? if thou dost, thou mayst look until thy Eyes drop out, before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him.

And now what Wonder is it, that these should throw off Baptism, who have likewise thrown off all the other Fundamentals, which are reckon'd with it in this Text?

VII. But let us hence observe, and beware of Neglecting or Despising the Outward Institutions of God; because these depending upon the Au­thority of God, no less than the Inward and Spi­ritual, rejecting of the one overthrows the Ob­ligation and Sanction of the whole, and is a re­jecting of God the Institutor; who, in His just Judgment, suffers those to lose the one, that think themselves too good for the other.

Men were made Partakers of Christ to come, by the Sacrifices which were appointed, as Types of Him under the Law: So now are we Parta­kers of Him, who is come, by the Sacraments, which He has appointed in Remembrance of Him, under the Gospel.

And as those who neglected or despis'd the Sa­crifices, when they might be had, from the Le­gal Priests, according to God's Institution, were made liable to Death, and did forfeit their Ti­tle to the Participation of Christ the Archi-Type: So those who neglect or despise the Sacraments which he has commanded as the Means of Grace, and of our Inward Participation of Him, under the Gospel, do thereby justly forfeit their Title to such Participation.

For, if we will not take God's Way, we have no Promise nor Reason to secure us in the follow­ing of our own Inventions.

SECT. XI.

I. THE Quakers throw off all Outward Insti­tutions, as not only Ʋseless, but Hurt­ful to the Christian Religion; which, they pre­tend, consists not only chiefly (which is granted to them) but solely in the Inward and Spiritual Part. They say, That all Figures and Signs are Shadows; and that when Christ, who is the Sub­stance, is come, the others cease of course. That [Page 64]they have attain'd to Christ the Substance; and therefore these Shadows are of no use to them. That Baptism and the Lord's Supper are some of these Shadows; and these were Indulging to the Early and Weak Christians, but that the Quakers, who have stronger Participations of the Spirit, are got beyond these Beggarly Elements, &c.

II. A Key, &c. by W. P. Printed, 1694. C. 10. of Water-Ba­ptism, and the Sup­per, P. 24. This is settl'd as a Foundation-Principle, That no Figures, or Signs, are perpetual; or of Institution, under the Gospel-Administration, when Christ, who is the Substance, is come; though their Ʋse might have been Indulged to young Converts in Primitive Times.

Ans. 1. To say they were not Perpetual, is one thing; but to say, That they were not so much as of Institution under the Gospel, seems a strange Assertion, when Christ gave the Institu­tion out of his own Mouth, Matth. xxviii. 19. Go Baptize. And of his Supper, said, This do, Luk. xxii. 19.

2. The Reason why this shou'd not be Per­petual, is very Precarious, to suppose that the Holiness of any Person shou'd exempt him from observing the Institutions of God; whereas Christ himself submitted to them, and said, That it became him to fulfil all Righteousness, Mat. iii. 15 i. e. all the Righteous Institutions of God. This is the Rea­son which Christ gave for his Baptism; yet the Quakers think that their Holiness will excuse them from Baptism. Christ submitted to John's Baptism, saying, That we ought to fulfil all God's Institutions: Yet the Quakers will not submit to Christ's Baptism, saying, That they are [Page 65]got beyond it. All were required to submit to John's Baptism, during his Ministry, because he was sent from God to Baptize; therefore Christ also submitted unto it; and did receive his own Commission to Baptize, by the visible Descent of the Holy Ghost, upon his receiving the Bap­tism of John. All are yet more expresly com­manded to receive the Baptism of Christ. Go, Baptize ALL NATIONS. Go ye into ALL THE WORLD, Matth. xxviii. 19. Mar. xvi. 15. and Preach the Gospel to EVERY CREATURE: He that Believeth, and is BAP­TIZED, shall be saved. But the Quakers and Muggletonians excuse themselves, as being too Good for it; They truly feeling in themselves (as it is expressed in the Key before quoted, p. 26.) the very Thing, which outward Water, Bread and Wine do signifie, they leave them off. But were they as Holy as they pretend, yet wou'd not this excuse them from observing the Institutions of Christ; nay, the greatest Sign of Holiness, and true Humility, is, not to think our selves a­bove his Institutions, but obediently to observe them, after the Blessed Example of Christ our Lord. And it is the greatest Instance of Spiritual Pride, and the most Fatal Deception in the World, thus to over-value our selves; it betrays the grossest Ignorance of Spiritual things: For the more a Man knows of himself, and of God, the more he discovers of his own Weakness and Ʋnworthiness; he appears less in his own sight, and frames himself the more Obsequiously, with the most profound Humility and Resignation, Dutifully and Zealously to observe every the least Command of God. They are Novices in the Knowledge of [Page 66] God, who are lifted up with Pride; and these fall into the Condemnation of the Devil, 1 Tim. iii. 6.

And what can be greater Pride, than to think our selves in an higher Condition of Perfection, than the Holy Apostles, and all those Glorious Saints and Martyrs, who were the First-fruits of the Gospel, called (in the Key above quoted) by the Lessening Stile of Young Converts, in Primitive Times?

St. Paul, though IMMEDIATELY Converted, and Enlightned MIRACULOUSLY from HEA­VEN, was commanded to go to Annanias to be Baptized. But our Quakers pass him off as a Young Convert, they have got beyond him, and think themselves more HIGHLY Enlightned than he was: And, for that Reason only, not to need that Baptism, which was thought necessa­ry for him.

And all the other Christians, from Christ to George Fox, were Young Converts! Then it was that a greater Light was given than ever was known in the Church of Christ before, to make the Outward Baptism cease, as of no longer use to those who had attain'd the Substance! Or otherwise none of the Primitive Christians knew their own Holiness; or were so Humble as not to own it, to that Degree as to place themselves above all outward Ordinances!

These are the Grounds and Reasons of the Quakers, why Baptism, and the Lord's Supper were not Perpetual!

Which, in the mildest word that I cou'd frame, I have call'd Precarious. And they must appear to be such, till the Quakers can give some other Proof besides their own saying so, [Page 67]either that the Holiness of any Person can excuse him from the Observance of Christ's Institution: Or, that they have a greater Degree of Holiness than all others since Christ, who have been Bap­tized.

3. But the Perpetuity of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, are fully expressed in the Words of the Scripture. When Christ gave Commission to his Disciples to Baptize, he promised to be with them, in the Execution of that Commission, even unto the End of the World, Matth. xxviii. 20. which shews, that the Commission was to des­cend after the Death of the Apostles to whom it was given. And it tells how long; Alway, even unto the End of the World. The like Perpe­tuity is annexed to the Institution of the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. xi. 26. Till Christ come again. It was Instituted in Remembrance of him; and therefore to be continu'd till his Coming again.

III. I know the Quakers do Interpret this, not of Christ's Outward and Personal Coming at the Resurrection, which (after Hymeneus and Philetus, 2 Tim. ii. 18.) they say is past already, that is, Inwardly perform'd, by the Spiritual Resurrection of Christ, or the Light in their Hearts. And they say, That the Institution of the Lord's Supper was only to continue till that Inward Coming, or forming of Christ in our Hearts; which they having obtain'd, (as they presume) therefore they throw off the Outward Supper.

But was not Christ formed in the Hearts of the Apostles, to whom Christ gave his Holy Sup­per, as much as in the Hearts of the Quakers now? Was he not Come SPIRITUALLY to [Page 68] Paul, after his Conversion? And before his Command, above quoted, of continuing the Practice of the Lord's Supper, till his Coming?

If they say, That this was only to have it continu'd to those weaker Christians, who had not Christ thoroughly formed in their Hearts.

First, Who can say, That Christ is thoroughly formed in his Heart? May there not be greater and greater Degrees of the Inspiration of Christ in our Hearts? And can we ever come to the End of it, so as to need no further Inspiration, or Coming of Christ within us? Therefore Christ 's Inward Coming is always to be expected. His further and further Coming and Inspiration.

But if that Coming, which the Quakers wou'd make to be the Determination of the Outward Institutiom of the Lord's Supper, be the Least De­gree of his Coming, then every Christian, nay, according to the Quakers, every Man in the World, not only is, but always was exempted from the Observation of that Institution; because the Quakers do own, That every Man in the World has, and ever had the Light within, which they make to be Christ, at least, an Influence and Inspiration from Christ; and so to be a Com­ing, or Presence of his in the Heart: And there­fore, by this Rule, Christ is Come to every Man, in some Degree or other: And, if there be not some stinting, or ascertaining of this De­gree, then Christ was always so Come to All, as to make the Institution of the Lord's Supper use­less, at all Times, to All. Nay, it was ended, before it began. For, if his Inward Coming does end it, it cou'd never begin, because he was always so Inwardly Come.

But if there are some Degrees of his Coming so weak as to need the Help of the Outward In­stitution, to which God has annexed the Promise of his Grace, when duly Administred, and Re­ceiv'd, than these Degrees must be known, else those may be depriv'd of the Benefit of it, who have most need of it: And those are they who think that they need it least.

Secondly, The Quakers do not always pretend, all of them, to the same Degrees of Perfection (if there be Degrees in Perfection) they must be sensible sometimes (at least others are) of the many Weaknesses of some of their Number: Why then do they not allow the Lord's Supper to those Weaker ones? Else they must say, That it was not intended for the Weak more than for the Strong. And so, that the Institution and Practise of it, by Christ and his Apostles, was wholly useless, and to no purpose. And that all those high Things said of it, That it is the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, 1 Cor. x. 16. And Christ's own Words, This is my Body: And therefore, that the recei­ving it unworthily, is being Guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord: That therefore we shou'd approach to it, with the greatest Reverence and Preparation, to Examine our selves seriously and diligently, that we may receive it with pure Hearts and Minds: And the Dreadful Judg­ments which do attend the Neglect or Abuse of it, not only sundry Diseases, and divers kinds of Deaths, but Damnation, 1 Cor. xi. from Ver. 27. I say all these were Words thrown into the Air, of no Meaning, nor Import at all, if the Quaker Interpretation be true, which makes no­thing [Page 70]at all of the Lord's Supper, but renders it wholly Precarious and Insignificant, even at the time of its Institution; and now to be hurtful and Pernicious, as drawing Men from the Sub­stance, to meer Shadows; for they make of it no more!

IV. But I wou'd beseech them to consider how much more highly God does value it; and how Material a part of his Religion he does make it: For when St. Paul was taught the Faith immedi­ately from Heaven, and not from those who were Apostles before him (as he tells us, Gal. i. 16, 17.) Christ took care to instruct him as to this of the Lord's Supper particularly. And he presses it upon the Corinthians, as having receiv'd it from God. For I have received of the Lord (says he, 1 Cor. xi. 23.) that which also I de­livered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same Night in which he was Betrayed, took Break, &c. and so goes on to relate the whole Institution of the Lord's Supper, and the mighty Conse­quences, the Benefits and Advantages of it; the Examination preparatory to it; and the Ven­geance both Temporal and Eternal, which was due to the Contempt of it.

This shews, that Christ did not Institute this Holy Sacrament by Chance. It was the last Act of his Life; and his Dying Bequest to his Church; fill'd with all his Blessings, and carrying with it, to the Worthy Receivers, the whole Merits, and Purchase of his Death and Passion, the Remission of our Sins, and full Title to Heaven! Brethren, I speak after the Manner of Men; Gal. iii. 15. tho' it be but a Man's Testament, yet, if it be confirmed, no Man [Page 71]disannulleth, or addeth thereto. How much less then can any Man take upon him to disannul this last Will and Testament of Christ's, which he has left to his Church; and Bequeathed it to her with his Dying Breath!

This was the Reason that it was not only so particularly Recorded by the several Evange­lists in the Gospels; but when St. Paul was taught immediately from Heaven, this most Material Institution was not forgot, but Christ Himself instructed him in it; to shew the great Stress and Value which he laid upon it.

And let this suffice, to have said in this place, concerning this other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Its Institution is as Plain and Express as that of Baptism. And the Practise of it, in the Days of the Apostles, and all Ages since has been as Ʋniversal. And what has been said of Baptism, is of Equal Force as to this: And the Quaker Arguments against this, are upon the same Foundation as those against Baptism; on­ly they have not so many Objections against this: Therefore I have made Baptism the chief Subject of this Discourse; yet so, as likewise to include the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. There­fore we will go on to consider what remains of the present Objection (which Militates equally against both) that there are no Signs under the Gospel.

V. And here let me observe,

First, That these Signs and Figures which the Quakers make Incompatable to the Gospel State, ought only to be understood of the Signs and Figures in the Law, which were ordain'd as [Page 72] Types of Christ. And of these it is truly argu'd, That when Christ, who is the Substance, is come, they must cease of course; which Argument the Quakers bring against the Signs and Figures which Christ did Institute under the Gospel. But how foreign this is from their purpose, let any one judge. For those Signs and Figures which were appointed by Christ, cou'd not be Types of Christ; because a Type is what goes before a Thing, and shews it to come. And therefore, when that which it foreshews is come, it ceases. But, as there were Types under the Law to foreshew Christ's coming in the Flesh, and his Sacrifice upon the Cross, which therefore are ceased; so Christ has appointed other Types to foreshew his second Coming to Judge the World; and which therefore must last till he shall so come, as the Types of his first coming did last, till he did so come. The Sacrifices under the Law, did praefigure the Death of Christ; but the Sacraments under the Gospel, were In­stituted in Remembrance of it; as well as for Types of our future Ʋnion with him in Heaven. Therefore the same Reason which makes the Legal Types to cease, does infer, That the Evan­gelical Types must not cease, till they likewise shall be fulfilled; which will not be till we ar­rive at Heaven. Thus, as they are Types. And then,

Secondly, As they are Remembrances of what is past, they are to last as long as the Remem­brance of that which they Represent ought to last with us. Christ did not Institute his Supper, that we shou'd thereby Remember his Death, a Day, or a Year, but till his Coming again. His Death [Page 73]took his Personal Presence from us; and there­fore till that Return, we must continue the Re­membrance, that is, of his Absence, till the Glo­rious Return of his Visible Body, which was se­parated from us by his Death.

Thus no advantage can be brought to the Quaker Pretences against the Christian Sacraments, from the Sacrifices and other Signs or Figures un­der the Law.

VI. We come now to Examine, what they set up against any Signs or Figures under the Gospel, from another Topick; and that is, That the Gospel is all Substance, and therefore that there must be no Sign or Figure at all in it.

Answ. By Substance here they mean that which is Inward, or Spiritual, that every thing in the Gospel is Spiritual.

But this will overthrow all Outward, or Bo­dily Worship. For that is distinguished from Spiritual, or Inward Worship.

And, in one sense, all Bodily Worship is a Sign or Figure of the Inward, or Spiritual; which is the Principal and Substantial Worship. Thus Bowing the Knee, or Ʋncovering the Head at Prayer, are Signs or Figures of the Inward Re­verence and Devotion of the Heart.

And this the Quakers practise; therefore, by their own Argument, they have Signs and Fi­gures as well as others; only they throw off those of Christ's Institution, and make new ones of their own.

It is impossible to be without Signs and Fi­gures. For this whole World is a Figure of that which is to come. We our selves are Fi­gures [Page 74]of God, being Images of him: And what is an Image but the Figure or Sign of a Thing? Christ is a Figure of God, being the Express I­mage of his Person, Heb. i. 3. And we now have the Knowledge of God in the Face of Jesus Christ. God is a Light inaccessible to Angels, as well as unto Men, without some Medium: His Essence cannot be seen or known Immediately, by any but Himself. All Creatures partake of him in Signs and Figures of him; each in their several Degrees; there are Higher and more Noble Figures; but all are Figures. And God has, in all Ages, through the World, Dispen­sed himself to Mankind in Signs and Figures; we cou'd not otherwise apprehend Him. Christ is the most Noble and Lively Figure of God: Therefore his Dispensation is far beyond all others that went before him. Yet even now, We see though a Glass darkly, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. or, in a Riddle; as our Margent reads it, [...], in a Figure.

What is the Bible that we read, what are Words but the Signatures, the Signs or Figures of Things? We can see the Essence of no one thing in the World, more than of God. And what are all those Accidents of Colour, Quantity and Quality, by which we distinguish Things, but so many Figures or Signs of them?

So very wild is that Notion, that there must be no Signs or Figures under the Gospel!

It would be much Truer, if they had said, That there are nothing else but Signs and Figures: There is nothing else without a Figure but God! For all Creatures are Figures of Him, Christ, the Highest.

But have the Quakers no Figures? G. Fox in his Saul's Errand, p. 14. says, That Christ's Flesh is a Figure. They call the Body of Christ gene­rally, a Figure, a Vail, a Garment. Then either they have none of it, or they have Figures. Richard Hubberthorn wrote, Snake in the Grass, 1st Part, pag. 208. That Christ's coming in the Flesh was but a Figure: He meant of the Inward coming of Christ, or the Light in the Heart, which they call the Substance and the Mystery; of which Christ's Outward coming in the Flesh, they say, was but a Shadow, or the History (to use their own words.) G. Fox made a great Mystery, or Figure of his Marriage, which, he said, Was above the State of the first Adam, 2d Part, p. 43. in his Innocency; in the State of the second Adam that never fell. He wrote, in one of his General Epistles to the Churches,) which were read, and valu'd by the Quakers, more than St. Paul's,) That his Marriage was a Figure of the Church coming out of the Wilderness. This, if deny'd, I can Vouch undeniably, but it will not be deny'd, tho' it be not Printed with the rest of his Epistles, but I have it from some that read it often. But why was it not Printed? That was a sad Story. But take it thus. He Mar­ry'd one Margaret Fell, a Widdow, of about Threescore Years of Age; and this Figure of thē Church must not be Barren; therefore, tho' she was past Child-bearing, it was expected, that, as Sarah, she shou'd miraculously Conceive, and bring forth an Isaac; which G. Fox promis'd and boasted of; and some that I know have heard him do it, more than once. She was call'd, The Lamb's Wife. And it was said a­mongst the Quakers, That the Lamb had now [Page 76]taken his Wife, and she wou'd bring forth an Holy Seed. And Big she grew, and all things were provided for the Lying in; and, he, be­ing perswaded of it, gave notice to the Churches, as above observ'd. But, after long waiting, all prov'd Abortive, and the Figure was spoil'd. And now you may guess the Reason, why that Epistle which mention'd this Figure, was not Printed.

I wou'd have brought nothing into this Dis­course that looks like a Jest; but they have compelled me. And it may be of use to them, to shew them, that while they throw off the Sacraments of Christ's Institution, upon the Pre­tence that there must be no Signs or Figures under the Gospel, they, at the same time, make Ridiculous Signs and Figures of G. Fox, and his Fantastical Marriage; and of several other things; every thing almost among them, is a Sign or Figure of something to come upon the World. How many of their Lying Prophets have call'd themselves Signs to the Men of their Generation, as the Holy Prophets were in their Day?

VII. There have been Outward Signs, in all the Institutions of Religion, since the begin­ning of the World; as well before, as under the Law, and now under the Gospel. Only they have been vary'd or ended according to what they praesigur'd. Thus those Signs which had no further Tendency, than to point out what Christ did or suffer'd upon Earth, are fulfill'd and therefore Ended.

But there were some Signs, which, though they pointed to Christ upon Earth, had yet a further Tendency: For Signs may be ap­pointed to more Ends than one. Thus the Institution of the Sabbath was appointed for the Commemoration of God's Rest from the Works of the Creation, Gen. ii. 3. and Exod. xx. 11, and likewise the Rest of the Children of Israel (who were the Type of the Church) from their Captivity and Slavery in Egypt, Deut. v. 15. (which expresses the Servitude of Sin and Hell) and their final Rest in Canaan (the Type of Heaven) after their forty Years wan­dering in the Wilderness, (which represent the Labours of this Life.) But this was not the Ultimate Rest, or Sabbath, Heb. iv. 18. For if Joshua had given them Rest, then wou'd he not afterward have spoken of another Day; there re­maineth therefore [...] the keeping of a Sab­bath (which signifies Rest) to the People of God. For he that is entred into his Rest, he also hath ceased from his own Works, as God did from his. Thus Christ, as he suffered the sixth Day of the Week, the same Day that Man was Crea­ted and Fell; so, on the same Day on which God Rested from his Work of Creation, viz. the Seventh Day, did Christ Rest in his Grave, from his Work of Redemption. And there is yet a farther Rest or Sabbath beyond this; and that is, the Eternal Rest in Heaven. Heb. iv. 11. Let us Labour therefore to emer into that Rest.

Now, though several Significations of the Sabbath are already past, as the Deliverance out of Egypt; the Entrance into Canaan; and [Page 78]the Rest of Christ, in his Grave: Yet there being one behind, that is, the Sabbath of Hea­ven, therefore do we still keep the Sabbath as a Type of it.

But there is another Reason for the Con­tinuance of the Sabbath; and that is, That it was not only ordained as a Type of Things to come; but as a Commemoration of what was past, viz. Of God's Rest from his Works of Creation. And, by the Alteration of the Day of the Sabbath, it serves likewise to us Christians, as a Commemoration of the Resurrection of Christ, and his Conquest over the Powers of Death and Hell. It was the first Day in which Light was created; and Christ (who is our True Light, of which the Visible Light is but a Shadow, and was ordain'd as a Type) Arose from the Dead, the same Day; and gave Light to those who sat in Darkness, and the Shadow of Death, by the Joyful Tidings of our Re­demption from Hell, and Eternal Bliss in Hea­ven!

Now so long as the Works of our Creation and Redemption are to be kept in Memory, so long is the Sabbath to continue, as a Commemo­ration of these Inestimable Benefits.

And, by the same Reason, so long as we ought to commemorate the Death and Passion of our Lord; so long ought the Sacrament of it to continue; which he Instituted in Remem­brance of it; and commanded it to be continu'd till his Coming again.

Thus you see that there are Signs under the Gospel; not only the two Sacraments of the Church (which flowed distinctly out of Christ's [Page 79]Side, after his Death upon the Cross) but that the Gospel does still retain the Signs of Comme­moration, which have descended down to us all the way from the Creation: And likewise such Signs or Types as have yet a Prospect for­ward, and are not wholly fulfill'd.

And, 3dly, The Signs of Present Signification, as the outward Acts of Worship: To which we are as much, nay more strictly obliged under the Gospel, than they were under the Law. As St. Irenaeus argues, ( advers. Haeres. l. 4. c. 34.) That the manner of Worship, as of Sacrifices, is chang'd: but not the Worship abolished. Non Genus oblationis Reprobatum est, oblationes enim & illic, oblationes autem & hic: Sacrificia in Populo, Sacrificia & in Ecclesia; sed Species Immutata est tantum, i. e. The Kind or Nature of the Offe­ring is not Abolished; for there were Offerings under the Law, and there are Offerings also under the Gospel: there were Sacrifices among the People of the Jews; There are Sacrifices likewise in the Church: but the Species or Man­ner of them only is changed, viz. That some Sacrifices under the Law were Bloody, as Prae­figuring the Death of Christ: and therefore that Sort or Manner of Sacrificing is ceased, be­cause Fulfill'd in the Death of Christ: But their Ʋn-bloody Sacrifices, and Oblations; as of Tythes, and other Offerings Remain still among Chri­stians: and are Signs, as much as they were under the Law. The outward Worship of God must be by Actions proper and significant. Iron. ibid. Ni­hil enim Otiosum, nec sine Signo, nec sine Argu­mento apud Eum. i. e. For there is nothing Em­pty, nor without a Sign, nor without Signification [Page 80]in the Worship of God. And, in the very next words, he applies this to Tythes. Et propter hoc illi quidem Decimas — And for this rea­son the Jews paid Tythes, viz. as a Sign of their Dependence upon God, and having Receiv'd All from Him: And in Hopes of their Receiv­ing More from Him. Sed nos omnia — But the Christians, instead of a Tenth Part, which the Jews gave, Give All that they have, be­cause (says he) they have a Better Hope. And, Ch. 27. shewing how Christ did Heighten the Law, as, instead of Adultery, to forbid Lust; instead of Murder, to forbid Anger; and, in­stead of giving the Tythe, commanding to sell All: And this, says he, is not a Dissolving of the Law, but Enlarging it. So that no Part of the Law is Destroy'd; Matth. v. 17, 18. and All is not Ful­fill'd; and since All must be Fulfill'd, it fol­lows, that what is not yet Fulfill'd, must yet Re­main: And Many of the Signs in the Law not being Fulfill'd in Christ's Death, nor ever to be Fulfill'd while we Live upon this Earth, consequently do Remain, and must so Remain to the End of the World. So that the Gos­pel has Signs as well as the Law; and, in Great Part, the same Signs; with other Sacra­mental Signs added by Christ, which are those of which we now Treat, Baptism, and The Supper of The Lord.

VIII. And let us Reflect, that ever since God made outward Things, and gave us this Body, as the Soul does act by the Mediation of the Body; so has God ordain'd, that his [Page 81] Gifts and Graces shall be convey'd to us by Out­ward Signs and Means.

Christ us'd outward Signs and Means for his Miraculous Cures; to shew, that tho' the Ver­tue did not come from the Means, yet that they were of Use, and not to be Despised.

But why do we say, that the Vertue does not come from the Means? We say so, when we cannot tell the Reason and Manner how the Means work their Effect, and can we tell it, in those which we call Natural Means? No surely, we know only by Observation, and Experience; and what often comes to pass, we call it Natural, as being the common Course of Things; not that we know the Reason of it, more than of those Occurrences which we call Miraculous and Extraordinary.

Man doth not live by Bread alone, but by e­very Word that proceedeth out of the Mouth of God.

Bread has no Vertue of its own to nourish; but only what it receives from God: And if he give his Vertue (for it is His only) to a Stone; or any thing else, it will nourish: And Bread will, and does cease to nourish, when he with­draws his Blessing from it.

Therefore the Spittle of Christ and the Clay, the Waters of Siloam and Bethesda, and the Bra­zen Serpent has as great Vertue to Cure, when they were Appointed by God, as Bread has to nourish; and the Vertue came as much from Them, as it does from the Bread, in our Daily Food.

Now, if the Brazen-Serpent, which was but a Type of Christ, had Vertue to Cure the Body; shall we deny that the Bread, which Christ blessed, for the Remission of Sin, has Vertue to work that Effect?

He whose single Fiat made the Worlds, and whose Influence gives Power to all Things, and makes them what they are; he said of that Blessed Bread, THIS IS MY BODY. And his Holy Apostle said of it, The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? And do we doubt, how it works this Effect? Dare we Reject it, because it seems strange to us, how it shou'd work this Effect, who know as little how our Daily Bread does nourish our Bodies? Do we object our Igno­rance how a Man can be Born of Water and the Spirit, who can give as short an Account how we are formed, of a drop of Water, in the Womb; and by what Ligaments such different Natures as Soul and Body, are compacted and linked together? How can we pretend to have Faith in Christ, and yet not believe his Words, because of the seeming difficulty to our Under­standings (who know nothing) of the Method and Manner, how He can bring them to pass?

According to our Faith it will be unto us. Therefore let us Humble our Souls greatly, and imitate the Holy Angels (far more Enlightned than we are) who vail their Faces before God; and presume not to dispute his Commands; or pretend to understand all the Methods of his Power and Wisdom unsearchable! but desire to look into those Things, 1 Pet. i. 12. those Glo­rious Mysteries of the Gospel, which the Quakers [Page 83]despise, as below the Measure to which they have attain'd! And the Principalities and Powers in Heavenly places, do submit to learn the Ma­nifold Wisdom of God, Ephes. iii. 10. from that Church, which the Quakers do vilifie and trample under their feet; as thinking it uncapable to teach them any thing, or to administer to them the Sacraments which Christ has commanded.

But because the Dispute will arise which that Church is, in the miserable Divisions of Chri­stendom, and amongst the various sorts of the Pretenders to it, I have in the Discourse men­in the Advertisement, I hope, given a plain and sure Rule to guide all Honest and Disinterested Enquirers, in that most necessary and fundamen­tal Point.

To be added to the End of Sect. VIII. p. 49.

But R. Barclay argue in his Apology, That the Baptism, of which the Ark was a Type, cou'd not be the Outward, or Water-baptism, because that it self is a Type, viz. Of the In­ward or Spiritual Baptism. And he supports this Notion by a Criticism upon the Word [...] in this Text, which he says is not rightly Translated in our English by The like Figure. Because, he says, the Word [...] signifies the thing Typify'd, and not the Type.

But, by his leave, it signifies the quite con­trary. Heb. ix. 24. not the thing Typify'd, but only the Type: For there the Holy Places made with Hands are called the [...], the Figures or Types of the True. And that Word is not to be found; except in these two Texts, in the whole New Testament. And therefore if one of these Texts must explain the other, the Word [...], or Anti-Type, 1 Pet. iii. 21. must be taken in the same Sense, in which it is used, Heb. ix. 24. because there it cannot possibly be taken to mean the thing Typify'd, or the Archi-Type; therefore neither ought it to be so strain'd, as Barclay does, to mean the quite con­trary, in the present Text. And our Translation is Justify'd, which renders [...] the like Fi­gure, as does the Vulgar, Similis formae. For both the Waters of the Ark, and of Baptism, are the outward and visible Signs, but not the [Page 92]thing signify'd, which is the Salvation of the Soul, by the Regeneration and Washing of the Spi­rit. And they are like Figures, both signifying the same thing, in a manner very like to one another. That as Noah, &c. were sav'd in the Ark by Water from Corporal Death, so are the True Believers sav'd by the Water of Baptism, from the Death of Sin and Hell. In which Sense the Ark was a Type of the outward or Water-baptism, tho' both were Types, but one nearer than the other. And because the Baptism men­tion'd in this Text, 1 Pet. iii. 21. is an [...], a Type or Figure; therefore it must be the Out­ward and Water-baptism, which is here meant. For the Inward and Spiritual Baptism is not the Type or Figure, but the thing signify'd. And thus Rob. Barclay's Argument and Criticism has turn'd into a full Demonstration of the direct contrary of that for which he brought it: And has thoroughly Established the Divine Institution of the Outward or Water-Baptism.