Christianismus primitivus, or, The ancient Christian religion, in its nature, certainty, excellency, and beauty, (internal and external) particularly considered, asserted, and vindicated from the many abuses which have invaded that sacred profession, by humane innovation, or pretended revelation comprehending likewise the general duties of mankind, in their respective relations : and particularly the obedience of all Christians to magistrates, and the necessity of Christian-moderation about things dispensible in matters of religion : with divers cases of conscience discussed and resolved / by Thomas Grantham ...

Christianismus Primitivus.

The Fourth BOOK.

The Baptist against the Papist.

The First Part sheweth, the Scripture and Rome to be in contention about the Supream Seat of Judgment in Controversies of Religion.

THe first of all Controversies is founded upon this Query: Who is the Authoritative Judg of Controversies? And in∣deed till there be some agreement in this Point, there can be no expectation of any fruitful issue of any Contro∣versie.

Now all Controversies among the Sons of Men, are re∣duceable to one of these two Heads; namely, things Humane, or things Divine; things precisely pertaining to this Life, or things which only pertain to that which is to come; Concerns of a secular consideration, or Concerns of a religious consideration. And according to the nature of these Controversies, such ought the Judg for decision thereof to be.

Concerning this Judg of Religious Controversies, there are divers Opi∣nions. Some say that the Light, or that of God in every Man, is this only Infallible Judg of all Religious Controversies. But if this be ad∣mitted, a multitude of inconveniences must needs follow, of which this is not the least, That there can be no end of Controversies: because, If every Man have this Judg of all Debates in himself, and he aver, that what he saith and doth is according to the Voice of this Judg, (or that of God in him) no Man can take in hand to judg contrary thereunto, with∣out becoming the Judge's Judg, and so violate the Rule proposed. For this Opinion refers not doubtful Matters to that of God in some Men, or a select number of Men, but to that of God in every Man.

There is another Opinion, which saith, That amongst all Men which pretend to own Christ, and challenge to themselves the title of his Church, and yet do deny each other to have an Interest in that Title; That amongst all such Parties of the Sons of Men, the only Infallible and Authorita∣tive Judg of their Controversies about Religion, is the LORD Himself, as he speaketh by his Spirit in the Holy Scriptures; together with right Reason: Or thus, which is all one, the Apostles and Prophets, as they

speak in their Holy Writings, are the only Infallible Authoritative Judg in these Controversies. Yet three things are in this Opinion allowed: First, That the living Voice of the Pastors (with the Church) in their respe∣ctive Ages wherein they live, are of great importance in order to the ter∣minating strife in the Church, as a Church. Secondly, That Records of Antiquity are of some usefulness for the resolving some Controversies, and for the better discovery of some Errors, yet not so absolutely neces∣sary, but that the Church may sufficiently resolve her Controversies with∣out them. Thirdly, That there is a Judgment of Science to be allowed every Man, as touching all things which he chuseth or refuseth in Matters of Religion, to be used with moderation and discreet subjection. And this is the Opinion to which for my part I do adhere.

There is another Opinion which saith, That the Papal Church of Rome is the Supream Judg and Catholick Moderatrix of all Disputes in Matters of Faith, and that All are bound to hear and obey her Voice under pain of Damnation; and that the Scriptures, as taken in the second Opinion, is not the Judg of Controversies. Now this is the Opinion which at this time I am to examin, which in much seriousness I humbly propose to do, and leave it to the sober consideration of all Men.

And for the better discharge of this Duty, it is meet we should under∣stand what the Papists mean by the Church of Rome. And this I find, that under that title they would involve the whole Church of Christ from the Apostles days until this present time, at least all the Faithful since the time that Paul declares the Roman Church to have been famous, as Rom. 1. 8. But this is the very thing denied by us; for though we wil∣lingly grant that there was a very famous Church at Rome, when Paul wrote his Epistle to them; yet it followeth not, that there is such a Church there now; or that all that ever from that time to this have walked in the steps of true Faith, must needs be supposed to have been Members of the Roman Church, or rather of the Church of Rome (so called) especially since it was Papal. So that in this Controversie they must be content to define the Church of Rome on this wise, (viz.) All that in any Age since Christ, was of the same Faith and Practice in things Religious, which is at this day found in the Papal Church of Rome, and those only are the Persons of whom the Papal Church of Rome doth consist. And indeed this is as much as they can reasonably desire: for if those Holy Men who lived in times past, were of a Faith and Practice contra-distinct to that which Rome hath now received, Then may not the present Papal Church, without wrong, challenge them to be of their Church? As for Example; Paul, who bore witness for Christ at Rome, and the Christians there in his days, was of the Church of Christ at Rome; yet we deny that they were any part of the Papal Church of Rome.

The Church of Rome therefore, defined as before, I do deny to be the Infallible Authoritative Judg of all Controversies about Matters of Faith or Religion: And I do further say, That the Scriptures and right Reason, as laid down in the second Opinion, much more deserves to be received for this Supream Judg of Controversies, than the Papal Church of Rome: and that there is not an other Umpire that can so effectually decide the

Controversies of Religion, which depend between such Parties of Men as lay claim to the Title of Christ's Church, and yet deny each other to have an interest therein.

And how far forth the Truth in this Point hath been evidenced in that pro and con Discourse, (so far as it relateth to the first of them) which hath been occasioned by writing of the Seven Queries I have before spoken of, is here offered to the Consideration of all sober Men, that profess to own the Glorious Gospel of the Blessed God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. The first Query of the Seven was this, propounded by the nameless Pa∣pist.

PAPIST.

WHether we are to resolve all Differences in Point of Religion, only out of the written Word of God?

BAPTIST.

To which Question these ensuing Answers were given before I received the Adversaries last Paper; which, with the Answers thereunto, I will transcribe verbatim. I say the Answers were,

That the word Controversies being understood of such Controversies only as depend between those Parties of Men who deny each other to be the Church; that then there is no other way whereby WE can resolve those Controversies, but by the assistance of God's Spirit speaking to us [through the undoubted Prophets, and Apostles, and Primitive Churches] in the lively Oracles of God, the Scriptures of Truth, together with the help of right Reason in a way of subserviency to those Divine Directions. Or, if the word Controversies, shall relate only to all such Controversies as fall within the compass of the Church, that then to the former means, we are to joyn the living Voice and Authority of the Church (in pre∣sent being) assembled with her Pastors, as the ordinary means appointed of God to terminate strife in the Churches. But if the Division in the Church be so great, as that it be not this way decisive; or the Doubt so secret, as not this way to be resolved; there is not then a better way, than for both Parties to reason it out till Truth and Innocency do prevail; as the two Tribes and an half did with the other Tribes of Israel, and pre∣vailed, Joshua 22. or in some doubtful Cases the use of Lots may be ad∣mitted for the resolution of them, Acts 1.

PAPIST.

It is worth observing, how many windings and turnings you have to avoid the difficulty of this Query; Whether we are to resolve all Differences in Point of Religion, only out of the written Word of God? 1. You leave out the word [only] in which lay the very knot of the difficulty. 2. Then you give me a piece of an Answer, and keep in the living Voice of the Church, as a reserve for your Second Paper. 3. When you are shewed how you for∣sake your old Fort, the sole sufficiency of Scripture, as if you were afraid to come too near us, you give back again, and do your worst to discredit this

living voice of the Church, so that in effect it stands but for a meer Cipher, as I foresaw it would when it came once to the scanning. 4. Upon second thoughts, finding your Error, by putting the Query, What is become of the living voice of the Church? You shuffle again, and would gladly make some∣thing of it; but this something, in the end, falls to just nothing, as I shall make it further appear by ripping up the particulars of this your last Answer.

BAPTIST.

I have used no windings to avoid the difficulty of the first Query; but you are to know, that when I first answered it, I took the word Controversus to relate only to such Controversies as depend between such Persons, as deny each other to have any present right to either the Name, or Privi∣ledges of the Church. And indeed, I do not see how any other sense can be made of this Query: For, under that word WE, I suppose you included no more but your Self and Church, on the one Party; and us, to whom you sent the Queries, on the other Party; and we well know you account us no Members of the Church; and you likewise know, that we have the same opinion of you: But when your Observations (or Second Paper) took into the Query all Controversies which fall within the compass of the Church, as such, I could do no less than tell you, that my Answer did not exclude the living Voice of the Church in such Cases; [but that my Answer doth only exclude every such Voice as ex∣alteth it self above the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures; And whereas in your Third Paper, you told me, That to appeal to Councils and Fathers, is a clear way to agree all our Differences; I told you that this is a very cloudy way, and that because they are contrary to themselves, and one another. 2. Till they be agreed, they cannot agree us. 3. And sith you take not the Scripture as being of any Authority, till they, as the Church, give it you; I demanded, by what you would agree them in their Divisions? 4. And to shew you how they are divided, I give you divers Instances concerning their Divisions, as also touching the Corrup∣tion which hath been found in divers Popes.]

PAPIST.

1. I had no reason to take notice of your excluding from the living Voice of the Church, every Voice exalting it self above the Voice of Scripture, because it was a very needless Exception, since the Church arrogates no such Power, but only to interpret the Voice of Scripture.

2. Why this way of taking the sense of Scripture from the living voice of the Church, should be so cloudy, as you say it is, I do no more understand, than that the living voice of a Judg should be a cloudy way to understand the Law by.

As for your Riddles, how we are to reconcile the Fathers and Councils when they seem to clash with their own Assertions, but by having recourse to Scrip∣ture: I answer briefly, That General Councils have no such contradictions as you speak of. And as for the holy Fathers, when there is any such difficulty in any

one of them, we must look upon the rest what they say, and to follow their una∣nimous consent: For if we do take them singly, no doubt they have erred, and these Errors we know by their dissenting from the rest; for otherwise, cer∣tainly the Authority of any one of the ancient Fathers, when he expounds Scripture, or relates the Christian practice of his time, and is not censured, or contradicted by the rest, or condemned by the Church in a General Council, is of greater authority to decide Controversies in point of Religion, or to know the true meaning of Scripture, than any thing you have alleaged, as we shall see by and by; when I have first examined what you bring to discredit the Fathers and Councils.

Against the Fathers, you first bring St. Aug. retract. 21. contradicting him∣self by saying, that, Mat. 16. Christ built not his Church upon Peter, but upon Peter's Faith: Sure you read not St. Augustine, for he there expounds that place of Christ himself, and not of the Faith of St. Peter; nor doth he recal his expounding it elsewhere of St. Peter, but leaves both Expositions as probable, concluding thus; Harum autem sententiarum quae sit probabilior eligat lector. Is this fair dealing? Again, you bring in St. Aug. contra. Petil. c. 2, 3, 4. as contrary to himself and me, because he teaches, That the Church is to be found out by the Words of Christ. But though (I doubt) you cannot make this appear in any of these three Chapters, yet were it nothing to the purpose; for we deny not but the Church is to be found out by these clear Marks, whereby the holy Scripture hath deciphered her.

Next, you alledg St. Chrysost. in Psal. 22. and St. Ambrose de Sacra∣ment. calling the Blessed Sacrament, a similitude, or figure of Christ's Body and Blood. I Answer, 1. That it is the Opinion of the Learned, that nei∣ther St. Chrysost. nor indeed any Grecian, could be Author of that Work. 2. I say, the Sacrament may be truly called the similitude of Christ's Body and Blood, because it is not given in the form of Flesh and Blood, of which Men would have an horror, as the same St. Ambrose observes, but under the Forms of Bread and Wine.

The next is St. Dinis Eccl. Herarch. but quoting no place, I have not yet met with it. I am sure that work is so clearly for us in this very point, that our Adversaries the Calvinists, and Calvin, denies it to be his. St. Aug. and Tertul. are as clear for us, and what you bring out of them clearly an∣swered by Bellarm. de Euchar. And you are to know that it is a general rule amongst the Learned, that we are to explicate obscure places by those that are clear, if we mean to know the Opinion of any Author; it being impossible for any Man to write so warily, but that something may be objected out of him (especially if he have writ much, as it is our case) which may seem contrary to what he expresly teaches. And you had need observe this rule in Expound∣ing the Scriptures themselves, or otherwise you will meet with a thousand ab∣surdities and contradictions.

Against the Councils, you produce that of Constantinople under Constant. Copron. as crying down Transubstantiation. But this was a factious Meeting, never owned for a Council, neither by the Greek nor Latine Fathers, and ex∣presly condemned in the Nicene Council: And the Jest is, this Mock-Council was so far from condemning Transubstantiation as you affirm, that they swore by the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, to abolish the worship of

Images: [Something should here have been said concerning Bertram, who is said to have opposed Transubstantiation; but in the Transcription of my Third Paper, there was an Errata, and the Instance is not material; so that what is said about him, I will expunge in both Papers.]

You say further against the Authority of Councils, That they have contra∣dicted each other in their Decrees, about the Layties communicating in one or both kinds: But we grant that the Church may vary in Customs of this Na∣ture, which being indifferent, may be altered as she shall think fit, according to several Circumstances: What we deny is, that the Church, or General Councils, ever made contrary Decrees about the belief of any point of Faith.

It is no wonder that you have a fling against the Pope, after you have been so bold with holy Fathers, and General Councils; but I must tell you, Though many of our Divines hold him infallible, when he speaks è Cathedra, as they call it, yet is it not the Opinion of all, and consequently no Article of our Faith. Only we agree in this, That for preserving peace in the Church, all are bound so far to submit to the Popes Decrees, as not to oppose them until a General Council be called, from whose Judgment we admit no Appeal. What you say of the wicked Lives of some of them, is nothing to the purpose; for as wicked Caiphas play'd the Prophet, so might the Bishops of Rome, with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, be true Interpreters of God's Word, for all their wicked Lives; such Gratia gratis data, which are given for the good of others, do not argue his Sanctity that hath them.

To make you a true Prophet, I will here cry out, What is become of the li∣ving voice of the Church, since you have done what you can to discredit her, by casting all the Dirt you can in her Face, as it is evident, unless you will throw out the Holy Fathers and General Councils (the Churches Representatives) out of the Church!

BAPTIST.

I perceive our Judgments differ concerning the living voice of the Church, what it is. I have told you, That I take it for the present Church and her Pastours, in those particular Ages wherein they live. You take this living voice to be the Decrees of Councils, and Books of the Ancient Fa∣thers. And here I cannot but marvel, why you should be willing to Ap∣peal to the Books of the Ancients, and their written Decrees, as a living voice, and clear way to decide our Controversies, and yet appeal from the Books of the Prophets and Apostles, as being but dead Letters, and sense∣less Characters. Certainly, if any Writings now extant, may be called the Churches living voice, the Holy Scripture doth better deserve that Ti∣tle than any other. Nor will it suffice here to object (as it is the Papists usual way) that our difference is about the Scripture, and the Sense thereof, &c. for the same difference is found amongst us, touching the Books and Sense of Councils and Fathers: Yea, I think I may be bold to say, That even the Learned are so much divided concerning them in both respects, as that they can never be therein reconciled.

But is it so, That the Voice of the Fathers, &c. who only speak in their Writings, is a means, or way of equal clearness to decide our Differences, as the voice of a living Judg in a Case of Law amongst Me•…•…?

Then what modest Man can render a Reason, that the Voices of the Pro∣phets and Apostles, though only speaking to us in their Books and De∣crees, may not be appealed to, as a clear way to decide our Differences? Sith all Men, professing Christianity, must confess that the Prophets and Apostles speak with as much Life and Power, Certainty and Authority, as any that ever writ since their Time: No-whither now can you turn your selves, but to your selves (as I have formerly noted) and take up∣on you to be the only living Voice, that must, without controul, interpret Fathers, Councils, and Scriptures too; and when you have done, sit down as Judg, to give Sentence for your selves, and against your Op∣posers.

Well, you have assigned us a Judg of Controversies; To wit, the Fa∣thers and Councils of the Church (long ago deceased) and this is a clear way, you say, to agree all. But I have noted that it's a very cloudy way, and that because they could not yet agree themselves; for they are opposite each to other to this day, insomuch as you are utterly unable to reconcile them, since (as I have shewed) you must not make use of the Scripture to that purpose; because, before the Scripture can have any Authority to any purpose, (according to your Judgment) your Councils must deliver it to us as the Word of God; which they cannot do till they be found, First, Holy Fathers and Councils of the Church; And Se∣condly, At unity among themselves, and each with himself. And I have asked you, How you will effect this difficult work? To which you Answer; First, That General Councils have no such Controversies as I talk of. Secondly, That when there is such difficulty in any one of the Fathers, we must look upon the rest what they say, and so follow their unanimous con∣sent; for (say you) if we take them singly, no doubt they have erred, and these Errors we know by their dissenting from the rest.

I answer first, That General Councils have erred, and that in matters of Faith, is undeniable, if Records may be credited rather than you. * 1.1 As first, The Council of Arimi. did err so, as to conclude for the Arrian Heresie, namely, That there was a time when Christ was not the Son of God: And sure you account that an Error in point of Faith. Secondly, The Council of Ephesus did err so, as to conclude for the Eutichian He∣resie, namely, That the Body of Christ was not of one Substance with ours. And is not this an Error in point of Faith? Or will you say, that these things were never contradicted and censured by other Councils? These things are not denied by your eminent Disputant. See the Book intituled, Certamen Religiosum. So then it appears, that General Coun∣cils have erred, and contradicted each other in very high points of Faith.

Moreover, as to the things whereof I chiefly spake in my last Paper, it is manifest that Councils have contradicted one another about the Sacra∣ments; for the Council of Constance, confirmed by Pope Martin the Fifth, doth Curse the Laity, or Excommunicate such as receive the Sacrament in both kinds. And yet by the Council of Basil, the Laity are allowed to receive it in both; which Council was also confirmed by a Pope, namely, Felix the Fifth. Sure one of these Councils must needs err. But you

have a way to salve this Errour (such as it is) and that is to tell me, That the Church may vary in Customs of this nature. Sure this is a corrupt Opi∣nion, by which it will follow, That we have no certainty of, nor con∣stancy in any Ordinance of Christ; for if the Church have power to take the Cup away, she hath power also to take the Bread away; for certainly she hath as much to do with the one, as with the other. * 1.2 But truly this your variation, as it is clear beside the Institution of Christ, and the Doctrine of Paul, so it hath in a manner destroyed both Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord; as is evident by the practice used in divers of your Masses, where the People partake neither of the Bread nor Cup. As also your Paeda-rantism, hath in a great measure defrauded the Sons of Men of the Baptism of Repentance.

But be pleased to consider, that this your sacrilegious division of this Sacrament, is condemned by Cyprian, Gelasius, and others. First, Cyprian saith, * 1.3 How can we exhort the People to shed their blood for Christ, if we deny them the Blood of him?

The division of this Mystery cannot be without great Sacrilege, saith Gelasius.* 1.4

Again, You cannot be ignorant how the Council of Carthage, decre∣ed the Books of Tobit, Judeth, Ecclesiasticus, Sapience, and Maccabees, should be received as Canonical, notwithstanding they were rejected out of the sacred Canon, by the Council of Laodicea; and here by the way I may take notice, how you would have me walk by such a Rule as you your self do not observe; for you propose the Judgment of those who lived nearest to the Apostles Times, as my safest Rule to walk by, suppo∣sing they knew the Mind of God, or Christ, better than those that came after; but then why do you reject the Judgment or the Laodicean Coun∣cil, which is more ancient than that of Carthage, which yet you follow in receiving the Books of Maccabees into your Canon of holy Scripture?

Secondly, It is marvellous to see, what work you make in reconciling the Fathers without the Scriptures. And seeing you are so hardy as to undertake this task without the Scripture, as undoubtedly you see you must, or else grant, that the Scripture must be that whereby we must de∣cide all Controversies in Religion; for certainly, if we must decide all the Fathers Controversies in Religion with or by the Scripture, it is not then very likely, that either we or they, should decide ours without them: But I say, sith you have undertaken to decide the Fathers Differences without Scripture, pray tell me, before you meddle with their Differences, how you know them to be holy Fathers of the Church? Can you prove them Church-Members without Scripture? I believe this is as hard a task as to reconcile their Differences without Scripture; and yet this also must you do, before you can look upon the Scripture as any Rule for either them, or your self.

You tell me, if I take the Fathers singly, no doubt they have erred: Yet you say I must follow their unanimous Consent, (a pretty Paradox). Follow their Consent! In what? Why say you, in their Interpretation of Scripture. Of Scripture! Why there is no such thing as yet for them to interpret; for you know (that by your own direction) we have laid

by the Scripture, and must reconcile these Fathers by themselves. Mi∣serable Guide! Hast thou not led me into a Labyrinth, and run thy self into a sufficient Maze? I'le back again, and see how these Fathers them∣selves direct me in this difficult Point. And first, I meet with famous Augustine, who tells me how he took notice of the Fathers that were be∣fore him. Saith he,

* 1.5 My consent without exception I owe not to any Father, were he never so well learned, but only to the Canonical Scripture: For whereas the Lord hath not spoken, who of us can say it is this, or that? And if he do say so, how can he prove it? Yes, saith he, * 1.6 I require the Voice of the Shepherd, read me this matter out of the Prophets, Psalms, the Gospel, or the Apostles Epistles. Neither (saith he) ought we to take the dispensations OF ALL MEN, how CATHOLICK SOEVER they be, or be they never so commen∣dable, as we take the Canonical Scriptures; as though we may not (saving the Honour that's due to such Men) reprove, or refuse any thing of their Wri∣tings, if we find they mean otherwise than the Verity doth allow, by the help of God found by us, or by others. Again, he saith, * 1.7 I am not moved with Cy∣prian's Epistles; for I do not take the Letters of Cyprian as the Canonical Scripture, but I do try his Writings BY THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURE; and whatsoever in them doth agree with the Authority of the Holy Scripture, I do receive it with his Commendation; and whatsoever doth not — I do by his good leave refuse it.

And for further testimony of Augustine's integrity, hear what he saith of himself: Trust not me (saith he) nor credit my Writings, as if they were Canonical Scripture, but whatsoever Thou findest in the Word, al∣though thou didst not believe it before, yet ground thy Faith on it now; and whatsoever thou readest of mine, unless thou knowest it certainly to be true, give no certain assent unto it. Again, he thus teacheth, * 1.8 We must be partakers of other Mens Writings, wholly after the manner of Bees; for they flie not alike to all Flowers, nor where they sit do they snatch all quite away, but snatch∣ing so much as may serve to their Honey-making, they take their leave of the rest. Even so we, if we be wise, having gotten so much of others as is sound and agreeable to Truth, we will leap over the rest. Which Rule, if we keep in reading and alledging the Fathers words, we shall not swerve from our Profession, the Scriptures shall have the soveraign place, and yet the Doctors of the Church shall lose no part of their due estimation.

And saith Origen, * 1.9 We have need to bring the Scriptures for Witness; for our Meanings and Expositions without them, have no credit, — the discussing of our Judgments must be taken ONLY of the Scriptures.

Thus you see the Fathers were not of your Mind, that the Readers of their Books should not try them by the Scriptures, but the contrary; and that as we find them consenting to, or dissenting from Scripture (not one another as you teach) accordingly they advise us to believe, or not believe them.

As I have said, it is a cloudy way to appeal to Councils and Fathers, so you now prove my saying true: For I alledged Augustine, as being op∣posite to you and your Church, touching the meaning of Mat. 16. Upon this Rock, &c. And, first, you tell me I read him not; but I must tell

you, I read him after a Scholar sufficient: And though your reading differ something from his, yet they both destroy the receivied Opinion of your Church concerning that Text; for if Christ be that Rock, as you confess Augustine there teacheth, then it cannot be meant positively of Peter, and so not consequently of your Popes.

My quotation out of Chrysostom, in Psal. 22. you would invalidate, by telling me, that Book was not writ by him. And this I find to be the usual way of Learned Men, when the passage alledged is clear and con∣vincing, then a suspition must be cast upon the Book, &c. I could in∣stance the best part of a Thousand Books, Epistles, &c. which are inti∣tuled under the names of the Ancient Fathers; amongst which, as you observe, is reckoned the Book of Dynis the Areopagite, which I alledged in my Rejoynder. And do not these things contribute something to∣wards the proof of my Assertion, namely, That it is a cloudy way to ap∣peal to Fathers and Councils to decide Controversies in Religion. If then your way be cloudy, mine must needs be clear, unless you can as∣sign a Third way, opposite to both; for undoubtedly there is a clear way to decide Controversies.

You again prescribe me a way to find the meaning of the Fathers, and that is, to explicate their obscure places by such as are plain, &c. But by your leave, we can neither know which of their Speeches are obscure, or plain, without some Rule whereby to know this. And now, what can supply this our necessity? For example, Augustine is sometimes read, affirm¦ing the Sacrament to be the real Body and Blood of Christ; otherwhiles he is read directly opposit to this: And how can you, or any Body else, tell which of these sayings is clear, or obscure, sith none must be permit∣ted the use of his Reason (by you) in this Controversie? and how he should judg according to Faith, I know not, sith you, as yet, debar us of that by which Faith NOW cometh, namely, the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, as contained in the Scriptures.

PAPIST.

Something you would say for this living Voice of the Church, you once had re∣quired as necessary to resolve Differences in Religion, but this signifies nothing in our present Query: For, after all your shifting, I cannot perceive that you make use of her Authority in point of Faith (which is our Query) but only to take up other Quarrels, by exhorting, reproving, &c. and in this also it seems you will be your own Judge, whether she follow Christ or no.

Three things you affirm in relation to the Churches Authority. 1. That she is to rule her self according to Scripture; which no Body denies. 2. That the Church in former Ages is not to be a Rule for after Ages, to rule them∣selves by; because she could not foresee the Controversies that rise up afterwards. What if the same Errors be revived now, which in their times were condem∣ned, is not the Judgment of the Church in those days, a safe President for us to condemn the same Errors? Besides, Is it not evident that the Pastors of the Church, the nearer they were to Christ's Time, were the better able to judg of Christ's Doctrine? You say, 3. That the Church is to be no Rule

for those that are out of her Communion. A strange Assertion. As if a clear Light (as the Church is in holy Scripture) with so many Marks to know her by, as Unity, Sanctity, Universality, Miracles, &c. were not a good means for him that gropes in the dark, to find out his way. Look well upon these Marks, and you will find them to agree Only to the Roman Catholick Church, and to no upstart Congregation; and consequently, that you ought in all reason, to give her the hearing in matters of Faith, and to have recourse unto her, as to the pillar and ground of Truth, 1 Tim. 3. which place you let slip, and this under the pain of being accounted a Heathen, &c. Mat. 18. For though this place doth point out chiefly the obedience which Members of the Church owe her in point of Discipline, as you say well enough, yet hath it no small force in our present Debate, since those that will not hear her Voice when she ecchoes out the Voice of God, may well be esteemed by her as Heathens. And in your own sence I suppose you will have your proviso, That the Church is to be obeyed only when she ruleth according to God's Word, of which you will be Judg too. So in conclusion all comes to this, That you and your spirit, must be Judg of all Disputes. And then have not I reason to ask again (since I, or any body else, may challenge as large a share in the Spirit and right Reason, as you) who shall take up the Quarrel? And is not my comparison here very pat, That there must needs be as great confusion in your Church, as in a Kingdom where every one were left to decide his own case? This was not the old way, as you may see, Deut. 17. 8, 9. & Malach. 2. 7. which places you had no mind to take notice of: and yet you charge me for letting pass your Instance of St. Stephen, concerning the Libertines, Alexandrians, &c. which makes nothing at all for your pretended Evidence of God's Word: For though his Judgment might be well taken in expounding Scripture, as being full of the Holy Ghost, and confirming what he said by Miracles, as the Scripture tells us he did, yet this is not your case, for I think you will not arrogate so much to your self.

What you say of Christ and his Apostles, vindicating their Doctrine out of Scripture, is very true, and our Church doth the same: But it is not true, that either Christ, or the Primitive Saints were always wont to send their Proselytes to the Scripture, to regulate their Faith. Did not Christ himself send St. Paul to Ananias for instruction? Had you been of his counsel, you would have rather wished him to look into the Word of God, and see there what he was to do. And when there arose a Debate, even in the Apostles dayes, about the necessity of Circumcision, Acts 15. did they not assemble the Church, and so pronounce Sentence conciliariter, with a visum est Spiritui sancto & nobis?

BAPTIST.

[It is here worth nothing how you dispute beyond the due bounds of the Query, which, as it concerns you Papists and us Baptists, hath no relation to the Differences which arise in the Church, as such, and indeed you go amiss in this matter throughout the whole Discourse.]

Here you seem to acknowledg, that the Church ought to rule according to Scripture; but you will allow me to judg whether she doth so or not. But I answer, that there is a Judgment of Science, as well as a Judgment Au∣thoritative; the latter I know cannot be exercised by me, nor any other

Member of the Church, because this Power lieth in the Church as imbo∣died together; but the former, to wit, a Judgment of Science or Know∣ledg, is particular to each individual; and so my self, if a Member of the Church, am allowed the exercise thereof, even in matters of Religion, 1 Cor. 10. 15. I speak to wise Men: judg ye what I say. The Apostle doth not here give any wise Man at Corinth leave to judg of that which he said, so as to censure what he had delivered, yet he must exercise his under∣standing to judg of what Paul had said, thereby to find out the verity of what was spoken. But yet I do confess, that our case, and the case of Christians then, do differ: For Paul was a Foundation-layer, a Master∣builder, (so that the Members might not so well judg then, as now, yet) the Church now is to build upon the Foundation which is laid already: and you know that I have in my Rejoynder acknowledged, that it very nearly concerns particular Members of the Church, to have great regard to the Judgment of the Church, when, after serious debate, they deli∣ver their Sentence in any point disputable. And further (as touching your Church) you tell me anon, that even a Heathen may judg of the holiness of your Church, by the Law of Conscience; and then, why may he not by the same Law, judg your Church concerning her unholiness? Nay verily, he must be able to speak both ways, or else he hath no judg∣ment. And if a Heathen hath this priviledg and ability, then why not a Man professing Christianity, who hath not only the Conscience-Law, but also the written Law of God, by which he understands things more excellent, Rom. 2. From all this I only conclude, that each particular ought to have the free exercise of his Judgment in what he chuseth, or re∣fuseth, sith without this he cannot chuse or refuse any thing with confi∣dence, nor to his comfort.

And concerning Controversies in the Church, I do not see that (in these days) we are bound to follow the sentence of a multitude, (though assembled in Council) So, as to hold their Sentence absolutely infalli∣ble; for the promise of Infallibility is not made to a certain select num∣ber * 1.10 of Bishops, but to the Church, taken collectively; and we may remember, that a great Assembly of Prophets in the old Church erred in Judgment with unanimous consent, when yet the Lord had one Micaiah at home, which understood the truth of his Will. Wherefore I here conclude, although the Members of the Church ought to weigh with great respect the things concluded of by their Pastors, yet so may it be that they may swerve from the Truth, whilst God clears it up by some particular, rather than by such an Assembly. And to this agrees very well a saying of Gerson, * 1.11 If it should so happen that there should be a General Council assembled, in which such a Man were present as is well instructed, If the greatest part should decline through Malice, or IGNORANCE, to the opposition of the Gospel, such a LAY-Man may be objected, against the said General Council. And saith Panormitan, * 1.12 In matters WHICH CONCERN FAITH, the saying of a LAY-Man ought to be pre∣ferred before that of the Pope, if his saying be more probable by better autho∣rity ••o Scripture, than that of the Pope.

You often tell me, That to appeal to the Spirit speaking in the Scrip∣tures, &c. is not a sufficient way to decide OUR Controversies, and that because you may challenge them to be for you, &c. To which I an∣swer, by retorting your Argument thus; That which you call the living Voice of the Church, to wit, Volumns of Fathers, and Decrees of Councils, is therefore insufficient to decide OUR Controversies, because your Op∣posites do say they are for them, and against you: and now you must an∣swer your own Query, viz. Who must take up this Quarrel? You answer, that we must explicate them one by another; the places which are obscure, by such as are plain. And then I still ask you, Why we may not as well agree our selves this way by the Volumns of the Prophets and Apo∣stles?

I shewed before, how you misapply that Text, Matth. 18. and though the case is so plain, as that you cannot defend your self, yet you seem loth to decline your Error, and would fasten a very gross passage upon me; namely, that I should say, That the Church is no Rule for those that are out of her Communion, as not to be a Light for such as grope in the Dark. A manifest wrong; I only say, and prove, That those that are not of the Church, are not within the power of her Discipline; nor can she reasonably desire unconverted ones to appeal to her Judgment-Seat in Controversies between them and her. And I asked you, If you would not scorn us, if we should call upon you to appeal unto us as your Judges, Whether we, or you, be the Church? and not doubting but you would, I conclude, that it is equally absurd for you, to desire us to appeal to you as our Judges. But you may find it plain enough in my Papers, That I do believe the Church So to be a Rule to the World, as to shew them the way of Life, and so a good means for their Illumination and Conver∣sion. —

As for your three Texts, 1 Tim. 3. Deut. 17. 8, 9. Malachi 2. 7. As they do your Cause no good, so they do mine no harm: I grant the Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth; and that she hath Power to hear and determine all Controversies among her Members, as afore∣said; and that it is the duty of the Members, to enquire of their Pastors what is the way of God concerning them. But what of all this? Ergo, The Papal Church of Rome is the only Infallible Judg, and Moderatrix of all Contention about Religion. Ergo, We must all appeal to the Papal Church of Rome as our Judg in this Question, Whether we be of the Church or not? though we be in doubt, whether she her self be a True Church or not? yea, though we are satisfied she is not. Are not these monstrous Consequences?

Be it here observed, That I do believe the Church of Christ to be the Pillar of Truth, so, as that she was never so over-clouded with Error, but that she hath enjoyed the fruition of that Promise, Matth. 16. in some good measure ever since it was made: Nor shall she ever so close with the Gates of Hell, as by general consent, and full Authority to desert that Faith, which having Christ for its Object, is the Rock she is built upon: and therefore you see, I hold the Church cannot err (in some sense); and indeed, he that holds the contrary, must (for ought I see) raze out thatx

Promise, Matth. 16. and many others. And yet nothing from all this ac∣crues to the Papal Church of Rome.

I alledged Stephen, as defending the Truth by the Authority of Scrip∣ture Only, &c. Nor can it be groundedly imagined, that (had it been the mind of God, that such as are not of the Church, should be summoned to her Tribunal) Stephen (being full of the Holy Spirit, the leader into all Truth) would have omitted the use of that means; but he knew that such Authority the Church had none, as I shewed from 1 Cor. 5. What have I to do to judg them that are without? do ye not also judg them that are within? And therefore he could not mention any such Power. And though Stephen did many wonders among the People, yet at this time when he so powerfully vanquished his Adversaries, he did none at all, but only overcame them by the assistance of the Spirit speaking in the Scripture, &c. I desire you to shew me but one Instance, where-ever any of the Primitive Saints did appeal to the Church, of which they were present Members, as Judg between them and such as never received their Doctrine: but you have not done it, nor indeed can it be done. As I shewed, that Stephen appealed to Scripture ONLY, &c. so I also shewed, That it was the way of Christ and his Apostles, frequently to vindicate their Doctrine against such as were not of their Church, by appealing to the Scripture, (especially among such as owned the Scripture) this you confess: And also you tell me, That your Church doth the same. But this cannot be true of All your Doctrine, because you have told me, That many Points of your Faith are resolved without the written Word of God; or else you •…•…∣ver answered my first Antiquery, which demandeth, What Controversie in Religion you can resolve without the written Word of God? And in your Answer you assigned, The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, Sabbath, Infant-Baptism, and MANY OTHER POINTS OF FAITH; and I shall shew anon, that we have it pro con∣fesso, from your Champions, that there be some Points of your Faith, which are not GROUNDED UPON, nor MENTIONED IN the SCRIPTURES; and therefore your Church cannot vindicate such Points of her Faith and Doctrine by the Scripture.

Although Christ sent Paul to Ananias for Instruction, yet it followeth not, that we must take Rome's Instructions without Scripture. Is there no difference between the Time that now is, and then was? Much of the Scripture (if not all the New Testament) was then unwritten. Again, Ananias was immediately sent of God. If you are so sent, prove it to us as Ananias did, by shewing the Miracle of restoring Paul's sight. If you are not so sent, to what purpose do you alledge this Text? I be∣lieve I might form you a monstrous Consequence here.

PAPIST.

You that will not trust the Churches Judgment, lay down four ways of resol∣ving Doubts: The first, To argue it out till Truth prevail. But if we must argue only out of Scripture, and be our own Interpreters of it, there can be no end of arguing, as I have often shewed. The second, To appeal to

God, as the two Tribes did, Josh. 22. A rare way to end Controversies, to look for Miracles in our Disputes. The third, To appeal to Scripture, and right Reason: But if I challengo them to be on my side, who must take up the Difference? The fourth, To cast Lots. But though the Apostles did it, who certainly were inspired to do so, yet must not we presume to tempt God, or to look for the like Miracles, or to build our Faith upon such doubtful Events.

BAPTIST.

You here wrong us, to say, That we will not trust the Judgment of the Church; for the Church, truly and universally taken, we do credit, as Her that is appointed of the Father to be the Pillar and Ground of the Truth; of which Church, we take the Prophets and Apostles to be the principal Members, and so in all Points of Faith, to be credited in the first place. But if by Church, you mean the Papal Church of Rome, I confess we dare not trust her Judgment, at least, not in all that she saith; For Example these following: 1. Your Church tells us, That it is not needful for the Scriptures to be read to, or by the Laity, in a Tongue which they understand: and that though they pray (after another) in Latin, though they understand not what they say, yet such Prayer is sufficient, Rhem. Test. Annot. in 1 Corinthians. 2. Your Church tells us, That the Sacrifice of your Mass, is available to take away, or obtain remission of Sins by the Work wrought, Con. Trident. Sess. 22. That the whole Mass is a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Quick and Dead; and who so saith, It is only a commemoration of Christ's Death, &c. is accursed, Con. Trid. 3. Your Church holds, That such as deny that the real Flesh and Blood of Christ, is in the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament, ought to be burnt to death. 4. Your Church holds, and tells us, That Ima∣ges, and old Clothes of Saints, ought to be worshipped with religious Worship. 5. That Men are AS FULLY justified by Good Works, AS THEY ARE DAMNED BY Evil Works. 6. That it is un∣lawful for Ministers of Christ to marry. 7. That the Scripture doth not contain all things necessary to Salvation. To omit many others, these are Points of your Churches Judgment, which we dare not trust, till by you, or some other, proved to be Truths.

I assigned the use of Lots as lawful in some doubtful cases to end Con∣troversies; and for proof, I quoted Acts 7. and this you will not allow, for two Reasons. 1. Because (you say) the Apostles were inspired to use them. But were it so (as that you cannot prove) yet it cannot be denied, but we may do some things which they were inspired to do: for the Holy Ghost was to lead them into all Truth, and they were to lead us into the same Truth, by their Example and Doctrine, John 16. 13. 1 Cor. 11. 1, 2. And be it here observed, That the Holy Ghost led those, our Teachers, to ordain the Ministry by Prayer, and laying on of Hands, Acts 6. and Acts 13. which practice of theirs, is a good President to act by; a President, I say; for this practice is not expresly commanded in Scripture, no more than the use of Lots in the Election of Ministers. If it here be objected, That Christ might give laying on of Hands in Precept

when he was with his Apostles. I answer, So also might he give them the other to be used, when there might be Persons found of seemingly equal fitness to serve the Church. 2. You reckon the use of Lots, Acts 1. amongst Miracles, as your other Reason, why we may not use them to decide any Controversie; but why you should so do, I see no more reason, than to say Josh. 22. mention'd any Miracles towards the composure of the difference between the two Tribes, and Israel; where in truth no such thing can be found, though you seem to affirm it.

PAPIST.

In my last Paper, I took notice how you sent us to Heaven for Miracles, to take up our Quarrels after the Example of Moses, whose Cause was cleared that way: Here you deny you brought in the Instance of Moses to this pur∣pose, which, how true it is, every one that can read must needs see. For, are not these your words? But you say, Reason is on my side, &c. and demand by whom we must be tryed, who must take up the Quarrel? I answer, Even the same that took up Quarrels of this nature in times past, Exod. 7, &c. Do you not here tell us plainly, That God must take up our Quarrels * 1.13AS he did those of Moses? And truly otherwise I might (as you fore∣saw) very possibly tell you, That your Allegation was no∣thing to the Question, Who must take up the Quar∣rel? It is pretty to see what stuff you make of it, and then how you digress, to rail at our Baptism and Pastors; I say, rail; for you bring no proof at all.

BAPTIST.

I have said enough to satisfie any reasonable Man, that it doth not fol∣low from my alledging Exod. 7. that I send you, or any body else, to Heaven for Miracles to decide our Controversies. For at the first I shew∣ed, that in the case of Moses there was Miracle against Miracle; only God gave a note of distinction between those signs, insomuch as the Ser∣pent that came of Moses's Rod devoured the other: From whence I only noted, That it's God's way to give some powerful note of distinction, be∣tween the Witness of his Servants, and Deceivers. And now, is not this my Observation very pertinent to our case? You say, you are the Church. We say, we are the Church. Here is Testimony against Te∣stimony, as there was Miracle against Miracle; and if the Lord do not now give some powerful note of distinction between our Doctrine and yours, concerning the Church, as he did between Stephen's and the Alexandrians, I pray, who must take up the Quarrel between US? Is it sit that you should be Judg in your own case here? If so, why may not we? If the Councils and Fathers were of the Papal Church, then it is not any more reasonable that you should summon us to their Arbitriment, than it is for us to summon you to the Judgment of our Predecessors; but forasmuch as you and we are agreed, that the Pro∣phets and Apostles were infallibly assisted to write the Mind of God for

us to observe; therefore it's most reasonable that we should both appeal to them. If you object, the Prophets, &c. are not alive to interpret their Writings, and that our difference is about the sense thereof; I answer, This Objection is every way as forceable against the Decrees of Coun∣cils, and Volumns of Fathers: for their Writings must be interpreted, expounded, &c. and we differ about the meaning of them. Second∣ly, The way you assign us to agree them, is to consult them together, &c. Now I would know, why we may not be allowed this way to seek out the meaning of the Prophets and Apostles? In a word, there is not one Objection which yet I have met with, levelled against our appealing to Holy Scripture, &c. as the only infallible means to decide all Contro∣versies between YOU and US; but the same Objections are more force∣able against all that you appeal to, for decision of the said Controversies.

PAPIST.

You except against our Miracles, because we bring them to prove our Church by; but if it appear, as it doth, that God works Miracles upon those that actually call upon his Blessed Mother, and his other Saints; or whilst they are performing some of our Religious Practices, which you abhor; Is it not an Argument that God approves them? It is God then, and not we, that brings Miracles to prove our Church.

BAPTIST.

You will still have your Miracles to be an infallible mark of the Truth of your Church, especially those of the Blessed Virgin, (you mean the Image so called at Loretto) or as you phrased it in your third Paper, The Lady of Loretto. But let me tell you, that there is small cause you should refer me to what is done there, as an infallible mark that your Church is the Church of Christ. For by the Relation of two Eye-witnesses which I have read, it is a place of most gross Idolatry, blind Devotion, and De∣ceit. One of which Authors, was once a Teacher of your Church, who, before his separation from you, travelled to Loretto, to see if the Image of the Virgin would inform him of the truth or falshood of the Roman Church, as it is now constituted; for he was doubtful in this matter: and had been informed, That if any Person were guilty of Mortal Sin (which if the Papal Church be the Church of Christ he concluded he must needs be guilty of, in questioning her; at least in the judgment of the Fryers, who waited there upon that Image) he had been informed, (I say) That if such as were guilty of Mortal Sin, did but pray before the Lady of Lo∣retto, the said Image would either blush, or fall into a sweat, and so resolve the Petitioner in the Affirmative. But if we may believe the Lady of Lo∣retto, and this Informant then it is no Mortal Sin to think that the Papal Church is not the Church of Christ: For this doubtful Man prayed ear∣nestly, and beheld the Lady as stedfastly, but no sweat nor change befel her at all. Therefore, according to the Fryers rule, it is no Mortal Sin to think the Papal Church of Rome is not the Church of Christ.

But this one thing is especially observable here, That whereas you would perswade your self, and others, that I send Men to Heaven for Mi∣racles to decide Controversies; it is manifest that you are the Man that is herein guilty: For the Controversie is, Whether the Papal Church of Rome be the Church of Christ? You affirm; I deny. To decide this Con∣troversie, you refer me to Miracles, as the special means, or chief mark, whereby I may be resolved in this Matter, as is evident in this, and your two former Papers; So that what you would cast upon me, falls clearly upon your self, save that, instead of sending me to Heaven, you send me to Loretto.

[In my Rejoynder I urged, That of necessity the Scripture must decide all Controversies, as aforesaid; because, as things now stand, the Word (or Scripture) is antecedent to the Church; so that inasmuch as it is impossible to find the Church without the Scripture, it supposes clearly that the Scripture must be found before the Church: and so, if the Scripture must of necessity resolve this great Controversie about the Church, it consequently followeth that they must resolve all Controversies; because all Religious Controversies are in∣volved in this one general Query, Where is, and who are the Church?]

PAPIST.

I had reason to take notice of your general saying, That the Wordwas ante∣cedent to Faith and the Church, since there was a Church, and consequently Faith before the Scripture was written. Now it seems you meant not the Scripture by the Word, but I know not what Word, which was afterward com∣mitted to writing. It is past my understanding what Word you mean; for since it cannot be Verbum Scriptum before it be written; It must either be Verbum Traditum, and I suppose you will not allow that, or Verbum Del Patris; and that cannot be the Word you speak of, as committed to writing.

BAPTIST.

By that Word which was antecedent to Faith and the Church, as it re∣lates to the Church under the Patriarchs, &c. * 1.14 I mean the Word which God spake to them, and by them, at sundry times, and in divers manners. And if you take that term [Word] to relate to the Church of Christ in its Plantation, then I speak partly of the written Word of God, and part∣ly of that which was (at that time) only spoken by word of Mouth, by Christ and his faithful Stewards; and if you will call this part of the Word Verbum Traditum, I say, that is the Word I speak of. And I do also say, this Word was afterward committed to writting; which Word, together with the former, I mean that of the Prophets, is that whereon the Church (as now considered) is * 1.15 founded, by which she must be known. And in this sense, I say, the Holy Scripture is now antecedent to the Church. And therefore well spake that learned Person † 1.16 Chrysostom, when he forewarned the Sons of Men, That if they took heed to any thing, in order to their knowing the Church (in the latter times) beside Scripture, they would fall headlong into the Abomination which maketh desolate, and not be able to know the True Church.

BAPTIST.

I Think it meet here to give the Reader some account of my Judgment of these five Texts, which I brought to justifie my Answer to the first Query; which, with my Answer, was as followeth.

Qu, Whether we are to resolve all Differences in point of Religion, only out of the written Word of God?

Ans. The Spirit speaking in the Scripture, together with right Rea∣son as truly subservient, is that whereby we are to resolve all Diffe∣rences, &c. For proof I cited, Isa. 8. 20. 1 Tim. 6. 3. 1 John 4. 6. 2 Joh. 9. 10. 2 Thess. 3. 2. where note, that under the term We, ought not to be understood, any person but the Papists on the one part, and the Baptists on the other, who do deny each other to be the Church of Christ.

Now that the Church is to defend her self against all that come to spoil her of her Church-state, by the Scripture only (as that which in∣cludes her whole strength) is that which I brought these Texts to prove.

And first for that place, Isa. 8. 20. The Prophet foreseeing a Judgment coming upon Israel, even such, as God would hide himself from them; and the Law and Testimony should be like a Book bound and sealed up; as ver. 16, 17. compared with chap. 29. 11, 12. The Prophet likewise foreseeing, that when God should hide his face, Israel would enquire of Wizards, and such as spoke from fa∣miliar Spirits (as Saul did, when un∣der the like judgment, as 1 Sam. 28. 6, 7, 8.) wherefore the Prophet, that he might warn the remnant of faith∣ful ones, whom he foresaw would be

as wonders amongst the rest, com∣mands them, as from the Lord, that WHEN Men should say unto them, Seek unto such as have familiar Spi∣rits, &c. to go to the LAW, as being their way to go to God himself: For saith he, Should not a People seek unto their God? To the Law, &c. and cer∣tifies them, that by that they should know Deceivers; for, saith he, If they speak not according to This Word, [the Law] there is no light in them: So that I infer thus much, that when such as are Enemies to the Church, come to invade the Saints with their deceit, the only infallible way to know them to be Deceivers, is, to enquire of God's Law and Testimony. I know that Israel had the Testimony, or standing Oracle, beside the written Law. And the Church now hath the new Testimony open to the Church, beside the Law and Prophets; and hereunto, I say, the Church is only to apply her self, as aforesaid, to find out the deceit of those who would rob her of that inheritance, which she holdeth by the deeds of God's Law, and Promises, contained in Scripture; by these, as the only infallible Rule, she knows those to be Lyars, who say they are the Church, and are not.

And to this agree the next three Scriptures, the very reading whereof sheweth, that when the Controversie is between the Church and such as pre∣tend falsly to that Title, the only in∣fallible means to refel them, is, the Spirit speaking in Scripture, &c.

For thus saith the first of them: If any Man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholsome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Doctrine that is according to Godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about que∣stions, &c.

Thus saith the second, He that knoweth God, heareth us: he that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the Spirit of Truth, and the spirit of Error.

The third saith thus, Whoso trans∣gresseth, and abideth not in the Doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abi∣deth in the Doctrine of Christ, hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this Do∣ctrine, receive him not into your House, neither bid him God speed.

From these Texts it appears, that unless the Papists can produce some∣thing which they can infallibly prove to be Christ's Doctrine, beside what is contained in holy Scripture; or, that the Apostles may be heard as in∣fallibly by some other means, as by the holy Scripture; or, that the Saints received some Doctrine for Christ's, that is not contained in the Scripture; I say, unless they can infallibly shew something of this nature, my Answer is good. But if they can produce any other thing of such Authority, then I acknowledg my Answer to be deficient. Howbeit, if any Man, or the Church her self, do decide a Controversie, by insisting upon the Scripture, this is no more than my Answer included; for I do not ima∣gine that the Church must not pronounce what is contained in the Scrip∣ture: But if she hath power to speak as from the Lord (in these days) when yet the Scripture saith no such thing, then I profess my self short of understanding the power of the Church.

2 Thes. 3. 2. I only made use of this Text thus far, that in Religious Controversies the Apostle gives Reason her place, and therefore desired to be delivered from unreasonable Men.

PAPIST.

ONce more you offer to justi∣fie your Consequences drawn out of the five Texts. But I ask once more, To what purpose did you bring them? Was it not to prove what you had said in your Answer to my Query, That the Scripture, so we took right Reason along with us, was sufficient to resolve all Controversies in matters of Faith? No rational Man can read your first Paper but must think so; and indeed, otherwise you must have brought them to prove some∣thing that was not under debate, which had been impertinent. Must not that very Assertion of yours be the Consequence of these five Texts? And then, have I not reason to cry out, that there ne∣ver appeared such Monstrous Con∣sequences? But, to avoid this in∣convenience you fall into the other, and will have some of your Texts brought to prove certain Proposi∣tions, which you had not mention∣ed in your Answer. However, let us now see what you make of them. Isa. 8. 20 God's People are commanded to have recourse rather to the Law, &c. than to superstitious Oracles, Ad Legem magis, &c. And they have a sign given them to convince such Oracles of falshood, if they speak not according to the Word or Pro∣phesie of Isaiah. This is the clear sense of that place, out of which you draw this strange Consequence. Ergo, The Scripture, &c. is to resolve all matters of Faith. A strange Consequence, I say, as will appear, if we turn your Enthy∣meme into a Syllogism, thus: Re∣course is to be had rather to the

Law, than to false Oracles, whose falshood appears, if they speak not according to the Word, or Prophecy of Isaiah. But if this be so, the Scriptures, &c. are to resolve all points of Faith. Ergo, &c. What a prodigious minor have we here? How doth it follow, that because God's Word is to be more credited than superstitious Oracles; or, that such Oracles are not to be credited, when they speak against God's Word: Therefore the Scriptures, &c. are to resolve all points of Faith. I know you have not the word rather in your English Translation as we have in ours, but the clear sense of the place bears as much.

1 Tim. 6. 3. saith, They are proud that teach contrary to the Di∣ctrine of Christ. Ergo, You infer that the Scripture is to judg whose Doctrine is of Pride. This is as mad a Conclusion as the last; for when there is no clear Text of Scripture for either side, as it of∣ten happens, or Scripture brought on both sides; How can the Scrip∣ture judg whether party be proud? Or, how can it be judg of its own sense, when it is alledged on both sides, who both pretend to have the Spirit and Reason on their sides?

1 John 4. 6. Those that hear not the Apostles, are not of God, nor have his Spirit. Ergo, say you, The Scripture resolves who are Religious: Doth it follow out of this Text, that when Parties con∣tend, that they hear the Apostles, the Scripture, can resolve the dif∣ference, and pronounce who are

Religious? &c. Not at all.

2 John 9, 10. Gives Judg∣ment against those that follow not Christ's Doctrine. You infer, ergo the Scriptures must try whether Men bring this Doctrine. Strange Logick! For unless your Text proved that the Scripture contains all Christ's Doctrine, which it doth not, your Consequence must needs be faulty.

2 Thess. 3. 2. You say, proves, that Reason is some ways necessary to decide Controversies in Religion. I will not examine the goodness of this Consequence, but I am sure you need not have brought Scripture to have proved so manifest a Truth, which cannot be denied by any, but such as pretend to have so much of the Spirit, that me thinks they should have little need of the use of Reason.

BAPTIST.

Concerning my five Texts, and what I infer thence, I need not speak much here; yet it is worthy observing, how apparently you miss the clear sense of Isa. 8. 20. whilst you restrain the relatives [this word] to the Word, or Prophecy of Isaiah, whereas it is as clear as the Sun at Noon, that they ought to be referr'd to the Law and Testimony; for thus I read, To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this Word. Having thus missed the sense of the Text, then in all that

you say further, you discover a taunting spirit, endeavouring to bespat∣ter me with what Dirt comes next to hand.

I did not quote any one of the five Texts, as taking it singly to prove the whole Assertion; and therefore you did injure my understanding, to argue from them apart, as brought to prove the whole Position; but I brought them to prove such Propositions, as being laid together, do amount to so much as my Assertion (as I explicate it) doth contain. For the first four Texts do all of them shew, how God's People ought to try and defend themselves against such as oppose the Church and Truth of God, as I shewed in my Rejoynder: And the fifth, gives Reason her place in Religious Contests. But there is not one of the Arguments which I formed from my five Quotations, but you deprave and abuse it, by both adding terms of your own, and omitting mine; yea, sometimes whole sentences: and when you have so done, you flout at the Conclu∣sions. Which dealing is not fair in a sober Disputant.

It were a very easie thing to turn all your Objections here against the Scripture as insufficient to resolve differences in Religion, upon the Church as therefore insufficient to resolve them. For, whereas you say, That when both Parties pretend to have Scripture and Reason on their sides, then the Scripture cannot decide the Controversie; Might not I as well say, when both Parties pretend to have the Church on their side (as that's the case between us) the Church then cannot decide our Diffe∣rence?

Again, Where you seem to say, that when both Parties contending, do say they hear the Apostles, that then the Apostles cannot (as they speak in the Scriptures) decide the Controversie: Hath not this the same force against the Church, when both parties contend they hear the Church? See how you can defend your self, and I doubt not but therein you will defend my Arguments for the Scripture.

And because you do cry up the Fathers, &c. for so clear a way to de∣cide all our Controversies, I will therefore shew you, that they do clear∣ly avouch the Answer which I have given to this your first Query, as will evidently appear to the Impartial Reader of the several Quotations which I have before alledged, and which do here follow.

The Answer to the First Query, avouched sufficient by the Sentence of divers Doctors, both Ancient and Modern.

* 2.1 WHether of us be Schismaticks? ask not me, I will not ask you. Let Christ be asked, that he may shew us his Church.

* 2.2 Neither must I alledg the Nicene Council, nor you the Arimi. I am neither bound to the one, nor you to the other; let the Matter be tryed by the Scripture.

Augustine saith, Let the Scriptures judg; let Christ judg; let the Apostles judg. Yea, it is confessed by the Papists, * 2.3 that Augustine, Optatus, and Basil, summoned their Adversaries to the Arbitriment

of Holy Scriptures, and did allow the sufficiency of Holy Scripture to decide the Controversies depending between them.

In time past, saith Chrysostome, * 2.4 there were many ways to know the Church of Christ, (viz.) by good Life, by Miracles, by Chastity, &c. but from the time that Heresies did take hold of the Church, it is only known by the Scrip∣ture which is the True Church.

Again, he saith, The Lord then knowing that so great confusion would come in the latter days, therefore willed the Christians that would take to the sureness of true Faith, to have refuge to nothing but to the Scripture; other∣wise, saith he, if they regard other things they shall perish, not understand∣ing what the True Church is.

[Thus my Answer is avouched good, as it respects the means to de∣cide the Differences which are about the Church; next, hear what they say touching such differences as are in the Church.]

Ireneus. * 2.5 If there be any disagreement risen up among Christians concerning Controversies in Religion, what better course is there to be taken, than to have our recourse into the most Ancient Churches, [which must needs be those planted by the Apostles, considering the time when he lived] and to re∣ceive from thence what shall be certain and manifest.

Augustine. * 2.6 Because the Scripture cannot deceive; whoso feareth to be misled in the obscurity of this Question, let him ask counsel of that Church, which the Scripture without any ambiguity pointeth out.

Constantin. Magnus. There are the Gospel, the Prophets and Apostles, which do teach us what to hold in Religion; wherefore expelling all hostile and bitter Contention, let us seek the Solution of these Questions out of the Scrip∣tures. Thus spake this famous Emperor in the Council of Nice, at what time the Bishops had like to have jarred into pieces.

THus have I given an impartial Relation of what hath passed between the Popish Querist and my Self, in our two last Papers, (which con∣tain the sum of what passed in the other) as touching this Question about the Judg of Controversies. And now, for further satisfaction, That the Scripture, as aforesaid, ought to be admitted the high Prerogative of Judg in our Debates; consider, that of necessity it must be so. My Reason is, Because either the Scripture, or some other Writings, must be our Judg, especially in this important Question, WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH? For when we contend about Her, it is very unreasonable that any Party contending for that Title, should be permitted to give Judgment in their own Cause: As for Example; The present Assembly of Papists say, That they are the True Church: And the present Assembly of Baptists say, That they are the True Church. Is it fit that either Party contending, should here give judgment decisive? What then must we do? why of necessity we must to some Writings, whereby to be decided or agreed in this Controversie. These Writings must be either the Scrip∣tures, or some other; but no other can compare with those, so that they do deserve this Prerogative better than any other.

The Papists ordinary way in this difficulty, is to tell us, that we must here be tryed by the Tradition of our Fore-Fathers; in which they say, we cannot be deceived: which Tradition, they say, is the only thing that is unquestionable, and needs no other ground to stand upon, but it self. * 2.7 And against the Scripture's being received, upon its own Evidence or Autho∣rity, they usually do thus object, That before we can receive what it teach∣eth, we must be assured of its truth. * 2.8 And again, they say, The Scripture may not be the Judg of Controversie, because it may be corruptly translated, ill interpreted, not rightly understood. And by these, and other-like Ob∣jections, they usually in all their Writings, invalidate the Scriptures Certainty, Authority, and Sufficiency, that so they may advance the Authority of their Traditions.

But let it be seriously considered, whether these Objections have not the same force against what they rest upon, which they have against the Holy Scripture? First then, whereas they tell us, The Scripture cannot teach us any thing, till we be assured of its truth: Doth not this conclude against any other thing as strongly? Ought we not to be assured of the truth of the Church before we receive her Documents? Ought we not to be assured of the truth of that Tradition which we receive for the Rule of our Faith? But how must we be assured of the truth of the Papal Church, and Tradition? There is not a Man living that can remember when either began, and so avouch its beginning to be of Divine Institution, and the continuance of the same ever since its beginning, to have been with∣out any corruption: What then must we do? Why we must search Rome's Records. And then I ask, Are they not as questionable, and liable to mis-interpretations, as easily mis-understood as the Records of God? What is now become of these Objections, the force whereof is evidently against the Papal Church and her Traditions, of the truth whereof we must be assured before we can be taught by either of them.

I say again, There is not a Man of all the Papists, that can evidence Rome to have been a Church two hundred years ago, and then much less one thousand six hundred years ago. So that of necessity we must go to the Writings of some Men (whom we never saw write one word) to find the Church. And then I would know why we may not make enquiry at the Pen of Paul, What the Church was at first, and what it ought to be now, as well as at the Pen of Augustine? Cannot the Pen of Peter the Apostle, give us as good information in this Matter, as the Pen of any Pope, pretending to be his Successor? If the Papists answer, That we know not the Pen of Peter or Paul: We answer, as well as they know the Pen of Augustine or Gregory. If they say Paul's Writings may be cor∣rupted, and must be interpreted, may be mis-understood. I return the same answer of all other Books whatsoever; yea, those which contains Rome's Tradition. See therefore what is gained by devising Objections against the Authority or Certainty of the Holy Scriptures. Such doings do only tend to the destruction of all Faith, making every thing doubt∣ful; and the Effect is the ushering in all Uncleanness on the one hand, or if Men miss this Snare, they are catched in another, viz. to walk at randon, as their own or other Mens fancies lead them. This is evident

by what we have seen in the Ranters on the one hand, and the Papists and Quakers on the other.

Let us trace this Matter a little further thus. The Papists Tra∣ditions (most, if not all of which, have been committed to writing several hundred years ago) must speak for themselves, are unque∣stionable of themselves, must challenge no ground but themselves to stand upon: But the Sacred Scripture which hath especial promise from God for its preservation, Psalm. 12. must have none of these high priviledges allowed it: Is not this a most pecccant Assertion? Again, Peter and Paul must be no Judges of Controversies in Religion, as they speak to us in their Epistles; but the Popes of Rome, dead long ago, and now only speak in their Writings, yet they must be our infalli∣ble Judges in these Controversies. The great Council of Apostles, El∣ders, and Brethren, Acts 15. can be no Judges of any Controversie, though their Decrees are yet extant among us; but the Council of Trent, who only speak in their Decrees, must be our Judg, and that so as from their Judgments no Appeal can be admitted. The Apostolical Council sends forth their Decrees in the Name of the Holy Ghost, and them∣selves; and in those their Decrees, they prohibit the eating of Blood, and strangled things, &c. But the Papal Councils will send forth a Decree directly opposite to this, and yet sign'd with these powerful words; Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis. If we appeal in this Matter to the Apostoli∣cal Council, they may not be permitted to pronounce a Sentence decisive. But from the Sentence of the Papal Council we must in no wise appeal. Can any thing be said more unworthily?

Thus then, First, the Godly Reader may perceive, That whether he be able to answer all the cunning Objections that Men, by reason of the long experience they have had in the ways of Deceit, have found out; yet he hath an Argument of NECESSITY wherewith to oppose their subtilty.

And, Secondly, he hath the advantage of all their own Objections, against themselves; yea, against their Church, Tradition, and all that they stand upon; being seasonably retorted upon them. Wherefore I shall conclude with the Psalmist's words, Psal. 64. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. They encourage themselves in an evil Matter; they commune of laying Snares privily; they say, Who shall see them? They search out Iniquities, they accomplish a dili∣gent search: both the inward thoughts of every one of them, and the heart is deep. But God shall shoot at them with an Arrow, suddenly shall they be wounded. So they shall make their own Tongue to fall upon themselves: all that see them, shall flee away. And all Men shall fear, and shall declare the Work of God; for they shall wisely consider of his doing.

The Second Part sheweth, That the present Papal Church of Rome, is not the Church of Christ, for divers important Causes or Reasons.

WE have heard of how dangerous a Consequence the Papal Opinion is, which leads them to set up their own Autho∣rity (under pretence of their being the Church) above the Holy Scripture; insomuch as they allow it no Authority, till it be delivered to us for God's Word, by their Church; so that by this Doctrine, we must find their Church, be∣fore we can find the Word of God, as it is contained in the Scripture.

Upon which Consideration, we shall endeavour to shew, That the pre∣sent Papal Church, is not the true Church of Christ; and therefore what Power soever the Church hath, yet they cannot have it, Because they are not the Church of Christ.

The First Reason.

The present Papal Church of Rome, cannot possibly prove her self to be the Church of Christ: Therefore she is not the Church of Christ.

The First Reason maintained.

THe Consequence of the Argument no understanding Man can deny; for unless a Party pretending to be the Church of Christ, can some ways sufficiently prove that they are his Church, they cannot reasonably blame any body that refuses so to account of them. And for the Ante∣cedent, namely, that it is impossible for the present Papal Church to prove her self the Church of Christ, it is evident from this ground, viz. They make both the Scripture, and all other Writings, depend on their Church for their Authority; and therefore they must prove themselves to be the Church without the help of any Authentical or Authoritative Writings; which thing is impossible for them to do.

Being thus divested of the help of all Records, as is more fully shewed above, there remains now nothing for them to lean upon, but their own Evidence, or the Tradition of their Fore-fathers; not that which is con∣tained in any Records, but only that which hath been delivered by word from Man to Man, &c. But alas! What Tradition is this they speak of? Not the Tradition of the Church to us, till the Persons delivering the same, be found to be the Church; which, as before, they cannot be found to be,

without the Scripture. And for their own Evidence, that may not prove them to be the Church to those that contend with them; it cannot avail them, sith each Party contending in this case, will, and may, as reaso∣nably as the Papists, look that their own Testimony should be as available for these, as the other for those.

It is as vain here to tell us, they are the Church, because the true marks of the Church do agree to the Papal Church, and none else. For, first, the true Marks of the Church are confessed by the Papists to be found in the Scripture; which Scripture they receive not, but from the Authority of their Church, (yea, their present Church) * 2.9 so that till the Scripture can tell us Authoritatively which be the Marks of the Church, no Church can be found by those Marks; nor can the Scripture tell us of those Marks Authoritatively, till Rome, as a Church, give it us for God's Word: So then Rome must be found the Church, before there be any Marks to find her by; which is impossible.

As for Example; To clear this Matter further, the Papists say, That Holiness is a Mark of the True Church. But now set the Holy Scripture aside, and how shall I know Holiness from Unholiness, without the Scrip∣ture? Here the Papists being in a strait, rather than they will let the Law of God, or the Scripture have the preheminence, do answer thus; * 2.10 That we have a Law in our Consciences, which dictates what is good, and what is otherwise; and by this Law, even a Heathen may judg our Church holier than any other Congregations of Christians.

What a miserable plunge (of Heathenism or Quakerism) are they brought to here? How do they know that a Heathen may, by the Law of Conscience, judg their Church to be more Holy than ANY other Con∣gregation of Christians? Were they ever Heathens to know this? But alas! What Holiness can a Heathen judg of? Surely not that which is an infallible Mark of the True Church; for this Spiritual Matter is foo∣lishness to the Natural Man; nor can he know it, because it's spiritually discerned. It is true, there is a Holiness discernable by the Law of our Consciences. But this only, is not an infallible Mark, that any Society is the Church of Christ; nor did ever any Man (I am perswaded) hold forth such a Doctrine, that was a faithful Minister of the New Testament, or Spirit.

Again, What of this kind of Holiness, whereof a Heathen (as such) can judg, is there found among the Papists, which may not be found among the Baptists? yea, among those that are opposite to both, as the Quakers and others; yea, among the very Jews and Turks may be found as much of this kind of Holiness as among the Papists, if any credit may be given to Histories.

Sometimes the Papists do object the * 2.11 Creed as suf∣ficient, to demonstrate a Man to be a Member of the Church, though he know not whether there be any Scripture. But I answer, How shall this be proved to be the Creed? It must not be its own Evidence; for then the Scripture may as well speak for it self, which the Papists will not allow; nor can the Church of

Rome confer any Authority upon the Creed, till they be found to be the Church: So then this is the Conclusion, Rome must be found to be the Church, before there be a Creed.

I do therefore humbly desire these few Observations may be seriously thought upon by all sober Men, but especially the Papists, that so Men may give to the Holy Scriptures, that which is proper to them; that is, That they may speak, without controul, both for themselves, and every thing else of a Religious Consideration; or else all Volumns of the An∣cients, and Societies of Men, pretending to Christianity, (as things stand in our days) must depart into utter silence.

The Second Reason.

The present Papal Church of Rome hath no Baptism: There∣fore she is not the Church of Christ.

The Second Reason maintained.

BY the word Baptism in the Argument, I mean only the Baptism of Wa∣ter, in the Name of the Father, &c. or, which is all one, the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins. Now that the present Papal Church of Rome hath not this Baptism; is evident by this Argument, taken from their own Confession, viz.

The Baptism of the True Church is found in the Scripture. But the Baptism of the present Papal Church of Rome is not grounded upon, nor mentioned in the Scripture. Therefore the present Papal Church of Rome hath no Baptism.

The first Proposition is most clear, from Mat. 28. 19, 20. Act. 2. Act. 8. Act. 9. Act. 16. Act. 18. Act. 19. Act. 22. 16. Rom. 6. Gal. 3. 27. Col. 2. 11, 12. Heb. 6. 1, 2. 1 Pet. 3. 21.

And, that the Papists Baptism is not found in the Scripture, I prove thus. Because they themselves do confess, that Infant Baptism is not men∣tioned in the Scripture, nor grounded upon the Scripture, nor any Scripture for it. See to this purpose, the Works of Bellarmin; and a Book entituled, An Antidote, written by S. N. a Popish Doctor; as al∣so T. B. his End to Controversie. In which Books you will find the very words which I have repeated. Add hereunto the Answer which I recei∣ved from the Author of the Seven Queries, when I asked him what Con∣troversies in Religion he could resolve without the written Word of God? He assigned Infant-Baptism, as one that was so to be resolved.

So then, we have it pro confesso from the Papists own Mouths, That their Baptism (which is Infant-Baptism) is a Scriptureless Baptism: There∣fore say I, it is no Baptism.

No Baptism, I say; because the Church hath but one Baptism of Wa∣ter, and it is mentioned in the Scripture, and grounded upon it, and much Scripture found for it: so it is not Infant-Baptism which is the Baptism of the present Papal Church. Therefore the Papal Baptism is no Bap∣tism.

How can they defend themselves? Will they say, the Church hath a Scripture-Baptism, and an unwritten Baptism? This they must say and prove, or else deny their Infant-Baptism.

But, secondly, The present Papal Church is so adulterated in the manner of the Administration of Baptism, as that had they a true Subject for Baptism, yet, they could be found to have no Baptism. This will appear as clear as the Light, from the Papists own confession; for they grant, That the Ancient and Primitive way of Baptizing, was, by dipping the party Baptized over the head and ears in Water; and that it was their Church which changed this way, to a little sprinkling upon the Forehead. This is plainly to be seen in a Book, entituled, Certamen Religiosum.

This bold Change, which Men, without any allowance from God, have made in this Ministration of Baptism, is directly against the Scripture, Mat. 3. 16. Mark 15. 9. John 3. 23. Acts 8. 38, 39. Rom. 6. In all which places it's evident, that our Lord Jesus, John Baptist, and the other Baptists of those times, did so understand the Mind of God, in respect of the manner of the Administration of Baptism, as that they thought it could not be done without so much Water as they might go into (both the Person Baptizing, and the Person to be Baptized). And now, do not all that will presume to satisfie themselves in this thing, with a few drops of Water put on the Face only, from a Man's Fingers ends, or out of a Glass in the Midwifes Pocket, lay great folly and ignorance to the charge of Christ and his Primitive followers? Doubtless such, as is not less than the folly of that Man, that hath occasion only for one Gill of Water, and he may take it up at the side of a Brook, and yet will needs wade into the middle of a River to take it up; or a Man that hath occasi∣on to wash his Hands only, which he may perform very commodiously without wetting his Foot, and yet is so simple that he will needs go into the middle of the River to that purpose, especially such a River where there is much Water. I say, the practice of Sprinkling which the Papists and others use, if that answer the Mind of God in the case of Baptism, doth even thus reflect upon Christ and the Christians in those Days. But let our Saviour's practice herein be justified, and all such Practices as tend to the rendring it ridiculous, condemned.

The Papists only Reserve for the defence of Infant-Baptism, is this: They say it is an Apostolical Tradition; that is, a Precept delivered by the Apostles Word, but not mentioned in their Writings.

This I shall shew to be utterly false, for divers important Reasons. First, No Apostolical Tradition, tends to the making Null or Void any Apostolical Writing. But Infant-Sprinkling makes null and void all that is written in the Scriptures, concerning the subject and manner of Baptism, in all that part of the World where the Papists (or such as they) get the Civil Power on their side: Yea, we see that by this means the Sons of Men are great enemies to the Way of God in this matter. How long have many Nations lain destitute of the knowledg of the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of Sins, by reason of the interposition of this cloudy Tradition of Paedo-rantism? How have Men, pretending to be Mi∣nisters of Christ, never in many Generations preached Peter's Doctrine,

Repent, and be Baptized, every one of you, for the remission of Sins. Note this Observation well; for although the Baptism of Repentance, &c. hath not been cried down in the Nations of Christendom, (by such as counted themselves the only Preachers of the Gospel) yet it was not for that these Nations had no need of the practice of Baptism; for they dai∣ly have practised something under that notion, which is their Infant-Sprinkling: So that it's plain, Infant-Baptism makes void the Apostolical Writings: Therefore Infant-Baptism is no Apostolical Tradition.

Secondly, Infant-Baptism is not an Apostolical Tradition, because no mention is made of it in the first Hundred Years after Christ. Although I am not much read, yet I have used the utmost of my diligence to know the Truth in this Point, and have attained to sufficient satisfaction, that the greatest favourer of Infant-Baptism that yet I have met with, durst not say that ever he saw any Record of Antiquity that mentioned such a thing; and that the Scriptures do not mention it, the Papists grant.

And because the Papists make such boast of the consent which they have in this matter from Antiquity, I will therefore here put in something by way of Evidence to the contrary. For it is certain that Infant-Baptism, as it was not heard of in the first Hundred, so neither was it generally re∣ceived till above half a Thousand Years revolved from Christ, as is unde∣niable: for that it is plain, that the most famous (or at least, very fa∣mous) Christian Parents brought up their Children without having them Baptized; such were the Parents of Greg. Nazianzen, Ambrose, Augustine, and others; yea, the Emperour Constantius, born of Christian Parents, was not Baptized till he was about * 2.12 Thirty Years of Age. See also these ensuing Testimonies.

* 2.13 I will declare unto you, how we offer up our selves unto God in Bap∣tism. After that we are renewed through Christ, such as are instructed in the Faith, and believe that which we teach them, being to live accord∣ing to the same; we admonish to Fast and Pray, and we Fast and Pray with them; then they are brought to the Waters, and there calling on the Name of the Father, &c. they are washed in it. So saith Erasmus's Para∣phrase on Mat. 28. If they believe that which you teach them, and begin to be repentant of their former life, then Dip them in Water, in the Name, &c.

* 2.14 The Lord commanded his Apostles, that they should first instruct all Nations, and afterward baptize those that were instructed: For it can∣not be that the Body should receive the Sacrament of Baptism, unless the Soul have received before the true Faith.

* 2.15 Our Saviour did not slightly command to Baptize, but first of all He said, Teach, and then Baptize, that true Faith might come by Teaching, and Baptism be perfected by Faith.

Haimo saith, * 2.16 In this place (Mat. 28.) is set down a Rule rightly how to Baptize, that is, that Teaching should go before Baptism: For, he saith, Teach all Nations, (and then he saith) and Baptize them: For, he that is to be Baptized, must be before Instructed, that he first learn to believe, that which in Baptism he shall receive: For, as Faith without Works is dead; so Works, if they have no Faith, are nothing worth.

Beda saith, * 2.17 All they that came to the Apostles to be Baptized, were instru∣cted of them, and when they were Instructed concerning the Sacrament of Bap∣tism, they received the holy Administration thereof.

Tertullian, who lived about the time when Infant-Baptism began to ap∣pear, did dispute against it, as an unnecessary practice, for divers causes. * 2.18 1. For that it is not meet to commit Heavenly things, to those who are not ca∣pable of keeping treasure of an earthly nature. 2. For that the Sponsors might be endangered. 3. For that it became them that were to be baptized, to fast, pray, and confess their Sins. 4. Because they that receive Christ, must ask him; let them (that is, little ones) come therefore, saith he, while they are youths, whilst wherein they come, they are taught, &c.

Augustine saith, * 2.19 We spend much time in exhorting those whom we bap∣tize — Ludovicus Vives, commenting upon this place, saith, Lest any Man should mistake this place of Augustine, let him know that in old time it was the custom to baptize None, except they were of full Age, and did de∣sire Baptism in their own Persons, and that several times; and did under∣stand what that Mystical Water meant, which we see resembled in our bapti∣zing of Infants.

[Lo here! your Poedo-baptism is not the old Custom of the Church.]

The Third Reason.

The present Papal Church of Rome, is a National Church: Therefore she is not the Church of Christ.

The third Reason maintained.

1. TO make the Gospel-Church National, consequently destroys the Doctrine of Conversion, as it is a principle of the Doctrine of Christ appertaining to the beginning of a Christian Man. For, if Men can regenerate, or beget persons to God in their Infancy, then the Word of Regeneration, or New-birth is needless, in order to our admission into the Church of Christ, and so the preaching of Faith and Repentance must cease (as it is a Principle pertaining to a Christian Man) in all those Nations which are called Christendom, which is a great part of the World. And indeed, Experience hath long ago proved this Conclusion to be most true; for since the Church (as they term it) was National, the Word, or Work of Conversion, hath been little known in the life and power of it: Nay, verily, the term [Conversion] is become a reproach among our National-Church-Members. But thus to make the Word of Conversion unnecessary, in order to Persons admission into the Church of Christ, is contrary to the Scripture, John 3. 5. Luke 24. 47. Mat. 20. 19. 2 Cor. 5. 16, 17. Heb. 8. 10, 11. Gal. 3. 26, 27, 28. Mat. 3. 8, 9, 10.

2. To make the Gospel-Church National, puts an end to the Doctrine of Christ touching that Separation, and those Divisions, which for the Gospel-sake must be in Nations and Families, as appears from these Scrip∣tures;

John 15. 19. and 17. 14, 16. Acts 2. 40, 47. 1 Cor. 6. Luke 22. 49, to 54. And therefore in vain doth any Person think to do God ser∣vice, by compelling Families, Towns, Countries, Nations, or many Nations, to be of one mind in matters of Religion. I say, it is in vain, because the Scripture foresees, and also foreshews, that the contrary ef∣fects must follow the preaching of the Gospel; and yet they may, yea, and ought to live in one form of Civil Government: For that is the Will of God concerning every soul, Rom. 13. 1, to 8.

3. The Gospel-Church cannot be National; because that takes away from her Persecution for the Gospel-sake, and makes her become a Per∣secutor: For it is impossible for a Church to be National without Penal Laws, whereby to force Men to that kind of Worship which the greater part approveth, which may as possibly be false as true. But the true Church must not look to be free from Persecution, if she live godly in Christ Jesus; nor is any thing more † 2.20 uncomely for her than to punish or persecute Men in a Conformity to her Faith, or religious practice, John 15. 19, 20. Mat. 10. 22. 2 Tim. 3. 12. Luke 9. 56. And the greatest part of the Revelations do shew, that the Church was to be in a suffering condition, and are therefore bid to be patient, until the coming of the Lord, James 5.

4. A National-Church cannot observe the Discipline of the Church of Christ; for, in the case of withdrawing from disorderly Persons, they do not only separate Men of disorder from the Church, both in Civil and Religious Concerns, but they cast them wholly out of the World, from all Markets and Fairs, yea, quite out of their Livelihoods, &c. which kind of Excommunication the Scripture foresees to be proper to the Churches Adversary, Rev. 13. 16, 17.

5. If the Gospel-Church ought to be National, then she was imperfect in point of Power in the Apostles Days: For she had not then any Power to put Hereticks to death for their Heresie. But to say, that the Primi∣tive Church wanted any Power to punish any Sin, as it concerns the Church to punish it, is to disparage the Apostolical Churches, and is al∣so contrary to the Scriptures, which plainly shew they had Power then to revenge all disobedience, 2 Cor. 10. 4, 5, 6.

The Fourth Reason.

The Papal Church encreaseth her self more by the Carnal Sword, than by the Spiritual Word: Therefore she is not the Church of Christ.

The fourth Reason maintained.

THat such Churches as are National, do most encrease their numbers, and keep them also when they have them, by the terror of Death and Penal Laws, both Experience shews, and Reason tells that it cannot be otherwise. How often hath our Nation changed their Religion, with the

breath of a Prince? sometime to Popery, and other-whiles to Protestancy, and under O. Cromwel to a compound of half Presbytery, and half Inde∣pendency, according to the temper of those that sat at the Stern of Affairs? And now, how are they turn'd again to Prelacy? Of which last change, I say, if any have conformed, as judging it their Duty to God so to do, those (though this doth not justifie their way to be good, yet) are honest Men: But if any for self-interest have done it, they are the very dregs of Men, and will be any thing, and so nothing.

2. I remember a notable saying of Hillary, who lived about the 4th or 5th Century, and in his days the Church was a degenerating from her Regeneral Constitution into a National Form, where he saith, * 2.21 Ambition doth aid it self by the Name of CHRIST; The Church doth fear and com∣pel the People, through Banishments and Imprisonments, to believe her in those things, which she had received through being imprisoned. — She that could not be beloved of Christ if the World had not hated her, now glorieth to be extolled and beloved of the World, &c.

And that the Papal Church hath ordinarily encreased her self more by terror of the Carnal Sword, than the Word of God, doleful Histories do declare; namely these, Sleidan. Comment. A Book entituled, The Indi∣ans Tears, or, Inquisition for Blood: as also, Fox his Acts and Monuments.

And here I think it meet to give an Instance from one of their own Historiographers, namely Fabinus. He tells us that after Austin the Monk had gotten a considerable settlement in England, it happened that there was a Council assembled in this Nation, where Austin proposed several things, to which the other Bishops could not consent; but, by your leave, when Austin could not prevail by the Word (or rather, his words) he told them, If they would not submit, they should be compelled, by the wasting that should be made in their Country through War and Misery. This was not Paul's way, 2 Cor. 5. 20.

The Fifth Reason.

The present Papal Church of Rome labours to keep the World in darkness, and the Church also: Therefore she is not the Church of Christ.

The Fifth Reason maintained.

THe Consequence of this Argument no Man can deny; for there is nothing more opposite to the True Church, than to love, or cause darkness to seize upon any. And that the present Papal Church of Rome labours to keep all Men in darkness, is thus proved. 1. She forbids al∣most all Men to read the Scriptures, and thereupon hath greatly withstood the Translation of them into every Tongue, as is evident, partly from what History declares, and partly from that which themselves do say. To omit History, hear what they say themselves. In their Preface to the Reader in the Rhemist Testament, thus they speak:

Order was taken by the Deputies of the late famous Council of Trent in this behalf, and confirmed by Supream Authority, That the Scripture, though truly translated into the vulgar Tongues, yet may not be indifferently read of all Men, nor of any other than such as have express order thereunto of their lawful Ordinaries. So that we see the Liberty here given, is unlike the Liberty given by Christ to his Enemies, whom he commanded to search the Scripture, John 5. 39. And the rich Glutton's Friends are said to have the Prophets and Moses, Luke 16. 29. Israel was of old indefinitely required to lay up the Book of the Law in their Heart; to talk of it as they sate in their Houses; as they went abroad: they must teach them to their Children, and write them upon the Post of their Doors, Deut. 6. 4, to 9.

Notwithstanding all this, and much more Liberty given by the Lord, both to his Enemies and Friends, to read his Word: you see the Council of Trent will have none permitted, but whom the Ordinaries permit, to read the Scripture, and they are only such as they judg discreet, &c. Pref. Rhem. Test.

Is it not strange that Men, pretending to be Christ's true Followers, should thus contradict him? He allowed that to his Enemies, which they will not allow to his Friends. Sure they have neither heard his Voice, nor seen his Shape, or, at least, not learned of him. Miserable is the Gospel-Church by the Council of Trents Doctrine, they have not that priviledg which Israel under the Law was allowed; and yet they are as strictly bound to bring up their Children in the admonition of the Lord; which they cannot do, unless they have the Law in their Heart, that so they may talk of it to their Children. But surely those that will not let the Law come within the sight of our eyes, have no mind it should ever come into our hearts: So then they labour to keep us in the dark.

What can they say against Mens reading the Scripture, which hath not the same force against the hearing of it preached? Did not some conceive as gross Opinions concerning Christ's saying, Men must eat his Flesh, as some have by reading them? The Jews thought they were so to be un∣derstood, as that they might eat his real Flesh; and that was not a grea∣ter nor a less Error, than is found in the Papists, who read the same word. It is doubtless a shrew'd sign that those who will not suffer us to see the Law of God, do not intend that we shall hear very much of it; perad∣venture such Points as talk of Tythes, &c.

Yea, it is evident, that they intend not to let us hear much that shall profit us; for they have devised, that the very Prayers and Services of their Church, be said and sung in a Tongue which the People understand not. Yea, they tell us, That it is enough for the People to understand that the Prayer is made to call upon God in all our desires; and more than this is not necessary, they say: So that the poor People in the Papacy, know not what are the things desired; only they are told, The Prayer is made to God in all that is therein desired. Are not these People kept in dark∣ness? But saith Paul, How should the unlearned say, Amen? 1 Cor. 14.

That which is most strange, is, That the Papists should deliver this dark Doctrine, from 1 Cor. 14. than which no Scripture more requireth an

understanding in those that pray, and in those that joyn with them; nor doth any Scripture more clearly shew us, to how little purpose it is to perform any Service in the Church in an unknown Tongue. Read the Chapter; saith Paul, If I come unto you speaking with Tongues, what shall I profit you? — but in the Church I will speak five words with my under∣standing, that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in an unknown Tongue. These are Paul's words, as the Papists themselves translate them.

Another way whereby they keep Men in darkness, is this, They cum∣ber Mens minds with such a multitude of Ceremonies and Repetitions in their Prayers, that the mind is sufficiently charged to remember how many times over they must say some two or three words; nay, it's evident this is no wrong, witness their Beads which serve to supply the defect of their memories. As I remember, there is not less than fifty Orations and Po∣stulations, &c. which the Priest is to make, and act, before the Bread be Consecrated when they say Mass: * 2.22 And the like doings they have in the most of their Services, which I can more desire the Lord would deliver them from, than mention.

The Sixth Reason.

The present Papal Church, is generally (if not only at this day) gathered of Persons unregenerate, or not new born, as the Scriptures do require new birth in that case: There∣fore she is not the Church of Christ.

The Sixth Reason maintained.

1. THe Scripture saith, That except a Man (or any one) be born again (so as to be like the Wind that bloweth, and that bloweth in such sort, as the sound thereof is heard) he cannot enter into the Kingdom (or Church) of God: But the many millions of Infants, whereof the Papal Church consist mostly (if not only) in respect of her Members Initiati∣on, are not thus regenerate. So that the Papal Church is gathered (ge∣nerally) of such Persons as are not so regenerate, as Persons ought to be, and must of necessity be, before they be admitted into the Church of Christ. The Seed of the Woman (or Gospel-Church) are all such as have the Faith of Jesus, and keep the Commandments of God, at least in Profession; for that is the thing that is absolutely necessary, in order to any Persons admission into the Church of Christ, John 3. 5, 6. 2 Cor. 5. 16, 17. Rev. 12. ult. Gal. 3. 26, 27, 28.

2. All the Children of the New Covenant, or Church of Christ, do differ from the Church under Moses, so, as that they, each individual, do so know the Lord, as that they need not, in some sort, teach one another, saying, Know the Lord, Heb. 8. Jer. 31. But either all, or the genera∣lity of the Papal Church, differ nothing from the Church under Moses, in respect of their Knowledg, when admitted into their Church; being

such as are not capable of the first, or least degree of the knowledg of him.

3. There appears no more sign of Regeneration, or New-Birth, in the Infants, or Members of the Papal Church, at their admission, than there appears in such as the Papists say are not regenerate. Now where the Spirit of Regeneration is, it is not without some demonstrable operation; for saith Christ, The Wind bloweth, &c. and thou hearest the sound there∣of, &c. So is every one that is born of the Spirit. So that I conclude, That the Infants whom the Papists say they baptize, are not born of the Spirit, unless they can give some demonstrative sign of it.

4. There can be no Regeneration in an ordinary way, without preach∣ing the Doctrine of Christ, Rom. 10. But the Papal Church is generally (if not only) gathered without the Word preached, in order to the re∣generation of the Members, before their admission. Therefore they are not regenerate in an ordinary way. And if they have an extraordi∣nary Regeneration, let them shew it.

The Seventh Reason.

The present Papal Church of Rome maintaineth the Doctrine of Devils, and that so violently, as that they punish the Non-observation thereof with Excommunication and Death: Therefore she is not the Church of Christ.

This Argument maintained.

THis Reason, or Argument, may seem to be harshly laid down; yet if it be true, there is necessity to propound it. And for the truth of it, I desire you weigh what followeth.

1. To forbid Marriage, and to command to abstain from Meats, which God hath created to be received of such as believe and obey the Truth; this is the Doctrine of Devils. But it is well known that the Papists do forbid the whole Calling of their Clergy to marry; and thousands beside of those that live in their Monasteries and Nunneries, &c. and this un∣der pain of Cursing and Death. You shall hear them speak their own words, wherein they do not only prohibit Marriage for ever to such as enter into the Ministry; but if any be married, and afterwards come in∣to the Ministry, they wholly deprive such of the enjoyment of their Yoke∣fellows. Thus they speak; * 2.23 The cause why the Church requireth chastity in the Clergie, and forbiddeth not only Fornication, but all Carnal Copulation, even in lawful Wedlock, is to the end, that God's Priests be not divided from him by the cl••gs of Marriage, but be clean and pure from all the fleshly Acts of Copulation. And this Doctrine they teach from 1. Cor. 7. where if you read the 4, 5, 6, 7, verses, you may easily learn the quite contrary Doctrine. Again, They teach from 1 Tim. 3. 2. That none shall marry that come into Holy Orders. And, that if any of the Clergie in other Countries had been permitted in times past to enjoy their Wives, yet they

now declare it to be against the Apostles Rule; And this they say is the Sen∣tence of the Council of Nice. But surely Paul's words are clear contrary; for he saith, A Bishop must be the Husband of one Wife, having his Children in subjection, &c.

In further proof of this matter, it is upon Record, That Greg. 7. An. 1070. did enforce Ministers by Excommunication, to leave their Wives. And Urban 2. Anno. 1066. Decreed, * 2.24 That it might be lawful to make the Ministers Wives Bond-women. And Fox recordeth, That it was made Felony, by the Act of the Six Articles, for Ministers to marry Wives, Fox, p. 1135. And this cruelty Bellarmin defends by a saying of Jerome, That a Bishop begetting Children, shall be condem∣ned as an Adulterer.

Now whereas, I say, they forbid Meats, &c. I do not mean that it is not meet for the Church to Fast and Pray, and in such a sense to forbid Meat. But for their Church to forbid one kind of Meat above another; as that we may not eat Eggs in Lent, and divers other Creatures which God hath created, to be received of such as believe. For the true way of Fasting, is a total Fasting for the time (unless necessity deny). And truly, the Papal Fast of Lent is in a manner no Fast, which allows the drinking of Wines, and the eating to the full of such Delicacies as do inflame the Flesh as much as Eggs, &c. which yet the Papists by no means will permit Men to eat. For my Author tells me, That they make the eating of Eggs in Lent a damnable Sin, Fox, p. 1043. I might fill much Paper about their forbidding Meats. But to proceed:

The Eighth Reason.

The present Papal Church of Rome, is Mystery Babylon: Therefore she is not the Church of Christ.

The Eighth Reason maintained.

1. I Know, that generally all that dissent from Rome, do account her as in her present state to be Mystery Babylon: And truly for my part, I have considered of this matter, and I find it is so clearly meant of Rome, that even the Papists do not wholly exempt her from this Name. Yet they deny that Rome, as now considered, is Mystery Babylon; only, say they, it is to be referred to Rome in her Heathenish estate. But thus I reason:

2. If the present Papal Church of Rome be not Mystery Babylon, then either the Papists, or some Body else, can shew us a People which better deserve that Title. But this no Man can do (so far as I have learn∣ed) and therefore (as yet) I must say, The present Papal Church of Rome (together with her Daughter Churches) is Mystery Babylon. And for further proof in this Point, I thus reason:

3. The present Papal Church hath the Marks of Mystery Babylon; therefore she is Mystery Babylon.

I prove it thus,

One Mark of Mystery Babylon, is a Regiment over the Kings of the Earth, Rev. 17. The Woman which thou sawest, is that great City which reigneth over the Kings of the Earth. This Mark the present Papal Church of Rome hath above all other; witness the Papists own Books, T. B. End to Controv. chap. 26, 27. where he sets up the Pope above all Kings and Emperours; and plainly calls the Popes, Kings and Monarchs; and the Papal Church, he terms an Invincible Empress, &c.

Another Mark of Mystery Babylon, is great Riches and Worldly Pomp. That Rome, in her present Church-state, hath this Mark, her Doctor, T. B. is my Witness. So is Heylin Geog. p. 192, 193. and Napier, Rev. 9. which Authors shew her Riches (even of the Clergy only) to be quite out of the reach of the best Arithmeticians to pass an Entrado up∣on it. Add to all other Witnesses, that of Experience, and it will shew us, That when their Church had her Domination in this Land, they knew where the best Ground lay; as the Ruins of their Abbeys do evince. Compare all these with Rev. 18. and see if they do not agree.

Another Mark of Mystery Babylon is, She sits upon Nations, Tongues, and Peoples. Rome hath this Mark; T. B. in his End to Controversies, chap. 26, 27.

Another Mark of Mystery Babylon is, She enslaves the Souls of Men, and is drunk with Blood. Now that the Papal Church of Rome hath this Mark, I need only refer my Readers to those large Histories of Sleidan, Fox, and Benzo the Italian.

Lastly, As I noted, it is confessed by the Papists, that Mystery Babylon, Rev. 17. & 18. chapters, is meant of Rome; only they think to free them∣selves from the force of that blow, by telling us, That it's meant of Rome in her Heathenism, and under the persecuting Emperours. But this is a poor shift, as may appear, by shewing, That the Ancients do write against Rome, as Mystery Babylon, after the persecuting Emperours were down; * 2.25 for the Papists say, That Constantine put an end to the Persecution when he was converted, which was about the Year 300, and a few odd Years; at which time the Papists say, That Rome was given up to the Pope. * 2.26 1. Jerome, who lived about the fourth Century, writing to Eustoch. & Marcelus, doth apply these words to Rome, viz. Fly out of Babylon, let every Man save his own Soul: for Babylon is fallen, and is become the Habi∣tation of Devils. Yea, he saith further, as he is quoted by the Prote∣stants, That Rome is the Babylonical Harlot, according to the Revelation of St. John, appointed for the birth of Antichrist, which there should arise, and exercise all Tyranny; and from thence should deceive the whole World with his wicked Wiles.

And Augustine is most clear in this matter, in his Book of the City of God; * 2.27 where he calls Rome another Babylon in the West. And Babylon in the East, first Rome: and Rome of Italy, second Babylon. Willing Men to consider, That in the beginning of the City of God, which was in Abra∣ham's time, the first Rome, that was Eastern Babylon, was built in Chaldea: And about what time the first Babylon was destroyed, lest the City of God should want her Enemy, the second Babylon, which is Rome in Italy, was erected.

Chrysostom saith, * 2.28 Antichrist shall invade the vacant Empire of Rome, and assay to draw unto himself the Empires both of God and Man. Thus it seems that Rome was accounted Mystery Babylon, four or five hundred Years af∣ter Christ; and if she be not now, what she was then in that respect, I de∣sire to be informed where that Blood-drunken Fornicatrix, mentioned Rev. 17. is now to be found?

The Ninth Reason.

The present Papal Church hath not those Marks, which they themselves assign as the Marks by which the true Church can only be known Infallibly: Therefore the present Pa∣pal Church of Rome is not the true Church of Christ.

Those Marks are;

• 1. ANTIQUITY.
• 2. SUCCESSION.
• 3. UNIVERSALITY (of Time and Place.
• 4. VISIBILITY.
• 5. SANCTITY.
• 6. UNITY.
• 7. MIRACLES, &c.

These are the Principal.

The Ninth Reason maintained.

THat the present Papal Church cannot have the true Mark of Antiquity, is thus evidenced; viz. The Papal Church is a National Church; But no Gospel-Church was National in the first Age: Therefore no Na∣tional Church hath the true Mark of Antiquity.

The strength of this Argument lieth in the clear difference of the state of the Church under Abraham and Moses, to what it was under Christ and his Apostles. For,

The Jewish Church, which was to be National, took its form in a Na∣tional way, even in the very first Family where it began; as appears, Gen. 17. where Parents, Children, and Servants too, must all be brought in∣to that Church-state forthwith, or not be suffered to co▪habit together. Which order must be kept in all the Families of the Jews, as well in re∣spect of their Servants, such as they bought with Money, as their Chil∣dren, or any other. And so the Jewish Church, both in its beginning and its continuance, acted forth it self in a way suitable to it self.

But when the Gospel-Church began, it is very evident, that it took its beginning in the division of Families, and that by vertue of Christ's Do∣ctrine; * 2.29 who affirms, That he came to send Fire on the Earth; not Peace, but rather Division: For saith he, * 2.30 From henceforth there shall be fire, in one House divided three against two, and two against three; the Father against the Son, and the Son against the Father; the Daughter against the Mother, and the Mother against the Daughter, &c. and all this for the Gospel-sake.

Here a Man must leave Father, Mother, Wife and Children; For this cause ye shall be betrayed, both by Parents and Kinsfolks. For this cause the unbelieving Husband will put away his believing Wife. And for this cause the Servant may refuse to follow his unbelieving Master, being Christ's Freeman, and yet dwell in his Service as a Servant notwith∣standing.

Thus it's evident, That the Gospel Church took its beginning in a way quite contrary to the Form of a National Church, even by turning the World (or Church of the Jews) up-side down, which caused the Jews to cry out, Men of Israel, Help.

This is yet more evident, by that thundring Doctrine of the Baptist, when he said, * 2.31 Think not, or begin not to say within your selves, We have Abra∣ham to our Father. No, saith Paul, * 2.32 We (meaning the Gospel-Church) which are of Faith, are the Seed of Abraham, and Heirs according to Pro∣mise. For the Promise, which chiefly is enjoined in the Gospel, was not made to such as were born after the Flesh, but to such as are born after the Spirit; Whereupon he saith, * 2.33 We henceforth know no Man after the Flesh, [or because he descends from the Loins of Abraham, or any other.] * 2.34 For if any Man be in Christ (so as to be a demonstrable, or visible Member of his Gospel-Church) he is a new Creature. Old things are passed away, [yea, the old priviledg of standing in the Church by the Father's inte∣rest, though the Seed of Abraham himself] is [now] passed; Behold, all things [in this respect] are become new. Whereupon Peter contributeth his Sentence, and saith, Of a truth, I perceive God is no respecter of Persons; [but] the Persons accepted upon a Gospel account, so as to be his Church, are such as in every Nation fear him, and work Righteousness, [which no Infant can do.] But what? Hath God rejected Infants wholly, that now he will not shew them so much favour as afore-time? God forbid. He hath not shut up his tender Mercies from them wholly, or in part: For as they are such, and dying in their Infancy through Adam's transgression, so in Christ shall they be made alive. * 2.35 Wherefore look how far soever they fall in the first Man of the Earth, so far they shall be restored by the Lord from Heaven; yea, the Gift to them by Christ, shall exceed the loss they had by Adam. But if they live to years of understanding, and be∣come actual sinners against God, then the way appointed for the Remissi∣on of their Sins, is, * 2.36 To repent, and be Baptized, every one of them, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, and so be by it led into all Truth; and at∣tain at the end the salvation of their souls, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Another Argument whereby it appears the Church of Christ cannot be National, is this; No Man is bound to become a Christian under pain of Corporal Punishment, as Death, &c. but living peaceably as Men, no Man hath power to compel them to be Baptized, or to walk in the Chri∣stian Profession, as is clear from the Texts before recited. Now take away Force in matters of Religion, and a National Church cannot stand in an absolute National Form; this is all Experience can testifie.

Again, That the Church of Christ at the first, or in the first Ages, was not Narional (in the first method or way wherein a Church beginneth to be so, namely, by the admission of Infants into the Church) is very evi∣dent;

because it is utterly incredible, that the many thousands of In∣fants, of such as in those days believed, should be admitted into the Church, and not so much as the whisper of such a thing to be found in all the Holy Writings of the Apostles. And besides, I have shewed from the Testimony of Vives, (Augustin's Commentator) That the Church had not the custom to baptize Infants in old time.

It is likewise certain, (if History be true) That the Gospel-Church used no compulsion in matters of Faith for more than three hundred years after Christ. About which time Constantine ordained grievous punishments for such as spake against Christ; and allowed the Christians to use the Unbelievers hardly. * 2.37 But God did not bless these doings; for Constantine became an Arrian Heretick, and persecuted the Bishop that Baptized him, as also others that continued faithful.

Hence then I conclude, That seeing the present Papal Church of Rome hath not the true Mark of Antiquity; Therefore they lose at once, the next three, Succession, Universality, and Visibility: For, Antiquity being wanting, no true Succession can be found; because the Root of Succession, if good, must be the Antiquity of it. So take Antiquity from them, and then wanting that first Age, they cannot be found in every Age; and not being found in every Age, especially the first Age, then they lose Visibili∣ty, as themselves propose it for a Mark of the Church. And for their Ho∣liness, I have spoken to that before, and surely it is but like their Neigh∣bours. And for their Miracles, I have given you a taste of them from Loretto: And besides, others do claim that Mark as well as they; * 2.38 Yea, the Turks produce Miracles; and the Protestants do the like; and others, as the Quakers, the like: And the Baptists can say of a truth, that God hath done for and amongst them, some things which have exceeded the course of Nature. And so their Miracles will not more prove them a Church, than the Miracles of others will prove the contrary, unless they can prove the others to be Illusions.

And that they have not the Mark of Unity, is evident, if History may be heeded; for, saith my Author, there is an hundred Sects of Monks and Fryars amongst them, and some of them so divided, as they burnt one another for Matters of Religion. And for different Opinions, there are no less than three hundred. See Fox Act. and Mon. p. 260. and Wil∣lit, in his Book called Tetrastilon Papis.

I know the Papists do make a great deal of noise about their Pastoral Succession, as if they could derive it from Man to Man, up to the Apostle Peter. But I find the learned Protestants making it a great Question, whether ever Peter was Bishop of Rome, or not. And Jerom is said to have seen some old Books, * 2.39 which shew, that Narcissus ruled the Roman Church, when Paul saluted him and his Family, in his Epistle to the Ro∣mans.

No small contention is there likewise among the Learned, Whether Linus or Clement were the second Bishop of Rome; So that this Pastoral Succession the Papists pretend to, meets with shrewd Objections in the ve∣ry first and second Person of that Line.

Against the uninterrupted continuance of their pretended Succession,

many things are objected: as, That there were sometimes three, and sometimes two Popes, and that for more than twenty years time together; so that no Man could tell where the true Pastoral Authority lay. And then comes in that strange disaster of Joan the Female Pope, who for al∣most three years cut the Chain of this pretended Succession. This thing is famous in History.

Lastly, Although the Papists could prove a continued Succession of Persons claiming the Title of Universal Bishop, yet this would not justifie them all to be the Pastors of Christ's Church. For these two Rules are given us even by the Ancients; 1. That Peter left his Innocency here∣ditary as well as his Seat; and that he which hath not the one as well as the other, is not Peter's Successor. 2. That it is not the Chair, but the Doctrine that maketh a Bishop. Now, 3. add but Paul's Rule in this Matter, 1 Tim. 3. and Titus 1. and then I am bold to affirm, That many Popes of Rome were not the true Successors of Peter in Pastoral Autho∣rity. For I find it laid to the charge of divers Popes, that they were Drunkards, Whoremongers, Theeves, given more to War than Christ; rooted in unspeakable Sin; furious Men, prophane Scoffers of Christ; incestuous Persons, Murderers, poysoners of their own Parents and Kin∣dred; open Sodomites or Buggerers; Blasphemers, incorrigible Here∣ticks, Enchanters; Callers upon the Devil to help them to play at Dice; Drinkers of the Devil's Health, and Traitors to Princes. These things are so notorious and evidently true of the Popes of Rome, as that the Pa∣pists do not deny them. T. B. End to Controversie, and the Author of the Seven Queries, as you may see in part before. Yea, Bernard was not a little moved with the wickedness of the Popes of Rome, when he called them, Tyrants, Defrauders, Raveners, Traytors, Darkness of the World, Wolves and Devils. And, can we think that Succession to be good which is derived from such? I need say no more. See, for the proof of all that I have said, these Books; Fox, Act. & Mon. Willit's Synops. Prideaux's Introduct.

The Tenth Reason.

The present Assemblies of Baptized Believers, are a true vi∣sible Church of Christ: Therefore the present Papal Church of Rome is not a true Church of Christ.

The Explanation of this Reason, or Argument.

THis Reason or Argument is not so to be understood, as if we do shut all Men out of Heaven who are not Members of our Church. No verily: This is the express Doctrine of the Papists: for they say, That out of the Church is no Salvation; and by Church they mean, only those that adhere to the Papal Church of Rome: And hereupon they teach ex∣presly, That without Baptism, or the desire of Baptism, &c. none can be saved: And therefore it is, that they give Power to Midwives to bap∣tize

Children, sometimes between the Womb and the World.

That which we teach is this, That the ordinary way appointed for Men to receive Salvation in, is, * 2.40 The preaching of Repentance and Remission of Sins to all Nations, in the Name of Jesus Christ; and the administration of Baptism, as a Pledg thereof, to all that give acceptance to these Glad-tydings; and upon this account this Ministration is called, The Baptism of Repen∣tance for the Remission of Sins. And we do teach, as a most Infallible Do∣ctrine, That without profession of Faith, manifestation of Repentance, and be∣ing baptized with Water in the Name of Jesus Christ, &c. no Person can be orderly admitted into the Church or Kingdom of God on Earth. And that therefore it concerns every Man, living to years of understanding, and having the Gospel tendred to him, only to look for Salvation this way, as he will answer it before the Lord, for contemning God's ordinary way, and presuming to challenge the Grace of Eternal Life in a way of his own devising.

Nevertheless, we do not hence conclude, That all Persons shall be dam∣ned that seek not Life in this way. For, first, No Infant can seek for it in the way which the Gospel proposeth Life to Men of Years: Yet surely it is a most cruel Doctrine to say, That any Infants dying in their Infan∣cy shall be damned in Hell; Because (as one very well said) God will not damn any Persons for that which they cannot help.

Again, in Rom. 1. 2. Chapters, Paul teacheth, That if the Sons of Men act forth themselves in a way of Love, Fear, Obedience, and Reve∣rence to their Creator, according to the means of Light vouchsafed to them, that this shall be as much as shall be required of them, in the day when God shall judg the secrets of all Men by Jesus Christ, (for God will not gather where he hath not strewed) at which time God will not judg them by the Law that never had it. Howbeit, let all that have it (I mean his written Law) expect to be judged by it. And therefore, though we will not presume to judg the final state of this or that Society of Men professing conscionably this or that Form of Worship, but leave that wholly to the Lord; yet we will not cease humbly to beg of all such Per∣sons, in the Name of Jesus Christ, that they having his Law, would care∣fully observe the terms whereupon Life is held forth unto them, and be∣come such glad receivers of the Word, as is mentioned, Acts 2. 41. Then they which gladly received the Word, were baptized: and the same day were added to the Church about three thousand Souls. The Argument thus ex∣plained, I shall now endeavour to make it good.

The Tenth Argument maintained.

That the present Assemblies of Baptized Believers, are a true Church of Christ, I prove thus: Either the present Assemblies of Baptized Be∣lievers, or else some other Assemblies now in the practice of Infant-Bap∣tism, must be the true Church of Christ; because without Baptism, the Papists say, (and say truly too) there can be no true Church of Christ at this day: Now these two ways of baptizing only, (I mean of Water-Baptism) is pretended as necessary in order to a visible Church-state, viz.

the dipping or baptizing Persons upon their personal profession of Faith, as the present Assemblies of the Baptists do practise; or baptizing (or ra∣ther sprinkling) of Infants without personal professing of Faith, as the present National Churches do practise.

For most undoubtedly, the true and legitimate claim to this Title of Christ's Church, must be found in one of these two Parties: And that no National Assembly, gathered together by Poedo-Baptism, can fairly claim this Title, I have shewed before, whither now I refer my Reader. And for the evincing yet further, that the present Assemblies of Baptized Be∣lievers are a true visible Church of Christ, I thus argue:

They have the true Ecclesiastical Marks of truly Ancient Primitive or Apostolical Gathering, Constitution, and Government: Therefore they are a true Church of Jesus Christ.

These three Points, namely, Gathering, Constitution, and Government, I take (if right) to be the infallible Marks of a true Church. And that the present Assemblies of Baptized Believers have them, will be evident to him that considereth what they were at first, and how they agree with what in these respects is found in the Assemblies of the Baptized Congre∣gations.

The truly Ancient, Primitive and Apostolical Gathering, in respect of the first means used in order thereunto, was the preaching Repentance and Remission of Sins, or the Gospel unto every Creature; and upon their conviction, to command them, as from the Lord, to be baptized, every one of them, in the Name, &c. as appears, Mat. 28. 19, 20. Mark 16. 15, 16. Acts 2. 38. Acts 8. 37. Acts 10. 47, 48. And herein the present Assem∣blies of Baptized Believers do closely follow Christ's Primitive Ministers.

The Primitive and Apostolical Gathering of the Church of Christ, in respect of the subjects gathered, were only such, as through the virtue and prevalency of the Word preached, are made known, did give a de∣monstration of their Regeneration by the profession of Faith, and mani∣festation of Repentance, and being dipped in Water in the Name of the Father, &c. For the proof whereof, I appeal to those several Scriptures alledged against the gathering of Christ's Church of such Persons, as of whose Regeneration no demonstration is or can be given, answerable to what the Scripture doth require, in order to Persons admission into the Kingdom of God, or Church on Earth. And, secondly, I appeal to the practice of the Apostles, acting in pursuance of that Commission given them in that behalf. And, thirdly, I do appeal to the Churches them∣selves, which were gathered by the Apostles.

Christianismus Primitivus.

The Second TREATISE. The Baptist against the Quaker. BEING A Defence of the Spirit, speaking in the Scripture as aforesaid, to be the supreme Judg of Con∣troversies in Religion, in opposition to the Spirit speaking in the Quakers, and more especially in Robert Ruckhill, and John Whitehead.

CHAP. I. Of the pernicious Queries of R. R. touching the Scriptures, especially the Books of Moses.

HAving by the Grace of God passed over the Mountains of Opposition, raised by the Papists against the Authority of the sacred Scriptures, or the Holy Ghost speaking there, &c. under the specious pretence of the Holy Ghost as speaking in the Church, that is (as they arrogate, but can never prove) the present Romish Synagogue; whose claim to that venerable Title, we trust is sufficiently disproved also.

We come now to reckon with their near Neighbours in this Point, the Quakers; who seem to have the same design against the just Authority of the Scriptures, under the pretence of advancing the Holy Spirit; But then it is likewise arrogated without due Proof, that it is the holy Spirit of God which dwelleth in the Quakers hearts; so that the Spirit speaking

in the Scriptures, must only be allowed a second place, and yet this not allowed neither, but under very strange distinctions, as is manifest in sun∣dry Pamphlets of theirs, and particularly one written by Rob. Ruckhill, and John Whitehead, intituled, The Quakers Refuge fixed upon the Rock of Ages. Where R. R. in pag. 17. first labours to deface the Books of Moses, and other parts of the sacred Scriptures, after this manner.

QUAKER.

Whether the first Penman of the Scripture was Moses, or Hermes? or whether both these are not one?

BAPTIST.

To which bold attempt, I thus answer: If Moses and Hermes be both one, then is this Query frivolous; unless perhaps he would have Moses to be Hermes, and not Hermes to be Moses; that so Moses being lost, and Hermes only a Philosopher in Egypt being found, the Books going under the name of Moses, shall be lost also; otherwise the calling the same Man Moses in one Tongue, and Hermes in another, * 2.41 makes not the Author differ from himself, but he is still the same Man.

But to let pass this mischievous Cavil, yet are we well assured, that Moses only was the first Penman of the Scriptures, which by God's Pro∣vidence are come to our Hands, our Saviour himself being an uncon∣troulable Witness for us in this behalf, by his alledging the Book of Ex∣odus, as the sayings of Moses against the Saducees, who denied the Re∣surrection, (like as also R. Ruckhill doth, as I shall shew in due place) see Mark 12. 26. And when Christ saith (in the person of Abraham) Luke 16. 29. They have Moses and the Prophets; How plainly doth he here avouch the Pentiteuch to be the writings of Moses, as well as the other Books of Scripture to be written by the Prophets? Also disputing about the case of Divorce; he most plainly grants, That Moses for the causes he assignes, gave them that Precept, but refers them to Genesis for the institution of Marriage. Again, Luke 24. 27. when He would make the things known to his Disciples which concerned himself, He be∣gins at Moses, and passeth through all the Prophets, to rectifie their un∣derstandings. So that still the Books which the Jews at that time had received as the Books of Moses, are by Christ himself (who could not be deceived) made use of, as the Books of Moses also. Yea, how fre∣quently did our Lord urge the Jews with Moses's Authority, saying, If they had believed Moses, they would have believed him also; for (saith he) he wrote of me. Peter also quotes the Book Deuteronomy, as the Book of Moses, Acts 3. Yea, it appears that places have been alledged out of all the Five Books of Moses by Christ and his Apostles, more than Fifty times in the New Testament, as may be seen in the Parallels, usually af∣fixed to the Greek Testament. Having therefore the Authority of Christ, and his holy Writers of the New Testament, avouching Moses as the Penman of the first Books of the sacred Scripture, we explode R. R. his Query, as rude and unlearned, and formed on purpose to en∣gender

Strife; abhorring to think that our Saviour was either Unskilful, or Unfaithful, in recommending to us any suppositious Writings, in stead of the sacred Oracles.

Judg now, O Christian Reader, what Book of Scripture the Quaker can receive for Authentick, when Moses's Writings thus clearly approved by Christ and his Apostles, are thus hesitated by him; it being impossi∣ble for him to find any Book more clearly avouched, than these of Moses.

Say not here, That he that Querieth concludes nothing; but know rather that all Queries do conclude, or at least suppose a Negation, or an Affirmation: And when the form of Interrogation is Negative, it usually concludes in the Affirmative, and so the meaning of this Query is plainly thus: That Hermes was rather the first Penman of the Scrip∣ture than Moses, or else they were both one. The latter makes the Query needless, the former makes it pernitious. Let him take to which he will, he is injurious to the Christian Faith. But he leaves not thus:

QUAKER.

Or whether there are not many words contained in the Scriptures, which were not spoken by Inspiration of the holy Spirit? Whether some words were not spoken by the grand Impostor; some by wicked Men; some by wise Men, ill ap∣plied; some by good Men, ill expressed; some by false Prophets, and yet true; some by true Prophets, and yet false?

BAPTIST.

No less mischievous are these Queries than the former, having this natural tendency to prejudice the weak Reader, against the Authority of the sacred Scripture. For when he shall hear these Bug-bears, or see such ugly Shapes put upon the Scripture in sundry parts of it, he will be the less affected to the residue, as not knowing, perhaps, how to distin∣guish between the Precious, and what is represented by R. R. to be so vile. But he is more subtile than to tell plainly, that his design in these Questions, is to impeach the Certainty, and therewith the Authority of the Scriptures, which yet is undoubtedly his meaning; or else he speaks in the Air, and does Mischief at a venture. Now I gather the sense I here give from his Preface to these Queries, which he calls, The Contro∣versie between the Anabaptists, &c. and the Quakers, concerning the Autho∣rity of the * 2.42 holy Spirit, in judging, or discerning the Mind of God in the holy Scriptures, truly stated, &c. And presently adds, That the Scriptures, as above distinguished, are a true Record and Declaration of the Love of God, in the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind by Jesus Christ. Now I can make no English of these things taken collectively, save this, 1. He would throw aside a great part of the holy Scripture as Doubtful, particu∣larly the Books of Moses. 2. Some part he would have to be Diabolical. 3. Some part False. 4. Some part Foolish, both in expression and ap∣plication. 5. And some part little to be regarded though true, because spoken by Lyers. 6. Some part spoken by Inspiration, and so of small

Authority, and so no part of the true Record, or Declaration of God's love for the Salvation of Mankind; for that, or nothing, is the impli∣cation of his Distinction.

But now it would be known, since so much of the Scripture is pack'd away by his wretched Distinction, how much of the Scripture the Qua∣ker will own, for a true Declaration, &c. What Books by name, what Chapters, and what Verses in these Books will abide his Censure; but I expect to see an account of these things at leasure.

But now to the Queries: And supposing things to be in general as im∣plied in these last Enquiries, (though not granting it in all Points) yet will I stand to it, That these passages are a true Record and Declaration of God's love, conducing much to the Salvation of Mankind, and written for our premonition and ensample. And this I shall make appear by a due consideration of one of the worst attempts, and mischievous discourses of the Devil himself, recounted in the holy Scripture, as Gen. 3. &c. where he falsly gives God the Lye, and deprives Adam of his Happiness, and exposes him and his Posterity to misery and death. And yet behold how gracious God was in causing this to be written, that the riches of his Grace might appear in providing a Salve for this dreadful Wound; and to cause us to hate that Enemy for ever, and to shun his Temptations. Yea, this very passage I do affirm to be written by the Inspiration of God's Spirit, or the Motion thereof; and consequently all such-like pas∣sages also. Otherwise this passage would be doubtful, and all the Hi∣storical part of the Scripture also, which declares matter of Fact: For either these things were written in the Book of God, by the Motion and Direction of his Spirit, or else they only rest on Humane Authority, and Conjecture: For it is not likely, that Moses wrote the Account he gives of the Creation, the fall of Man and Angels, the means of his Reco∣very, &c. upon the bare report of Men; which we know by the Frag∣ments which Ovid and others have left, are contradictory, and incredi∣ble; and why Moses his Relation should be received, unless revealed to him by God, rather than the rest, it will be hard to render a satisfactory Reason; but when God speaketh, we must submit our Reason; by Faith receive, what by Science we cannot understand: and so it is written, Heb. 11. By Faith we understand the Worlds were made. Upon the whole matter we conclude, The Devil would gladly have had us ignorant of all his wic∣ked Pranks; false Prophets would not have had us know how God forced them to speak against themselves; good Men would have had their Faults obscured; bad Men loved not to have theirs revealed: But God who di∣sposeth all things well for his own Glory, and the good of Men, hath in Love and Mercy, and in Justice perpetuated the Memorial of these things respectively. And so we fear not to assert, That the same word which was maliciously contrived, and spoken first by Satan and wicked Men, and so considered, was, and is, the word of Satan. Yet as these things are recorded for our Information and Admonition, so these very things are to be believed as the Word of God, or a true Declaration of God's love to Men, who to the end they should not be ignorant of Satans devices, &c. hath exposed them to our view, that we might avoid his most speci∣ous

allurements. And thus much to R. R. his Queries, which though he say, was not the subject of his Argument at that time, yet he implies, he thought of a time when to imploy his skill on such a peevish Subject, as can produce no good.

QUAKER.

R. R. premising, that though a Man have all the words of the Bible at his fingers ends, yet without a measure of the Spirit of God received, and turned unto, he cannot understand the great Mystery of Man's Sal∣vation by Jesus Christ; thence concludes, That the Holy Spirit of God, is the only Supream Judg, Opener and Revealer of the Mind and Mystery of God, and Duty of Man treated of in the Scripture.

And then flies out into this extravagant speech; This, O ye Anabap∣tists, Independents, and all other Opposers of this Eternal Truth in the World, this is the true state of the great Controversie betwixt the Quakers and you; and if you joyn issue with the Quakers in this Controversie, you must do it as it is here stated, at least for substance, &c.

BAPTIST.

But by your leave R. R. I deny that this is the state of the case between the Baptists and you; for who of us ever denyed that the Spirit of God is the Supream Judg? Nay, have We not rather affirmed it? and I do also grant, That no Man can savingly understand the Scriptures, but by the help of God's Spirit opening his Understanding, to see his wretched∣ness, and the need of a Saviour.

But the true state of the Case is this, Whether the Spirit of God, as he speaks to Men in the Scriptures; or, the Light which every Man hath in him, be this Supream Judg? &c. We affirm the first, and deny the latter, yet giving the Light its due place in Religious Controversies; but saying withal, That that Light is not the Holy Ghost, nor given to reveal all the Will of God to Men. Now R. R. dislikes this form of speech, The Spirit speaking in the Scripture, as if it were an unusual kind of speaking, which he pretends he cannot well understand.

Sure then he hath not read the Scripture, in which this Speech at least for substance is very frequent. For Example, Psal. 95. To day if ye will hear his Voice, harden not your hearts. The Question is, Who speaks here? The Apostle answers, It is the Holy Ghost, Heb. 3. 7. Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if you will hear his Voice, harden not your hearts. Is there any thing more usual in Scripture than Thus saith the Lord; and then the speech follows. Who speaks there, I pray you, but the Lord? O! R. R. thou canst allow that to thy own Writings, which thou allowest not to the Scripture: Didst thou not entitle a Paper thou sent me, The Roaring of the Lord out of Zion? Here thou wouldst make us believe the Lord spake and roared too in thy Writing; for shame never doubt but that he speaketh in the holy Scriptures. Now we are sure that the Holy Spirit speaketh in the Scripture; but we are not sure that he speaks

in thee. Nay, we are sure that the Spirit which speaks in R. R. is not the Holy Spirit, because many false things are delivered by him in this Book, and other of his Writings: and in those things at least the Holy Ghost speaks not by him, which now I come to demonstrate.

QUAKER.

R. R. gives an account in a certain Paper of his, of the Doctrine which the Quakers teach, to describe or set forth the * 2.43 Saviour of the World, (of which more in due place) and then tells me, The first proof for what they say, is the Witness of the Holy Spirit in their Hearts. Second∣ly, The solid testimony of the Scripture.

BAPTIST.

We will observe some of the odd Conceits that lie in this Passage. And first it is remarkable, How the Spirit speaking in the Quakers hearts, is preferred to the Scripture in point of proof, touching this most weighty Question, Who is the Saviour of the World? and as boldly as uncertainly concludes, That that Spirit which speaks in the Quakers hearts, is the Holy Spirit. * 2.44 By which presumptuous way, any sober Man may intitle what is spoken in his heart to the Holy Ghost as well as the Quakers: And every sober Christian-Man will grant, That the first Witness which gave him intelligence concerning Christ, as God-Man the Saviour of the World, was the Spirit speaking in the Scripture, or by the preaching of the Gospel. And to this agrees Rom. 10. How shall they believe on him, of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a Preacher? And again, Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. And by the Word of God here is clearly meant, that Message which he sends to Men by his Ministers. How can he preach except he be sent? Yea, most certain it is, the first Witness that ever Man had of Christ the Sa∣viour, is that which God spake to him Gen. 3. it was not dictated by the Spirit in his heart, for he heard the Voice of God, and was afraid, and hid himself. This did God cause to be written, and it is written for our Learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

But that we may the better see the vanity of the Quaker's pretence, we will lay by the solid Testimony a while, I mean the Scripture, and try the first Witness. And I ask R. R. himself how he can prove, without the Scripture first speak, That there was one visible Man especially to be con∣cern'd in the Salvation of the World? 2. How, and when he was born? 3. What he did for the Salvation of the World? What is become of that visible Man? Whether he be dead or living, and where he is? How was the Eternal Spirit and Visible Man jointly concern'd in Man's Salvation?

And what Laws did he give, and what Promise did he make to Men? And sith he talks of saving the World, I ask him, What he means by the World, and what he means by saving the World? If he means Man∣kind, I ask him, In what respect, and upon what terms Man-kind shall be saved, or whether without any terms at all? If he can satisfie these important Questions, then we ask him further, What these many other things were which Christ did, which are not written in the Scripture? And let him be sure that he speak without Book, or else confess his folly and ignorance. But now in my mind it would be necessary to know, Whe∣ther the Spirit in the Quakers hearts be good or bad, seeing the evil Spirit dwells in more than the good? Suppose now that a Jew, a Turk, and a Quaker, should meet together, and a question arise among them about the Saviour of the World. The Quaker tells the other, That the Eternal Spirit is the Saviour of the World, and not the visible Man exclu∣sively considered. The Turk saith, * 2.45 It is blasphemy to say that Christ is God, or that God hath a Son; and that Christ was only a good Man and a great Prophet. The Jew tells them, They are both deceived, and that Christ was an Impostor or Deceiver. And they all aver these things are evinced by the Spirit in their hearts respectively. Certainly in this difficulty, no way in an ordinary Ministry can be found to resolve the Question satisfacto∣rily, but that which Apollos, Acts 18. 28. used, who mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the Scriptures, that Jesus was Christ. And the like did Paul, Acts 28. 23. — perswading them concern∣ing Jesus, both out of the Law of Moses, and out of the Prophets, from morning to evening.

QUAKER.

R. R. is desirous to know my meaning in this speech, [That the Holy Spirit as he speaks in the Scriptures, is to try and judg the Spirits of Men, and particularly the Quakers Spirit, which they call the Light within] which as he desires, I will here give him in writing.

BAPTIST.

My meaning therefore is this, That the Truths made known by the Scripture (the change of Dispensations considered) are of the same Au∣thority now, as when spoken audibly by God, by Jesus Christ, or indi∣ted by the Holy Spirit. And I explain my self thus; That when Men read these words, * 2.46 Thou shalt not Kill, thou shalt not Steal, thou shalt not commit Adultery, &c. These words have the same Authority, as if God should speak the same things to Men from Heaven immediately. And when we read these words, * 2.47 The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a Tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance unto Israel, and forgive∣ness of Sins. These words have the Authority of God in them, and are to be believed, as much as if Peter were present to speak or testifie the same thing by the Spirit immediately. Also when Men read thus, * 2.48 Repent and

be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of Sins, &c. There is as much Authority in these words, as when they were immediately spoken by the Spirit in the Apostle; and all unrepen∣tant, unbaptized Persons, are as much bound to receive this counsel of God, as those to whom it was immediately spoken, * 2.49 and so of the rest. So that Men that hear or read those sayings, and will not believe or do them, shall be as inexcusable in the Day of Judgment, as those that re∣jected the same Doctrine when spoken by the Holy Ghost in the Apo∣stles. Yea, and that these words, as they contain the mind of God, for Men to believe and obey, are Spirit and Life; and they that reject these words, holding forth the Mind of God, do resist the Spirit, and put Eternal Life from them; Because it is not the word of M••n, but in truth the Word of God, 1 Thess. 2. 13, And as this Word doth work effectually in those that believe; so without Faith it profits Men nothing; Heb. 4. 2. For the Word preached did not profit them, (not for that the Word preached wanted either Authority or Vertue, but) because it was not mixed with Faith in them that heard it.

So that I am far from saying, (as R. R. would make me say) That he that hath the Scripture, hath the Authority and Mind of the Holy Spirit; if by having it, he means in its powerful operation: No verily, R. R. hath it not so, as in part is shewed, and will more appear anon; but yet I say, the Authority of the Spirit cannot be separated from Scriptures as they reveal God's Will to us, and our Duty to God; and where its Au∣thority and Virtue is not received by Faith unto Life, it will operate by reason of their unbelief unto Death.

QUAKER.

R. R. p. 24. tells the World, That the Anabaptists, &c. affirm, That the Scriptures are to try and judg the Holy Spirit.

BAPTIST.

I suppose no Man can shew such an Affirmation to have been made by any Baptist in England; and till he shew it, I charge it as a Slander. But this I know is the truth of our Opinion; when the Quakers tell us they have the Holy Ghost, and that what they speak they speak as they are moved by the Holy Ghost, &c. Then indeed we say we are to try what they thus tell us, by what the Spirit hath said in the Scripture; and when we find them contradict what the Spirit saith in the Scripture, or wrest and abuse those Scriptures, &c. then we reject them as vain Boasters, led by Fancies, and not by the Spirit of God: and the like we say of others, and desire others to deal no otherwise with us. As for his idle fancy, in calling a Court, and personating the Baptists by the Jews who put Christ to death, through ignorance of the Scripture: I might as justly return it upon himself, and some of his Party, as he can apply it to others. Ignorance of the Scriptures being as frequent in the Quakers as others; and thereupon their by-paths, and simple anticks are notorious.

I conclude therefore, That there is no need for me, or any Body else, * 2.50 to prove that the Scriptures are to judg the holy Spirit, as he appeareth in his Servants; neither can the holy Spirit in the one, judg the holy Spirit in the other, otherwise than by discerning him: Because it is the same Spirit, and speaks the same thing in both, and yet much more ful∣ly in the Scripture, in so much that no modest Christian will pretend to know all the depths of Spiritual Mysteries therein contained. And therefore we say, That the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures, ought to be heard, rather than you, O Quakers! when you speak without, or against the Authority and Truth of them.

CHAP. II. Of the great Error of the Quakers concerning Christ, &c.

QUAKER.

IN a certain Paper written by R. Ruckhill, which was sent to me that I might Answer it; in perusing it, divers things therein I found which were very destructive to the Christian Faith. Of the substance of what I there wrote, I shall here give an account for the service of the Truth, and Church of God. The first passage, which I took more special notice of, was this:

Speaking of the Blood of Christ, he calls it, The Blood of Sprinkling, which never Mortal Eye beheld. And this he brings as the Demonstrati∣on of the Blood of Christ, which shall cleanse from all Sin.

BAPTIST.

These words, Which never Mortal Eye beheld, are most false: Because it follows necessarily, That the Blood of Christ which was shed upon the Cross, is not the Blood which cleanseth from all Sin, or else that that Blood was not seen with Mortal Eyes, both which are false. And in∣deed who can doubt, but when the Nails were struck through his Hands and Feet, and the Spear thrust into his holy Side, that those who were by should see (and that with Mortal Eyes) the Blood to issue forth of those Wounds? Yea, the Scripture is express for it, John 19. 34. But one of the Souldiers with a Spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out Blood and Water: and he that saw it bare record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye may believe; for these things were done that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, A Bone of him shall not be broken. And again, another Scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. And so well known was this Matter, that his Murtherers were offended, when the Apostles avouched Christ to be a Just Man; fearing that in so saying, they would bring the Blood of Christ upon them, which yet they had imprecated upon themselves, and their Children.

Now that that very Body which was slain by the Jews, and that Blood which was spilt by their wicked hands, and that Body and Blood, or Sa∣cred Manhood only, is the Sacrifice for Sin; and that by which we are cleansed from all Sin, is a Truth so manifest, that he is more than ordi∣narily deluded that dares use a Pen or Tongue against it. Nevertheless, thus hath R. R. and with him, I fear, many Quakers run themselves upon this Dilemma, either to say, That Blood of Christ shed upon the Cross, was invisible to Mortal Eyes; or else, That that is not the Blood of Christ, which cleanseth from Sin, but that he had one kind of Blood visi∣ble, the other invisible; by which gross Error, he hath prophaned the Blood of Christ.

QUAKER.

Upon these words of mine, [he hath prophaned the Blood of Christ] R. Ruckhill, in his next, demands thus: What, saith he, can an unholy thing cleanse from Sin? Can any M••n bring a clean thing out of an unclean one? Is any thing therefore unholy, because Mortal Eye never beheld it? Is not the Blood of Christ which sprinkleth from an evil Conscience, ra∣ther more holy, as being the object of a more pure sight, than that of the Mor∣tal Eye?

BAPTIST.

1. Here the Quaker plays the part of a bold Deceiver: Can he be ig∣norant of the Lords complaint against Israel, for prophaning his holy Name? Mal. 1. 12. & 2. 10. And yet who so absurd to think that these speeches infer, that the Name of the Lord is unholy? In like manner when, I say, he hath prophaned the Blood of Christ, I am far from sup∣posing he can make the Blood of Christ unholy; but unhallows that pre∣cious Blood with respect to himself, whilst he looks not to be cleansed from Sin by the Blood of Christ, which was seen with Mortal Eyes. Thus hast thou, O R. R. aggravated thy Sin, by seeking to shrowd thy self under words, which yet seem but to bewray thy wilful blind∣ness.

2. To his second. Doth R. R. suppose, that the Blood of Christ which Mortal Eyes beheld, was therefore unclean? Because as Children are parta∣kers of Flesh and Blood, he himself likewise took part of the same? Heb. 2. Sure I am, the Text which his words allude to, imports Man's frailty and corruption by Nature. Or is it his intent to throw an absurdity upon my saying, he hath prophaned the Blood of Christ? If the first, he hath ad∣ded to his former Errors, in suggesting that the visible Man (as he terms him) was some way polluted; if the second, his folly is detected in my Answer to his first Query.

3. To his third, I answer Negatively, and yet saying withal, That the Blood of Christ was not the less Holy, because it was seen with Mor∣tal Eyes? If otherwise, How will he escape prophaning the Flesh of Christ also, for it was seen with Mortal Eyes? But it's here remarkable, that R. R. is so far from seeing his Error in his first Paper, that he per∣severes in it still, after he hath been faithfully told of it.

4. To his fourth Question: It is to be observed that R. R. hath trans∣ferred the Question all along, which at first was not about the Holiness, but the Visibility of the Blood of Christ, when shed upon the Cross; and his prophaning of it, by denying the Virtue of the Visible Blood of Christ to cleanse from Sin. And here again, He will needs have the Blood that cleanseth from Sin, to be the object of a more pure sight than that of the Mortal Eye, still standing to his former false saying, That the Blood of Christ which cleanseth from Sin, was never seen with Mortal Eye. Now I deny not, but that the Blood of Christ is the Object of the Eye of Faith, and so is whole Christ God-Man, and yet we affirm his Flesh and Blood too was once seen with Mortal Eyes.

QUAKER.

R. Ruckhill quotes 1 Tim. 6. 16. where Christ is called the King Im∣mortal, Invisible, and only Wise God. And Rev. 17. 14. where he is cal∣led the Lamb, Lord of Lords, &c. And hence would strengthen his Er∣ror, reflecting upon me, as if I had censured Paul, For affirming that never Man saw the Lamb, Christ Jesus.

BAPTIST.

Though it be never so true, that Man never saw the Godhead of Christ with Mortal Eyes, yet what is this to the Point in question, which is about the Flesh and Blood only? Had Paul said, that never Man saw the Lamb of God which taketh away the Sin of the World, he had deserved censure as well as R. Ruckhill. But Paul never said so. And what then art thou, that thou darest bring in that holy Apostle as affirming such a thing, which is so contrary to the Scripture? John 1. 28. to 40. Where Mortal Men are bid to behold the Lamb of God, even with their Mortal Eyes: And John beheld the Spirit descending upon the Lamb of God even with his Mortal Eyes, and thereupon bare Record, that he was the Lamb of God. Thus hath R. R. vented most gross Errors, and fal∣sified the holy Apostle. But he proceeds to more Iniquity.

QUAKER.

For in pag. 11. of his said Paper, he condemns the Faith of all Profes∣sors, by what Name soever distinguished, who knows no other Blood of Sprink∣ling than that which the Jews saw, &c.

BAPTIST.

And might he not as well condemn us for believing in no other Man Christ, or Man Anointed, than what the Jews saw? Surely had the Jews believed in the Man Christ, whom they saw made a Sacrifice for Sin, they had not been Condemned. But their sin was, that they had seen Christ, and believed not, John 6. 36. Well, Robert Ruckhill stands upon

the file of such wretched Apostates, as deny to be cleansed from Sin by the visible Blood of Christ shed upon the Cross; and which pretend other Blood, and another Lamb of God, than he that was seen by Mortal Men, in the days of his Flesh: but who that is Wise, will follow such a Drea∣mer? Upon this absurd conceit hath he run himself, that Christ had two kinds of Flesh, and two kinds of Blood; the one visible, seen by Mortal Men; the other invisible, never seen with Mortal Eyes. Against this Va∣nity it was, that I intitled my Papers against him, The true Christ but one Flesh; not at all denying, but always granting the Divinity of Christ, as my Papers do sufficiently shew. O the dangerous consequence of this Conceit! Surely it tends to rob Men of the true knowledg of the Sacri∣fice, which was offered to take away the sins of Men; for taking away the Flesh and Blood of Christ which was visible, and there remains no other Flesh or Blood in the True Christ; for the Spirit hath not Flesh, nei∣ther Blood; in the Godhead, or Divine Nature, there is neither Flesh nor Blood. And thus we see how plainly this Quaker hath denied the Man Christ Jesus, who died upon the Cross, to be his Saviour, in such sort as not to own cleansing from his sin by Faith in his Blood seen with Mortal Eyes, to be spilt at the time of his Crucifixion. As for that Confession of Faith, which R. R. makes in his said Paper, wherein he would seem to own the True Christ, and Salvation by Faith in his Blood, &c. 'tis meer Hypocrisie, and Equivocation, as appears by what is said before, and what now presently follows.

QUAKER.

R. R. having given us a long Commentary upon John 6. where Christ told the Jews, They must eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood; he then ap∣peals to Mens Consciences, Whether they can believe that Christ did hereby intend that Flesh and Blood which was nailed to the Cross, and visible to the Mortal Eye?

BAPTIST.

My Conscience testifies, as enlightned by the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, that it was the very same whereof he spake to the Jews, in John 6. which was afterward nailed to the Cross. First, Because Christ had no other Flesh nor Blood to offer for the Sins of Men, but that Body only, as we have shewed before; that being the one Offering by which he perfected for ever them that are Sanctified. Secondly, Be∣cause it is expresly called the Flesh of the Son of Man, John 6. 53. Verily, verily I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you. The Jews greatest blindness was about the manner of eating the Flesh of the Son of Man, &c. Which whilst they understood it not to be by Faith in him, as a Sacrifice for Sin, they erred and were offended, though our Saviour gave them a plain account of his meaning, in shewing that He spake of their Dwelling, or Abiding in him, and he in them, which is truly to believe in him who bore our Sins in his own Body on the Tree, and to have his Word and Spirit

abiding in us; See Aug. Tract. in John 26. But R. R. denies this, for in page 9. he saith;

QUAKER.

It clearly appears, That the Flesh and Blood which Christ had been decla∣ring of, was not the Flesh and Blood which mortal Eyes beheld. His reason is, Because the Lord had said, the Flesh profiteth nothing.

BAPTIST.

But how did the Flesh of Christ which was nailed to the Cross profit nothing? Surely not as the Capernaits grosly imagined, That they must eat it, as their Fathers did Manna; that is, with the Mouth of the Body. Alas! here the Flesh profits nothing. But considered, as he reconciled us to God in the Body of his Flesh through death; and as he bore our In∣firmities; as he died for us, and rose again; as he ascended into Heaven in that very Body which was raised from the dead, which was visible, be∣held with mortal Eyes, both before and after his Resurrection: doubt∣less to believe in Christ Crucified in that Visible Body, is so profitable, as without it there is no true Peace here to such as hear the Word, nor Glory hereafter. But still we see R. R. rejecting the Visible Flesh and Blood of Christ as unprofitable.

QUAKER.

R. R. having abused our Saviour's Discourse in favour of his own Ab∣surdities, now would lean upon the Apostle Paul as a favourer of the same, because in 2 Cor. 5. 16. He saith, Wherefore henceforth know we no Man after the Flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the Flesh, yet now henceforth know we him so no more. Upon this how doth R. R. cry against us, as having but a fleshly knowledg of Christ, and that we rest upon a fleshly Christ, &c.

BAPTIST.

For a due or sound understanding of this Scripture, it is first to be con∣sidered, that Paul here says, We know no Man after the Flesh; but it would be absurd to say, the meaning must be, That no Man, or no Chri∣stian had a Body of Flesh; or that he here denies the Resurrection of the Bodies of the Saints, or other Men; for he had most plainly asserted that great Truth, in the 1 Epist. Chap. 15. therefore neither may we imagine that Paul here denies the Body of Christ to be Flesh, though glorified; much less that he denies to know him as he was crucified upon the Cross: for he tells these very Corinthians, That he determined to know nothing among them, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Neither doth he here speak against their knowing Christ in the use of Ordinances; for 1 Cor. 11. 2. he praises these Corinthians, that they kept the Ordinances as he de∣livered

them, and particularly the breaking of Bread, or the Lord's Ta∣ble: he shews them how he received it of the Lord, and delivered it to them, and instructs them in the right use of it.

I therefore conceive his meaning here to be;

1. That he knew no Man therefore to be in Christ, because born of Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh; but both Jew and Gentile, if they claim an interest in Christ, or Christian Priviledges, they must make one common claim, not after the Flesh, but by Faith and a New-Birth, as vers. 17.

2. The Jews (yea, even the Apostles themselves) did think, at least for some time, that Christ was so appropriated to their Nation, as that the Gentiles had no interest in him; but seeing that as concerning the Flesh he came of the Jews, so they thought that Repentance unto Life did only pertain to them by him. Yea, it seemed incredible even to the Believing Jews, that such a Mercy should be granted to the Gentiles, till Peter, Acts 11. by reciting the Vision which he had, when he went to preach first to the Gentiles, removed their Doubts, telling them, That he could not then fight against God, who had thus broken down the Par∣tition-Wall between the Jews and Gentiles, or to this purpose. Now when they heard this, they glorified God, saying, Then hath God gran∣ted unto the Gentiles Repentance unto Life. So then hence forth nei∣ther Men, nor Christ, are known after the Flesh. Old things are done away. Christ is known as a common Saviour, and his Grace and Spirit made free for all Nations; he is no more to be known in such a poor la∣titude as the Land of Israel only; it was too light a thing for him to be given to repair the Israelites only; He shall therefore be the Salvation of God to the ends of the Earth. Now mark the parallel; as Paul knew no Man (i. e. to be a Christian) after the Flesh, yet knew him to be a Man; so though he knew not Christ after the Flesh, yet he knew him to be a Man, though glorified; for Christ lost not his Manhood by his Death, only put off Mortality, &c. as all true Christians hope to ar∣rive at the like Immortality, through the Power of Christ's Resurrection.

About which great Gospel-Truth, we now proceed to consider the na∣ture of R. Ruckhil's Doctrine; wherein you may expect he holds propor∣tion with his own Rule, Admit one Absurdity, and a thousand will follow. So that though he pride up himself with Conceits, as if the Baptized Churches were declining to their Western Horizon; yet he shall find they will be able, through God's Grace, to withstand his Absurdities. Yea, they have overcome the Quakers Predecessors, the Ranters, and the Seek∣ers; and the unbaptized Quaker shall be as one of them.

CHAP. III. Of the great Error of the Quakers touching the Resurrection of Christ, &c.

IN my first Paper I quoted Heb. 8. 4. (If he were on Earth he should not be a Priest) to prove that the Man Christ is not now upon the Earth; yet always granting his spiritual presence to be every where.

QUAKER.

For this, R. R. calls me, a pitchy dark Man, saying, He will stand to it with the last drop of his Blood, That Christ is on the Earth in the fleshly Bodies of his Saints — and other Bodies of Flesh hath he none, save that which came down from Heaven, and ascended thither again, John 3. 13.

BAPTIST.

First; Observe his subtilty in this last Clause; For he having first de∣nied that Christ hath a Body of Flesh circumscriptible in Heaven, and consequently denied the Resurrection and Ascention of the Body of Christ, which the Jews saw with mortal Eyes, and put to death with wicked Hands; which Body all Men must grant was a Body circumscrip∣tible; he would yet seem here to grant the thing before denied.

But why is he so prodigal of his Blood for that which no body denies? It is our constant Doctrine, That Christ dwells in his Saints by his Spi∣rit, and by Faith: Now, I say, if he mean thus, he hath no Adversary in this particular among the Baptists. But now what shall we say to his Negation, Other Bodies of Flesh hath he none, save, &c. As for his salvo, we will consider it by and by; but here we must needs enquire what is become of that Visible Body which died upon the Cross, was buried, and rose again? Sure he will not say, That that Body dwells in the flesh∣ly Bodies of the Saints, otherwise than by Faith: if he will allow so much, he cannot deny but that Body was circumscriptible. He will not say that Visible Body is in Heaven; he dare not say it is on the Earth: Where now will Robert Ruckhil find this Body? The Scripture tells us, It saw no corruption, for God raised him up from the dead. Sure R. R. hath lost the Body of Christ, which was once seen with mortal Eyes, and can∣not tell where to find it, because he will not by Faith look into that Hea∣ven for it which is out of all the Quakers, as well as other Men.

Here therefore we will give place a while to John Whitehead, to see if he will give us any better account of the Body of the Lord Christ.

QUAKER.

John Whitehead tells us, p. 38. That nothing which was mortal was cal∣led Christ; yet tells us, That Christ had once a mortal Body which died upon the Cross; and then tells, after a strange fashion, what became of this Bo∣dy, p. 39. but first we will consider what he saith here.

BAPTIST.

Are we not come to a strange pass now, that after all thy shifting, with some falsifying too, thou art constrained to confess what I charged thee with, viz. these words, Nothing that was mortal was called Christ. Whence I inferred, That it was as if thou shouldst have said, Christ never died: and bad thee recal thy words, if thou spoke them unadvisedly. But though thy face bewrayed thy conviction, yet hadst thou not the grace to confess so great an Error; and which is as bad, thou wouldst now justifie so gross a passage in Print, and so destructive to the Christian Faith: But alas! thou dost but encrease thy folly* 2.51.

For the Mortal Body which died upon the Cross, thou dost not so much as vouchsafe to call it by the Name of Christ, only tellest us, Christ had a Mortal Body which died upon the Cross, but yet deniest that any thing that was mortal was called Christ. And now what is more plain, than that thou here deniest that Christ died upon the Cross? And then if Christ di∣ed not, he was not buried, he rose not again from the Dead; and then what is become of the Christian Faith?

Wherefore in direct opposition to thy Doctrine, I do affirm, That that Mortal Body which died upon the Cross, was both called Christ, and was Christ (not denying hereby his Godhead at all, which I have sufficiently as∣serted above) which I prove thus; That Body which was born of the Virgin Ma∣ry, and anointed with the Holy Ghost above measure, was both called Christ, and was Christ. But that Mortal Body that died for us upon the Cross, was born of the Virgin Mary, and anointed with the Holy Ghost above measure. Therefore that Mortal Body which died upon the Cross, was called Christ, and was Christ.

The first Proposition is evident Mat. 1. 21. And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his Name Jesus. Mat. 2. 1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea; and vers. 4. the same is called Christ. He deman∣ded of them where Christ should be born? and they said unto him, in Beth∣lehem of Judea: for thus it is written by the Prophet.

2. That the Child being grown to the stature of a Man, was appa∣rently anointed with the Holy Ghost at his Baptism, Mat. 3. and declared by Voice from Heaven to be the Son of God. And John 3. 34. God

giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. And that that Mortal Body which died for us, was the same Christ which was born of the Virgin in Bethlem Judea, is clear, John 19. 25, 26. Now there stood by the Cross his Mother, and his Mother's Sister, — When Jesus therefore saw his Mother — he saith unto his Mother, Woman, behold thy Son. Acts 2. 36. Therefore let all the House of Israel (and all the Quakers too) assuredly know, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have Crucified, both Lord and Christ. And though I might trace this John Whitehead, (with whom I have had several publick Disputes) and thereby make manifest the Wiles and Equivocations, by which the Quakers work themselves (as much as they can) out of the sight of common Capacities; yet I shall at present forbear, being confident, Wise-men will understand by this one passage, that it is impossible for John Whitehead, to believe any thing soundly concerning the Lord's Christ, whilst he adheres to this most false Proposition: Nothing that was Mortal, was called Christ. Let him guild it by all the Art and Deceit imaginable, yet it is so perfectly Black and Erroneous, that it can never be set off with any shew of Truth: though truly could it be done, I think John Whitehead were as likely to do it, as any Man I know, for I am not ignorant of his Subtilty. But so it is, that nothing but a free Confession of the falshood of his Speech afore∣said, can relieve him, which I do hereby friendly advise him to; other∣wise I will record him for a false Apostle, a deceitful Worker (though he carry it never so plausibly) to all Posterity. But let us now hear what is become of this Mortal Body which died upon the Cross, according to the Doctrine of John Whitehead.

QUAKER.

John Whitehead tell us, pag. 39. That he hath shewed unto the People that Eternal Life which was with the Father, as the Apostles did, 1 John 1. 1, 2. By, and in which Life, Mortality was swallowed up after Christ had finished what the Father gave him to do on Earth; then he who came down from Heaven to bring Man to God, ascended into Heaven to his Father.

BAPTIST.

John Whitehead arrogates to himself, which he can never prove. For the Apostles had seen with their Eyes, and looked upon, and their Hands had handled of the Word of Life. This is spoke of Christ, when the Apostles saw his Person, or his Glory, (which, Peter tells us, was when they were with him in the holy Mount) they were Eye-witnesses of his Majesty. Now John Whitehead never saw, nor handled Christ as the Apostles did, and therefore never shewed him as they did. It were well if so much could be said of John Whitehead, as was said by Peter of the Christians in his time, 1 Pet. 1. Whom having not seen, ye love; whom though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoyce, &c. Surely, all the sight we have now of Christ is by Faith, and all the feeling by the Ope∣ration of his Spirit; but we do not (though we stedfastly hope, to) see

him as he is. Mean while it is true, Christ's Ministers do labour in the Gospel, building upon the Foundation which was laid by the Master∣builders, the Apostles, according to the Gift of Grace bestowed on them: But to the matter in hand:

What J. W. means by Mortality, and how it was swallowed up, after Christ had done the Fathers Will on Earth, would be understood; either he means it of the state of the Body which died upon the Cross, or of the Body it self. If by Mortality, he only means those Sinless Weak∣nesses, which Christ was pleased to partake of with other Men (For Christ was Crucified through Weakness, 2 Cor. 13. 4.) and not the visible mortal Body it self, then I am not his Adversary; but if under the word Mortality, he holds the Body it self was swallowed up; and by the words swallowed up, he means destroyed, (as that is the sense of the Apostle, when he saith, Mortality shall be swallowed up of Life) then I confess I am his professed Adversary. For I believe that Body which was Visible, Mortal, and really Died, is yet Existent, or in Being, and Alive for evermore, as Christ himself Witnesseth, Rev. 1. I am he that Liveth and was Dead, and behold, I am Alive for evermore.

QUAKER.

J. W. tells us, pag. 40. That he several times denied my Assertion, which he sets down thus, That Christ hath now a Body of Flesh and Bones circum∣script [* 2.52or limited] in that Heaven which is above, and out of every Man on Earth.

BAPTIST.

And upon this occasion, I remember well, He deridingly asked me, Where that Heaven was? And lifting up my hand and eyes towards Hea∣ven, I pointed him to the place. Now the same Scripture which tells the Quakers, and all Men, that Christ was on Earth, tells us also that he is in Heaven; and by Earth, they all mean (I suppose) the Earth which Men inhabit. And seeing the Heaven where Angels inhabit, being op∣posite to this Earth, I do with as good reason understand Christ's presence now (in respect of his bodily Receptacle) to be there.

J. W. as contemptuously asked me, How big, and what a one that Body was? I told him, It was of the proper dimension of Man's Body; or in re∣spect of Stature, like other Mens. He asked me also, What kind of Flesh Christ's Body was? I told him such Flesh as mine, or other Mens, Sin, Corruption, and all things of that nature excepted.

J. W. answered, Nay People, T. Grantham's flesh lusts against the Spi∣rit, so did not Christ's. I told him, I had made that exception my self; and repeated my former words. He replied with the same exception, and was reproved by one Mr. Wilson of Boston, as an impertinent Person, to make no other exception than what T. G. made himself. Upon this, J. W. falls to it by that Craft, without which Quakerism would be ex∣ploded; and answers me thus: Well, Thomas, I will satisfie thee if I can. I say, Christ's Flesh was such flesh as Thomas Grantham's flesh, all corruption

excepted. I began to hope we might agree, but presently perceived his Cheat, and therefore told him, If he could answer me one honest Que∣stion more, I should be satisfied; which was this. Dost not thou under these words, all Corruption excepted, except my whole Body, and the flesh of all Men. Here he would not answer me by any means, but in stead thereof, Cursed me in these words:

Thou whited Wall, God shall smite thee; the Plagues, and Curses, and Vengeance of God is thy portion. Giving his head and hand two or three motions, when he had thus done. I replied, John, I am taught of God, not to render Railing for Railing, Cursing for Cursing, but contrariwise Blessing; and therefore I desire this Folly may not be laid to thy charge. He replied, Fainer, Fainer, Fainer, &c. This account is true and faith∣ful, which yet I had not printed, if John Whitehead had not compelled me. And more I have to say, which yet I omit, as respecting the seve∣ral Debates I had with him at Spilsby.

QUAKER.

John Whitehead saith, pag. 41. T. G. hath very uncharitably resolved to believe, that I own no Body of Christ, beside his Church.

BAPTIST.

Why dost thou leave out that term, upon which depends the whole Controversie? The Question disputed at Sleeford, was this verbatim: Whether Christ hath now any Body of Flesh, beside his Church? Thou J. W. deniest it in terminis, saying, I deny that Christ hath now any Body of Flesh, beside his Church. I affirmed it, saying, Christ hath now a Body of Flesh, beside his Church; which I proved thus. Christ had such a Body of Flesh after his Resurrection, beside his Church; it was never destroyed since, therefore he hath it still. I confirmed this by sundry Scriptures; and among the rest this: Handle me, and see; for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones, as ye see I have. Thy Answer was in two things especially, First, Thou quibblest upon the Text, As ye see me to have: Intimating, that though it was so to the sight of them to whom he spake, yet not really so. Secondly, Thou sayest, I made Christ a Monster, to have two Bodies, and but one Head. I shewed thy Error, thus, That as a King might be said to be Head to the Body of his Nation, or a Body Politick, who yet consists of Flesh, &c. and a particular Body of his own, and yet be no Monster. So, Christ is Head of his Mystical Body the Church, who are Flesh as well as Spirit, and hath a particular Body of Flesh also. To this gloss upon the Text, I answered: That it was dangerous to represent Christ's Words as Delusory, or Equivocable. This account for substance, is certainly true. And thus it is evident, That through unbelief, J. W. hath lost the Body of Christ, which died for us upon the Cross.

Notwithstanding these things, both J. W. and R. R. would pretend to own the Ascension of the Man Christ, shrowding themselves under Christ's Words, John 3. 13. No Man hath ascended up to Heaven, but he

that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man which is in Heaven. Now these words being spoken of that Ascension which was before the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead, doth not concern our present Controversy. For our Saviour himself testifies, long after he spake these Words, that he was not yet Ascended, John 20. 17. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not, for I am not yet Ascended: But go to my Brethren, and say unto them, I Ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Wherefore, when Christ had shewed himself alive after his Passion, and had given full and infallible Evidence of it, by Eating and Drinking with them, and Forty Days society with them, shewing them his Hands, Feet, and Side, that had been wounded upon the Cross; then did he also make them Eye-witnesses of his Ascension bodily into Heaven; Acts 1. 9. While they beheld, he was taken up, and a Cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly into Heaven, as He went up, &c. Thus is the Ascension of that visible Body of Flesh, which was nailed to the Cross, plainly asserted in the Scripture; the Authority whereof, shall cause to vanish the idle Dreams of the Quakers, who op∣pose this glorious Truth.

And now to the Words of Christ, John 3. 13. Christ is here shewing to Nicodemus, that he it is who was to reveal the Heavenly Doctrine of the Gospel, and the glorious things in Heaven; because no Man had that knowledg of Heaven which he had. And though he were the Son of Man, yet in regard of the Union he had with the Divine Essence, he had ascend∣ed Heaven it self, and was in Heaven; though his Humanity strictly consi∣dered, was at that time upon Earth, and conversing with Men.

Now to justifie this understanding of the Text, I refer to other Scrip∣tures, as John 1. 18. No Man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosome of the Father, he hath declared him. Again, John 6. 46. Not that any Man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Again, Mat. 11. 27. All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no Man knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any Man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal him. These things considered, shew, That in these Speeches, he holds forth that Divine Relation which he hath to God his Father; the certain Knowledg he hath of his Will; and his continual Presence with the Father. John 8. 16. I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. But in all this, let it be well minded, how unworthily the Quakers do abuse passages of this kind, to prejudice the great truth of Christ's Ascension, in the Body of his Flesh which died upon the Cross, after his Resurrection. I return to R. Ruckhill, who sets against us in this point, with a Philosophical Syllogism, thus:

QUAKER.

Such as the Body is, such must be the Aliment whereby it subsisteth, and is nourished. But humane Bodies are of the Earth earthly, and cannot subsist without a constant supply of Aliment of the same kind. Now to affirm that the Body of Christ in Heaven hath, or needeth such a supply either of broiled

Fish, or any other Maritime or Terrene Aliment, as it must do if it be a hu∣mane Body, or Earthy: However it may stand with the Faith of T. G. it is such an absurdity, as my Pen even irketh to write.

BAPTIST.

Though I pretend not to Learning or Philosophy, yet I see many Er∣rors in this one Argument: First, The terms Humane, Earthly, and can∣not, are ambiguous, considering our Subject is of the Body, as raised from the Dead, which sure differs much from the state of a Man as he comes into the World. And what can, or cannot be in this case, must not be concluded by Philosophical Demonstration, but by Divine Revelation. The Resurrection of the Body, whether it be considered in respect of Christ, or other Men, is not the effect of natural Causes, nor depend∣eth upon common Providences; but this Cause is to be tried according to the Word of God; and his Power to effect it. This is the ground of Faith concerning the Resurrection, Phil. 3. 21. Who shall change our vile Body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious Body, according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself. 1 Cor. 6. 24. God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own Power. Ephes. 1. 19, 20. — according to the working of his mighty Power; which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the Dead. So that this Argu∣ment may rather be exploded, as unchristian and heathenish, than to have any further answer, because it comports not with Principles of Religi∣on; yet I shall answer it, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

And first, I deny the Major, (which he takes to be undeniable) For though the Body of Christ, was real Flesh, &c. after it was risen, and as such could and did eat terrene or maritime Food, yet it can and doth subsist without it, Mat. 26. 28. Luke 24. 42. and liveth by the Power of God, 2 Cor. 13. 4.

Secondly, I deny the Minor, in that part at least, which saith, Hu∣mane Bodies cannot subsist without aliment of the same kind. For did not that Body of Christ subsist forty days when it was mor•…•…, without terrene Food? and cannot the same Body subsist now it is immortalized without terrene Food? What shall we say of Moses, who subsisted forty days in the Mount without Food? and of Enoch and Elias who were tran∣slated, that they should not see Death, and yet their Bodies are Flesh where-ever they are? He that believeth these Scriptures which speak of these things, cannot doubt but that God can and will cause the Bodies of Men to subsist after the Resurrection by his Power. If these Instan∣ces satisfie not, let them go to the old Cloaths of the Israelites, or their Shooes: Deut. 29. 5. And I led you forty years in the Wilderness, your Clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy Shoe is not waxen old upon thy Foot. Yea, God fed this People in such a wonderful manner in the Wil∣derness, as that it was an evident proof, That Man liveth not by Bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the Mouth of the Lord doth Man live, Deut. 8. 3.

Lastly; Adam in his Innocency was humane Flesh, and yet had he not

sinned, he had not died; * 2.53 For the Wages of Sin is Death: and Sin entring into the World, Death entred by Sin. Nor was it terrene Food that could have kept off old Age, but he must have lived by a supernatural Power, even the Power of God, who breathed into his Nostrils the Breath of Life, and would have perpetuated that Life (had he not sinned) for ever. And hence it undeniably follows, that seeing in the Resurrection the Bodies of the Saints shall be freed from Mortality, the effect of Sin; they shall be at least in as possible a capacity to live for ever, as Adam was in his Inno∣cency; And as Adam had then the Tree of * 2.54 Life to support him for ever, through God's Power and Blessing communicated with it, had he not sinned; so the raised Bodies of the Saints, shall also have a Tree of † 2.55 Life, of a more sublime nature than that in Eden, by which they shall live for ever. But here they excel Adam in his Innocency; they shall be freed from danger of Sin, and be more perfect in Body and Spirit every way, for they shall be as the Angels of God in Heaven, and not marry, nor be given in Marriage, being the Children of God, as they are the Children of the Resurrection.

CHAP. IV. Of the Errors of the Quakers concerning the Ordinances of Christ.

BAPTIST.

RIchard Ruckhil rants at a very high rate against the Baptized Chur∣ches, for that they zealously observe the Ordinances of Christ made known by the Scriptures, and particularly Baptism, and the Table of the Lord. Let us hear him speak out of his own Papers.

QUAKER.

O ungrateful Men! (saith he) unworthy (till ye repent and loath your selves) the name of Christians. Hath the afflicted persecuted Church been banished into the Wilderness for many hundred years, and now at her return, when she is expecting a far more exceeding and eternal weight of Glory, both inward and outward, which her great Afflictions have wrought for her: Will ye now, I say, allow her no better Ornaments, but those very same she wore 1600 years ago; which also for many hundred years have been revell'd in, and filthily polluted by that nasty Whore of Babylon? Poor Bride, must she now put on these old Clothes, and rotten Rags again? &c. Will ye deny this beautiful Bride, the Lamb's Wife, that priviledg which your own Wives will scorn to be denied by you? Ah how weak are your hearts, saith the Lord God?

BAPTIST.

Surely these are great swelling words of vanity; Let us see therefore a few of these many strange Conceits which lie couched in this Exclama∣tion.

1. He pretends much skill in the time of the Churches going into, and coming out of the Wilderness. But, I believe, should a Man ask him the necessary Questions which concern these Matters, it would be long e're he gave a good Answer. Nay, should I ask him what this Wilderness is, he would hardly give account.

2. He would bear us in hand, that the Eternal weight of Glory is to be received at the return of the Church out of the Wilderness, both in∣ward and outward, on this side the Grave. For,

3. In order to her putting on that weight of Glory, she must put off the Ordinances (which were her Ornaments) which she used 1600 years ago; as if Christ's Ordinances were an Impediment to the Churches Glory.

4. What he is forced to confess, were the Ornaments of the Pri∣mitive Church, he disdainfully calls now, Old rotten Rags and Clouts. As if 1600 years were time enough to wear out all the Churches Orna∣ments, and to rot them to pieces: Or, as if Time could decay the Com∣mands of God, when yet God hath no where abrogated them; if other∣wise, shew the Abrogation: This was never yet done.

5. He greatly disgusts the first Churches Ornaments, because the nasty Whore of Babylon hath revelled in them, and polluted them. Strange, that R. R. will so much as read the Scriptures! for she hath revelled in them, and abused them, as much as any Ornament which the Church had on 1600 years ago. Indeed all Ordinances (which are truly Or∣naments to the Church as such) are in the Scripture, and none can abuse them so as to change or misapply them, but they abuse the Scripture; And may we not as well make use of the Commission Mat. 28. which teacheth us to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded, as well as the Quakers make use of Scriptures for their Thee and Thou? &c.

Remember, O Quakers, that the Ark was nevertheless to be honoured upon its return from Dagon's Temple. Shall Mens violating God's Com∣mands, null his Commands? God forbid. Must you needs destroy Bap∣tism and the Lord's Table, because others have prophaned these Holy Things? Why then do you Pray, Preach, and own the Name of Chri∣stians, seeing they have prophaned all these also? Doubtless the Quakers are worse Enemies to the Truth, than the Whore you complain of, for she gave the Ordinances of Christ good Language, though she greatly abused them. But you give them the vilest Language you can invent, and de∣stroy the memory and use of them altogether, as much as in you lieth; to say nothing here of your intollerable enmity against the True Christ him∣self, and those that truly serve him.

6. By all means it's time thinks R. R. that the Church have a new Coat, her old Ornaments being rotten in his Thoughts: But stay, is not

her Faith to be the same now that it was 1600 years ago? Yes, she is to contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints. Hath Christ said his Church should, have new Ornaments, to wit, Ordinances instead of them she had 1600 years ago? No, John Whitehead dare not say so, for pag. 44. he evades the Question thus; We need shew no Authority for the abrogating of that Order of Gathering, Constituting, and Governing the Church of Christ which was in the Apostles days. And then most falsly tells us, The Quakers practice doth more establish it in the Substantial Part than the Baptists. But what is this new Coat that would be known? But surely if the Church put off her Ornaments which she wore 1600 years ago, she is like to go naked for all R. R's skill in Apparel; Her Orna∣ments were these,

Faith, Love, Charity, Gifts, and Fruits of the Spirit, Holy Ordinances, and an Holy Life, with Patience in Afflictions, &c.

Now all these have been abused, by fained Faith, fained Love, fained Charity, fained Gifts, fained Fruits of the Spirit, fained Ordinances, fain∣ed Patience in Afflictions. And this the Scripture foreshews: Many shall say we have prophesied, cast out Devils, done wondrous Works in thy Name. Some give their Goods to the Poor, and their Bodies to be bur∣ned; and yet all this proves but fained, when God the Judg of all shall make manifest the Secrets of all Hearts.

I conclude therefore, there is no new Garment assigned the Church till she come to Heaven, no more than Israel had till they came to Canaan. 2. And that her old Ornaments will not wax old, that is, not rot: As she is glorious within, so her Raiment is of wrought Gold. 3. He that disrobes her of part of these Ancient Ornaments, endangers them all.

7. His Reason why the Church must have a new Coat, is, because our Wives will scorn to be denied such a priviledg by us. What is this? must the Church change her Ornaments as oft as Mens Wives change theirs? This is prodigiously absurd; Why did not his Pen irk to write it?

8. That which aggravates all his Vanities, is this, That he intitles them to the Lord God, as if he had writ by immediate Inspiration, in these words, Ah, how weak are your Hearts, saith the Lord God. Surely he hath spoken falsly in the Name of the Lord, who is so far from blaming, that he commends such Churches as keep the Ordinances as they were delivered to them. And we have the same ground to believe, that the Primitive Ordinances were delivered for the use of the present Churches, that we have to believe that the Primitive Faith was delivered for our use; and indeed they that forsake the one, do commonly forsake the other; as is most signally seen in the Quakers, and to be sure they are farthest off from the Ordinances.

QUAKER.

John Whitehead saith, pag. 49. That I ought not to accuse the Quakers, as opposing themselves against things required by the positive Laws, because they cannot own my Water Baptism, and breaking of Bread, in imitation of the Apostles, and Primitive Christians: No more than the Jews ought to

have accused the Apostle Paul, and his fellow Labourers in the Gospel, who by the Authority and Power of Christ in them, cried down their Circumcision, Temple-Worship, and that Hand-writing of Ordinances, which was contrary to them.

BAPTIST.

When the Quakers can shew us, that there was another Prophet to succeed Jesus Christ, as Christ succeeded Moses; then it will become us to allow this comparison between Paul, &c. and John Whitehead, &c. but till then, we say, there is no comparison in the Cases at all.

Who would ever have thought, that such an impudent spirit should have appeared in John Whitehead, or any Man of Wisdom, thus to make void the Precepts of Christ! And what are we worse for Baptizing with Water, and breaking of Bread, in imitation of the Apostles, and Pri∣mitive Christians, provided our Hearts be also conscienciously satisfied, that these things are the Mind of God, concerning our obedience to him among other things, as commanded to all Christians, in the holy Scrip∣tures, which we own as a Rule for all Saints in Religion?

Sure I am, if I may take J. W. his liberty to use the various Transla∣tions, as rendered from the Original, then we are expresly commanded to be imitators of the Apostle. But if this will not do, let him hear Montanus, (one of the honestest Interpreters extant) who reads thus, 1 Cor. 11. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Imitatores mei estote, sicut & ego Christi: Be ye imitators of me, as also I am of Christ. So then, Paul was an imitator of Christ, and so ought we to be, and not to despise to follow, or imitate the Apostles in Baptizing, or breaking of Bread, having good assurance that therein they follow Christ, who was Baptized himself in Water, and also gave being to the breaking of Bread. But must the Quakers needs cry down what we do, meerly because we follow Christ and his Apostles? When their Conscience knows that we do not these meerly in imitation, or because they did them, but because God's Word requires these things at our hands; yea, and that Light which God hath given us, directs us to the same. And though we grant, Christ hath Power to call his People to whatsoever is the Will of God, yet J. W. can never prove, it is God's Will that Christians should forsake the Ordinances once delivered to the Christian Churches, particularly Baptism, and the breaking of Bread.

QUAKER.

Robert Ruckhill tells the World, I have Convicted my self of gross Ido∣latry; and why? Because, I say, The way of Life is above to the Wise; and this I speak, it is true in favour of Baptism in Water, against those Quakers that despise and traduce it.

BAPTIST.

I could not easily think, that so innocent a passage should have been so grosly

abused, as it is by these two Men, R. R. and J. W. Sure I am, there is not the least cause for this Charge, May nothing be called the Way of Life but Christ? Let us read Prov. 6. 23. For the Commandment is a Lamp; and the Law is Light; and Reproofs of Instruction are the Way of Life. Acts 2. 28. we read of the Paths of Life, in the plural Number; but there is but one Christ: So that we see the Paths of Righteousness, and Holiness, and Obedience, may, without any offence to the Spirit speaking in the Scripture, be called the Paths, or Ways, or Way of Life: Let these two Satyrs whip whilst they faint, I shall rejoyce to see their folly made manifest to all Men.

Mean while let the sober Reader know I look upon Holy Baptism no otherwise, than other Holy Commands of God are so. Nor in any other sense the Way of Life, than as it sets forth Christ and him cruci∣fied; our dying with him to the Rudiments of the World, and living a new Life. What if I had called Baptism the Way of Righteousness, it had nothing varied from my Intention, nor from Truth; yet perhaps these Men would have been offended, they have so great an hatred against the Ordinance: Yet Christ saith, John came to the People in the way of Righteousness, and himself thought it a fulfilling of Righteousness, to be baptized, as well as in other Services.

QUAKER.

R. R. says, that in the abovesaid speech, I am convicted of a ridiculous Soloecism, in terming Submersion, or plunging under Water, a way on high. Yet says, if the intelligent Reader will indulge me, the Quakers will pass it by.

BAPTIST.

Although I will not compare with R. R. for skill in Grammar, yet I will not be beholden to him, nor his Reader, for their Indulgence in this case. For though the Baptism of John was a submersion in Water upon Repentance for the Remission of Sins; yet Christ himself convicted the Opposers of it, * 2.56 that it was from Heaven. Christ also calls it the * 2.57 Counsel of God. And I think the Counsel of God, and that which is from Hea∣ven, may be said to be above without any Soloecism, otherwise Christ him∣self, when upon Earth, was not the way above, for he came down from Heaven. But this pragmatick Quaker having got a Toy by the end, and hoping this might disgrace me, and what I profess, knows not when to have done with it; but up it goes again in his ridiculous Queries, as if, without more ado, I must be damn'd for this passage, among gross Idola∣ters. I rejoyce, truly, that I am thought worthy to be thus reproached for the way of the Lord. But why should sinful Men be so enraged against this Holy Ordinance? Is it because of the thing it self? or the Authority by which we do it, as we obey the Command of God in the Scripture here∣in? Acts 2. 38. It is certainly this latter which offends them; Witness Robert Ruckil himself, for these following are his words.

QUAKER.

We do not, nor for all that I know never did, deny Baptism, or other In∣stitutions, no, not in the outward Administrations, * 2.58 when the Spirit of the Lord leadeth into them.

BAPTIST.

The plain English of this Speech of R. R. is this, That when the Light in every Man commands Men to be baptized, and to come to the Lord's Table, &c. then R. R. will allow it. But let the Spirit speaking in the Scripture command Men to do these things, then he will not allow it, he will oppose it, nay, count them not worthy the Name of Christi∣ans if they do thus. If the Scripture commands these things, they shall be esteemed but as rotten Rags, and old Clouts; but if the Quaker's Light command it, it is well enough. Sure these Men are more than ordi∣narily deluded.

QUAKER.

But this slender kindess of R. R. is by him almost recalled, for thus he saith; It hitherto hath appeared, that the Spirit leads forward not back∣ward, upward not downward. And then he presumes, that otherwise the Spirit may as well lead into Judaism, as into the Ministrations aforesaid.

BAPTIST.

Thus still the Quakers make no difference between Jewish Ceremo∣nies and the Institutions of Christ, than which what can be said more un∣like a Christian. But I deny that, for an unrepentant Person to be led to Repentance, and therewith to the Baptism of Repentance, is a back∣ward leading, or a leading downward, but is the surest way for such to go forward and upward. Yea, suppose some be now found as plenarily endowed with the Holy Ghost, as to be enabled thereby to speak with Tongues, and to magnifie God, yet the Apostle demands, Who can for∣bid Water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Acts 10. This Interrogative concludes in the Ne∣gative, and is in truth to say, No Man can (or hath any authority to) forbid the use of Baptism in Water to those that have received the greatest measure of the Spirit, being such as were not before baptized with Water. But had R. R. or J. W. been by when Peter speake these words, the one would have cryed down this Ordinance, and the other told him it was to lead backward. Thus do the Quakers confront the very Apostle himself, whose words have the same force now that they had in the first delivery: and as he by the Authority of Christ commanded them then, so all such as they now ought to be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus.

So then it is directly false, that R. R. saith, the Spirit hath hitherto

led from Baptism in Water, (for that is his meaning by leading back∣ward) whereas the Text in hand shews plainly, That such as were first baptized with the Spirit, were led by the same Spirit afterward to be baptized in Water. Nay, let me further add, That it is certain no Sin∣ner ever was rightly baptized with Water, till first he had some work of Grace on his heart by the Spirit of God. We do therefore justly reject the Spirit of R. R. and J. W. and the Quakers in general, when it thus leads Men in opposition to the Spirit as it speaks by the Apostles, and now speaketh in the Scriptures, and are sure that therein they have not the Spirit of God. John 1. He that knoweth God, heareth us, (saith the Apo∣stle). He that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the Spirit of Truth, and the Spirit of Error.

CHAP. V. The Conclusion; shewing the true usefulness of the Light in every Man; and yet that the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, reveals things more excellent. With an Exhortation to all Christians to be∣ware of the dangerous Errors of the Quakers.

FOr a Conclusion of this defence against the Quakers, I hold it expe∣dient to speak something briefly concerning the Light which is in eve∣ry Man. And I have given some hints above, how Robert Ruckhil hath altered the Phrase, by his frequent use of this, The Holy Spirit, instead of their old term, The Light in every Man. But these two must be distin∣guished: for a Man may have, or be a partaker of that Light which is in every Man, which reproveth much Evil, and directs to much Good: And yet the same Man may be sensual at the same time, having not the Spirit: * 2.59 For the Gift of the Holy Spirit, as it is promised in the Gospel, is not received but through Faith, Gal. 3. — That the Blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that they might receive the Promise of the Spirit through Faith. Nor do I mean the multifarious Spirits by which Men are actuated, when I speak of the Light in every Man, as R. R. rudely would interpret me; but I speak of that one common Principle of Wisdom, Ju∣stice and Purity, which God hath endowed Mankind with, which in re∣gard of its curious measures I call the Spirits of Men, every Man having his proper portion thereof; for the which he must be accountable, as he hath improved or abused it, to the honour or dishonour of Almighty God. But yet, I say, this Light in every Man ought to be subservient to the Light of the Holy Spirit revealed by or in the Holy Scriptures. And to make this better appear, I will here insert what I have published before in this behalf.

Because every Truth ought to have its just estimation, and the design of our precedent Discourses, being not to oppose any Light which God hath ordained for Man's direction; Whether that which is common

to all (ordinarily) at all times, by some called the Light within, or that which hath been manifested at sundry times, and divers man∣ners; it shall not be inexpedient here to propose some few things:

And,

1. It is certain (and not denied by the Baptized Churches) that God Almighty hath endowed Mankind with a Principle of Light, Under∣standing, or Judgment, to lead Men to the consideration and observation of things good and honest among themselves; and to contemplate the Divine Goodness it self, from the consideration of his wonderful Works, and to render to him the honour of his Mercies, &c.

For as there is a certain Relation between the Creator, and a rational Creature; even thence arises a necessity of Obedience on the Creature's part. Whereupon it behoveth that he know him, and in general, what is his Will whom he is to serve; and this is the great Work of the Law written in the heart of Man, Rom. 2.

2. But it is certainly in the liberty of the Creator, (who hath the fulness of Wisdom in himself) to give further, what particular disco∣veries of himself, and of his Will he pleaseth, or thinks most meet to communicate, beyond the extent of that common Principle of Light which he hath imparted to Mankind. And indeed thus he did from the beginning, when by a positive Law he forbad Adam to eat of one Tree in the Garden, which otherwise could have brought no inconveni∣ence, sith it was good for Food. And therefore the forbidden Fruit was not Sin, as some of the Quakers have vainly told me; and some have writ as erroneously.

3. That there is in the Godhead the distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit; and that Man's Salvation must depend upon the Death of the Son of God; that he to that end should be born of a Woman, even the blessed Virgin, Mary by Name; that he should arise from the Dead, and ascend the Heavens; or, that he shall come again to raise the Dead, and Judg the World, are things wholly beyond the reach of the Universal Principle of Light in Man, and only known to Man by particular Reve∣lation from the Omnipotent God; who revealed these things to the Pro∣phets, confirmed them by his Son, and hath witnessed the same by the Apostles.

4. That the Oeconomie, Order, or Government of the Church should vary, viz. Be of one Form in the Old World, of another from Abra∣ham till Christ; of a third, from Christ to the end of the World; are things of which the common Principle of Light in Man fails to give any account: only the Wisdom and good Pleasure of the Creator, is the ground and cause of this Alteration, to which the Light of Man's Un∣derstanding must be subordinate.

5. That Abraham must cut off the Fore-skin, and his Posterity ob∣serve the same for a Law, under pain of being cut off from the People of God, is no way perceivable by the Principle of Light in Man, but may rather seem repugnant to it, only God must not be disputed in any of his Commands, but Man with all the Light in him, must yield to his most wise Commandments.

6. That the Saviour of the World should come to be baptized of John in Jordan, and that it should become all his Disciples to follow him in the same Act of Obedience; that Israel must commemorate their Deliverance out of Egypt by the Paschal Observation; and Christians their Deliverance from Sin and Satan, by the Bread and Cup in the Lord's Table, &c. are such things as no Principle of Light, common to all Men, does dictate: But he only, who without controul, might and did command Abraham to offer his own Son for a Sacrifice, required these things, and ought to be obeyed, when and in what he requi∣reth.

7. The sum of all is this, The Universal Principle of Understand∣ing, Light, or Judgment in Man, is capable of Improvements; and it is only improved, by how much it is subordinate to the Will of God, as well in the lesser as the greater things of his Appointment. And there∣fore the Quakers undeniably opposing themselves against many things required to be observed by Christians, as positive Laws of God, made known by Jesus Christ, concerning Man's Redemption, and the Order of the Church of Christ, are not obedient to, nor sincere favourers of the Light within; but are under the Spirit of Darkness and Error in such their opposition; and do vainly boast, to speak and act as moved there∣unto by the Authority of Christ, and his Holy Spirit in them, when yet the Authority of Christ is full against them.

The Exhortation.

FRom the Premises, I hold my self obliged to admonish and exhort all Christians to look well to their goings; For let us know assured∣ly, that the days are perilous, because the time is come wherein that Doctrine which according to Godliness, even the words of our Lord Je∣sus Christ, yea, that form of sound words which was delivered to the first Christian Churches by the Apostles, which also was obeyed from the Heart, Rom. 6. that Faith once delivered to the Saints, is now in eve∣ry place greatly opposed and disgusted, or lightly regarded; whilst Men are turned in to Fables and Visions of their own hearts, as was also fore∣declared in the Word of Truth.

And knowing these things before, let us beware lest at any time we be led away with the Errors of these days, and so fall from that stedfast∣ness in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, to which through the Grace of God we have attained.

And above all, let us diligently beware of those, who either directly or indirectly deny the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, whilst they believe not his Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, together with his second coming according to the Scriptures. But instead there∣of, labour to refer by obscure ways, and a fair shew of words, all these things to the Work of Mortification, and what they vainly pretend to themselves, as if they could now evince that Mortality is swallowed up

of Life; which vain boasts my ears have heard from some of the * 2.60 Qua∣kers; and yet it is certain they shall die like other Men, and in that very day they will find these vain thoughts to perish.

Labour therefore to have a sound and distinct understanding of the great Work of Man's Redemption by Christ's Death and Blood-shed, and the Work of his Holy Word and Spirit in sanctifying the Children of God. Hold fast the first by Faith, and labour to live in the latter by bles∣sed experience, waiting for the Adoption, as it respects the redemption of your Bodies in the glorious Resurrection of the Just, according to that working whereby our Lord Jesus Christ and God our Father is able to subdue all things unto himself.

And be not deceived by any means, with the empty boasts of those who pretend they are perfect, so as to have passed through the Resur∣rection; for it is one thing to rise with Christ to newness of Life, (which I hope you have attained, but I beseech you abound more and more); and another thing to be raised from Mortality to a state of Glory. And for a help in this, consider, that even Paul himself, in his greatest Attainments, wherein he heard things too hard to be ut∣tered to the Churches, yet he tells us, He had not attained to the Re∣surrection of the Dead, but laboured if by any means he might attain it, Phil. 3.

Beware also of those who by consequence deny Jesus Christ to be come in the Flesh: and they are of two sorts; either those who labour to introduce Legal Ceremonies, which Christ came to abrogate, of whom there were many in the Apostles times, and I fear there are some in these days; or, who deny Christ's Institutions, for Christ de∣nies that any can rightly call him Lord, Lord, when they do not the things which he says. And indeed, as that Holy Man, William Jeffery (Messenger to the Baptized Churches in Kent) hath well observed,

That those who deny those. Ordinances which came in being when Christ came in the Flesh, and which do so plainly hold him forth as come in the Flesh, do therein in effect deny Christ to be come in the Flesh.

Now by those things which declare Christ to be come in the Flesh, I do not mean any part of the Gospel, or the Gifts thereof, exclusively from the rest, but I mean the whole form of Godliness, with the Power thereof, delivered and established by Christ, the Mediator of the New Te∣stament; and in particular these things following.

1. Such Preaching as holds forth Christ Crucified, according to the Scriptures.

2. Such Prayer as is Spiritual, made to God in the Name of Jesus Christ.

3. Such Baptism in Water as sets forth the Death of Christ, his Buri∣al, and Resurrection; and our Death to Sin, and rising to a new Life.

4. Such Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, as shews forth the Saints Interest in that Promise of the Holy Ghost, which Christ obtained for the comfort of the Gospel Church.

5. Such a Table of the Lord, as shews the Death of Christ upon the Cross.

6. And such a Discipline as gives evidence of Christ's Authority, to purge his Church from Corruption, and to preserve Her in the purity of Doctrine and Conversation.

And thus the Holy Gospel being duly and religiously received and walked in, according to all the parts of it respectively, being attended with a constant waiting for the Son of God from Heaven, even Jesus who was raised from the Dead; ye shall be found unto Praise, and Ho∣nour, and that you have faithfully kept Christ's Ordinances, and added to your Faith, Vertue; even so an entrance shall be ministred to you abundantly into the Everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. For if any Man serve Christ, him will the Father honour, John 12. 26.

Christianismus Primitivus.

The Third TREATISE. THE PEDO-BAPTISTS APOLOGY FOR THE Baptized Churches.

THere is no Point of the Christian Faith, of greater impor∣tance, in order to the composure of Divisions among such as conscientiously profess the Name of Christ, than the Do∣ctrine of Holy Baptism, in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins: * 2.61 For as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. And where this Founda∣tion-Truth hath been neglected, or essentially corrupted, there hath ensu∣ed great disorder in Religion, because the Being of the Church (as Vi∣sible) is so concern'd therein, that there can be no orderly proceeding in any Church Act, nor participation in any Church-Priviledg, where Sa∣cred Baptism is not Antecedent.

And though Reformation (or rather the Restauration) of this Truth be hard to accomplish, yet must we not be discouraged, but still pursue all lawful and probable ways to effect it in this, as well as in other cases. And the way which I have chosen to help on this needful Work at this time, is to shew, that (notwithstanding the discord in Point of Practice, yet) there is a very great concord in Doctrine, touching the main Que∣stions which concern this Heavenly Institution, between the Pedo-Baptists and the Baptized Churches. The Questions are these;

1. What are the Qualifications required of all such as are to be bapti∣zed?

2. What is the due Act or right Form to be observed and done in this solemn Rite of Baptism?

Touching the first, The Doctrine of the Baptized Churches is well known, namely, That Repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, are pre-requisites to the Baptism of every Sinner. And to this agrees the Holy Scripture, with full consent, saying, * 2.62 Repent and be baptized every one of you. They were all baptized, confessing their Sins. When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, &c. they were baptized both Men and Women. Many of the Corin∣thians hearing, believed and were baptized. And hence this Holy Ordi∣nance is well called the * 2.63 Laver of Regeneration; the Baptism of Repentance, for the Remission of Sins. Now let us hear the Doctrine of the Pedo-Baptists touching this Question.

1. The Church of England, both in her Articles and Vulgar Catechism, delivers her mind clearly to this purpose; That such Repentance where∣by Sin is forsaken, and such Faith as by which the Promises of God are stedfastly believed, is required of Persons (meaning all Persons) which are to be baptized; and that in Baptism Faith is confirmed, &c.

2. Mr. Perkins (a Learned Son of the same Church) upon these words; Teach all Nations, baptizing them, &c. saith,

I explain the words thus; Mark, first of all 'tis said, teach them; that is, make them my Disciples, by calling them to believe, and to repent. Here we are to consider the order which God observes, in making with Man the Co∣venant in Baptism: First of all he calls them by his Word, and com∣mands them to believe and repent; then in the second place, God makes his Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness: and thirdly, he seals his Pro∣mise by Baptism. — They that know not, nor consider this Order which God used in Covenanting with them in Baptism, deal preposterously, overslipping the Commandment of Repenting and Believing. — This is the cause of so much prophaneness in the World: We see what is done in Baptism, the Covenant of Grace is solemniz'd between God and the Party baptized; and in this Covenant, some things belong to God, some to the Party baptized: The Actions of the Party baptized, are a certain Stipulation or Obligation, whereby he bindeth himself to give homage to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This Homage standeth in Faith, whereby all the Promises of God are believed, and in obedience to all his Commandments. The sign of this Obligation is, That the Party bap∣tized, willingly yields himself to be washed with Water.

3. Diodate on the same Text, teacheth,

That Baptism is a Sacrament of Grace, in remission and expiation of Sins, and regeneration to a new Life. And likewise for a Token that they are bound on their side (mean∣ing such as are baptized) to consecrate themselves to God, and to give themselves over to the conduct of his Spirit, and to confess his Name perpetually.

Thus these three Witnesses do concur with the Truth, and therein do hold a concord with the Baptized Churches. And one would think there should now be no place for such a Conceit, as that Infants are fit Subjects for the Sacred Ordinance of Baptism, because wholly uncapable

of these Qualifications. Now whereas divers things are pretended as grounds for Infant Baptism, we shall briefly recount the particulars which are chiefly insisted on, and then shew how the same are refelled, or made void, by some of the most learned Asserters of Pedo-baptism. The Grounds pretended are these.

1. The Covenant which God made with Abraham and his Seed, Gen. 17. who were to be Circumcised (to wit, the Males only) in their In∣fancy. This is thought to be a Type of Baptism, and hence it 'tis concei∣ved, that Infants ought to be baptized.

2. Christ permitting Infants to be brought to him, as Persons to whom the Kingdom belongs.

3. They being tainted with Original Sin, must be cleansed from it; which is supposed to be done by Baptism.

4. Because it is said, Except a Man be born of Water, &c. he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, John 3.

5. Because Infants do not ponere obicem, and so are more fit for Bap∣tism than adult Persons, as 'tis thought.

6. Because without Baptism, Parents cannot hope the salvation of dy∣ing Infants (as some think.)

7. The Promise of the Holy Ghost, Acts 2. 39. is thought to belong to Infants, and so they ought to be baptized, because they are said to be holy.

8. Unless Infants be baptized, 'tis thought God is worse to Infants in the Gospel, than in the Law.

9. Infants are a part of all Nations, and the Command for baptizing is of extent to all Nations.

10. 'Tis thought the Apostles baptized Infants, because they baptized whole Housholds; and 'tis said, it hath descended to this very Age, as a Tradition Apostolical.

To all which, Doctor Jer. Taylor (and others) in behalf of the Baptized Churches; do give answer as followeth.

That this is a goodly Harangue, which upon strict examination will come to nothing; that it pretends fairly, and signifies little; that some of those Allegations are false, some impertinent, and all the rest in∣sufficient.

* 2.64 For the argument from Circumcision, it is invalid (or of no weight) upon infinite considerations. Figures and Types prove nothing, unless a Commandment go along with them; or some express to signifie such to be their purpose: For the Deluge of Waters, and the Ark of Noah, were a figure of Baptism, said Peter: And if therefore the Circum∣stances of one should be drawn to the other, we should make Baptism a Prodigie, rather than a Rite. The Paschal Lamb was a Type of the Eucharist, which succeeds the other as Baptism doth Circumcision, but because there was in the manducation of the Paschal Lamb, no prescrip∣tion of Sacramental Drink, shall we then conclude that the Eucharist is to be ministred but in one kind? And even in the very instance of this Argument, supposing a correspondence of analogie between Circumci∣sion and Baptism, * 2.65 yet there is no correspondence of Identity: For al∣though it were granted, that both of them did consign the Covenant of

Faith, yet there is nothing in Circumstance of Childrens being Circum∣cised that so concerns that Mystery, but that it might very well be given to Children, and yet Baptism to Men of Reason; because Circumcision left a Character in the Flesh, which being imprinted upon Infants, did its work to them when they came to Age: and such a Character was neces∣sary, because there was no Word added to the Sign; but Baptism im∣prints nothing that remains on the Body, and if it leaves a Character at all it is upon the Soul, to which also the Word is added, which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the Sign it self is. * 2.66 For both which Reasons, it is very requisite that the Persons baptized, should be capable of Reason, that they may be capable of both the Word of the Sacrament, and the impress made upon the Spirit. Since therefore the reason of this Parity does wholly fail, there is nothing left to infer a necessity, of com∣plying in this Circumstance of Age, any more than in the other annexes of the Type; and the case is clear in the Bishops Question to Cyprian. For why should not Infants be baptized just upon the Eighth Day, as well as Circumcised? If the correspon∣dence of the Rites be an Argument to infer one Circumstance, which is impertinent and accidental to the mysteriousness of the Rite, why should it not infer all?

[Especially such a material thing as the time of Baptism, for if the Eighth Day be not determined, no Man is able to assign the Day of Baptism, which being delayed till the Tenth, or Twentieth Day, may by the same Reason, be deferred till the Child have passed through its Infancy, and become capable of Erudition.]

And then also, Females must not be Baptized, because they were not Circumcised. But it were more proper if we would understand it aright, to prosecute the Analogie of the Type to the Antitype, by way of Letter and Spirit, and Signification; and as Circumcision signifies Baptism, so also the adjuncts of Circumcision, shall signifie something Spiritual in the adherences of Baptism. And therefore as Infants were Circumcised, so Spiritual-Infants shall he Baptized; which (according to some) is Spiritual-Circumcision.

[Which yet is better expounded by St. Paul; Phil. 3. where he makes the Spiritual-Circumcision to be the Mind and Spirit renewed, and the putting off the body of the sins of the Flesh.]

For therefore Babes had the Ministry of the Type, to sig∣nifie that we must when we give our Names to Christ, become 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Children in Malice.

[For unless you become like one of these little ones, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven,] said our blessed Savi∣viour.

And then the Tye is made compleat, and this seems to have been the sense of the Primitive-Church: for in the Ages next to the Apo∣stles, they gave to all Baptized Persons, Milk and Honey, to represent to them their Duty; that though in Age and Understanding they were Men, yet they were Babes in Christ, and Children in Malice. But to infer the sense of the Pedo-Baptists, is so weak a manner of arguing, that Augustine, whose device it was (and Men use to be in love

with their own fancies) at the most pretended it but as probable:

Lo here the newness of the Argument, from Infant-Circumcision, to Infant-Baptism.

As for the Catholicks, they hold it an absurd thing to argue as the Protestants do, from the Covenant made with Abraham, and his Seed, Gen. 17. 7. Thus they speak: * 2.67 That Promise concerns literally peculiar Pro∣tection, and worldly Felicity, not the Remission of Sins, and everlasting Life; neither can we be Sons of Abraham by Carnal Generation, or by our Carnal Parents (we are not Jews but Gentiles) but only by Spiritual Ge∣neration, (to wit, Baptism) by which we are born to God, and made the Brothers of Christ, the Sons of Abraham. Those (saith St. Paul) are the Sons of Abraham, not who are the Sons of the Flesh, but of Faith, Rom. 4. 12, 13.

Again, * 2.68 They deny the Argument drawn from Infants being Circum∣cised in order to their being Baptized, calling it a cunning Argument, by which it will follow, that Females are not to be Baptized, &c.

And as ill success will they have with the other Arguments, as with this; For from the Action of Christ's blessing Infants, to infer that they are to be Baptized, proves nothing so much, as that there is a great want of better Arguments. The Conclusion would be with more pro∣bability, derived thus: Christ blessed Children, and so dismissed them, but Baptized them not; therefore Infants are not to be Baptized. But let this be as weak as its Enemy, yet that Christ did not baptize them, is an argument sufficient, that Christ hath other ways of bringing them to Heaven. He passed his Act of Grace upon them by Benediction, and Imposition of Hands.

And therefore though neither Infants, nor any Man in puris natura∣ralibus, can attain to a supernatural end without the addition of some Instrument, or means of God's appointing ordinarily, yet where God hath not appointed a Rule nor an Order, as in the case of Infants, we contend he hath not, this Argument is invalid. And as we are sure that God hath not commanded Infants to be Baptized, so we are sure God will do them no Injustice, nor Damn them for what they cannot help.

And therefore let them be pressed with all the Inconveniences which are consequent to Original Sin, yet either it will not be laid to their charge, so as to be sufficient to Condemn them; or if it could, yet the Mercy and absolute Goodness of God will secure them, if he take them away before they can glorifie him by a free Obedience. Quid ergo▪ fe∣stinatis▪ innocentes ad remissionem peccatorum? Was the Question of Tur∣tullian (lib. de Bapt.) He knew no such danger from their Original Guilt, as to drive them to a Laver, of which in that age of Innocence they had no need, as he conceived, and therefore there is no necessity of flying to the help of others for Tongue, for Heart, for Faith, and pre∣dispositions to Baptism; For what need of all this stir? As Infants without their own consent, without any Act of their own, and with∣out any exteriour solemnity, contracted the guilt of Adam's Sin, and are liable to all the punishment which can with Justice descend upon his Posterity who are personally innocent; so Infants shall be restored with∣out

any solemnity, or act of their own, or any other for them, by the Second Adam, by the Redemption of Jesus Christ, by his Righteous∣ness and Mercies, applied either immediately, or how, or when he pleases to appoint. [And to this agrees that saying of the Apostle, As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive; and as by the disobedience of one many were made Sinners, so by the obedience of one, shall many be made Righteous.] And so Austine's argument will come to nothing, without any need of God-Fathers, or the Faith of any Body else. And it is too narrow a conception of God Almighty, because he hath tied us to the observation of Ceremonies of his own Institution, that there∣fore he hath tied himself to it. Many thousand Ways there are, by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself: But nothing is more unreasonable, than because he hath tied all Men of Years, and Discre∣tion to this Way, therefore we of our own Heads, shall carry Infants to him that Way without his direction: The Conceit is poor and low, and the Action consequent to it, is too bold and ventrous; Mysterium est mihi & filiis domus meae. Let him do what he please to Infants, we must not.

Only this is certain, that God hath as great care of Infants as of others; and because they have no capacity of doing such Acts, as may be in order to acquiring Salvation, God will by his own immediate Mer∣cy bring them thither, where he hath intended them: but to say that therefore he will do it by an external Act and Ministry, and that confin'd to a particular, viz. this Rite and no other, is no good Ar∣gument, unless God could not do it without such means, or that he had said he would not. And why cannot God as well do his Mercies to In∣fants now immediately, as he did before the Institution, either of Cir∣cumcision or Baptism? [This Query is worthy of serious consideration] however there is no danger that Infants should perish for want of this ex∣ternal Ministry, much less for prevaricating Christ's Precept, nisi quis re∣natus fuerit, &c. For first the Water and Spirit in this place [according to some learned Expositors] signifie the same thing: And by Water is meant the Effect of the Spirit cleansing and purifying the Soul; as ap∣pears in its parallel place, of Christ's baptizing with the Holy Ghost and Fire: — But to let pass this advantage, and to suppose it to be meant of External Baptism, [as that is the most likely sense] yet this no more infers a necessity of Infants Baptism, than the other words of Christ infer a necessity to give them the Holy Communion, Nisi come∣deritis Carnem Filii Hominis, & biberitis Sanguinem, non introibitis in Regnum Coelorum; and yet we do not think these words sufficient Argu∣ment to communicate them: If Men therefore will do us justice, either let them give both Sacraments to Infants, as some Ages of the Church did, or neither; for the wit of Man is not able to shew a disparity in the Sanction, or in the energy of its Expression; and therefore they were hottest, that understood the Obligation to be parallel, and perform∣ed it accordingly; and yet because we say they were deceived in one Instance, and yet the Obligation (all the World cannot reasonably say but) is the same; they are as honest and as reasonable that do neither.

And since the Ancient Church did with an equal opinion of necessity give them Communion, and yet Men now adays do not; why shall Men be more burthened with a prejudice and name of Obloquy, for not giving the Infants one Sacrament, more than they are disliked for not affording them the other? If Anabaptist shall be a Name of disgrace, why shall not some other Name be invented for them that deny to com∣municate Infants, which shall be equally disgraceful; or else both the Opinions signified by such Names, be accounted no disparagement, but receive their estimate according to their Truth?

Of which Truth since we are now taking account from pretences of Scripture, it is considerable the discourse of St. Peter, which is pre∣tended for the Intitling Infants to the Promise of the Holy Ghost, and by consequence to Baptism, which is supposed to be its Instrument of conveyance: 'tis wholly a Fancy, and hath nothing in it of certainty or demonstration, and not much probability. For besides that the thing it self is unreasonable, and the Holy Ghost works by the heightning and improving our natural Faculties; and therefore is a Promise that so con∣cerns them, as they are reasonable Creatures, and may have a Title to it, in proportion to their Nature, but no possession or reception of it, till their Faculties come into act; besides this, I say, the words menti∣oned in St. Peter's Sermon (which are the only Record of the Promise) are interpreted upon a weak mistake; the Promise belongs to you and to your Children, therefore Infants are actually receptive of it in that capacity, that's the Argument: but the reason of it is not yet disco∣vered, nor never will, [For indeed it is without reason] To you and your Children; it's you and your Posterity, to you and your Children, when they are of the same capacity in which you are effectually receptive of the Promise.

* 2.69 [Beside the Promise of the Spirit in this place is referr'd to the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, and is therefore made to those who had already received it in the quickning or illuminating operation of it, and is the portion of Believers as such, and is consequent to Baptism, Acts 2. 38, 39. and is therefore wrongfully made an Argument for the baptizing of Infants, who (what-ever they may have of the Graces of the * 2.70 Spirit, yet) have neither need of, nor any capacity to use the Gifts of the Spirit, and therefore evident it is, that this Promise of the Spirit belongs not to Infants at all.]

And for the Allegation of St. Paul, that Infants are Holy if their Pa∣rents be Faithful; it signifies nothing but that they are Holy by desig∣nation: — Or, according to Erasmus, * 2.71 [They (to wit, Infants born of such Parents, as the one being a Christian, the other not) are Holy legitimately; for the conversion of either Wife or Husband, doth not dissolve the Marriage which was made when both were in unbelief. And however it is true, that Austin was a great stickler for Pedo-Baptism, yet he denies that any such thing can be deduced from the Text in hand; his words are these, Lib. 3. de peccator. Remis. It is to be held without doubting, whatsoever that Sancti∣fication was, it was not of Power to make Christians and remit Sins. He might well say so, considering that the Holiness of the Child is derived from the Sanctity of the Unbeliever, as the word else being rightly referr'd doth evince, 1 Cor. 7. 14.]

And as the Promise appertains not (for ought appears) to Infants in that capacity and consistence, — yet Baptism is not the means of con∣veying the Holy Ghost; for that which Peter says, Be baptized, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost; signifies no more than this, first be baptized, and then by imposition of the Apostles Hands, (which was another My∣stery and Rite) ye shall receive the Promise of the Father; and this is nothing but an insinuation of the Rite of Confirmation, as to this sense expounded by divers Ancient Authors; and in ordinary Mini∣stry, the effect of it is not bestowed upon any unbaptized Persons, for it is in order next after Baptism: and upon this ground Peter's Argument in the case of Cornelius was concluding enough, a majori ad minus: thus the Holy Ghost was bestowed upon him and his Family; which Gift by ordinary Ministry was consequent to Baptism, not as the Effect is to the Cause, or to the proper Instrument, but as a Consequent is to an Ante∣cedent, in a Chain of Causes accidentally, and by positive Institution depending upon each other; God by that Miracle did give Testimony that the Persons of the Men were in great dispositions towards Heaven, and therefore were to be admitted to these Rites which are the ordinary Inlets into the Kingdom of Heaven. But then from hence to argue, that where-ever there is a capacity of receiving the same Grace, there also the same sign is to be administred: And from hence to infer Pedo-Bap∣tism, is an Argument very fallacious upon several grounds: 1. Be∣cause Baptism is not the sign of the Holy Ghost, but by another My∣stery, it was conveyed ordinarily, and extraordinarily, it was convey'd independently from any Mystery, and so the Argument goes upon a wrong Supposition. 2. If the Supposition were true, yet the Proposi∣tion built upon it is false: for they that are capable of the same Grace, are not always capable of the same Sign; for Women under the Law of Moses, though they were capable of the Righteousness of Faith, yet they were not capable of the Sign of Circumcision; for God does not always convey his Graces in the same manner, but to some mediately, to some immediately; and there is no better instance in the World of it, than the Gift of the Holy Ghost, (which is the thing now instanc'd in, in this Contestation.)

And after all this, lest these Argments should not ascertain their Cause, they fall on complaining against God; and will not be content with God, unless they may baptize their Children, but take exceptions that God did more for the Children of the Jews. But why so? Because God made a Covenant with their Children actually as Infants, and consign'd it by Circumcision. Well, so he did with our Children too in their Proportion. He made a Covenant of Spiritual Promises on his part, and Spiritual and real Services on ours; and this pertains to Children when capable, but made with them as soon as they are alive. And yet not so as with the Jew's Babes; for as their Rite con∣sign'd them actually, so it was a National and Temporal Blessing and Covenant, and a separation of them from the Portion of the Nations, a marking them for a peculiar People: and therefore while they were in the Wilderness, and separate from the commixture of all People, they

were not at all Circumcised, but as that Rite did seal the Righteousness of Faith. [Which whether it did any such thing to any, save to Abraham only, is much doubted.] So by virtue of its adherency and remanency in their Flesh, it did that Work when the Children came to Age. But in Christian Infants the case is otherwise; for the New Covenant being established upon better Promises, is not only to better purposes, but al∣so in a distinct manner to be understood, when their Spirits are as recep∣tive of a Spiritual Act or Impress, as the Bodies of Jewish Children were of the sign of Circumcision, then it is to be consign'd. But the business is quickly at an end, by saying, That God hath done no less for ours, than for their Children; for he will do the Mercies of a Fa∣ther and Creator to them, and he did no more to the other; but he hath done more to ours, for he hath made a Covenant with them, and built it upon Promises of the greatest concernment. —

[And note further, we have as much ground of comfort concerning our dying Infants, as the Faithful had for the first two thousand years, during all which time the Co∣venant of Grace reached to Infants, though there was no external Ceremony to consign it to Infants.] —

For the insinuation of the Precept of Bapti∣zing all Nations, of which Children are a part, does as little advantage as any of the rest, because other parallel Expressions of the Scripture do determine and expound themselves to a sense that includes not all Persons absolutely, but of a capable condition, as adorate eum omnes gentes, & per psallite Deo omnes Nationes Terrae.

[And Nation shall rise against Nation, where Infants are excluded] and divers more. [But Erasmus hath well expounded this Text, * 2.72 Where he restrains the baptizing to such as are repentant of their former Life.]

As for the Conjecture concerning the Family of Stephanus; at the best it is but a Conjecture, and besides that, it is not prov'd that there were Children in the Family: yet if that were granted, it follows not that they were baptized, because by [whole Families] in Scripture, is meant, all Persons of Reason and Age within the Family; for it is said of the Ruler at Capernaum, that he believed, and all his House. Now you may also suppose that in his House were little Babes, that is like enough, and you may suppose that they did believe too, before they could understand, but that's not so likely; and then the Argument from baptizing Stephen's Family may be allowed just as probable: But this is unmanlike to build upon such sleight and airy Conjectures.

But Tradition by all means must supply the place of Scripture, and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical, that Infants were baptized: But at this we are not much moved, for we who rely upon the written Word of God, as sufficient to establish all true Religion, do not value the Allegations of Traditions; and however the World goes, none of the Reformed Churches can pretend this Argument against this Opini∣on, because they who reject Tradition when 'tis against them, must not pretend it at all for them. But if we should allow the Topick to be good, yet how will it be verified? For so far as it can yet appear, it re∣lies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen, for from him Austin had it. Now a Tradition Apostolical, if it be not consign'd with a fuller Testi∣mony

than of one Person, whom all after-Ages have condemn'd of ma∣ny Errors, will obtain so little reputation among those that know that thing, have upon greater Authority pretended to derive from the Apo∣stles, and yet falsly, that it will be a great Argument that he is credu∣lous and weak, that shall be determined by so weak probation, in Mat∣ters of so great Concernment. And the truth of the business is, as there was no command of Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it; so necessity of Pedo-baptism was not determined in the Church till the eighth Age after Christ: but in the Year 418 in the Mileritan Council (a Principal of Africa) there was a Canon made for Pedo-Baptism, never till then; I grant it was practised in Africa before that time, and they or some of them thought well of it; and though that be no Argument for us to think so, yet none of them did ever before, pretend it to be necessary, none to have been a Precept of the Gospel. St. Austin was the first that ever preach'd it to be absolutely necessary; and it was in his heat and anger against Pelagius, who had warm'd and chafed him so in that Question, that it made him innovate in other Doctrines, possibly of greater concernment than this: And that although this was practised anciently in Africa, yet that it was without an Opinion of necessity; and not often there, nor at all in other places, * 2.73 we have the testimony of a learned Pedo-Baptist, Ludovicus Vives, who in his Annotations up∣on Augustin de Civit. Dei. l. 1. c. 27. affirms; Neminem nisi adultum an∣tiquitus solere baptizari.

And because this Testimony is of great import, I will set down the very words of Augustin and Ludovicus Vives, as I find them in the English Edition of the said Book of the City of God, cap. 26. where Augustin puts forth this Question; What is the reason then that we do spend so much time in our Exhortations, endeavouring to animate those whom we have bap∣tized, either unto Virginity, or chast Widow hood, or honest and honourable Marriage. Now upon these words, [Those whom we have baptized.] Vi∣ves comments thus; Lest any Man should mistake this place, understand that in times of old, no Man was brought unto Baptism, but he was of suffici∣ent years to know what that Mystical Water means, and to require his Bap∣tism, and that sundry times. — I hear that in some Cities of Italy, they do for the most part observe the Ancient Custom as yet. And it is to be ob∣served, that in the Margent are two Notes; The first is, That this is the old manner of baptizing. The second, That all this is left out in the Paris Edition. Whence we may note how the Writings of the Ancients are abused, and how ingenuously it is confessed, Pedo-Baptism is nor the old manner of baptizing.

And here we will insert some other Testimonies from the learned Pedo-Baptists, touching the novelty of Infant-Baptism. * 2.74 The first is out of Robertus Fabianus his Chron. 4th part, Fol. 107. where he brings in Augu∣stin the Monk speaking thus to the British Bishops; Since ye will not as∣sent to my Hests generally, assent ye to me specially in three things; the first is, That ye keep Easter-day in due form and time as it is ordained. The second, THAT YE GIVE CHRISTENDOM TO CHILDREN, &c. But THEY WOULD NOT THEREOF. This was about the fifth Age

after Christ; whence it's remarkable that Infant-Baptism was then op∣posed by the joint consent of the British Bishops, which were sent to the Assembly to consult the Affairs of Religion at that time. * 2.75 Our next Te∣stimony is from the learned Casuist Hugo Grotius, who tells us, To defer Baptism till ripe years, was in old time left at liberty, now the observation is otherwise. Plainly giving the case, that Pedo-Baptism is not the old way, but a new Observation. But here we will again give place to Dr. Taylor, who saith;

That besides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical, we have very good evidence from Antiquity, that it was the Opinion of the Primitive Church, that INFANTS OUGHT NOT TO BE BAP∣TIZED. And this is clear in the sixth Canon of the Council of Neocae∣sarea.

* 2.76 The words have this sense; A Woman with Child may be baptized when she please, for her Baptism concerns not the Child. The reason of the connexion of the parts of that Canon is in the following words; Because every one in that Confession, is to give a demonstration of his own Choice and Election.

Meaning plainly, That if the Baptism of the Mother did pass upon the Child, it were not fit for a pregnant Woman to receive Baptism, because in that Sacrament there being a Confession of Faith; which Confession supposes Understanding, and free Choice; it is not reasonable the Child should be consign'd with such a Mystery, since it cannot do any Act of Choice or Understanding. The Canon speaks reason, and intimites a practice which was absolutely Universal in the Church of Interrogating the Catechumens concerning the Articles of the Creed: which is one Argument, that either they did not admit In∣fants to Baptism, or that they did prevaricate egregiously, in asking questions of them, who themselves knew were not capable of giving answer.

And to supply their incapacity by the answer of a God-father, is but the same unreasonableness acted with a worse Circumstance; and there is no sensible account can be given of it, for that which some imperfect∣ly murmur, concerning stipulations civil, performed by Tutors in the name of their Pupils, is an absolute vanity; * 2.77 For what if by positive Constitutions of the Romans such Solemnities of Law are required in all stipulations, and by indulgence are permitted in the case of a notable benefit accruing to Minors? Must God be tied, and Christian Reli∣gion transact her Mysteries by proportion and compliance with the Law of the Romans? I know God might, if he would, have ap∣pointed God-fathers to give answer in behalf of Children, and to be Fide jussors for them; but we cannot find any authority or ground that he hath; and if he had, then it is to be supposed he would have given them commission to have transacted the Solemnity with better Circum∣stances, and given answers with more truth. And if the God-fathers answer in the name of the Child, [I do believe] it is notorious, they speak false and ridiculously: for the Infant is not capable of believing, and if he were, he were also capable of dissenting, and how then do they know his Mind? And therefore Tertullian gives advice, * 2.78 that the Bap∣tism of Infants should be deferred till they could give an account of

their Faith. And the same also is the counsel of * 2.79 Gregrory Bishop of Nazianzen, although he allows them to hasten it in case of necessity; for although his reason taught him what was fit, [namely, That none should be baptized till they were of understanding] yet he was overborn with the Practice and Opinion of this Age, which began to bear too violent∣ly upon him; and yet in another place he makes mention of some to whom Baptism was not administred, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by reason of In∣fancy.

To which if we add, That the Parents of St. Austin, St. Jerom, and St. Ambrose, although they were Christians, yet did not baptize their Children before they were thirty years of Age; it will be very considerable in the Example, and of great efficacy for destroying the supposed necessity or derivation from the Apostles.

[And for further evidence, we may well alledg in this place, that of The∣odosius the Emperor born in Spain, his Parents being both Christians, and he from his youth educated in the Christian Faith, who falling sick at Thes∣salonica, was baptized, and recovered of his Sickness.]

But however it is against the perpetual Analogy of Christ's Do∣ctrine to baptize Infants; for besides, that Christ never gave any Precept to baptize them, nor never himself nor his Apostles (that appears) did baptize any of them; all that either he or his Apostles said con∣cerning Baptism, requires such previous dispositions to it, of which In∣fants are not capable, and these are Faith and Repentance. And not to instance in those innumerable Places that require Faith before Bap∣tism, there needs no more but this one Saying, * 2.80 He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned. * 2.81 Plainly thus, Faith and Baptism in conjunction will bring a Man to Heaven, but if he has not Faith, Baptism shall do him no good. So that if Baptism be necessary, then so is Faith, and much more; for want of Faith damns absolutely, it is not said so of the want of Baptism.

Now if this decretory Sense be to be understood of Persons of age, and if Children by such an Answer (which indeed is reasonable enough) be excused from the necessity of Faith, the want of which regularly does damn; then it is sottish to say, the same Incapacity of Reason and Faith shall not excuse them from the actual susception of Baptism, which as less necessary, and to which Faith and many other Acts are necessary predispositions, when it is reasonably and humanely received. The Conclusion is, that Baptism is also to be deferred till the time of Faith; and whether Infants have Faith, or no, is a Question to be dispu∣ted by Persons that care not how much they say, nor how little they prove.

1. Personal and actual Faith they have none, for they have no acts of Understanding; and besides how can any Man understand that they have, since he never saw any sign of it, neither was he told so by any one that could tell?

2. Some say they have imputative Faith: but then so let the Sacra∣ment be too; that is, if they have the Parents Faith, or the Churches, then so let Baptism be imputed by derivation from them also. — For

since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism, (and they them∣selves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter up) such as the Faith is, such must be the Sacrament; for there is no proportion between an Actual Sacrament, and an Imputative Faith. This being in immediate and necessary Order to that, and whatsoever can be said to take off from the necessity of Actual Faith; all that, and much more may be said to excuse from the actual susception of Bap∣tism.

3.

The first of these Devices was that of Luther, and his Scholars, the second of Calvin and his; and yet there is a third Device which the Church of Rome teaches, and that is, That Infants have habitual Faith. But who told them so? How can they prove it? What Revelation, or Reason teaches such a thing? Are they by this habit, so much as dispo∣sed to an actual belief without a new Master? Can an Infant sent into a Mahumetan Province, be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a Man, than if he had not been Baptized? Are there any Acts precedent, concomitant, or consequent to this pretended habit? This strange Invention is absolutely without Art, without Scripture, Reason, or Authority.

[But if there were such a thing as this habitual Faith, then either all Infants have it, or some only: If all, Why do they de∣ny Baptism to the Infants which are born of unbelievers? Must the Child bear the unbelief of the Parents? * 2.82 If some only have it, how know they these from the rest, sith when they come to years, there is found a like barrenness of this Grace, till means be used to beget it? But thirdly, Where doth the Scripture make an habitual Faith, that which entitles any Person to Baptism? Sure∣ly according to these conceits, no Man can ever tell to whom, or when to dispense Baptism.]

But the Men are to be excused, unless there were better grounds. But for all these Stratagems, the Argument now alledged against Infant Baptism, is demonstrable and unanswerable.

To which also this Consideration may be added, That if Baptism be necessary to the Salvation of Infants, upon whom is the Imposition laid? To whom is the Command given? To Parents, or to the Children? Not to the Children, for they are not capable of a Law; not to the Parents, for then God hath put the Salvation of innocent Babes into the power of others, and Infants may then be damn'd for their Parents carelessness, or malice. It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done to them, to whom it cannot be prescribed by a Law, and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably intrusted to others with the appendant necessity; and if it be not necessary, it is certain it is not reasonable, and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed, and therefore it is to be presumed, that it ought to be understood and administred accord∣ing as other Precepts are, with reference to the capacity of the Subject, and the reasonableness of the thing.

For I consider, That the Baptizing of Infants does rush upon such in∣conveniencies, which in other Questions we avoid like Rocks which will appear if we discourse thus.

Either Baptism produces Spiritual Effects, or it produces them not: If it produces not any, why is such contention about it? — But if (as

without all peradventure all the Pedo-Baptists will say) Baptism does a work upon the Soul, producing Spiritual Benefits and Advantages: These Advantages are produced by the external work of the Sacrament alone, or by that as it is helped by the Co-operation and Predispositions of the Suscipient.

If by the external work of the Sacrament alone, how does this differ from the opus operatum of the Papists, save that it is worse? For they say the Sacrament does not produce its effect, but in a suscipient disposed by all requisites and due preparatives of Piety, Faith, and Repentance, though in a subject so disposed, they say, the Sacrament by its own virtue does it: but this opinion says, it does it of it self without the help, or so much as the coexistence of any condition but meer Recep∣tion.

But if the Sacrament does not do its work alone, but per modum reci∣pientis, according to the predispositions of the suscipient; then because Infants can neither hinder it, nor do any thing to further it, it does them no benefit at all. And if any Man runs for succour to that, ex∣ploded 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Infants have Faith, or any other inspired habit of I know not what or how, we desire no more advantage in the World, than that they are constrain'd to an answer without Revelation, against Reason, common Sense, and all Experience in the World.

The Sum of the Argument in short, is this, though under another representment. Either Baptism is a meer Ceremony, or it implys a Duty on our part. If it be a Ceremony only, how does it sanctifie us, or make the Comers thereunto perfect? If it implys a Duty on our part, how then can Children receive it who cannot do Duty at all?

And indeed, This way of Ministration makes Baptism to be wholly an outward Duty, a work of the Law, a Carnal Ordinance, it makes us adhere to the Letter, without regard of the Spirit, to be satisfied with the shadows, to return to Bondage. To relinquish the Mysterious∣ness, the Substance and Spirituality of the Gospel, which Argument is of so much the more consequence, because under the Spiritual Cove∣nant, or the Gospel of Grace; if the Mystery goes not before the Sym∣bol, (which it does when the Symbols are Seals and Consignations of the Grace, as it is said the Sacraments are) yet it always accompanies it, but never follows in order of time; and this is clear in the perpetual Analogy of holy Scripture.

For Baptism is never propounded, mentioned, or enjoyned as a means of Remission of Sins, or of Eternal Life, but something of Duty, Choice, or Sanctity is joyned with it, in order to the production of the end so mentioned: * 2.83 Know ye not, that so many as are Baptized into Christ Jesus, are Baptized into his Death? There is the mystery and the Symbol together, and declared to be perpetually united 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. All of us who were Baptized into one, were Baptized into the other; not on∣ly in the Name of Christ, but into his Death also. But the meaning of this, as it is explained in the following words of St. Paul, makes much for our purpose. For to be Baptized into his Death, signifies, * 2.84 to be buried with him in Baptism; that as Christ rose from the Dead, we also

should walk in newness of Life. That's the full Mystery of Baptism; for being baptized into his Death, or which is all one in the next words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, into the likeness of his Death, cannot go alone; if we be so planted into Christ, we shall be partakers of his Resur∣rection; and that is not here instanced in precise Reward, but in exact Duty, for all this is nothing but crucifixion of the Old Man, a destroying the body of Sin, that we may no longer serve sin.

This indeed is truly to be baptized both in the Symbol and the Myste∣ry; what is less than this is but the Symbol only, a meer Ceremony, an Opus operatum, a dead Letter, an empty Shadow, an Instrument with∣out an Agent to manage, or Force to actuate it.

Plainer yet, Whosoever are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ; have put on the new Man. But to put on the new Man is to be formed in Righteousness, Holiness and Truth. This whole Argument is the very words of St. Paul. The major Proposition is dogmatically determined Gal. 3. 27. The minor in Ephes. 4. 24. The Conclusion then is obvious That they who are not formed anew in Righteousness, Holiness, and Truth; they who remaining in the present incapacities, cannot walk in newness of Life, they have not been baptized into Christ, and then they have but one member of the Distinction used by St. Peter, they have that Baptism which is a putting away the filth of the Flesh,

[if yet an human Institute may be so called] but they have not that Baptism,

which is the Answer of a good Conscience towards God, which is the only Baptism which saveth us, and this is the case of Children. And then the Case is thus:

As Infants by the force of Nature cannot put themselves into a su∣pernatural condition,

(and therefore say the Pedobaptists, they need Baptism to put them into it [as if the bare Ceremony, of which only they are capable, could put them into a supernatural Condition] so if they be baptized

before the use of Reason, or before the work of the Spirit, before the O∣perations of Grace, before they can throw off the Works of darkness; and live in Righteousness and newness of Life, they are never the near∣er; from the pains of Hell they shall be saved by the Mercy of God and their own Innocence, though they die in puris naturalibus. And Baptism will carry them no further: for that Baptism that saves us, is not the only washing with Water, of which only Infants are capable, but the answer of a good Conscience towards God; of which they are not ca∣pable till the use of Reason, till they know to chuse the Good and re∣fuse the Evil.

And from thence I consider anew, That all Vows made by Persons under others Names, Stipulations made by Minors, are not valid, till they by a supervening Act, after they are of sufficient Age, do ratifie the same: Why then may not Infants as well make the Vow de novo, as de novo ratifie that which was made for them ab antiquo, when they come to years of choice? If the Infant's Vow be invalid till the manly con∣firmation, why were it not as good they staid to make it till that time, before which if they do make it, it is to no purpose? This would be considered.

And in conclusion, our way is the surer way. For not to baptize Children till they can give an account of their Faith, is the most pro∣portionable to an Act of Reason and Humanity, and it can have no dan∣ger in it: for to say that Infants may be damn'd for want of Baptism, (a thing which is not in their Power to acquire, they being yet Persons not capable of a Law) is to affirm that of God, which we dare not say of any wise and good Man. Certainly it is very much derogatory to God's Justice, and a plain defiance to the infinite reputation of his Goodness.

And therefore who-ever will pertinaciously persist in this Opinion of the Pedo-Baptists, and practise it accordingly, they pollute the Blood of the Everlasting Testament. They dishonour and make a pageantry of the Sacrament. They ineffectually represent a sepulture into the death of Christ, and please themselves in a sign without effect, mak∣ing Baptism like the Fig-tree full of Leaves, but no Fruit, &c.

Thus far the Anabaptists may argue: and Men have disputed against them with so much weakness and confidence, that they have been en∣couraged in their Error, [alias, in the Truth] more by accidental [alias, real] Advantages we have given them by our weak Arguings, than by any Truth of their Cause, or Excellency of their Wit,

[So the Doctor is pleased to say, but the Evidences of our side speak otherwise]:

But the use I make of it, as to our present Question (saith the Doctor) is this, That since there is no direct impiety in the Opinion, nor any that is ap∣parently consequent to it; and they which with so much probability, do or may pretend to true Perswasion, they are with all means, Christian, fair, and humane, to be redargued or instructed: but if they cannot be perswaded, they must be left to God, who knows every degree of every Man's Understanding, all his weaknesses and strengths, what impress each Argument makes upon his Spirit, and how unresistible every Rea∣son is, and he alone judges his innocency and sincerity. And for the Question, I think there is so much to be pretended [he might say really urged] against that which I believe to be Truth, that there is much more Truth than Evidence on our side,

[a strange saying of so wise a Man! as if the Truth in this case doth not wholly depend upon Evidence, sith its a posi∣tive, and no moral precept];

and therefore we may be confident as for our own Particulars, but not too forward peremtorily to prescribe to others, much less damn, or kill, or to persecute them that only in this particu∣lar disagree.

Thus far Dr. Taylor for our Apology.

To whom to add any more Witnesses (though more might be brought) would be superfluous. I therefore proceed to the next Question, viz.

What is the due Act, or outward Form to be used in this solemn Rite of Holy Baptism?

It may well be the admiration of every wise and good Man, how it should come into the mind of such as pretend to be followers of Christ, That Holy Baptism should be performed by Aspersion, or casting a few Drops of Water upon the Subject, by the Fingers of the Administator. The Scriptures every-where teaching us, That the Original Form was by immersion in Rivers, or Places of much Water, Mark 1. John 3. Christ

himself, who surely would do nothing superfluous or in vain, was bapti∣zed in the River, by John the first Baptist, who had his direction from Heaven, and his approbation from on high in that very action, Mat. 3. and those who were under the immediate Direction of the Holy Spirit, the leader into all. Truth, found it necessary for the Administrator and Sub∣ject to go both into the Water for the due performance of this Holy Or∣dinance. Add thereunto, that the proper signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when used to express the Action done in this Service, is to Dip or Immerge the Party in the Element, as is confessed by the learned Pedo-Baptists themselves, as we shall see in the sequel.

And here we will still prefer the Church of England, who teacheth us, * 2.85 That the outward Sign or Form in Baptism, is Water, wherein the Par∣ty baptized is dipped, &c. And though she add, [or sprinkled with it] yet that her Conscience tells her, that is not the right way, appeareth, in that she only assigns that by indulgence to such Infants as are in dan∣ger of death, &c.

The Church of Rome also confesseth, by a learned Pen, * 2.86 that she changed dipping the Party baptized over the Head and Ears, to a little sprinkling upon the Face.

Erasmus paraphrasing on the words, baptizing them, Mat. 28. saith thus, If they believe that which you teach them, and begin to be repentant of their former Life, &c. then dip them in Water, &c. Walfridus Strabo, de rebus Eccles. 26. tells us, That we must know at the first, Believers were baptized simply in Floods and Fountains.

The learned Grotius tells us, in his Judgment on Infant Baptism, That the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies, to dip over the Head and Ears.

To whom we will joyn Tilenus, whose Testimony is in these words;

* 2.87Baptism is the first Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ, in which, with a most pat and exact Analogy between the Sign and the thing signified, those that are in Covenant, are by the Minister washed in Water. The outward Rite in Baptism is three-fold, Immer∣sion into the Water, abiding under the Water, and resurrection out of the Water. The form of Baptism, to wit, Internal and Essential, is no other than that Analogical Proportion, which the signs keep with the things signified thereby; for as the Properties of the Water, in washing away the Defilements of the Body, do in a most suitable similitude set forth the efficacy of Christ's Blood in blotting out of sins, so dipping into the Water, doth in a most lively similitude set forth the Mortificati∣on of the Old Man, and rising out of the Water the Vivification of the New. — That same plunging into the Water, holds forth to us that hor∣rible gulf of Divine Justice, in which Christ for our sins sake, which he took upon him, was for a while in a manner swallowed up. Abode un∣der the Water how little a while soever, denotes his descent into Hell, even the very deepest degree of lifelesness: Whilst lying in the sealed and guarded Sepulchre, he was accounted as one truly dead. Rising out of the Water, holds out to us a lively similitude of that Conquest which this dead Man got over Death, which he vanquished in his own Den, as it were, that is the Grave. In like manner therefore it is meet, that we

being baptized into his Death, and buried with him, should rise also with him, and so go on in a new Life, Rom. 6. 3, 4. Col. 2. 12.

Thus far Tilenus.

Bishop Jewel in his Defence, Apol. c. 5. p. 308. brings the Council of Worms determining the manner of Baptism, thus: In aquas demersio in In∣fernum est, & rursus ab Aquis emersio Resurrectio est; The dipping into the Water is the going down into Hell, [i. e. the Grave] the coming out from off the Water is the Resurrection.

From all which Testimonies (and many more that might be brought) it is evident, beyond all doubt, (our Opposers being Judges) that whe∣ther we respect the signification of the Word Baptize, or the significati∣on of the Ordinance it self, or the consent of the Primitive Churches in their practice of Holy Baptism, dipping the Subject (or Party baptized) in the Element of Water, is the due form of Baptism: and therefore sprink∣ling or crossing the Face, is an humane innovation. Or,

Upon the whole matter these ten particulars are very apparent.

1. That Infant-Baptism was innovated, after the Holy Scriptures were written, which appeareth both from the deep silence of the Scripture in that case, and the confession of learned Pedo-Baptists themselves.

2. That it came in stealing, (as it were) being for a considerable time left at liberty, (a sign it was not from Heaven) * 2.88 and was disliked by the Ancients, who therefore disswaded from it.

3. That which gave it its great advantage for a more general recepti∣on, was this false Opinion, That without Baptism none could be saved. This saith Mr. Perkins doth St. Augustin every-where affirm.

4. That the Lord's Supper was as eagerly pressed, to be necessary for Infants as Baptism, and they continued in use together about the space of six hundred years. This conceit was confirmed (saith Mr. Perkins) * 2.89 by the Council of Toledo, Can. 11. And Augustin was so earnest for this also, that he boldly says, In vain do we promise Infants Salvation without it, Aug. Ep. 23. & Ep. 107. & cont. Ep. Pelag. l. 1. c. 22. & contra Jul. l. 7. c. 2. l. 3. c. 12.

5. That divers in the Greek Church have all along to this day refused Infant-Baptism. Grotius his words are these, (as Mr. Tombs quotes them) In every Age many of the Greeks unto this day keep the custom of deferring Baptism to little Ones, till they could themselves make a confession of their Faith. And the Armenians are confessed by Heylin, in his Macrocos. p. 575. To defer Baptism to their Children, till they be grown to years of knowledg.

6. Those foolish and sinful Adjuncts, which the Authors and Promo∣ters of Infant-Baptism, were constrained to invent to make it look like Baptism, (for Example, their device of God-Fathers, &c.) do suffici∣ently declare it to be of an infirm and humane Original.

7. The grounds upon which Pedo-Baptism was at first urged, are now in a manner wholly declined, and new grounds daily invented whereon to build it; which are no sooner laid, but razed again by some of its own Favourites.

8. That the stoutest Assertors of Infant-Baptism, have ever met with

as stout Opposers: Thus Augustine met with the Donatists and Pelagius, whose Arguments he could not avoid, but by running a into greater absur∣dity; and though they are blamed (and perhaps justly) for holding some Errors, so also is Augustine, and that not undeservedly.

9. That many of the Learned have much abused this Age, in telling them the Anabaptists (i. e. the Baptized Churches) are of a late Edition, a new Sect, &c. When from their own Writings, the clean contrary is so evident.

Tenthly and lastly; Observe how the Baptism of Repentance for remis∣sion of Sins, which is that one and only Baptism commanded in holy Scrip∣ture, hath been neglected, traduced, and its Assertors frequently abu∣sed; and that chiefly by this device of Pedo-Baptism, which now hath so lost its first Form, that it cannot with any shew of Truth, or good Sense, be called Baptism, and ought therefore to cease with its fellow Errors, viz. The giving the Lord's Supper to Infants, &c. That God may be justified in the submission of all Sinners to the Baptism of Repentance for remission of Sins, Luke 7. 39.

Brief Animadversions upon Dr. Stillingfleet's Digressions about the Baptizing of Infants.

SOlomon the Wise, hath told us, There are many devices in Man's heart.

The truth whereof is verified in the multitude of Devices old and new, which Men have found out to darken the Counsel of God, teach∣ing the sacred Institution of the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of Sins. Nevertheless, the Counsel of God that shall stand, and there∣fore neither shall the devices of Dr. Stillingfleet prevail, nor be found so much as a rational account of the grounds of Infant-Baptism, albeit divers Persons, are perswaded that he hath out-done others, that have undertaken to defend that Innovation.

First, Therefore we shall consider the two Texts, John 3. 5. Acts 2. 38, 39. which he says, according to the interpretation of the Fathers, and the Ancient Church, and the Papists themselves, do evidently assert Infant-Baptism. It were answer sufficient to tell him, That what ever was the interpretation of the Fathers, &c. yet, according to the inter∣pretation of the Protestants, the grounds of whose Religion he pretends to give an account of, these Texts do not hold forth such a necessity of Infant-Baptism, as by some of the Ancients was imagined, seeing the Protestants do not say, as the Papists and some before them, No Bap∣tism, no Salvation; but they more truly teach, that this place is to be understood (even as some of the Fathers also expound it) of such as refuse, or contemn Baptism, and yet saying withal to your confutation, that it is not necessary by Water, John 3. 5. To understand the exter∣nal Rite of Baptism. See Fulk. Answ. to the Rhemists Annot. John 3. So Dr. Willit Synops. Papis.

However, It is evident to them that will not shut their Eyes, that in

John 3. 5. Christ is shewing the Way of Life, and the duties of Rege∣neration to such as came to him for Instruction, and speaks nothing there of the case of Infants, who (as one well observes) cannot over∣come the World, by reason of their natural Incapacity to know either good or evil, and therefore are not obliged to the duties of the new Birth; to wit, Repentance, Faith, and Baptism: For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the World, and this is the Victory that overcometh the World, even our Faith. And hence it is evident, that John 3. 5. cannot be understood of Infants, who are wholly uncapable of the Duties of Regeneration.

And as evident it is, that Acts 2. 38, 39. intends not Infants, seeing the Persons there to be Baptized, even every one of them, are required first to re∣pent, a Duty of which Infants are wholly uncapable; and the Promise there mentioned, is clearly meant of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, or the Spirit of Promise in a special manner, according to the Prophecy of Joel; the extent of which Promise is only to the Called of the Lord, ver. 9. And this interpretation also is avouched by learned Protestants: See Diodate on the Text, and Erasmus on the same. Dr. Jer. Taylor, in his Book of Confirmation, doth fully expound this place of the Promise of the Spi∣rit both to the Parents, and to the Children, as they are the Called of the Lord, and not to Infants in that capacity, Lib. Prophecy. So then, the pretended evidence of Infant-Baptism from this place, is taken away, because this truth is hence very evident, that Calling by the Word of the Gospel-Regeneration by Faith and Repentance, are the true Antecedents to the Baptism of every Sinner.

Secondly, Dr. Stillingfleet states the Question between the Baptists and the Pedo-Baptists, after this manner.

Whether our Blessed Saviour hath by a positive Precept, so determined the subject of Baptism, viz. Adult Persons professing the Faith, that the altera∣tion of the subject in baptizing Infants be not a deviation from, and a perver∣sion of the Institution of Christ in a substantial part of it? Or in short, Whe∣ther our Saviour hath so determined the subject of Baptism, as to exclude Infants? This done, he tells us,

That taking in only the help of Scrip∣ture and Reason, it were no difficult matter to prove directly, that In∣fants are so far from being excluded Baptism by the Institution of Christ, that there are as many Grounds as are necessary to a matter of that na∣ture, to prove that the Baptizing them is suitable to the Institution of Christ, and agreeable to the state of the Church under the Gospel.

So then, Scripture and Reason only must now decide the Controversie: Let us hear therefore what Dr. Stillingfleet brings from thence. And thus he speaks:

If there were any ground to exclude them, it must be either the inca∣pacity of the Subject, or some express Precept and Institution of our Saviour; but neither of them can be supposed to do it.

But I answer, For both these causes Infants are not to be Baptized. And sith their incapacity depends upon the nature of the Institution, these two Reasons are resolved into one. Now the Institution of Baptism, whether we consider it as delivered by God to his Servant John, and by

him to us; or as it is established by Precept from Christ, for a perpetual Ministry in his Church, to the end of the World, we shall find it deli∣vered by both in such sort, as is exclusive of Infants. For, in the first place it is delivered as the baptism of Repentance, for the remission of Sins, Mark 1. 4. and every Sinner who is said to be baptized by him, is said to be baptized confessing their Sins, ver. 5. which we know is not to be expected of Infants.

The Precept of our Saviour for the perpetuity of Baptism, so expres∣ly requires the making every Subject a Disciple in order thereunto, and that by actual Teaching, or Preaching the Gospel to them, Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15. according to Christ's own Example, who so made Disci∣ples before they were baptized, that no Infant with any shew of Scripture or Reason, can possibly be brought within the reach of Baptism according to its Institution. In a word, Dr. Stillingfleet seems, in so many words, to grant in his first state of the Question, that to bring Infants to Baptism, is an alteration of the Subject, and therefore not agreeable to the Insti∣tution of Christ, in which to admit of alterations, is very dangerous.

But saith Dr. S. The rule and measure as to the capacity of Divine Insti∣tutions, must be fetched from the end of them, for this was the ground of the Circumcision of Proselytes under the Law.

Answer. That the ground of the Circumcision of Proselytes was fetch∣ed from the end of the Institution, is not true. And indeed, had it been left to that, Mens various Conceits about the ends of such Institutions, might have made as ill work, as we see yours do now; wherefore the Wisdom of God to prevent those Dangers, gave express Order in that Case, as appears Gen. 17. 13. compared with Exod. 12. 44, 48. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passeover, let all his Males be Circumcised. And ver. 49. One Law shall be to him that is Home-born, and unto the Stranger that sojourneth among you.

Thus we see the Law is as express for the Circumcising Proselytes and their Males, as for Israel themselves. Diodate also expounds the first place by the second (The Servant that is born) meaning (saith he) The Proselyte, who of his own free will, shall add himself to the Church by the pro∣fession of God's true Worship.

But now, if we admit Dr. S. his rule, That the measure as to the ca∣pacity of Divine Institutions, must be fetched from the ends thereof, yet will he be so far from gaining, that he will quite lose his Cause. For, if by the ends of Baptism, he means the things signified in Baptism (as that he does, for he said, They who are capable of the thing signified, ought not to be denied the Sign) then we shall certainly gain one thing out of two, and either of them will serve our turn to shew his mistake, viz. Either Infants are not capable of Baptism, because not capable of all things signified thereby: Or else, that the Protestants do violate their own Rule, in denying Infants some other holy Signs, as general as Baptism, when yet they are capable of some of the things signified thereby; and this shall evidently appear by running the Parallel between us, as to the grounds upon which you deny Infants the priviledg of the Lord's Table, and we deny them Baptism. And first,

1. The things signified by the Lord's Table (as the ends of that In∣stitution) is Christ Crucified for us, and to come again to receive us to himself: Of these Mercies Infants are capable, because they shall be saved by the Death and Coming of the Lord Jesus. Thus they have the thing signified, yet you deny them the Sign, because they understand not the thing represented by the Sign. Answerable to this, we say, By Bap∣tism is signified the Death and Resurrection of Christ, and our Salvation thereby; of this Mercy signified in Baptism Infants are capable, but yet the Sign is not given to them, because they understand not the thing sig∣nified thereby.

2. The ends, or things signified by the Lord's Table on our part, are, the profession of our Faith, the manifestation of our Union with the Church, &c. Of these ends Infants are not capable, therefore you do not admit them to the Lord's Table.

Answerable to this, we say, The things signified in Baptism on our part, are the profession of our Faith, and manifestation of our Union with the Saints, &c. Of these ends Infants are not capable, therefore we admit them not to Baptism.

3. Our coming to the Lord's Table, holds forth Abstinence from the Leavened Bread of Malice and Wickedness, and our Feeding upon the Unleavened Bread of Sincerity and Truth. Of these ends (as they are Duties) Infants are not capable, therefore you admit them not to the Lord's Table.

Answerable to this, we say, Baptism holds forth our death to Sin, and the newness of Life from our Baptism to the end. Of these ends of Bap∣tism Infants are not capable, and therefore we admit them not to Bap∣tism: For the rule and measure as to the capacity of Divine Institutions, is to be fetched from the ends of them.

The same might be said concerning the Imposition of Hands, with prayer for the Spirit of Promise, seeing it was practised by the Apostles upon the newly Baptized indifferently; yet you admit no Infants to this Divine Institution, though you suppose them to be Baptized, although according to Protestant Doctrine, they are capable of the Promise, Acts 2. 38, 39. And the Benediction signified, and obtained thereby, by which your inconsistency with your own Rule is further manifested; and hence I infer (according to your own words) by a parity of reason built on equal grounds, you ought not to baptize Infants, because the rule and measure as to Divine Institutions, or the capacity of the Subjects thereof are to be fetched from the ends thereof.

Not from some ends only (and those too only which we please) as Dr. S. doth unadvisedly teach: For so there would be no Man, or but very few, but might be brought to Baptism, or other Ordinances, seeing they are capable of several things signified therein, as the Death of Christ for the Sins of the World, and his Resurrection by which all shall rise again; and whether they believe it or no, yet he is the Lord that bought them, and a Mediator between God and them, that his Long-suffering might lead them to Repentance.

Wherefore your instance of our Saviour's being baptized without Re∣pentance

avails you nothing, unless you were able to prove a special case to be a general rule for the practice of Ordinances, which yet you can∣not but know is pernicious many ways: nor can you rationally believe that because Christ who was no Sinner, was baptized without Repen∣tance, that therefore you must baptize Sinners without Repentance also; if otherwise, then why may not Persons be admitted to the Lord's Table without Self-examination, seeing Christ did partake of it without Self∣examination, having no need to do so? Certainly, though Christ did this, it shall never be demonstrated that the Members of His Church may do it without Self-examination; and yet thus went the Matter in Old Time, for hundreds of Years together. So true is the Maxim, Admit of one Absurdity, and more will follow.

But to make an end of this, it's evident: Christ in being baptized did his Duty to God, and had He not been baptized, He had not fulfilled all Righteousness. Let it now be shewed, that it is the duty of Infants to be baptized, or that they, or any body else, commit Sin in refusing In∣fant-Baptism, and then we shall stand upon no further capacity on their part, nor oppose this Instance as to the end for which it is brought; but till this be done, we justly reject such Argumentation.

Neither is it true, that what we say of the incapacity of Infants, &c. reflects upon the Wisdom of God in appointing Circumcision for Infants: for God's Command made them fit Subjects for it, together with the na∣ture of the Covenant which He made with Abraham and his, according to the Flesh, which Covenant he also ordained to be in their Flesh by Cir∣cumcision, Gen. 17. 13. Now therefore, when it shall appear that the Covenant of the Gospel, (I mean it, as established by Christ in his Church) is made with any Man and his Seed according to the Flesh, and that God hath required the Gospel-Covenant should be in their Flesh by Baptism: And so every Infant born of them, or Servant bought with Money to be baptized, we should then grant, that to insist on the incapa∣city of Infants, would reflect upon the Wisdom of God; but sith this neither is, nor can be done, all these pretended reflections fall really up∣on Dr. S. for denying Infants the Lord's Supper, because of their inca∣pacity, who yet were admitted to the Passeover, of which they were as uncapable as of the Lord's Table.

What the Doctor says further of the ends of Baptism to represent and ex∣hibit the nature of the Grace of the Gospel, and to confirm the truth of the Covenant on God's part: We have considered before, and to what you here add, saying, It instates the partakers of it in the priviledges of the Church of God. I answer,

That though the Doctor speaks right according to the right Administra∣tion of Baptism, yet according to his way of Infant-baptism it is not so. Seeing we all know, Infants (while such) though Sprinkled, have no more priviledg in your Church, than those who are not Sprinkled. For the Priviledges next following Baptism, is to be taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded, and to continue in Fellowship with the Church in breaking of Bread and Prayer, Acts 2. 42. Mat. 28. 20. Now to tell us that Infants are Instated in these things, and yet

whilst Infants have nothing at all to do with them, is too gross a vanity. For,

If you say, They are instated in these Priviledges upon future Contin∣gences, viz. Repentance, Faith, and Newness of Life, according to the Gospel. I answer, When this comes to pass they are no Infants, nor as Infants partake of these Priviledges, but as those that are now the Sons of God by Faith; and thus truly all Infants are instated in Church Pri∣viledges as soon as born, seeing by the Death of Christ they have a right upon the conditions of the Gospel, when capable to perform them; thus you mislead the World with a specious pretence of instating their Infants in Church-Priviledges, when 'tis only an empty sound of words.

But the Jews Infants, as they were instated in the Priviledges of their Church by Circumcision, so they entred upon the enjoyment of their Priviledges in Infancy, appearing by God's Commandment three times a Year in the Temple, with the Offerings accustomed, and to partake of the Passeover, with the Congregation, or Family where it was eaten.

The Doctor saith, Nothing can seem wanting of the ends of Baptism (in respect of Infants) but that which seems most Ceremonial, which is the per∣sonal Restipulation, which yet may reasonably be supplied by Sponsors, &c.

That there is much wanting beside this Restipulation in your Infant-baptism, is shewed before; and it is unadvisedly said, that the Restipula∣tion of the Person baptized, is the most Ceremonial thing in Baptism, see∣ing it is the Moral and substantial part, being indeed our Covenanting with God, and in truth the External Washing is far more Ceremonial, as appears 1 Pet. 3. 21. And for your saying, That the Personal Restipu∣lation in Baptism, may be reasonably supplied by God-fathers, is very much below the reason of any Christian to affirm. But is it so, That Sponsors may supply the Personal Restipulation, which is the greater? then let them also supply the lesser, to wit, Sprinkling with Water, which they can better perform, than the Covenant they made for the Infant, and then the whole business will appear to have the same reasonableness in every part, viz. Wholly unreasonable.

Thus much touching the capacity of Infants, &c. Next the Doctor tells us, That in the Institution of Baptism, there is neither direct not conse∣quential prohibition of Infants, to be Baptized; and that there is nothing of that nature pretended before the last Commission, Mat. 28. 19. But here is a mistake, and it's strange he never observed that it hath often been de∣monstrated, that as when Circumcision first appeared in the World, it clearly took in the Infants of those to whom it was first given; so, ac∣cordingly it was propagated. But when Baptism first appeared in the World, it as clearly left out the Infants of those to whom it was first mini∣stred, and accordingly was propagated by the holy Apostles: Insomuch, that of the many Thousands, and famous Churches that were Baptized, all the World is not able to shew so much as one Infant to have been bap∣tized in any one of them, nor one word of Precept for so doing; and if this be not so much as a consequential prohibition of Infant-Baptism, I shall never believe that the Doctor, or any else, can shew me so much as a consequential Prohibition of Infants receiving the Lord's Supper, the Imposition of Hands, &c.

And though the Doctor consider never so much what apprehensions the Apostles had, concerning the Church-state of such as were in External Covenant with God, yet he cannot rationally imagine that they should measure the state of the Gospel-Churches by the reason of the Covenant which God made with the Jews and their Seed, according to the Flesh. Seeing it is expresly said, from henceforth, to wit, from the vanishing of the Old Co∣venant, know we no Man after the flesh. — But now, If any Man be in Christ, he is a new Creature. And now Men are not to be accounted of the Church, because they are Abraham's Seed, but they are accounted Abra∣ham's Seed by being in the Church of Christ. Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christ's, then are you Abraham's Seed, and Heirs according to promise.

Neither is it true, That Christ commanded his Apostles to gather whole Nations into Churches, as the Doctor affirms: Neither did the Apostles gather any one whole Nation, or City, into a Church-state, that we read of. Therefore Churches consisting of whole Nations, Men, Women, and Infants, are not Apostolick. But this the Apostles did, They taught many Nations, i. e. Their sound went through many Nations. Not that they taught all manner of Persons in the Nations, for they taught no In∣fants: and the Persons by them gathered into the Church, were only such as received their Doctrine; as appears by those Families where their Go∣spel was received. The Husband sometimes opposite to the Wife, and otherwhiles the Wife to the Husband, Servants and Masters likewise dif∣fering in the same Family about Christianity, 1 Cor. 7. If then the Apostles did not gather whole Families into a Church-state, unless they did wholly believe, Acts 16. how should any Man imagine, they gathered whole Nations? The greatest part whereof, by all experience, are wicked Persons; yea, in those very Nations, which Men pretend to have made into Churches of Christ, of which, would God England were not so full an evidence as it is this Day.

The Doctor grants, that the order of words, Mat. 28. 19. (Teach all Nations, Baptizing them) was necessary for those who were then to be pro∣selyted to Christianity. And we say, They are as necessary for the Gene∣rations following, who have as much need of true Faith and Repentance, or the first Principles of Christianity, in order to their being Christians, as them that went before; and it is a pernitious alteration of the order of Christ's Commission, to out-run its Direction so, as to make Persons to be Christians, before they do, or can know, the least tittle of Christia∣nity.

The case which the Doctor puts, about going to disciple the Indians, baptizing them, is not at all rational. But upon the presupposition, that the Person so doing, to have seen or known them, that gives him his authority to baptize Infants, and then indeed it's rational to suppose such a Person would not understand that the words, Disciple the Indians, Bap∣tizing them, would exclude Infants. But yet I must also say, That his ground to believe so, could not arise from the words themselves, but from the Practice presupposed. Wherefore the Apostles having direction to teach all Nations, baptizing them, without the least knowledg of any Infants baptized, by any Baptists which were before them, or from whom

they received their Authority; here is no place for the Doctor's suppo∣sitions at all.

As little cause hath he to think, that had any one said to Abraham, He that believeth and is circumcised, shall be saved; it ought so to have been interpreted, As that Infants ought to be circumcised. For if this had been all the rule given for Circumcision, it must of necessity have been li∣mited to such as believe only; and unless the Doctor know how from good ground to satisfie his Conscience, that Infants are believers of that which is taught or preached, according to Mark 16. (which place he alludes unto) he must so limit the diversion for baptizing. But if indeed he takes Infants to be such Believers, then he is answered by Dr. Hammond, in his Let. of Resol. p. 296. who saith,

As for the Question, Whether In∣fants have Faith? I profess my self to be none of those who are concerned in it? I freely confess to believe, Faith to be so necessarily founded in Un∣derstanding, that they that have not Understanding, cannot have Faith, whether Actual, or Habitual.

The Conclusion therefore is, sith in the Case you put the word (Be∣lieve) cannot concern Infants, and that they must be deemed capable of Salvation, though they believe not, it is every way safe to think them un∣concern'd in the other Duty, that passage Mark 16. 16. or any other like unto it notwithstanding.

Finally, The Doctor proposes five Considerations about the suitable∣ness of Infant-Baptism, to the Administration of things under the Go∣spel. And first he saith,

1. That if it had been Christ's intention to exclude Infants, there had been far greater reason for an express Prohibition, than for an express Command, if his intention were to admit them, because this was suitable to the general grounds of God's dispensation among them before.

Answer, Here is little said, but what hath been answered before, and may be answered by saying, Had it been Christ's intention that Infants should not be admitted to the Lord's Table, there had been more need of an express Prohibition, &c. than of an express Command, &c. because suitable to God's Dispensations among them before. Thus Argumentum ad hominem.

But I answer further, It is dangerous arguing to our present right to Sacraments, from God's Dispensation among the Jews; seeing the state of the Church, and the Dispensation is so much altered, as that the for∣mer was but carnal, in respect of the Spirituality of the other.

2. The Doctor saith, It is very hard to conceive, that the Apostles thought Infants excluded by Christ, when after Christ's Ascension, they looked upon themselves bound to observe the Jewish Customs, even when they had baptized many thousands.

Answer, It is ill said that the Apostles were bound to observe any such Jewish Customs, because of any suitableness between them and things un∣der the Gospel (which is the Mark you ought to hit, or you say nothing) but the reason why they did observe such Customs for a time, was the weakness of the Jews; and we find the Apostles did as speedily put a period to such Customs as they could, Acts 15. 24, to 32. Acts 16. 4, 5.

which clearly shew Jewish Customs were not suitable to things under the Gospel. And here Circumcision, one of the chief of the Jewish Rites, is clearly abolished among the rest, so that a Man would think Infant-Bap∣tism should never have been built upon it.

3. The Doctor saith, If admission of Infants to Baptism were a meer re∣lique of Judaism, it seems strange that none of the Judaizing Christians should be charged with it; who yet are charged with the observation of other Judai∣cal Rites.

Answer, I find no Man saying that Infant-Baptism was a relique of Ju∣daism, save Dr. Hammond, and some from him. And he indeed, would make Believers Baptism also a Jewish Relique, whilst he teaches, that the Jews baptizing Proselytes and their Children was the Original, and the Baptism of the Christian Church but the Copy. By which device he hath opened a gap to our late Notionists, to deprive the Church of sacred Baptism altogether; and hath done more to weaken the cause of Infant-Baptism than any other of its Favourites, in laying its foundation in Jew∣ish Ceremonies, for which they had no clear command from God. But great is this truth of Believers Baptism, and will stand notwithstanding the injury done by Dr. Hammond. For it was no Jewish Rite, the Bap∣tism of Repentance for the remission of Sins, was from Heaven, Mat. 21. 25. And the Pharisees, who were zealous enough for Jewish Rites, re∣jected holy Baptism, which Christ affirms to be the Counsel of God, Luke 7. 30. and testifies out of the Consciences of his Enemies, that he that teaches otherwise, denies John to be a Prophet. This then is the thing that truly seems strange, that no mention is made of Infant-Baptism, if indeed it was at all received in the Christian Church, either as a Jewish Rite, or otherwise; but not strange at all that none is charged with it, seeing none can be named that held it.

4. Since the Jewish Christians were so much offended (saith the Doctor) at the neglect of Circumcision, Acts 21. Can we in reason think they should quietly bear their Children being wholly thrown out of the Church, as they would have been, if neither admitted by Circumcision or Baptism.

Answer, Since the false Apostles were so earnest to have the Christians circumcise their Children, it's strange that none of the true Apostles could, or would quiet them, by saying, instead of Infant-Circumcision, you have Infant-Baptism, if indeed there had been any such thing pra∣ctised. For, This way went the Apostle Paul to still them, when they would have brought the Believers themselves under Circumcision, Col. 2. 11, 12. Telling the Christians, They were circumcised with the Cir∣cumcision made without Hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the Flesh, by the Circumcision of Christ, buried with him in Baptism, where∣in ye also are risen with him through the Faith, &c. And why might not the Jews as quietly take the non-admission of Infants to Baptism, as they so took the non-admission of them to the Lord's Supper, seeing they were formerly admitted to the Passeover: Nor is it necessary to say, That though they were not admitted to either of these, that therefore they are wholly thrown out of the Church. For,

If by Church be meant the whole number of the Saved, then are In∣fants

of the Church: For Christ hath told us, the Kingdom of God be∣longs to Infants. And thus were Infants of the Church before Circum∣cision was, for some thousands of Years. But if by Church be meant, those only who are concerned in the actual profession of the Gospel, in this respect I grant, Infants are not of the Church; God having no where required this of Infants in his Gospel. Infants are now as well as before the Flood, within the Covenant of the Gospel, in respect of the Grace of Eternal Life, but are not under the Duties of the Covenant; to wit, Repentance, Faith, Baptism, Perseverance, &c.

Nor can my calling the whole number of the Saved, the Church, and thus making Infants a part thereof, offend a Protestant who is acquain∣ted with Protestant Doctrines, seeing Mr. Rogers Cath. Doctrine, pag. 73. upon Art. 19. of the Church of England, doth affirm, There is an invisible Church, and takes all within the compass of this Church who are Elect, Triumphing, or that shall Triumph in Heaven. Dr. Field takes into his definition of the Church, all the Elect, of Men, or Angels, cal∣led, or not called, l. 1. c. 8. So that according to these definitions of the Church, Infants are not thrown out of the Church, though not of the number of the Called, and consequently not that cause for the Jews to complain, nor any other which the Doctor doth imagine; unless they be not acquainted with the extent of the Covenant of God's Grace in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Fifthly, The Doctor lastly tells us, That had it been contrary to Christ's Institution (to baptize Infants) we should not have had such evidence of its early Practice in the Church; and here I acknowledg the use of Apostolical Tradition, to manifest this to us.

Answer, This is altogether unlike a Protestant: What are the Sacra∣ments so darkly laid down in the Scripture, that we know not when, and to whom they belong without Tradition? But when shall we see this Tra∣dition Apostolical? I think Dr. Taylor expresly denies, there is any Tra∣dition Apostolical, Lib. Proph. pag. 117, 120.

But the Doctor cannot but know, that there be Errors which crept in∣to the Church, even in the Apostles Days, which also continued in some of them, notwithstanding all endeavours to purge them; such were Cir∣cumcision, and keeping the Law. Or if we list to reckon with Records of Antiquity, 'tis easie to shew some things held by Papists, and opposed by the Doctor, are better proved by Tradition than Infant-Baptism: For example, The Lent-Fast, and Prayer for the Dead, this is not denied by Mr. Perkins's Demonst. Prob. What then shall be gained to the Prote∣stant Religion by such Traditional Arguments?

It is a notable saying of Irenaeus, (according to Dr. Fulk) When the Hereticks are reproved out of the Scriptures, they fall to accusing the Scrip∣tures, as if all were not well in them, — and that the Truth cannot be found out of them that know not the Tradition. And saith Tertul. (according to Dr. Fulk) Take away those things from the Hereticks, which they hold with Ethnicks, that they may stay their Questions upon Scripture only.

Christianismus Primitivus.

The Fourth TREATISE. THE QUERIST EXAMINED: OR, Fifty Anti-queries seriously propounded to the People called PRESBYTERIANS, &c.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 1. WHether under the Covenant of Works, if Adam had not sinned, Infants should not have been holy to God, and so Members of the Innocent Church or Kingdom of God?

BAPTIST.

Anti-query 1. Whether this be not a groundless and unlearned Query? For seeing the word Church, as used in the Holy Scriptures, signifieth, A People called out, namely, from another People; out of what People should they have been called, had the whole World been in the state of Innocency? And seeing no Man can tell whether any Man should have had Authority committed to him in Matters of Religion, or whether God should immediately have exercised his own Government? Neither yet in what capacity Children should have come into the World, whe∣ther endowed with Knowledg or otherwise: Whether therefore it con∣cern or become any Man, to let his Fancy rove about in such an unknown or unknowable case? And thereupon, 1. Suggest how Infants should be

concern'd, or not concern'd in Matters of Religion? And how can any thing be concluded from such an Imagination, as imitable for us about Infant Church-Membership? And whether we are not like to have a fine Superstructure, when the Foundation is a meer Fancy?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 2. Whether God was any more obliged to order it so, that the Chil∣dren of Righteous Parents should have been born with all the Perfections of their Parents, and enjoyed the same Priviledges, than he was obliged in making the Covenant of Grace, to grant that Infants should be of the same Society with their Parents, and have the Immunities of that Society.

BAPTIST.

Anti-query 2. More obliged: Whether it be not vain to suppose, that God was obliged at all in either of those cases, seeing he is absolutely free to do whatsoever he pleaseth with his own? And what ground have you to believe, that some Infants were more concern'd than others in Matters of Religion, by virtue of any Covenant made with Adam? And what so∣ciety were Infants capable of with Adam, by virtue of any Covenant made with him after his fall? certainly the Scripture is silent as to these Matters.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 3. Whether we have any reason, when the Design of Redemption is the magnifying of Love and Grace, to think that Love and Grace are so much less under the Gospel to the Members of Christ, than under the Law to the Members or Seed of Adam, as that then all the Seed should have partaken of the same Blessings with their Righteous Parents, and now they shall all be turned out of the Society, whereof the Parents are Members?

BAPTIST.

Anti-query 3. Whether you your selves do not lessen the magnifying Love of God in Man's Redemption, whilst in respect of Infants you would restrain it to the Seed of such Parents as are in Covenant with God, yea, to such Infants as partake with them in Practicals of Religion, which you seem to intend by the Blessings you speak of? But who denies any Blessing to Infants under the Gospel, which was their Portion under the Law made with Adam? And how were Infants Members of the Society of the Seed of Adam, more than of the Society of the Baptists? Shew the difference if you can; and then, Eris mihi magnus Apollo.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 4. Whether though our Innocency be lost, Parents be not Parents still, and have not as much interest in Children, and whether God hath re∣versed

this natural Order? And if God change not his Order therein, whe∣ther Parents be not as capable of consenting to Grace for their Children, as they were of being innocent for them?

BAPTIST.

Anti-query 4. Whether there be any that question whether Parents be Parents still, or what need of such Enquiries? Or what do you mean by God's Natural Order? If you mean Natural Religion, then shew us what Infants are bound to in Matters of Religion by Nature; or what this Natural Order ties Parents to do to their Infants, upon the account of Practicals in Religion, which we omit? And whether Parents could be innocent for their Infants, if their Infants were not innocent as well as they? And if not, how should their consenting to Grace be the Child's consent? And whether it will not as well hold retro, that the Pa∣rents consenting to wickedness is the Child's consent? And whether this do not give the Parents the Power to Save or Damn their Infants? And can such Conceits stand with the Wisdom, Justice, or Mercy of God?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 5. Whether Infants be not included in the first Edition of the Cove∣nant of Grace made with Adam? (Gen. 3. 15.) Whether unless it can be proved that Infants are none of the Womans Seed, we must not take that Fundamental Promise to extend to Infants? And was she not thereby obliged to list her self, and all her Infant-Progeny in the Redeemer's Army, against the Proclaimed Enemy, and to teach her Posterity to do the like? And did they not continue visible Members of Christ's Army and Kingdom, till such time as they violated that Fundamental Obligation, and as the Seed of the Ser∣pent fought against Christ and his Kingdom, for Satan and his Kingdom?

BAPTIST.

Anti-query 5. Whether the Baptists do not as clearly assert Infants Right to the Grace of God in the first Edition of the Covenant made with Adam, as any whatsoever? And if by the Seed of the Woman you understand all that are saved, who then questions Infants belonging to that Seed? But where is the Woman bound to List her Infants in the Re∣deemer's Army? Or where shall we find them visible Members of Christ's Army in the first Edition of the Covenant? Are not these meer words without Authority of Scripture? Or where did ever Infants fight for or against the Serpent? and if not, Why do you make them the Seed of the Serpent, and Fighters against the Kingdom of Christ? And if you say, you speak not these things of Infants qua tales; Then whether you have not transferr'd the Question, and so it is impertinent?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 6. Whether in that first Proclamation of Grace to fallen Man, or in the first Promise of Redemption to Sinners, Gen. 3. 15. an Infant of the Woman be not Promised to be General, and Head of the Church? And whe∣ther the Promise of an Infant-Head, doth not declare God's Mind, that he will have Infant-Members, because the Head is the principal Member, &c.

BAPTIST.

Anti-query 6. Whether Christ in his Infancy was not as truly God as Man? And whether there be any Parity between the Infants you speak of, and Christ, seeing he was able even then to vanquish the greatest Ad∣versary?

And if by the Redeemed Church, you mean the whole number of the saved; who doubts but Infants were of the Redeemed Church? But how doth it follow, that all that are to be saved, ought to be admitted to pra∣ctical Ordinances in the Visible Church? Seeing then all Infants, (for ought you know) have the same right, which yet you deny; but why so? are you sure they are not within the verge of Christ's Redemption, and so of the Redeemed Church?

And though Christ was once an Infant, yet where do you find that he was then a Member of the Gospel-Church? Was he not born under the Law? Gal. 4. 4. and born King of the Jews, Mat. 2. 2. and according to the estate of the Jewish Church, an Infant might be both a Member and a Prince; And was not the Kingly Office in Israel a Type of Christ? But what is this to the order and state of the Church under the Gospel? And further, though Christ an Infant was born Head of the Church as aforesaid, yet in his Infant-State, he did not intermeddle with the exer∣cise of the least part of his Authority. And then whether it be not more rational to say, That seeing Christ the Head of the Church did not actu∣ally possess, or at least not use any of that Power, as an Infant, or while he was an Infant, that Infants (supposing they were as truly born Mem∣bers of his Church, as he was born King of the Jews) should be uncon∣cern'd in the actual possession of Ordinances in Infancy?

And what if we grant that Infants may be Disciples by designation, as Christ was King, Priest, and Prophet by designation, (though the Case is not a like easie to prove); yet seeing Christ was not a Prophet (as you confess) in actu exercito, how came you to be so bold to bring Infants to the exercise of Baptism? And why can you not rather content your selves with the designation or dedication of your Infants to God by Pray∣er, and make them Disciples in actu exercito, when they are able? And whether you may not as well repute them thus among Disciples, and as safely conclude them to be in the Covenant of Grace, and of the Re∣deemed Church without Baptism, as without the Lord's Supper? Sith it's said, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of God, and drink his Blood, ye have no life in you; as well as it's said, Except a Man be born again of

Water, &c. he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. And whether Do∣ctor Taylor, a Learned Pedo-Baptist, do not ingenuously confess, That the Wit of Man is not able to shew a difference in these cases?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 7. Why are those two Titles put on those two distinct Generations, (scil. the Posterity of Cain, and the Posterity of Seth) calling one the Sons of God, and the other the Daughters of Men, Gen. 6. 2. But that the one was a Generation separated from the Church from their Birth, (their Progenitors being cast out before them) when the other was the Seed of Saints not cast out? &c.

BAPTIST.

Anti-query 7. Whether this Text, Gen. 6. 2. be not ambiguous, inso∣much that your own Doctors are not agreed about the Exposition thereof? But supposing it to respect the Posterities of Cain and Seth, yet whether it can be meant of Infants, seeing they committed none of these sins, in taking Wives? &c. And whether your Exposition do not damn all In∣fants proceeding from Cain's Posterity; and consequently all the In∣fants of all Nations which profess not the true Religion? And whether such a Censure be rational?

And supposing that the Infants of godly Parents are in some sense more immediately related to the Church, than the Infants of Pagans, by rea∣son of the Prayers and Designation of their Parents, and the opportunities of Education? Yet what makes this for any Infants actual participation of Ordinances in the Church, and what one Ordinance did the Infants of these Sons of God partake of? And sith the Scripture is wholly silent of any such thing, whether this doth not more strongly conclude against In∣fant-Baptism than for it? And whether it be needful to say any thing to the latter part of this Query, seeing we grant all, and something more than this Text will prove, though we deny them actually right to Ordi∣nances? And whether the common or equal overthrow of these Genera∣tions, in respect of the Infants of both, do not evidently shew, That as to the business of their Salvation, they were in the same condition? And then whether it be safe for us to conclude, That the wickedness of any Progenitors have any further effect upon the Infant-Children, than to ex∣pose them to external Calamities, seeing Christ died to redeem them from the condemnation brought upon them by Adam? Rom. 5. 18.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 8. Whether it was not the same Church before, and after Abra∣ham's time, that was called the Tents of Shem? Gen. 9. 27. Was not the Jewish Church denominated the Tents of Shem? And does it not hence appear, that the Church Priviledges of that People, did not begin with or from Abraham, but that they were before? And how was it the same

Church that was of Sem, and of Abraham, if it had not the same sort of Members or Materials? &c.

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 8. Though it be true, that the Church is the same in some sense from the beginning of the World to the end; yet whether it may not truly be said also, not to be the same in divers respects? And whether the Covenant as made with Noah, Gen. 9. do not differ from the Cove∣nant as made with Adam, though both were made with all Mankind, and are affirmed to be the Covenant of Grace by Mr. Baxter. And whether there was not yet a further difference between these and the Covenant as made with Abraham? Gen. 17. the former being made with all Man∣kind, and never yet abrogated, (as saith Mr. Baxter). The other was made with Abraham and his Seed, distinct from the rest of Mankind, but as they should be proselyted thereto. And though the Church may be denominated the Tents of Shem, both before and after Abraham, yet whether this conclude there was to be no alteration of the state of the Church under these times respectively? And whether in any of the Tents of Shem, before Abraham's time, so much as any one Infant can be found admitted to the practical Part of any Ordinance in the Church, which was peculiar to her as such, (for as touching Prayer, it is a moral Duty, and to be made for all Men). And whether thus boldly to suppose a thing without the least shew of proof, be not a plain begging the main thing in question.

And though it be never so true, that the Universal redeemed Church consists of the same Materials in all Ages; yet whether it be not evident that God made a difference, as to the time of dispensing Ordinances to them? As first, no practical Ordinance or Rite dispensed to any Infant that we read of till Abraham's time; and though then Circumcision was ordained for Males, yet not for all the Male Children, for all under eight days of Age were prohibited, (and yet you grant they were in that Covenant) nor any Rite at all for the Females, who yet were of the same Church? And whether under Moses they were not admitted to other Rites also, as the Passover, Sacrifices, and other Holy Peasts of the Jews? We therefore ask you why the Infants of Converted Gentiles are not in as good a condition, without any Rite or Ceremony, as the Infants of all the faithful from Adam to Abraham? And whether those Infants before Abraham were not as happy as the Infants of Abraham? And then doth it not follow, that the Infants of Faithful Gentiles, are as happy without Circumcision, or any other Rite or Ceremony whatso∣ever, as Abraham's was under a Ceremony, seeing God hath not ob∣liged them to any in the Days of the Gospel, or since the Abrogation of the Law and Circumcision?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 9. Whether if we could shew no written Law or Promise at first

constituting the Duty, or granting the Priviledg of Church-Membership, it were the least disparagement to our Cause, as long as we can shew those follow∣ing Laws which presuppose this? If Moses at the end of that 2000 years the Church of God had been without any written Law, found all the Infants of Church-Members in possession of this benefit, what need was there of a new Law about it? Or why should God promise it as a new thing?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 9. Whether if there be any such Law, you would not have shewed us where it is long ere this day? and whether you do not now grant in effect there is no such written Law? And what need you thus to query, seeing we deny no lawful thing to Infants, to be done for them by their Godly Parents, but only oppose your doing that for which you have no Law? And whether Austin himself be not clear for us, that there was no Ordinance or outward Sign belonging unto Infants before the Flood? His words are these; But whether there were of Regeneration be∣fore the Deluge, or until Circumcision was commended to Abraham, the Scripture doth not manifest? Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 15. c. 16. And whe∣ther the Rule, Non Credimus, quia non Legimus, will not here hold good against you?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 10. Whether there being certain proof in Scripture of Infants Church Membership, but none, except that before alledged from Gen. 3. that makes any mention of the beginning of it, but all speaking of it as no new thing; we have not great reason to assign its beginning, which from Gen. 3. is before spoken of?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 10. Why do you say that Gen. 3. 15. makes mention of In∣fants Church-Membership, (otherwise than what we allow)? Is here the least hint of your mode of making Infants Church-Members? that is, Doth this place bid you admit them to any Ordinance? As for the graci∣ous Covenant here made with Adam, do we not grant that it extends to Infants? Yea, we say with Mr. Baxter, It was never abrogated.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 11. Is it not unquestionable, that the Covenant of Grace made to Abraham, the Father of the Faithful, comprehended Infants for Church-Members? And was it not the same with that Gen. 3. 15. But in some things clearlier opened? Were not both these the Covenant of Grace, and free Justification by Faith in the Redeemer? And did not the Covenant made to Abraham and his Seed, comprehend Infants? And should not the same Promise, expressed more concisely, be expounded by the same expressed more fully?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 11. Though it be unquestionable that the Covenant of Grace did extend to Infants, Gen. 3. 15. as well as in Abraham's time, yet there was a vast difference in respect of Ceremonies. And whether the difference between the Baptists and Pedo-Baptists be not chiefly (if not only) about imposing Ceremonies upon Infants? And whether it be not evident, That what Ceremonies the Word of God did ever assign to In∣fants, we allow them, respecting the time of their duration, and only oppose your imposing Ceremonies upon Infants, for which you can as∣sign no Authority in the Holy Scriptures; as is confessed by many Pedo-Baptists. See Mr. Baxter's Cure, p. 7. And how are Infants justified by Faith in the Redeemer, seeing Faith comes by hearing the Word of God, which was never ordained to be preached to Infants?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 12. Whether (though the Hebrews had their Peculiarities) it be at all credible, that the Infants of that one small Country only should be so differently dealt with by God, from all the World else, even Enoch's, Noah's, Shem's, and all from Adam to the end of the World, that these Infants only should be Church-Members, and no others?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 12. Whether this Query (as indeed almost all the rest) do not miss the true state of the case, seeing the Baptists may and do in a good sense acknowledg Infants to be related to the Church, viz. by Redempti∣on, pious Dedication to God, &c. And seeing you grant the Hebrews had their Peculiarities, in what thing could it be but in external Rites and Ceremonies, especially concerning Infants; and shew us, if you can, any one Nation under Heaven, from the beginning of the World to this day, to whom God gave any Law, to bring their Infants to any Rites, either Legal or Evangelical. And sith Circumcision was forcibly put up∣on Infants, we ask whether you be able to prove, that any Persons what∣soever are to be forced to Baptism, which Augustin tells us, Infants do strive against with great crying; from whence he infers they have no Faith; Lib. de Peccat. Remis. c. 28.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 13. What can be more absurd, than to maintain a Transient Fast, (as Mr. T. hath done) making Infants Church-Members, without any Law, Promise, or Covenant Grant of God giving them Right? Whether a Gift that was never given, be not a contradiction? (V. p. 32, 35, 39, 44, 45, 151.) And if there was any such Promise, or Covenant-Grant of Infants Church-Membership, When, or where was it revoked?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 13. Whether these things be truly suggested against Mr. T. and whether you ought not to have set down his Opinion in his own words? And whether he doth not mainly oppose himself against Mr. Bax∣ter's pretended Law for Infant Church-Membership and Baptism, whilst yet he denies not Infants a saving Promise, or the Promise of saving Pro∣priety in God? Anti-pedobap. 3. Part. p. 33. And whether that Book was ever answered by Mr. Baxter, or ever will by any other?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 14. Were it only the Infants of the Hebrews, or of those that were at their absolute dispose, that were Church-Members? Were not the Infants of free Proselytes Church-Members too?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 14. What need of this Query? Who doubts but that as many as became Jews by being proselyted to the Law, were circumcised according to the Law? But where do you find, that any, either Jews or Gentiles, when they were baptized, had any obligation to baptize their Children and Servants also? And then whether the Law and Gospel do not manifestly differ in this case? and whether this be not the great case depending between the Baptist and the Pedo-baptist?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 15. Was it not then the duty of all the Nations round about, that could have information of the Jewish Religion, to engage themselves and their Children to God by Circumcision?

And did not many of the People in Hester's time become Jews, Hest. 8. 17. who yet were not under their Government? And is it not well known, that this was to be circumcised, they and their little Ones, (as the Proselytes were) and so to keep Law of Moses?

And whether the circumcised Servants of Israel, sold away to another Na∣tion, and so separated from the Civil state of Israel, did eo nomine, cease to be Church-Members, though they forsook not God? And so of the Infants, if they were sold in Infancy? And so whether Infants might not be Church-Members, that were not of the Jews Common-Wealth?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 15. Although other Nations had a liberty to become Jews, yet whether they were under such an Obligation, as that they must be∣come Jews, or else not be saved, is worthy consideration? and whether the contrary will not be found true, when the case of Cornelius, Act. 10.

and of the Gentiles, Rom. 2. are duly considered, whereas the one is ac∣cepted as fearing God and working Righteousness, as much as the Jew upon the account of his Jewish Worship? And the other Gentiles ge∣nerally, who did by nature the things contained in the Law, were coun∣ted the Circumcision, so as to Judg the Jew, who only had the Circum∣cision in the Flesh: and not only so, but so as to be accepted of God, as far (at least) as the Righteousness of the Law would avail the Jew? And whether the Infants of these devout Gentiles were not free from any obligation to Circumcision, or any other external Ceremony? And whe∣ther there be not an evident difference between the Law and the Gospel in this, the one being fitted to the Jewish Nation only, so as to be capa∣ble of an orderly observation there only? And the Gospel fitted for the observation of all Nations equally; and consequently all Nations equal∣ly obliged to the full and orderly profession thereof? Also whether the Jews being sold to other Nations, did not only make them Captives, and that they still remained of the Jewish Nation? and then whether this part of the Query be not grounded on a gross mistake; For how are Jews of our Common-Wealth that now live in London?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 16. Were not the Israelites Children Members of the Universal Visible Church, as well as of the Congregation of Israel?

As he that is a Member of the City, is a Member of the Kingdom; and a part of a part, is a part of the whole; so was not every Member of the Jewish Church, also a Member of God's Universal Church?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 16. Whether it be well said to call the Universal Church Visi∣ble, without some term to distinguish what Church you mean, as distinct from the Congregation of Israel? And whether the Universal Church did not contain many thousands such, as Job, Cornelius, &c. who were neither Jews by Nature nor Religion? And whether any Infants might be said to be Members of the Universal Church, who were not Members of the Jewish Church? And if not, how shall they be saved, seeing Christ is only the Saviour of his Body finally?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 17. Was there ever any true Church, or Ecclesiastical Worship∣ping-Society appointed by God in all the World since the Fall, but the Church of Christ? Were not Infants therefore either Members of Christ's Church, or of no Church of God's Institution? Was not Moses Christ's Usher, and Moses's Church and Christ's Church one according to God's Institution?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 17. Whether this Query be not either captious, or else im∣pertinent? For though it should be granted, that the Church of Christ was the same in some sense from the beginning, yet who knows not that the time and way for admission of the Members thereof to external Ce∣remonies, was not always the same? And who doubts but the Church was always of God's Institution? But doth it therefore follow, that the Ordinances Instituted therein, belong to Infants? Might they not have the Passover, as well as Circumcision in the Mosaical Church, and yet have neither the Lord's Supper nor Baptism in the Christian Church? you deny them the one, why may not we as well deny the other?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 18. Whether was Abraham made a Member of the Church by Circumcision, or circumcised because a Member of the Church? The like of Infants born in his House.

And how can the ceasing of Circumcision prove Infants Church-member∣ship ceased, any more than it can prove their Church-membership began with Circumcision; or that Women were not Church-Members, because not cir∣cumcised; or that all Israel was unchurched in the Wilderness, when they were uncircumcised for forty years?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 18. Although Abraham was in the Church of God essentially by Faith, yet whether formally in that Church-state, which God was then about to settle, till circumcised, will not I suppose be hastily affirmed. And how can Infants be said to be in the Church, as Abraham then was, seeing they have no Faith as he had? And whether the Jewish Church-state did not cease de jure, when Circumcision so ceased? And then whe∣ther that state of Infant Church-membership did not also cease? And like as the ceasing of the Passover de jure, was the ceasing of Infants right to any such Ordinance: even so we ask why the ceasing of Circum∣cision de jure, is not as truly the cessation of Infants right to any such Ordinance? Certainly, if God's Word assign any Ordinances in lieu of the former, the place where 'tis written would have been known to this day.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 19. Whether the Blessing of Abraham consists not chiefly in this, That God promised to be a God in Covenant with him, and his Seed? And how are the believing Gentiles blessed with faithful Abraham, and Heirs of the same Promise, if their Infants are not also comprehended in the same Co∣venant?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 19. Whether the Blessing of Abraham (if you understand it of Eternal Life) was not the blessing of the Fathers that went before him? And whether that Blessing did not belong to their Infants? And whether their Infants were Partakers with them in any Rites or Ceremonies of In∣stituted Worship? And if not, then, why may not the Infants of the Gentiles partake of the Blessing of Abraham, though not concern'd in Rites or Ceremonies; or whether you think the Blessing of Abraham is consined to Ceremonies in respect of Infants? If so, shew us what Cere∣monies these were before Abraham? when, or at what Age they were di∣spensed? and what they are now? and at what Age Infants are to be brought to these Ceremonies? and what these Ceremonies are by name?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 20. Whether in that great Promise, Gen. 12. 3. Tribes, Kin∣dreds, Families, do not most certainly comprehend Infants? As it was to such Families that the Promise was made before Christ, as to the Jewish Church? What warrant have we to understand Families or Tribes otherwise, when the same Promise is made to the Gentiles?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 20. Whether you ought not to distinguish in this great Pro∣mise, the things which are Eternal, from the things that were but for a time? And then whether you can imagine, that all the temporal Bles∣sings, Rites and Ceremonies, concern'd any Nation, as it concern'd the Seed of Abraham after the Flesh? But if by this Promise you understand it as the Apostle Paul doth, Gal. 3. 16. then we doubt not but all the Kindreds of the Earth are concern'd in it; and then whether we do not sufficiently comprize the Gentiles therein? But how can Abraham's Rites and Ceremonies be part of this Blessing to the Gentiles, which are abro∣gated long ago? And which now would render Christ unprofitable to us, if we should submit to them? Gal. 5. 2.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 21. Whether the second Commandment, Exod. 20. 5, 6. doth not contain a standing Promise, and discovery of God's Resolution concerning the Children of all that love him, whether Jews or Gentiles, to whom this Com∣mandment belongs? Whether God meaneth not that his Retribution to Pa∣rents that love or hate him, shall extend to their Children as such, unless they interrupt it at Age by their own Acts? and if to their Children qua tales, then whether not to Infants?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 21. Whoever doubted but that Infants are advantaged many ways, in the Blessings which God bestows on them that fear him? And ac∣cordingly greatly disadvantaged by the wickedness of their Parents, even so as to bear their Fathers Iniquities many times, as is evident in the over∣throw of the World, the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, &c. yet whe∣ther the Blessing or Mercy of Eternal Life to Infants, depend upon the Parents love to God? And whether the damnation of Infants depends on the Wickedness of their Parents? And whether the Blessings of the se∣cond Commandment belong only to the Church as such? or whether all Men that follow the Rules of Morality, are not within the reach of these Blessings also? And then how should Infant Church-Membership and Baptism be the Blessings of the second Commandment, seeing this Law concerns all Men as Men, being part of the Moral Law, and is not pro∣per to the Church only? or whether this Query will not make the whole World Church-Members, as well as a part, if they obey but the second Commandment?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 22. Whether any without the Church are secured of God's Mercy by Promise? And whether Mercy be not promised to Children of the Faithful as such? (See Psal. 102. 28. and 103. 17. Prov. 20. 7. Isa. 61. 8, 9. and 65. 23, &c.)

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 22. Whether God hath not said that his Ways are all equal? And whether this do not secure Infants of God's Mercy, though not bap∣tized into the Visible Church? (for otherwise we say Infants are of the Redeemed-Church); when God saith, That the Son shall not bear the Ini∣quity of the Father, and every one shall bear his own Iniquity; whether this be not a Promise of Mercy to Infant-Children, and that in respect of Eternal Life? And whether this Query be not near a kin to that position of the Papists, when they say, Out of the Church there is no Salvation, Restraining that word Church, to Visible or Actual Professors only? And why must these five Quotations be applied to Infants only, sith the things spoken of these Children, Seed, or Off-spring, are mostly such as are exclusive of Infants? nor are Blessings which include Infants, expressed to be their right to Practical Ordinances in the Church of Christ.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 23. Whether these Promises in the making of them were limited to a certain time when they were to cease? Or whether they have been since re∣voked?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 23. Suppose these Promises yet remain, as we doubt not but they do, sith they are not entail'd upon the Jewish Nation, (at least the three first Quotations); How will this avail to the point in hand? Are all the Blessings of God to the Infant Off-spring of those that fear him, &c. bound up in your supposed Church-Membership and Baptism? And whe∣ther the Promises, Isa. 61. 8, 9. & 65. 23. were yet fulfilled to the Jews themselves? and if not, then how to their Infants, or to the Infants of the Gentiles?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 24. If it was on the Jews rejection of Christ, that they were bro∣ken off from being God's People; were those thousands of Jews that believed in Christ so broken off? If not, then whether were not the Children of all believing Jews Church-Members in Infancy? Or otherwise, was it not somewhat else than Unbelief that brake them off?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 24. Whether were those that cried, His Blood be upon us and our Children, thereby rejecting the great Messenger of the Covenant, justly broken off? And whether the renting of the Vail of the Temple, did not shew the Abrogation of the Covenant, and the Legal Ministry? Whe∣ther was Saul broken off when he persecuted the Church, causing many to blaspheme? And how could the Jews lawfully be married to Christ, if Moses was not now removed, without being called an Adulteress? And then whether those thousands of Jews which believed were not first broken off from the Jewish Church (at least de jure) before they could be in∣corporate with the Gospel-Church; and now to plead no longer upon this Issue, We are Abraham's Children, we are free-born? &c. And now also to look upon Circumcision, and whatsoever was gain to them on a legal account, to be loss for Christ? Or is there any other way to be grafted into the Church of Christ but by Faith? Now therefore seeing the Jews were in no better case than the Gentiles, Circumcision being now nothing, even as Uncircumcision was nothing, but a new Crea∣ture? then, whether all the Infants of the Jews now ceased to be Members of any Visible Church, seeing their Parents had de jure lost their Mem∣bership?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 25. Were not the Infants of the Christian Jews, the day before their Conversion, Members of the Jewish Church, and of God's Universal Church, of which the Jews were but a part? and doth it not sound strange∣ly, that such Infants as were the day before Members of the Jewish Church, and of God's Universal Church, should be put out of the Jewish and the whole Visible Church, by the Faith of their Parents, or without unbelief? Either

it was a Mercy to be a Member of the Church, or not; if it was no Mercy, then will it not follow, that the unbelieving Jews lost nothing by being broken off? If it was a Mercy, how did the Christians Children forfeit it?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 25. Whether we have not sufficiently shewed, that the Infants of the Jews were now no Members of the Jewish Church, that being now abrogated, and the Gospel Church-state confirmed by the death of Christ, and the pouring out of the Holy Ghost? neither could two di∣stinct Church-states stand together de jure. And then whether it be not a great mistake for the Querist to suppose the Jews were a part of God's Universal Church, when in truth they were no Church at all? and there∣fore whether the Wonder which he makes about the Jews Infants which believed, be not groundless? And yet whether the Infants of the believing Jews were not in a far better estate, than when their Parents were unbe∣lievers, sith the Curse they then had imprecated, was now removed? Also whether it was not a Mercy, that both Parents and Infants were set free from Circumcision? which what-ever it was before, now ceased to be a Mercy to any Man, because it was an Obligation to the Yoke of Bon∣dage, and rendred Christ unprofitable to such as should now receive it; and consequently a Release from that Church-membership according to the Law, was a great Mercy to Infants, who still retain Membership in the Invisible Church, as they did before Circumcision was in being?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 26. Whether it be credible, that he who came not to cast out Jews, but to bring in Gentiles, breaking down the Partition-wall, and making of two one Church, would have a Church of so different form and constitution, that the Church at Jerusalem should have Infant-Members, and the Church at Rome should have none? That the Jews Infants should be Members, and not Gentiles?

If the Jews were broken off by unbelief, should they not be graffed in again upon their Repentance of Faith? And so should not every repenting believing Jews Infants be Church-Members? Or otherwise how would their graffing in, answer to their breaking off, should they be but in part graffed in?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 26. Whether it be not a great mistake to say, That Christ came to make the Jew and Gentile one Church, otherwise than by taking away the Jewish Church, and making all things new, 2 Cor. 5. 17, &c. And whether this might not be done without setling any of the Practical Ordinances upon Infants as under the Law? If otherwise, why have you not shewed us where Christ hath required Parents to get their Infants bap∣tized? and where he forbad them to be brought to Imposition of Hands, the Table of the Lord? &c. If the denial of the first make our Infants

no Members of the Church, doth not our denial of the other two, which do as generally pertain to Members of the Church, make yours none al∣so? And if the Church at Jerusalem, Rome, &c. had any Infant Mem∣bers therein, in the sense wherein you would have them Members, why do you not name some one Infant so made a Member, sith you know it would suffice?

Whether if the Jews grafting in, must in all Points answer to their breaking off, their Infants must not come to other Ordinances as well as Baptism? Or will you say Infants cannot partake with their Parents of Salvation without Baptism? or whether were the Infants of the Jews ex∣posed to damnation by their Parents unbelief? And if so, what is be∣come of all their Infants ever since? were they broken off as the damned, when their Parents only sinned? God forbid.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 27. Was not Christ's Church Spiritual before his Incarnation (when it took in Infants) and gathered in a spiritual way? Was not the Visi∣ble Frame of the Jewish Church set up and erected by the Father of Spirits? and were not Spiritual Duties commanded then, upon Promises of Spiritual Blessings, even Life Eternal?

How will any prove that it was a blemish to the old Frame, that Infants were Members? What was the Church the worse for Infants Rights? If it be no blemish, why must it be done away?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 27. Though it be true, that Christ's Church was always Spi∣ritual in some measure, and his Services such also; yet whether it be not also true, that the Church under the Law of Moses was Carnal, in respect of the Spirituality of the Church under the Gospel? Does not the Apostle say, 2 Cor. 3. These two Ministrations differ as much as the Let∣ter and Spirit differ; and that the Glory of the one had no Glory in re∣spect of the Glory which excelleth? And is it not then rational, that the Churches concern'd under these Ministrations respectively, should differ accordingly? And though it was no blemish to the Jewish Church, to have Infants Partakers of their Ordinances, which are called Carnal; yet whether it be not a more perfect state, when the Church do all know God, from the least to the greatest of them? And whether this be not the state of the Church under the Gospel, according to God's appointment? Heb. 8. 10, 11, 12, 13. And whether that which is less perfect ought not to vanish away, when that which is more perfect is come? In that he saith a new Covenant, he hath made the first old: Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away, Heb. 8. 13.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 28. In what regard was the new Frame better, supposing the cast∣ing

out of Infants which were in the old? How doth Infants Relation detract from its Spirituality? Do not the Adult come in by the same kind of consent for themselves, as they make for their Infants? And do not the Adult blemish the Church with more carnal Sins than Infants? Would any Kingdom be more excellent, if all Infants were disfranchised? Does not Nature teach all King∣doms on earth, to take them for Members, though but Infant-Members?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 28. Whether it be necessary to say, Infants are cast out of that whereof they were never possessed, to wit, the use of Ordinances in the new Frame of the Church? Or how can Infants be said to be a Spi∣ritual Seed? How are they living Stones, built up a Spiritual House, to offer Spiritual Sacrifices in a Gospel sense? Or how are your Infants a more Spiritual Seed than our Infants? And whether any other are by Christ's Order to partake in Gospel-Ordinances, than such as therein worship God Spiritually? Whether hence it be not clear, that the way of making Infants Church-Members, doth not detract from the spirituality of the new Frame of the Church? Also where hath God required the Adult to consent for their Infant Church-membership in this new Frame? And whether the comparison between an Earthly Kingdom and the Church of Christ be any way fitting, seeing Infants have as much need of the priviledg of Humane Laws, for the preservation of their Lives and Rights, as grown Persons? But how stand they in need of the Laws of the Church (and particularly Baptism) for the preservation of their Souls? And whether this Similitude may not be improved against you, seeing Infants, though Members of Kingdoms, yet are excused from all Duties perso∣nal whatsoever; and then why may they not be reputed of the King∣dom of God, and yet exempt from the Duties of his Kingdom? Or how come they to be concern'd so much in that one Duty of Baptism, and no other whatsoever?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 29. Whether any Jew at Age was a Member of the old Church with∣out professing Faith, (in the Articles then necessary to Salvation) Repentance, and Obedience? And wherein the supposed new Call and Frame doth in this differ from the old, save only that a more full and express Revelation of Christ requireth a more full express Faith? Is it not evident, that they were to pro∣fess consent to God's Covenant; which who so denied Asa, would be put to Death? And was not Circumcision a Covenanting Act? And did they not thereby profess to take God for their God? Or would God else have taken them for his People? And would not renouncing God have cut them off?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 29. What is become now of your Infant Church-membership; if when grown up they cease to be Members upon that account? Were

the Jews Infants twice made Members of their Church? Or is every re∣newing the Covenant, (as in the case of Asa) making Men Members of the Church? But where did the Church ever admit one Member to her Communion by Baptism without Profession? Or where did she ever de∣cree, that those who would not submit to her new Frame should be put to death? And whether in this the new Frame of the Church do not greatly differ from the old? And whether the Gospel-Church be not really new∣framed, 2 Cor. 5. 17. And why then do you call it a supposed new Frame only?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 30. Whether God's Law obligeth not Persons to devote themselves and their Infants to God, by consenting to God's Covenant for themselves and them? Whether it was not the Duty of the Israelites, to engage and devote their Children to God in Covenant? Whether this be not evident from the Pe∣nalty (even to be cut off from his People) annexed for the non-performance? (And whether this be not as much our Duty still?) Does not the Law of Na∣ture bind us to give to every one his own due? and are not Infants God's own due? Does not the Law of Nature bind Parents to give them up to God, by ac∣knowledging his Right, with a free resignation and dedication of the Infant to God as his own?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 30. Where are Christian-Parents required to devote their Chil∣dren by consenting to any Covenant for them (or in their stead) as the Jews were in Matters of Religion? What Penalty hath God imposed on them that devote not their Infants by sprinkling them as you do? And whether we do indeed omit the duty of devoting our Children to God in any thing wherein the Law of God or Nature obligeth us, (abating us only what all Men must be abated?) And who denies Infants to be capable of Infant-Relation, Obligation, or Right; or who opposes their being devoted to God in their capacity? And whether this be not a meer noise of words, as if all that do not as you do, do lay aside their Care and Duty towards Infants? And where is the Institution of your publick Way? Have we not a more certain instituted way to devote them to God by Prayer, and to educate them in his Fear, as they are capable, than you have to cross or sprinkle them?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 31. Whether Anabaptists themselves, all of them that are truly pious, do not virtually (though not actually) devote their Children to God, and consent to their Covenant Relation, while they vehemently plead against it?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 31. Whether you do not greatly wrong your self, and those you call Anabaptists, in saying, They vehemently plead against devoting their Children to God? yea sure, they do it actually as far as God's Word

requires. And can you believe, that there is no way to devote Children to God but in your way? How then did Adam, Enoch, Seth, Noah, &c. devote their Children to God? And it would do well also if you could shew us how they consented to any Covenant for their Infants, more than we do? or prove, if you can, that you your selves do consent to the Covenant of Grace for your Infants, more than we whom you call Ana∣baptists?

Does not Eusebius Pamphilius count Christianity as old as Adam? l. 1. c. 1. And doth not Tertullian say, Enoch justissimum non circumcisum nec Sabbatizantem, &c. Enoch an upright Man was translated by God, though he were not circumcised, neither yet did observe the Sabbath. — Ut Aeter∣nitas candidatis, &c. To the end, that he who did aspire to Eternity might shew us, that we might please God without the burthen of Moses's Law. And what Law (save the Law of Circumcision) did ever require Infants to be brought to Practical Ordinances in the Church of God?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 32. Is it not a desperate undertaking, and dare any adventure on it, to justifie all the World before Christ's Incarnation, except the Jews, from the guilt of not dedicating their Children to God? And do not they that say there is no Law in this case, say there is no Transgression? And dare any in like manner undertake to justifie, at the Bar of God, all the World since Christ's Incarnation from the guilt of Sin, in not dedicating their Children to Christ, and entring them into his Covenant as Members of his Church? Dare any maintain that all the World is sinless in this respect?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 32. Whether this be not a very unwise Query; As if none of the Fathers did dedicate their Infants to God, unless they brought them to some Practical Ordinance in the Church, which is the only thing you do so complain of? And how, I pray you, did Abraham, Isaac, and Ja∣cob dedicate their Female Infants to God, sith we find no practical Ordi∣nance for them in Infancy? or who goes about to justifie the World, if they do not as the Law of God and Nature wills them to do for their In∣fants? And may we not well justifie all Men, for not doing that which the Law of God never required, and also blame you for doing that which God never required at your hands?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 33. Is it not a great Benefit and Priviledg to be a Visible Church-Member of Christ as Head of the Church, and of his Church as Visible? Is it not a benefit in it self (besides the Consequents) to be visibly united and related to Christ and his Body? Is not such a Relation to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and to the Church, an honour? And how great is the misery of a contrary state?

And if Infant Church-membership were no benefit, then how were they that had it (when they came to Age, or their Parents in the mean time) obliged to any thankfulness for it? Will any say, That neither they nor their Parents were obliged to thankfulness upon this account?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 33. What benefit is it to bring Infants to that which God re∣quires not of them? or whether it be any loss to them till God requires it? And seeing you make your Pedo-Rantism all in all, shew us what benefit or priviledge you had when sprinkled, more than the Infants of a pious Baptist? And what is that benefit, that all who are sprinkled by the Papists do receive, which you ratifie for good Baptism? Or how are their Infants Church-members more than ours? And whether our Chil∣dren, when grown up, have not a fairer way to the Purity of Christiani∣ty, in that they are not entangled with such Traditions? How dare you think that you can unite Infants to Christ and his Body, by doing that in his Name, which he never required? And how is that you count all In∣fants in a miserable state that are not sprinkled as yours are? for in no∣thing else can you pretend such advantage, which God knows proves your loss.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 34. Is it not certain that Infants are capable of this Benefit, if God deny it not, but will give it them as well as the Aged? And is it not cer∣tain, that they are actually Members of all the Common Wealths in the World? (non perfecte, sed imperfecte Membra) And does not Nature seem actu∣ally to have taught most People on Earth, to repute their Infants in the same Religious Society with themselves, as well as in the same Civil Society?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 34. That Infants are capable of what God will give them is ve∣ry true; And we therefore ask, whether Infants be not as capable of the Lord's Supper as Baptism, if the Lord will give it them? And as far as God's Will is, that Infants should be related to his Church, we doubt not of their capacity for it. And why is the order of Common-wealths so much insisted on in this case? Are we to fetch our Rules for dispensing Ordinances in the Church, from the Civil Policy of Nations? We desire you still to shew us what the Law of Nature obligeth us to do for our In∣fants, which we do not? Is both the Law of God and Nature broken by all that bring not their Infants to be crossed or sprinkled as you do? Sure you can never make this good. And whether they abuse not the Law of Nature, who say, That it teacheth any Body to repute Infants to be of this or that Religion, seeing it's certain they are ignorant of all Religion. And if bare reputing Infants make them of the same Religion with their Parents, then Infants of Idolaters are Idolaters, which is ab∣surd to imagine.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 35. Whether according to the tenour of the Covenant of Grace, God will not vouchsafe to be their God, and take them for his People, (that are in a natural, or Law-sense) willing to be his People, and take him for their God? And whether the Infants of Believing Parents are not thus wil∣ling? When Infants cannot be actually willing themselves in a natural sense, must not the Reason and Will of another be theirs in Law-sense; that is, if the Parents have the full dispose of them, and are warranted by the Law of Na∣ture to chuse for them, (for their good) till they come to the use of Reason themselves?

Whether in God's acceptance the Child doth not thus truly consent by the believing Parents, and doth not covenant with God, as a Child covenanteth and consenteth reputatively among Men, who by his Parents is made a Party in Contract, as in a Lease for his Life, or the Like?

And so granting the Relation of Church-membership, to be founded in a mutual Contract, Covenant or Consent betwixt God and us, yet must not this consent on our part differ according to the different age and capacity of In∣fants, and the Adult? Were not the Israelites Infants Church-Members, who consented not actually in their own Persons, but virtually, and reputa∣tively?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 35. We still require you to shew where this Law is, that oblig∣eth Christians to will the baptizing of their Infants, and that will war∣rant the baptizing of one Person by virtue of anothers Will? And why may not a reputative Baptism serve as well as a reputative Covenant, sith the Covenant is greater than Baptism? And whether this be an advised Speech, that the Parent hath the whole disposal of his Child in Matters of Religion? And who must judg what is good for his Infant in religi∣ous Matters? Must not God's Word do this? And shew us what Com∣mand we have omitted, in not bringing our Infants to the Font as you do? Or do you think that your instance of a Lease, is sufficient to rectifie Mens Consciences in Matters of this nature? And what if some of the Jews had failed to consent for their Children, were they therefore not in Covenant? Sure it was the Law, not the Parents consent, that regu∣lated these Matters. Neither do we find that the Israelites were bound to repent and believe in the Person of the Child, and accordingly to make profession in his Name, when circumcised, as you do at the Font when you pretend to baptize your Infants, when yet you baptize them not, see∣ing Sprinkling cannot be truly called Baptism? And seeing that in a Law∣sense the Parent may bring his Child with himself into slavery, will it not follow, from your way of reasoning, that a Parent may by an evil Cove∣nant in Religion, bring his Infant into Hell? which is an absurdity that cannot be avoided, but by avoiding your Scriptureless reasonings.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 36. Whether it be not the Duty of Parents, by the Law of Na∣ture, to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their Children? the In∣fant being not sui Juris, but at his Parents dispose in all things that are for his good, have not the Parents power to oblige their Children to any future duty or suffering, that is certainly for their own good? And so may they not enter them into Covenants accordingly? And is it not unnaturally sinful for a Parent to refuse to do such a thing, when it is to the great benefit of his own Child? And doth it not deserve to be called the unthankful Error, that op∣poseth Childrens Rights and Blessings?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 36. Whether this Query be not the same in effect, which we have had again and again? And we would know what offered benefits the Infants of the Pedo-baptists meet with among the Papists, or your selves either, which we receive not, meerly for this cause of not doing to our Infants, as they and you are pleased to do? And whether it were not as reasonable for Parents to be baptized in the Child's stead, as to profess Faith and Repentance for him? And whether it be reasonable for a Parent to oblige his Infant to be of his Opinion and Practice, and to suffer for the same? And what Law of God requires this, and whether this may not be called the unreasonable Error?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 37. Whether it may be thought, or any dare maintain, that the Co∣venant of Grace giveth no conditional Right to any Infant in the World? Are they all excluded? And why? Are they worse than their Parents? If it give any Right to Infants conditionally, as it doth to Parents, must it not be on a condition to be performed by the Parents, or such as are so far entrusted?

Or can this be called a Covenant, for God only to say [I will save all such Infants as I elect] and yet offer Salvation to none of them in the World on any condition, nor give a title to any Person that can be known by themselves or others? Would it not be to confound the Decree of God with his Covenant? And what Right or Hope doth this give to Christians for their Children, more than to Pagans?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 37. Whether it may be thought that God should require the conditions of the Covenant of Grace on them, which he knows can ob∣serve none at all? or whether it be his Will that the Grace of that Cove∣nant should depend upon others observation of the Conditions for them? And whether this be not to put the Salvation of Infants out of his own hand, and into the hand of such as commonly neglect their own? And is not this to expose poor Infants to ruin, whose Parents generally are so

far from keeping, that they are strangers to the Conditions of this Co∣venant?

And where are we taught to doubt the Salvation of the Infants of Pa∣gans? or to conclude ours only are in a state of Salvation?

And is it not much more secure to hope the Salvation of Infants on the ground of Christ's dying for them, and rising again for their Justification, than upon any practical in Religion? And where did God ever since the beginning of the World, give any Ordinance to be necessary to the Sal∣vation of any Infant in the World? Can you believe that the cutting off of the uncircumcised Man-child, was a cutting off from Salvation? how then were all the Infants saved which were born to the Israelites for forty years together, such of them, I mean, as died during that time? And why may not Infants as well be made righteous without any thing done on their part, as they are made sinners without any thing done on their part? Will not the second Adam's Obedience salve the first Adam's Disobedi∣ence? And may not poor Infants better plead in the Day of Judgment what Christ did for them, than what your God-fathers or Pro-parents did for them?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 38. Though all that are saved, are saved by the meritorious Righte∣ousness of Christ by way of free Gift; yet whether the condition be not a suita∣ble acceptance? And why may not a Parent accept a Donation for his Child, who hath no will to accept it for himself? Shall he be certainly shut out unto Damnation? Or shall he have that Gift absolutely, which is conditional to all others? Or is he not concerned in the Donation at all▪ And have not Infants guilt and misery from their Parents? And though Life and Pardon be by Christ only, yet is it not congruous, that the meer condition of Acceptance may be performed by the Parents, while they cannot accept for themselves?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 38. Whether the meritoriousness of Christ is not as available to save Infants, without any Man's acceptance thereof for them? Or whether hath God tied the Salvation of any Person to the acceptance of another? And whether these be not unreasonable and unscriptural Con∣ceits? And whether it be not for want of better grounds for Infant-Bap∣tism, that you thus continually tautologize, varying little from that which you have said once and again?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 39. Whether it be no advantage for Children to be under an early engagement to God, and Jesus Christ? Whether to dedicate them betimes to God, doth not tend to secure God's right and Childrens good, and to prevent their sin and misery; they being thus under a double Obligation, which they may be minded of betimes, and which may hold them more strongly to their Du∣ty, and disadvantage the Tempter that would draw them off from God, &c?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 39. Who is against as early an engagement of Children to God as can lawfully be made? And do not the Baptists engage their Children to God as soon as they can, by Prayer and Supplication whilst Infants; and then by the best education they are able when docible? But whether any thing be done to purpose in your Judgment, (when yet all is done that can be done) unless it be rantized in your way? And whether it be not better to leave the Event of their accepting Baptism, to the wise dispose of God, than to do it per force in Infancy, without Precept from God? Also whether Infant-Baptism be such a means to propagate Reli∣gion as you suppose, may be seen, when you consider how in the darkness of Popery, Pedo-Baptism was more common than now, but Christianity much less? And name one if you can that was bettered in Christian Ver∣tue by Pedo-Baptism? We think we can name one, and that your self, which is worse for it; for had you not that to rest on, you would probably desire to put on Christ in Baptism? Whether it be not the fittest time to be buried with Christ in Baptism, when we are dead with him from the Rudiments of the World, or whether it be reasonable to bury Sinners therein till they be dead to sin? and whether it can profit any Person to be baptized, unless he have the answer of a good Conscience, by the Re∣surrection of Christ from the dead, 1 Pet. 3. therein?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 40. Whether it can be proved, that ever there was one Age or Church (particular) on Earth since Adam, till about 200 years ago, that the Anabaptists rose, wherein Infants de facto were not Members of the Church?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 40. Whether in your sense of making Infants Members of the Church de facto, it can be proved there was any one so made a Member from the beginning of the World till Abraham's time? and whether John Baptist, Christ, or any by his order, did receive Infants into the Church de facto?

And whether the Baptists do not better prove the Antiquity of their Faith and Practice in Baptism, than any Pedo-Baptist in the World? and doth not your Conscience tell you, that the Baptism of Men and Women, upon professing of Faith and Repentance, is beyond the reach of con∣tradiction? whilst Mr. Baxter himself confesseth Infant-Baptism to be so difficult, that many of its Assertors, both Protestants and Papists, are forced to confess it cannot be proved by the Scriptures? See his Cure, p. 7. And seeing you and we are generally agreed, that our way both for Sub∣ject and manner is out of dispute, clear in the Scriptures; and you con∣fess by the Pen of Mr. Baxter, that yours is very difficult; Is it not reason the difficult Way should give place to the clear and evident Way?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 41. Whether it can be proved, that ever there was any one Infant of true Church-Members, that was not rightfully a Church-Member himself from the Creation till Christ's days? Or from the Creation till this day; ex∣cept the Anabaptists, who reject the benefit, whose case we will not presume to determine?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 41. Whether this Query be not the same we had before? And whether what is said to it, may not also suffice to this?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 42. Seeing that Infants have been de facto Church-Members from the Creation to this day, (as far as any Records can lead us); Is it likely that the Lord, and Head, and all-sufficient Governour of his Church, would have permitted his Church till now, to be actually made up of such Subjects, as in regard of Age be disallowed, and suffered his Church to be wrong framed till now? Or is it a reasonable, modest, and lawful Undertaking, to go about now in the end of the World to make God a new-fram'd Church, as to the Age of the Subjects? And is it not more modest and safe to live quietly in a Church of that frame, as all the Saints of Heaven lived in, till the other day, as a few Anabaptists did attempt an Alteration?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 42. Whether it be not utterly untrue, that Infants were Mem∣bers of the Church de facto, i. e. to be brought to partake of Ordinan∣ces Practical in the Church, save only from Abraham to the end of the Law? And whether all the Pedo-Baptists in the World have not hitherto been unable to shew any one instance before. Abraham, or since the Law was abrogated, so much as one Infant admitted to any such Ordinance in the Church of God, according to what the Scriptures afford in this case? And whether it be not as modest in us to labour to restore Baptism to its pure use in the Church, both in respect of the Subject and Manner of administration thereof, as it was for the Protestants to do the like in re∣spect of the Lord's Supper? Also whether your pretending the Authori∣ty of the Universal Church, be not the same figment with which the Pa∣pists deceived themselves and others? And how can you pretend the Universal Church, when the Primitive Church is on our side?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 43. Whether considering Christ's own Infant-membership, and his kind reception of Infants, and his chiding those that would have kept them off, and his offers of taking in all the Jewish Nation, (Mat. 23. 37.) and that they

were broken off by unbelief, and consequently the Seed of Believers broken off from the Church Universal, and that whole Housholds are oft said to be bapti∣zed; and that Paul pronounceth Believers Children Holy, and that Christ (Mat. 28.) commandeth his Ministers, as much as in them lieth, to disciple all Nations, baptizing them? &c.

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 43. Whether Christ's Infant-Church-membership did not per∣tain to the Jewish Church only? Gal. 4. 4. born under the Law only, &c. And whether he was not about thirty years when he entred into our Pro∣fession? Heb. 3. 3. The Apostle and High-Priest of our Profession Jesus Christ; See Luke 3. And then whether his Example be not flat against you?

Also whether Christ's only praying for Infants, and not baptizing them though brought to him, neither ordering any other to do it that we read of, do not shew us that Infants may be under the Blessings of Christ with∣out Baptism? And whether you may not tremble to presume to do more than he did, or appointed to be done? Are you wiser than he?

Also whether it lies within the power of any Minister to disciple an Infant; or shew us one Infant with you, or any Pedo-Baptist ever made a Disciple? Or be pleased to come and make my Infants Disciples if you can, and I promise you I will assist you what I can in the baptizing them? and not only so, but do my best to employ you elsewhere, I speak it seriou∣sly. And whether this would not do more to decide the Controversie, than all the Books that are written by any of you? And if you cannot do this, how will Mat. 28. 19. warrant you to baptize Infants, sith it's plain that discipling goes before baptizing? And how Disciples are to be made, we think it best to learn of Jesus, John 4. 3. How think you? Do you in∣deed believe, that any Persons being of a Nation, entitles them to Bap∣tism? Why then who is not a fit Subject, seeing all Infants and Men too are of one Nation or another? And if there be other Qualifications ne∣cessary, whether to be taught be not one of the chief of them? and why do you say we take Infants away from Christ's Church, because we baptize them not; are they in it before baptized? If so, how do we take them away?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 44. In summ; Whether, 1. God would not have Parents devote their Children to him, and enter them according to their capacity in his Cove∣nant? 2. Whether also he doth not accept into his Covenant all that are faithfully thus devoted to him, and be not peculiarly their God, that such Children are Holy? 3. Whether they are not as certainly Members (ac∣cording to an Infant capacity) of the Visible Church, as they are of all King∣doms under Heaven? 4. Whether there be not far more hope of their Sal∣vation, than of those without? 5. Whether the Covenant doth not make their Salvation certain, if they so die? 6. Whether the Investiture and Solemnization of their Covenant with Christ should not be made in Infan∣cy? &c.

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 44. In summ, 1. Whether we do not as much to our Infants, (in our capacity) as Christ did to the Infants which were brought to him? and will not that satisfie, unless we go from him to follow you? And as to the business of the Covenant, let us hear what Mr. Baxter saith, More Reas. p. 86. All Mankind is brought by Christ under a Covenant of Grace, which is not vain nor repealed by God, but as their abuse of the Grace of the Covenant may cast them out; for as a Covenant of entire Nature was made with all Mankind in Innocent Adam, so a Covenant of Grace was made with all Mankind in lapsed Adam, Gen. 3. 15. in the promised Seed; and re∣newed again with all Mankind in Noah, &c. And now we ask, Whether our Infants, according to this account of the Covenant of Grace, be not in it without Baptism, sith they have not abused the Grace of the Cove∣nant? And whether Baptism be not far more proper, when after they have corrupted themselves by sin, they come to Humiliation, and so to enter into this Covenant upon the terms of the Gospel?

Whether your Exposition of the Universal Church, upon Mat. 28. 19. do take in the Practice of the Apostles in pursuance of that Commission in the Acts of the Apostles, and the Exposition of the Baptists? And if not, then you either deny us to be of the Universal Church, or else you have not the Exposition of the Church Universal?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 45. How inconsiderable a part of the Universal Church do the Anabaptists hold communion with? And do they not unchurch almost all the Churches on Earth? (may we not think, that they rob Christ of more than nine parts of ten of his Kingdom, or Church Universal? V. p. 305.)

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 25. Whether upon Luther's revolt from the Pope, you were not upbraided with holding communion with an inconsiderable part of the Universal Church? Why do you take up the Papists Weapons? Did not that pious Man that succoured Athanasius in the time of the Arrian Persecution, answer the Objection well, when he said, The cause of Truth is not therefore impaired, because I am alone; — Glory not therefore in Mul∣titudes, for it is not the Multitude but the Cause that justifieth or condemn∣eth? Also whether we may not conclude, That many are of the Univer∣sal Church, that do not communicate with us or your selves? and yet whether your separation from many Pedo-Baptists will not justifie our se∣paration from you more clearly?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 46. Whether they can possibly hope, that ever the Church on Earth

will unite upon their terms, of rejecting all their Infants from the Visible Church, and renouncing all our Infant-Rights and Benefits conferred by the Baptismal Covenant of Grace?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 46. Whether this be not in effect to say, What will these feeble Jews do? And why may we not hope that this great Mistake of yours may vanish, as well as that great Mistake of Austin, and the generality of Men professing Christianity, who brought Infants also to the Lord's Table, and that for many hundreds of years together, and defended it by as plausible Reasons as any you have for baptizing them? Could God reform so great and general an Error, forced on by Learning and Autho∣rity of eminent Men; And shall we think this thing only too hard for God? Our small number shall not make us doubt, for we know God doth great things by small means. And what Baptismal Grace do we de∣sire you to renounce, when we only desire you to mend an Error? Did the twelve Disciples, Acts 19. renounce any Baptismal Grace, when (according to the Interpretation of the Ancients) they were baptized again? Surely Reformation is no Error?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 47. And whether if they continue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Worlds end to separate from almost all the Churches, and unchurch them, their Employment will not be still to serve the great Enemy of Love and Concord, against the Lord of Love and Peace, and against the Prosperity of Faith and Godliness, and against the welfare of the Church and Souls, and to the scandal and hardning of the un∣godly?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 47. Whether the separation is not justly chargeable upon those which cause Divisions and Offences, by asserting and maintaining such Errors, as being admitted, the Way of God must be corrupted, or laid aside? And whether these are not the Men, that (at least unawares) serve the design of the great Enemy, and whether you are not guilty of the Fault wherewith you would charge us?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 48. Whether too many well-meaning, but weak Christians, are not disaffected to lawful and warrantable things in the Worship of God, meerly be∣cause they see such as are ungodly use and own them? And whether if God should but let us have a King and other Rulers, that were against Infant-Baptism, and singing of Psalms, &c. and would make Laws for their own way, and impose it on others, so that the ungodly Multitude should fall in with them, it would not presently cure many that are now for such Opinions?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 48. Whether many, but weak Christians, would hold to the Er∣rot of Infant-sprinkling, but meerly because J. B. and Mr. Baxter, &c. do so? And whether this be not as much weakness of the one hand, as the case put by you on the other? and whether both ought not to be amen∣ded? And whether the latter part of this Query doth not shew, that to fol∣low the greatest number, is not always the best way? And why then would you discourage us by our paucity, or small number? And whether such Considerations might not have discouraged the Apostles, seeing they were to alter the state of Religion in the Jewish Church, yea, throughout the whole World?

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 49. Whether Mr. Baxter in the second and third part of that his second Defence of our Infants Rights, have not sufficiently detected the great and notorious untruths in Fact and History, wherewith Mr. H. D. Treatise of Baptism, and reply to Mr. Wills, is fully stuffed?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 49. Whether Mr. D. and Mr. Tombs have not sufficiently de∣tected Mr. Baxter's Mistakes in many of his Works about Infant-Bap∣tism, and particularly in Mr. Tombs his Felo de se? Also whether Mr. Wills's Exceptions against Mr. D. are not well answered by Mr. D. in his Two-fold Defence of his Treatise of Baptism? And whether Mr. Baxter did ever yet, or ever will accept of Mr. Tombs his serious Challenge lately made in these words:

I challeng him to set down distinctly his Theses, concerning the Grace he means, the Covenant of Grace, what and whose it is, how it is Baptismal, what are the Rights and Benefits conferred to Infants by it, using words in their proper Sense and genuine Notions; and then without Questions, Ex∣clamations, Flirts, Suppositions improved, set down his Scriptures, and form his Arguments substantially — and then I doubt not but learned and accurate Disputants will see his folly, &c. Postscript to Mr. D. second Reply, p. 267.

PRESBYTERIAN.

Query 50. Whether the Anabaptists Schism, or Separation from Com∣munion with our Churches, be not worse yet than their simple Opinion? And whether it be not desirable, and possible, that some may be sound out, and Terms laid down, in which good and sober Men on both sides would agree and hold Communion?

BAPTIST.

Antiq. 50. Whether the Papists may not on fairer grounds Query thus with the Protestant, than you can do with us, especially when the Cause you manage against us is so doubtful in the Judgment of its best Friends, as we shewed in our Preface; And here we shall further add what Mr. T. notes in his first Reply, p. 126. Mr. Chillingworth (saith he) in his Answer to Knot's Charity Maintain'd, Part. 1. c. 3. Sect. 44. p. 152. saith, The Doctrine of Infant-Baptism is of that sort, of which the Scrip∣ture is silent. And the Oxford Divines, in their Reasons of the present Judgment of the University, &c. June 1. 1674. do (Sect. 4. p. 9.) say, That without the Consent, Judgment and Practice of the Universal Church, (which they distinguish from the Scriptures) they should be at a loss when they are called upon for proof of the Baptizing Infants. Now this consi∣dered with what Dr. Taylor saith, Dissuasive from Popery, p. 118. That it is certain, there is no universal or prime Tradition for baptizing Infants. Then whether you may not more securely forbear baptizing your Infants, till endowed with Knowledg and Faith, than to do it without? And in the mean time retain your Opinion about their being in the Covenant of Grace, and let Christ's Ministers or your selves pray for them after the Ex∣ample of Christ. And whether this might not be a more likely way for a lasting Peace between the Baptists and the Pedo-baptists, and more conso∣nant to the Scriptures, than the way propounded by you?

And seeing it hath come into your hearts to make some Overtures for Peace, we desire you would prosecute that needful Work. And whe∣ther it may not better be done by personal Conference in a friendly and Christian manner, than by writing Books one to another? And whether the Baptists have not offered this, and been rejected by you in such their tenders of friendship?

May these Queries and Anti-queries have an effectual tendency to the increase of Love and Christian-friendship; and if not, whether it had not been better they had been unwritten?

Christianismus Primitivus.

The Fifth TREATISE. THE FOURTH PRINCIPLE OF Christ's Doctrine VINDICATED.

HOw hard a thing it is to bring those sacred Truths of the Gospel, to their due use and estimation in the Church, which have been abused by the corruption of the Ages past, those cannot be ignorant, whose Lot it hath been to labour in that glorious undertaking, which yet is more particularly made manifest at this time, by a late Book in∣tituled, A Treatise of Laying on of Hands. Wherein the Churches adhering to that Principle, are not only represented to the World as founded in Sin, Schism, Error, and Ignorance, by the Author. But the Principle it self also rendred Erronious, * 2.90 and presented to the World with such a robe of Folly put upon it by the vanity of Men in many Ages past, as may expose it to the Mockage of the Ignorant, who know not how to distinguish between Truth, and Mens sinful Adjuncts, wherewith it hath been incumbred; any more than the Souldiers who cloathed Christ in a Purple Robe, and when they had done, derided him. By which kind of dealing, it were easie for the Adversaries of other Truths, as Baptism, and the Table of the Lord, to disgrace them to the World, sith they also have been as much attended with Chrisms, Crossings, Creamings, Exor∣cisms, Exsufflations, Sponsors, Spittings, Saltings, and Superstitions, or Ido∣latrous

Adoratious, as this despised truth of Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, for the promised Spirit. All which sacred (and in their places precious) Truths shall yet be more fully restored to their Integrity and Estimation in the Churches of Christ, maugre opposition.

His Book consists of two General Parts, the first Historical, shewing the Opinion of other Men concerning the Laying on of Hands. The second Polemical, shewing his own Opinion in opposition to most Men in sundry important Particulars.

1. From the Historical part, with the Title Page, there is somewhat gain'd for the Truth, which he would destroy; whilst he tells us, An Ac∣count is given both from Scripture and Antiquity, how it hath been practised in all Ages since Christ. And beginning with the Scripture, he plainly sets down the use of that Service by the Apostles in several places, only he minceth the matter in respect of the end for which they observed it, as hereafter is shewed.

2. He proceeds to other Authorities, about whom he deals not so fair as might be wished▪ and likewise he seems too bold. 1. Not fair: Be∣cause he begins with a spurious Author, who would besmear the Truth in question, with Unction, or Chrism, in the first Age; and chiefly he in∣sists upon such Authors, and such passages in those Authors, who ex∣press something of their own, or others Vanities, in conjunction of Pray∣er, and Laying on of Hands, thereby designing (I fear) to make the thing in question, the less acceptable to the Reader. And having done thus, he labours to impeach the Imposition of Hands, (as now contended for) as if Antiquity were not on our side in this Controversie. For the first Testimony of any Credit (in his own Judgment) which is brought by him, is that of Calixtus, (alias Calistus) and having made him the Author of Confirmation, (which indeed he was not) he puts the Mark of Pope upon him, to make the cause he opposes still the more hateful: Whereas, though he were Bishop of the Roman Church about the Year 221, * 2.91 yet it is certain, the Popedom (as now commonly understood) had then no being in that Church. True it is, Calistus had his Mistakes, or Errors, as well as other Fathers, and yet some, whom the Author mentions with greater Estimation, had as great (or greater) Mistakes than he. However, all that can fairly be said in this case against Cali∣stus, is, that he helped forward the use of Oyl in the service of Prayer, with the Imposition of Hands; but Laying on of Hands, (called by some Confirmation) was in use in the Churches long before, as now I shall shew.

For sith we have Scriptures, Acts 8. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Acts 19. 6. 2 Tim. 1. 6. Heb. 6. 2. most clearly shewing the practice of Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, for the Promised Spirit, (we shall more fully demonstrate in our second Part) we shall not need to produce any other Witness for that Age; and for the second, we have better evidence than Dynis, or Justin Martyr's Responses. For Tertullian (whom this Author tells us he had quoted, pag. 26. but strangely mistakes himself, having not mentioned him, nor any Sentence out of him) is our Witness for the second Century, in which he lived and flourished in the Year 202, in the profession of Christianity, under Severus, and Antonius, and wrote

an Apology about that time for the Christians, and therefore must needs be able to give an account of the usage of the Church in the second Cen∣tury, his words are these: * 2.92 When we are come out of the Laver, [meaning Baptism] afterward the Hand is laid on by Blessing, [meaning by Prayer] calling upon, and inviting the Holy Ghost. And again, * 2.93 Like as in Baptism the Flesh is washed, that the Soul may be made clean; so in Laying on of Resurrect. Hands the flesh is over-shadowed, that the Soul may be illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

Moreover, We find in Eusebius expresly, * 2.94 Prayer, and Laying on of Hands on Persons to be united to the Church, called, The ANTIENT MANNER, and this was about the middle of this Century, or Age, wherein Turtullian lived, being in the days of Stephen, Bishop of the Ro∣man Church, Anno. 256. and here is not the least mention of Chrysm, * 2.95 or any vain Ceremony. Sith then that this Service is said to be Ancient at that time, it may well refer to the Apostolical Century, being but about 150 Years upward; however, it's full evidence for the Practice in the second Century, which is sufficient for our present purpose.

These Witnesses may also serve for the third Century, living (as be∣fore) both in the second and third, to whom we may add Urban, Bishop of the Roman Church, whose words as cited by the Author, are very harmless words (abating the term Sacrament, &c.) which be these: That the Sacrament of Confirmation be immediately given after Baptism, and that all the F•…•…ful are to wait for the Spirit, by the Imposition of the B. Hands.

* 2.96 Cyprian also, who flourished about the middle of the 3d Cent. gives Te∣stimony to the Practice now contended for, saying, It is to little purpose to lay Hands on them [that returned from Heresie] unless they receive also the Baptism of the Church, for then at the length they may be sanctified perfect∣ly, &c.

For the fourth Century, though enough is done by this Author, to shew they were for Prayer, with Imposition of Hands after Baptism, for the Spirit of Promise; yet sith their Witness may be more clearly set down, I will add somewhat in that behalf.

And how ever Melchiades is * 2.97 Popisied, yet his Doctrine is not so dangerous as pretended: For when he saith, Baptism, and Imposition of Hands, are to be joyned together, he is very consonant to the Apostles Practice, Acts 8. and to their Writings, Heb. 6. 2. And when he saith, The one is not to be done without the other, his meaning may be honest. As if a Man should say, You ought not to observe one Ordinance alone, but keep them all. And his saying, The one is not perfect alone: If he mean, that the perfection of one Ordinance is not such, but that we have need of the rest, all is well enough still; but if he mean Baptism, as such is not perfect without the other, then for my part I think otherwise. But sup∣posing him mistaken in some things touching this Matter, yet sure his Er∣rors were as tollerable as theirs, that would destroy the thing altogether.

* 2.98 Jerome (who flourished Anno 390, under Valentinian junior, does not only say, That it is the Custom of the Church, that upon the Baptized Hands should be imposed: But he also saith, It's an observation Apostolical, (which he might well say, Acts 8. Acts 19. 2. 2 Tim. 1. 6.) And plainly saith, It is found in the Acts of the Apostles.

* 2.99 Augustine, who lived 395, in the Reign of Theodosius, informs us, That Hands were laid upon Hereticks (returning to the Church) for the uniting of Charity, which is the greatest Gift of the Holy Ghost. Which well agrees with the Author, who brings him in, saying, Imposition of Hands after Baptism was necessary for the Gifts of the Spirit.

Thus much for the Fathers. We shall now observe briesly, what Mr. D. hath brought out of the Councils, touching the point in Controversie.

* 2.100 And first, I observe, He fronts his List of them, with the Council of Laodicea, Anno 315, rather than with the Council of Eliberius, which bears Date (even from his own Pen) five Years before the other; the Reason is manifest. For though the first set down speaks not a word of Imposition of Hands, or Confirmation, yet it mentions Chrism; and the other speaks plainly of Imposition of Hands, but mentions not Chrism. Therefore that the Reader might more stumble at the Truth in hand, he hath occasion given to do so by the strange Phrases of the Council of Lao∣dicea; and yet this Author pretends to take up the stumbling-blocks out of the way of God's People.

Well, for matter of Fact: However these Councils may witness for the Imposition of Hands (at least that of Eliberius) in the 3d and 4th Centuries, they living the greatest part of their Time (probably) in the third. That we have much elder Evidence than this, may, I conceive, be fairly collected (yet I will speak under Correction) from the 72 Epi∣stle of Cyprian, written to Stephen, Bishop of the Roman Church, * 2.101 about 50 Years before the Council of Eliberius; in which one Reason rendred, why the Council of Carthage before that time had concluded for the Baptizing of returning Hereticks, is grounded upon the unprofitableness of Imposition of Hands without it; which shews that both this Council and Cyprian approved thereof. Now add that forecited out of Eusebius, * 2.102 That in the Days of this writing between Cyprian and Stephen, Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, was called the Ancient Manner, &c. Then we infer, that here were Fathers in this Council with Cyprian, who were sufficient evidence for the Practice contended for, for the second Century. For if there were any at that Council aged 70, or 80 Years, they then had lived so much of their time in the second Century, as to be able to attest of their own knowledg the Practice now called Ancient. And for the first Century, the Scripture is our Canon. So then, we have sufficient evidence from Scripture, and good Antiquity, that this Truth began to be practised in the Apostles Days, and continued in the Chur∣ches for four hundred Years together; (not without Corruption creep∣ing into it, I grant, and alas! that was the case of most Truths, as well as of that.)

It were needless to proceed to the following Ages, from which more plenty of Testimonies may be produced, the Church encreasing, and

Records being more carefully preserved, than they could be in the first Ages, yet here I will add that notable Testimony of the Council of Mentz, or Moguntine, who saith: † 2.103 In the begin∣ning, the Sacrament of Confirmation was exhibited only by the Imposition of Hands, the Holy Ghost ap∣pearing by evident Signs, there was no need of out∣ward Anointing. The same is testified, Intervil. chap. 16. The Sacrament of Confirmation was celebra∣ted in the beginning only with the Laying on of Hands. And saith Alex. de Hales, The Apostles confirmed with the only Imposition of Hands, without any certain form of Words, or outward Element. Thus the purity of Truth in this, as in other Cases, is evidenced even by those that have not kept it in the Purity thereof. Now whereas I said, this Author was too bold, &c. my meaning is in this, That he so confidently tells us, the Greek Church did reject Imposition of Hands, &c. and that the Waldenses did the like; for such Negatives are hard to be demonstrated. For what if some, or many of them did reject it, yet if many, or some of them did receive it, what then is become of this Negation? That they did reject (or at least many of them) the Popish Sacrament of Confirmation, in respect of divers usages therein, I can readily believe, but that they did reject Prayer, with the Laying on of Hands for the Promised Spirit, I see no good reason to believe: Partly, for that we have an account from a great Antiquary of the form of Words, and of the Prayer used by the Greek Church, in their Imposition of Hands, translated out of the Greek Euchologian: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Thou, O Lord, the most Compassionate and Great King of all, graciously im∣part to this Person, the Gift of thy Holy, Almighty, and Adorable Spirit.* 2.104 Partly, for that some of the Gre∣cian Bishops are certainly found to approve of Prayer, with Laying on of Hands; as Eusebius for example: Who not only Records it (as I shewed before) for the Ancient Manner of the Church, but also reckons it amongst the Errors of Novatus, for that he slight∣ed the Imposition of Hands, for the obtaining the Holy Spirit, lib. 6. chap. 42. From whose neglect, it's like his Followers (whom this Author so highly commends) did also lightly esteem it to their own reproach; and the ill example of Mr. D. and others, in this and former Ages.

* 2.105 Again, Gregory Nazianzen, and Theodoret, both Grecians, are alledged by the said Antiquary, as giving evidence for the Truth in Controversie; calling it, A holy Mystagogy, wherein they that are initiated, receive as in a shadow, the invisible Grace of the most holy Spirit.

I have not the History whence this Author fetches the Testimony con∣cerning the Waldensian Brethren their rejecting Imposition of Hands; nor need much be said to it, sith from the very Passage alledged by him, it appears not that they were Enemies to Prayer, with putting on of Hands for the Promised Spirit, but only of those Vanities wherewith it was incumbred in the Papacy.

For to say nothing of the slender evasion of that Testimony born by some of them to that Truth, alledged pag. 27. which is no better an Ar∣gument than if he would prove us his Brethren, not to be of the Bap∣tized Churches, because we presented to King Charles the Second an Apology, or Confession of Faith, wherein we asserted Laying on of Hands, and the General Point, or Christ's Death for all Men; when yet divers of our Christian Brethren, no less fearing God than our selves, do oppose us in both Particulars, and print against us. Yea, in their Addresses to Authorities, do present (perhaps) something contrary to us in these Particulars. What then? Are either they, or we therefore to be accounted none of the Baptized Churches? God forbid. In like manner those called Hussites, are not to be denied to be Waldenses, because of some variation about Imposition of Hands; sith it's evident, such diversities have befallen in one thing or other, the most serious Christians in every Age. But I say, to let this pass,

* 2.106 The very passage cited out of Paul Perrin, pag. 329. &c. proves not that for which it is brought, for the things denied in that Sentence, are: First, That the Sacrament of Confirmation was instituted by Christ; meaning the Popish Sacrament, they having occasion only to witness against that. Secondly, That Christ was not Confirmed in his own Person. Meaning in the Popish way of Chrism, &c. * 2.107 [For that he prayed, and that the Fa∣ther (who only could seal him) did seal him with the Holy Ghost im∣mediately after his Baptism, is evident; and so he was Confirmed in his own Person.] Thirdly, That Baptism is perfect without that Sacrament. Hereby only rejecting their conceit that think, or make it an appurte∣nance of Baptism. That this only is their meaning, is evident. For, say they, God is blasphemed by it. 2. It was introduced by the instigation of the Devil, to seduce the People, and deprive them of the Faith of the Church. 3. To draw them to believe Ceremonies, and the necessity of Bishops. [Meaning doubtless Lord Bishops, &c. and not the Overseers of Christ's poor People.]

But surely, No Man can imagine that those Waldenses were so Mad∣headed, to say, or think; that Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, for the Spirit of Promise, according to the Example of the Apostles, simply so considered, and as the next priviledg to holy Baptism, was introduced by the Devil! No, himself is not offended thereat, pag. 51. And truly, should the Waldenses have had such a meaning, their Testimony for our Churches Succession, would be very inconsiderable.

Wherefore (to suppose some of them ignorant of what some Churches in this Age do know concerning the simplicity of this Practice, having so continual occasion from the Papist to be scandalized against it) shall this plead for you to follow them in that particular? I tro not. Our Fore-fathers may find that tolerable in the Day of Judgment, which we shall not find so, having the advantages which they were not acquainted with. Wherefore, though it be the unworthy design of this Author, in the Historical part of his Book, to make the Imposition of Hands (as now contended for by his Brethren) to be originally a Papistical, Babylo∣nish, and Antichristian Ceremony, not used by the Greeks, or any other

Churches differing from the Papists, (except our late Reformers, some of them) yet this being little more than his bare word; it may be suffici∣ent to ballance him with the Testimony of Dr. Jer. Taylor. Who saith,

* 2.108 That Laying on of Hands, was firmly believed by all the Primitive Church, and became an universal Practice in all Ages; the Latine Church and the Greek always did use it. — It was Ancient, and long before Popery entered into the World; and this Rite hath been more abused by Popery than any thing. And to this Day the Bigots (or Jesuites of the Roman Church) are the greatest Enemies to it, and from them the Presbyterians.

Yea, such is the evidence of this despised Truth, that Mr. Calvin, a Man sufficiently (and yet justly) sharp against Chrism, and such Vani∣ties; yet is constrained to own the primitive use of this Ordinance, (so I call it) and desires once and again it were restored; and because the Author hath not fully set down his words, I will here recite them. * 2.109 Such Laying on of Hands (saith he) as is done simply, instead of Blessing, I Praise, and would that it were at this Day restored to the pure use thereof. And again, I would to God we did keep still the manner which I have said, to have been in Old Time. Calv. Instit. l. 4. c. 19. S. 4. and S. 13. To whose good desires, we may joyn those of Hommius, and the Leyden Professors, set down by Mr. D. pag. 27. viz. That this business of Confirmation, was drained from Antichristian mixtures, both as to Name, Nature, Matter, Form, Administrator, and Subject also. From all which it's remarkable, That there hath been as holy Breathings after the Restoration of this pre∣tious Truth, as other of the Paths of Righteousness; and therefore the more intollerable it is for this Author, or any other now to oppose them∣selves against it, being now as graciously restored to its pure Use in many Churches of Christ, as any other Ordinance whatsoever.

So that by this time I hope it is apparent, how little reason the Author had to ask this insinuating Question, pag. 32. Is there not good ground, think you, to suspect the justice and truth of that Cause that cannot otherwise be de∣fended, nor maintained, but by suborned Witnesses, and Knights of the Post? For truly, as these Witnesses are not suborned, but in the rank of Hu∣mane Testimonies for matter of Fact very considerable, so neither is it true, that there are no better ways to maintain this Truth, seeing the Divine Authority of this sacred Truth standeth not upon Man, but upon the Word of God; as we have in some former Treatises, and shall now again in our second Part, further demonstrate.

The Second Part.

TO say nothing here of this Author's Exceptions against the grounds and ends for, or from which, others, beside the Baptized Christians, do observe Prayer, with Imposition of Hands. But to leave them to their own defence, we shall consider briefly the force of his Opposition against his Brethren; among whom, respecting the practice of Prayer, with the Laying on of Hands, he very well observes,

First, The Name which we (or rather the Lord) gives this Rite, viz. Laying on of Hands.

Secondly, The Subjects, viz. All Baptized Believers, Men and Women, [Even as God hath made his Promise of the Spirit to both Men and Women.]

Thirdly, The Administrators, viz. The Elders, or Presbyters, [Or Messengers of Christ and his Churches]; who, as they are all Stewards of the Mysteries of God, of which this of Laying on of Hands was one, they must needs be Dispensers of it with the rest.

Fourthly, The end of the Promised Spirit to confirm the Baptized, and orderly to admit into the Church. [To Confirm, only as the Ways of God do; all help to Edifie, and strengthen God's People.]

Fifthly, The time and order in which this is administred, between Baptism and the Supper, or presently after Baptism.

Sixthly, The Principal Ground upon which they assert it, viz. The Scrip∣ture, especially from Heb. 6. 2. Acts 8. 17. & 19. 2. 6.

When he comes to oppose us in these Particulars, pag. 40. he inverts the Order here propounded, and begins with the last Particular in the first place; but first he premises several things. And first he is pleased to say,

That we do not affirm, or deliver our opinion upon Heb. 6. 2. with so much Modesty, or Sobriety, as the Presbyterians, or Independents; and the reason is only, because we determine plainly what by Laying on of Hands is meant, Heb. 6. 2. and pass it not only as a probability, or to this purpose.

To this I answer, That this is so far from Insobriety, that there is a necessity that we be positive in this Case; else it must be granted that this first Principle cannot be known, and then it supposes no Man able to teach another which be the first Principles of the Oracles of God. And indeed, upon this Rock hath he run himself, after all his Expositions on Heb. 6. 2. And is forced, pag. 49. to suppose, that he is not able to tell us, what by Laying on of Hands is intended, Heb. 6. 2. and gives this as a reason of his * 2.110 Supposition, viz. There are many things in Paul's Epistles, which are hard and difficult to be understood, which (says he) the Ignorant do wrest. Which sentence he hath verified: for not knowing what to say, concerning Heb. 6. 2. certainly, he hath (by saying many things at a venture) exceedingly wrested this place. And first, By supposing this Laying on of Hands, to be one of the hard things in Paul's Epistles; the contrary being most plain: For these Principles, Heb. 6. 1, 2. are opposed to the things that are hard to be uttered, Heb. 5. being also cal∣led Milk for Babes, and not strong Meat. As also, because the Hebrew Christians are blamed, for that they might have been (and were not) Teachers of these Principles, but needed to be taught again which were the First Principles. Yea verily, this is to make all things in Christianity hard and difficult: For if the first Rudiments be so, what can be easie?

It is high time therefore for the Author, and others with him, to see the vanity of these pretences, and speedily to consider, that there is as much need to be positive in the business of the Fourth Principle, Heb. 6. 2. as any of the rest; and that a Teacher may with as much ground and credit, plead Ignorance to them all, as to any one of them. And how dangerous it is to make Principles (or any of them) but Probabilities

only, a Man that hath but half an Eye may easily perceive. Secondly, He sets down two Principles (as he calls them) to be as a Line to carry us through the Work, * 2.111 viz.

1. That to every Ordinance of Christ, there must be some plain positive word of Institution to confirm it.

2. To practise any thing in the Worship of God for an Ordinance of his, without an Institution, is Will-worship and Superstition.

But surely, the first of these Propositions is not taken without some such Exposition as this, viz. That what any Man affirms to be a solemn part of the Worship of God, for the Church of God, it must be warranted by the holy Scriptures without wresting them. But the Author taking the first Proposition in a rigid sense, counts all we say from Heb. 6. 2. as nothing, unless we can shew where it's said, Let all Baptized Believers have Hands laid on them, with as much plainness as it's said, Let all Believers be bapti∣zed, and eat the Lord's Supper. But this is very irrational to imagine, that every Institution of Christ must be expressed in the Scripture with equal Plainness; for if they be but found there, it is sufficient. Nay, the very Ordinances he mentions, are not equal in their plainness, in re∣spect of the Individuals that are to partake of them; Precept, and Pre∣sident, being in that behalf much plainer for Baptism than the Lord's Table. Again, The Government of the Church by Messengers, Bishops, and Deacons, &c. is an Institution of Christ. But if I ask for a Precept in terminis, that in the Ordination of these Officers, Prayer and Imposition of Hands, must be used, I dare say he cannot shew it. Neither is he able to shew me any President, that any but the Apostles, laid Hands on Dea∣cons; nor any President at all, of any one Elder of any particular Church, that was ordained by Prayer, with the Laying on of Hands, yet surely there is sufficient in the Scriptures to warrant us in these things respectively. And thus we shall come to consider more particularly, what he hath done to clear the same of Heb. 6. as he promises in his Title Page, and yet in his Lines pretends it cannot be cleared; as I have shew∣ed. * 2.112 Whilst the most he himself arrives at, or allows us (with his Good-liking) to attain to, is but Probability, pag. 40.

For the ground of our Practice in praying to the Lord, with the Impo∣position of Hands, the connexion of the Principles, or the order wherein they are propounded to us, is eminently considerable; because Princi∣ples, or first Rudiments of Religion, both in Faith and Practice, (as they are practical) do equally concern Individuals, both in respect of the things so denominated, and the order of them (except in cases of im∣mergency) as is more fully shewed in our S. for Peace, Part the second.

Pag. 41. He denies that there is the least warranty in this Text for the Faith, or Practice of the Church, in praying with the Imposition of Hands, &c. And yet in the next page, he tells us, It is very true, the Doctrine of Laying on of Hands, is here reckoned among the Principles of the Doctrines of Christ: But withal he denies Laying on of Hands on all Baptized Belie∣vers to be taught, or practised by Christ; observing from the Waldenses, that John did not lay Hands upon Christ after he baptized him, &c.

I answer, Christ himself being he that was sent of God to Baptize

with the Holy Ghost, as the great Author of that Donation from the Fa∣ther, it was not meet that John should pray for Christ; yet behold the ve∣ry Order wherein Christ received the Spirit, is very teachable to the Saints, in their waiting upon God for that Heavenly Gift: For when he was Bap∣tized, then he Prayed, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him, being then sealed by God the Father, who also by Voice from Heaven, decla∣red him to be his beloved Son, Mat. 3. 16, 17. Luke 3. 21. John 6. 27. How suitable therefore is it, to the Example of Christ, for all such as are Baptized, speedily to wait upon God for the Gift of his Holy Spirit, with Prayer, and Imposition of Hands, having the Apostles walking in that very Path before us; and God Almighty crowning that Way, by giving a Blessing to his Children, even then sealing them also to the Day of Redemption, by the Spirit of Promise, Acts 19. 6. Ephes. 1. 13. and 4. 30.

But saith he, We find not that Christ taught this Laying on of Hands, &c. To which it were sufficient to say, That we do not find where Christ el∣ther taught, or practised Laying on of Hands on Deacons, or other Officers: All that we find, is, That he lifted up his Hands and blessed his Apostles. And yet who dare doubt, but that the Apostles were taught of God, how to Ordain his Ministers? And there is the same Reason to be∣lieve they were taught of God to Pray, with Laying on of Hands, for the Promised Spirit, specially when God so signally owned them in that Undertaking, Acts 8. 17.

He names many Churches, that are not said to have Hands laid on them: And that to be reckoned among their Principles, which is so fri∣volous an Objection, as I marvel he should use it. He knows there be some Churches who are not said to be Baptized, nor to have the Lord's Table among them, nor any Church save one, to have had Deacons or∣dained by Laying on of Hands; and yet finding these things Religiously held in some Churches, we safely conclude other Churches had the like. And why may not the Example of two or three Churches, in the case of Prayer, with the Laying on of Hands for the Promised Spirit, satisfie, as well as the Example of one Church only in another case?

Page 43. He puts this Objection, Why should Laying on of Hands be reckoned among the beginning Principles, if it was not to be practised by all, &c. Which he answers after this manner: Your Argument is fallacious, as though no Act done upon, or practised by others, might be Matter of Do∣ctrine to us, without being engaged to do the same.

But I reply, That the Argument being used, only with respect to things Fundamental, or the first Principles of Christian Religion, is very sound and concluding, (and therefore not answered nor touched by the Author's extending it to all other Acts, but disingenuously abused) for both the Doctrine and Practice of all the Principles, Heb. 6. 1, 2. belongs equally to all; otherwise it will follow, that the first Churches had the Principles of Religion, both in the Doctrinal and Practical parts, but we must have only the Theory, we must learn them, but not practise them. For thus saith he, pag. 45. Believers must be thought it, (meaning Lay∣ing on of Hands) but that they are obliged therefore to practise it, is not here

(i. e. in Heb. 6.) or else-where to be found. Surely, this is the way to destroy such Principles as are practical, to leave nothing of them in the Churches now, but talking of them only.

Again,

He being pressed by the consideration of Laying on of Hands, as it is Milk for Babes in Christ, undertakes to shew, that some other Laying on of Hands may be that also; and names the Imposition of Hands to heal the Sick, ver. 16, 18.

Answer. Surely he may with as much truth and reason tell us, That the drinking any deadly Poyson, Mark 16. 18. is Milk for Babes in Christ also. This is the effect of Mens stumbling at Truth, they make themselves ridiculous: For who would think that so judicious a Person should make that a Principle, and such an one too as belongs to all Christi∣ans equally, as it is a Principle, which indeed scarce belongs to one of ten thousand? Again, Laying on of Hands to heal the Sick, belongs to them that are without (the sick Persons in the Church, having a special Ordinance provided for their comfort in Sickness, Jam. 5.) and there∣fore not to be called Milk for Babes in the Church. But suppose that Laying on of Hands to heal the Sick, do at all belong to the Church, yet the oldest Christian is as much concerned in it, as the youngest Christian, who being Sick, may seek for Cure that way as well as the other. Nei∣ther is this Laying on of Hands properly called Confirmation, as he ima∣gines, pag. 44. for the word was confirmed with Signs, which followed Prayer and Preaching, as well as Laying on of Hands on the Sick; Yea, Prayer, and Laying on of Hands on Baptized Believers, had Signs also following them: so then all these may as properly be called Confirmation, as any one of them, and yet he will not allow Imposition of Hands for the Holy Spirit, to be properly so called. But, Similis simili est ratio. And to conclude this, note further, That seeing Imposition of Hands for the Holy Spirit, is for the obtaining of Spiritual Gifts, and the Imposition of Hands on the Sick, for the exercise of Spiritual Gifts received; the first is even therefore much more like to be Milk for Babes, than the latter.

He further saith, Laying on of Hands, Heb. 6. 2. contains that for the Investiture of Church-Officers; and his reason is, because these Principles are very comprehensive. He saith also, That the Lord's Supper may pass for a beginning-Teaching as well as Baptism. He tells us also, That the Lay∣ing on of Hands, Heb. 6. 2. is as plural as Baptism, pag. 43, 50, 51.

1. I answer, To make Imposition of Hands on Deacons, and other Officers, a Principle appertaining to the beginning of a Christian Man, is very absurd: because First-Principles are necessary to the being of Chur∣ches; whereas the Imposition of Hands on Officers, presupposes a Church already founded, and, as such, to have made their Election of some to manage their Affairs as a Church; after which Election, the Laying on of Hands to ratifie it, is to be performed.

2. His circumspection in thus expounding Heb. 6. 2. may well be suspected. For doth he indeed make it his work to preach, That Laying on of Hands, which is the next Principle to Baptism, Heb. 6. is the Im∣position of Hands on Deacons? &c. Doth he, I say, teach the Babes this, as he teacheth the other five Principles? I believe, if he do so, he

is singular. Sure I am, before the Controversy arose, about Laying on of Hands for the Promised Spirit, none of them (that I could ever hear of) said any thing at all about the Imposition of Hands, Heb. 6. 2. And as I have reason to believe, that there is not one Minister in those Chur∣ches, not under the Fourth Principle, as by us urged, that doth teach the Babes that they must recieve as that Principle, Heb. 6. that Doctrine touching the Investiture of Church-Officers: so if they did teach thus, I would gladly know the ground of such Doctrine at least from some exam∣ple in that Case. And I am sure, all the Objections made by them against us, would be far more forceable against themselves.

3. I grant the Principles, Heb. 6. to be very Comprehensive; yet as Principles to be owned by Babes in Christ, I say, they do not contain all Christian Performances. For if so, it would follow that few, or none have yet learned their Principles; and then why the Apostles should make it so strange that the Hebrews should need to be taught these Principles, I can see no reason. So then, the Principles, Heb. 6. 1, 2. may be duly learned, where many things in point of Christian Faith and Practice, are not yet attained. The Foundation I grant, hath relation to the Su∣perstructure, but yet the Foundation may be perfectly laid where the Superstructure is yet wanting. The Seed-time and Planting leads to the Harvest, and time of Fruit, but yet these things are truly separable.

4. To make the Lord's Supper pass for a beginning-Teaching, as well as Baptism, is presumption indeed. The one appertaining only to the New-born, for admission into the Church; the other to the most grown Christian (as well as others) for his Edification. And one would think that he who must have such plain Scripture for what we urge as Begin∣ning-Principles, should not thus vary from his own Rule, when he assigns any thing for such.

5. I fear he is somewhat guilty — of pertinacity, in saying, the Lay∣ing on of Hands, Heb. 6. 2. is as plural as Baptisms, seeing he cannot be ignorant how Mr. Fisher hath unvailed that mistake in answer to a Query, wherein I think he was concerned; which, as he terms a grievous and gross mistake, so he shews that the Laying on, Heb. 6. 2. is a substantive of the singular number, both in the Greek and English. And some of the learned and judicious of his own party, have (to my knowledg) confessed that to be an egregious mistake: And sith he gives no reason for his persisting in his former opinion, but barely contradicts his Opponents, it is to me very suspicious, that he hath nothing to defend himself withal, save his Sic volo, sic jubeo.

And here let me note, That seeing Heb. 6. 2. speaks but of one Laying on of Hands, there is a necessity that we determine which it is, else we must confess none can know the First Principles. But to take off the force of our Arguments for the necessity of Imposition of Hands, with prayer for the Holy Spirit, as a Principle in the more compleat Constitu∣tion of Christian Churches, he is pleased to ask this Question.

If every one of these Principles in Heb. 6. are so absolutely to be taken in by Babes, and without which we are not to esteem them communicable, what do you say to the Doctrine of Baptisms in the Text, one of the Principles and

Foundations of the Gospel? must all be baptized with the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and of Sufferings also, or not to be received into Communion?

Answ. 1. The reception of the Holy Spirit, according to the Promise made to the Church, is not a thing in our power; but the means to seek for it, is in our Power. We must believe and pray for the Promise, so must we also believe and wait for the Resurrection, and Eternal Judgment. And so must we believe and expect Sufferings for Christ, else we have not rightly laid the Foundation in respect of the Doctrine of Baptisms. But now, to argue from the things which are in our power to do, to the things which are only in the Power and Disposing of the Almighty, is irratio∣nal and dangerous, and may be retorted upon the Author after this man∣ner. Seeing you suppose a Man may be admitted to Communion with∣out two Baptisms of the three, Heb. 6. 2. Why do you make the other so absolutely necessary? Now let him defend himself for that Practical part of the Doctrine of Baptisms, and thereby he will defend me for that Practick part of the Fourth Principle.

2. But if any should deny the Promise of the Spirit, with which all Christians are to pray that they may be Baptized, [contrary to the late dangerous Doctrine of some, who would restrain the Baptism of the Spirit to miraculous Gifts, Operations, or Signs, &c. and perswade us, the Baptism of the Spirit is ceased,] or that shall deny the Doctrine of Sufferings, or Sufferings themselves, as not pertaining to them. Or if any shall teach others to deny these Truths, as you teach others to deny Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, and will needs persist in opposing themselves against all endeavours used to reform and amend them; I say, such may lawfully be denied Communion in the Churches of God. And thus we have considered his several Expositions upon Heb. 6. 2.

Of the Laying on of Hands, 2 Tim. 1. 6.

Neither hath this Author wrote advisedly, pag. 48. where he teacheth that the Imposition of Hands, 2 Tim. 1. 6. and 1 Tim. 4. 14. are both one, for as much as they are evidently distinguished in three respects. As first▪

In respect of the Persons administring them. That in 2 Tim. 1. 6. being performed by Paul only, The Laying on of my Hands. The other by more than he, 1 Tim. 4. 14. The Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery. Sure∣ly, if more had acted in the first than Paul himself, he would not have arrogated the whole Service to himself, as if the Blessing received came by what he did, and the rest stood but for Ciphers; no, this is nothing like that humble Apostle, who was less in his own eye than the least of all Saints. Neither can it be proved that he was one of the Presbytery that ordained Timothy, (though he concludes he was) though perhaps he might be one of them.

2. The Gifts are clearly distinguished. Those 2 Tim. 1. 6. being the Gifts which are common to all Saints, as much as to Timothy: Namely, 1. The Spirit of Love, which all that are born of God, do share in by the Holy Ghost, Rom. 5. 5. 2. Power, or Strength, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, virtutis, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

potestas, Authority; and this strength all Saints have need of. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sobrietatis, Sobriety, or soundness of Mind, which also every true Chri∣stian should have. Hence it's plain, that the Gift of God which Timothy received by the Laying on of Hands, 2 Tim. 1. 6. in every part of it, is that which is common to all Saints; in so much as he that hath not the Spirit of Christ in these respects, may well fear he is none of his.

On the other side, It is evident to all Men that Paul in 1 Tim. 4. 14. speaks of the Ministerial Gift, Authority, or Truth, which was commit∣ted to Timothy by the consent of the Prophets, and by the Laying on of the Eldership.

3. From the Scope of the Apostle in these places respectively. For in 1 Tim. 4. 14. Paul is clearly in hand with the matters of Timothy's Office, ver. 11. to the end. But in 2 Tim. 1. 6. he speaks to him as he might have spoke to any other Christian, Man, or Woman; for finding him under some Temptation and Fears, he comforts him, by telling him he hoped his Faith was unfeigned; and supports him against Fear, by noting, that it was not the effect of the Spirit which God gave him by the putting on of his Hands, and therefore exhorts him not to be ashamed of the Testi∣mony of the Lord, nor of Paul the Lord's Prisoner, but to be a parta∣ker of the Affliction according to the Power of God. Then he moves him to consider how free the Grace of God was, by which he is saved, and not to be valued by the Works of Righteousness which he had done; and thus he speaks from ver. 1. to ver. 13. and then begins to treat of the business of his Office, the whole Matter and Contexture of the for∣mer part of the Chapter, being such as touched not his Office, but his State as a Christian. This Text being duly considered, helps more to the opening Heb. 6. 2. than any other place, in this respect, viz. For that it plainly shews the common Graces of the Spirit were as really the end of Prayer, with the Imposition of Hands, as the Gifts which are notified by many.

Nor is it material which some object in this Case, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in∣terpreted elsewhere of Miraculous Gifts, &c. Because, 1. If the In∣terpreter had so done, he had forsaken the proper scope of the Apostle, whose business being to support Timothy against Fear, &c. the Spirit of inward grace and fortitude, was most suitable to be insisted on to that purpose. 2. Because the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is frequently used to express inward Strength, or fortitude of Mind: For example, 1 Cor. 12. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, potens sum, I am strong, or when I am weak, then I am strong, Ephes. 6. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Confortamini in Domino, be strong in the Lord.

Of the meaning of Acts 8. 15, 17. & 19. 2, 6.

How clear places these are that the Apostles prayed with Laying on of Hands for the newly Baptized indifferently, even for both Men and Women, that they might receive the Spirit of Promise; and that as ge∣nerally as Baptism it self was performed in the Cities of Samaria, and Ephesus, and by consequence first at Jerusalem, and so in other places al∣so.

I need say but little in this place, having fully spoken to these things, in my S. for Peace, and Pedo-Bapt. Apol. which are yet unanswered; yet I shall endeavour to shew the Mistakes of the Author concerning them. And first,

He will needs suppose Peter and John to perform Prayer, with Impo∣sition of Hands at Samaria, by virtue of their extraordinary Gifts, not being willing to allow their Office as Ministers, or Apostles, to have any thing to do with that Action: but this is far from truth. For if extra∣ordinary Gifts had sufficiently capacitated Men to do this Work, without Ministerial Authority, Philip the Deacon, being eminently gifted that way, might have imposed Hands for the Promised Spirit, as well as Peter and John; yet he meddles not with this Service at all, neither his Office as a Deacon, nor his Gifts to do Wonders, impowering him thereto in his own Judgment: For had he been otherwise minded, or understood his priviledg to be such as he supposed it to be, he had opportunity and oc∣casion enough to do that Work, as well as any other. But his forbear∣ance is an argument he knew, it did not belong to his Ministry in an or∣dinary way, sith there was a Ministry to be had, to whom that and other things for the settlement of the Church, did more properly belong. Wherefore we must needs reject that passage, pag. 6. where he tells us, The Administrator of Laying on of Hands, was any gifted Believer, &c. By which conceit, even Women, from whom extraordinary Gifts are not withheld, might administer this Service.

But that this was an act of Office, appears partly by what is already said, and partly for that the Church at Jerusalem sent not Gifted Bre∣thren only, but Men endowed with Authority, to set in order such things as were wanting in that Church; which though much prepared for settlement by the labours of Philip, yet cannot rationally be supposed to be so settled as was meet; for it is said, Only they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus. And the first thing we hear they do for them, is to pray they may receive the Holy Ghost, &c. And this they did for them all, both Men and Women, as is in part granted by Mr. D. whilst he grants it to be performed upon those on whom the Holy Ghost was not fallen; and saith the Text, He was fallen on none of them. Yet he would make an exception of some of them, because Simon was found in the Gall of bitterness. But this corruption appearing not till after the service of Prayer, with Laying on of Hands, was performed, it concludes not at all but that Simon might be included in the Prayer of the Apostles, and have Hands laid on him also; yea, and receive of those Gifts too, seeing God doth not withhold them from Hypocrites. And beside, the words of Peter denying him to have any part or lot in that Matter, refer to the Admi∣nistration of the Ordinance, and not to his submission to it; Give me this Power also, that on whomsoever I lay my Hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. In this Matter Peter denies Simon to have any part.

Furthermore, He doth certainly mistake Acts 19. 2. in saying the Twelve Disciples at Ephesus were of the Church, whereas the Scripture and Reason, do both inform us they could not be Imbodied with the Church there as yet, because they are now said to be found, and called cer∣tain

Disciples, the words implying they were hitherto unknown: For otherwise, Why should they be said to be found by Paul, more than the whole Church, if indeed they had been a part of the Church? Again, Their great ignorance of the Holy Ghost, shews plainly they were not united to the Body, or Church at Ephesus, where doubtless Aquila and Priscilla, had not been wanting to teach the Way of the Lord perfectly. And lastly, Their being baptized again, shews plainly they were not of the Church: * 2.113 For if they had, why must not the Church also be baptized again as well as they?

Now therefore, let it be considered, That had there been 120 instead of these twelve Persons, in the same case with themselves, the Question of the Apo∣stle, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? had concern'd them all; and then he must be but a partial Minister that would refuse to pray for all, see∣ing all wanted the same Blessing, and had equal right to it by virtue of the same Promise. And that Paul had an eye to the Promise, as it is general, is most plain, by his next Question; Unto what then were ye baptized? As if he should say, your very Baptism, if it be right, did inform you of, and intitle to the Promise of the Holy Ghost, into whose Name also ye ought to be baptized.

Thus, I trust, we have sufficiently cleared the first Ground of our Re∣ligious observation of Prayer, with the Imposition of Hands for the Pro∣mised Spirit. 1. From the consideration of the Nature, Order, or Con∣nexion of the Principles, as they are contained and propounded, Heb. 6. 1, 2. 2. From the care of the Apostles, in seeking to God in the use of this † 2.114 Ordinance, that the Churches might enjoy the benefit of the Promise of the Holy Spirit, which they knew belonged to them, as they were the called of the Lord. And because the nature and extent of that great Gospel-Promise is a weighty consideration, whereupon to ground the practice of Prayer, with the Imposition of Hands, and without which the Practice would be very insignificant; I shall therefore add something, to shew the perpetual right of the Church to that blessed Promise, even to the end of the World. For it is remarkable, That those that oppose us in the Fourth Principle, deal much after the manner of the Quakers in their opposing Baptism, hammering only upon the Practick part, which they can easily despise; but when the more Spiritual part of these Ordinances is considered, this takes off the Courage of the most confident Opposer.

Of the second Ground of the Practice of Prayer, and Laying on of Hands; to wit, the Promise of the Spirit, and the Churches Right to it, to the end of the World.

The Author is pleased to say, pag. 47. That in neither of those two places [meaning Acts 8. Acts 19.] can we find that there was a Laying on of Hands immediately after Baptism, nor with any certainty upon all and every Member of the Church. Nor to such an end as can be attainable in after Times.

Answ. 1. But though he cannot find the two first, yet many have found them there: Unless by the word immediately, he would be more curious than wise, for that this Service was performed, Acts 8. within a short time after, and as soon as they had a fit opportunity to do it, is plain enough, ver. 15, 16, 17. And for Acts 19. 5. 'tis said, When they heard this, they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus. And in the very next words, 'tis said, When Paul had laid his Hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them.

And that the same Individuals said to be Baptized, are as clearly found to have Hands imposed, and Prayer made for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, is so very plain, that nothing but exceeding weakness, or great perversness can hinder any Man from seeing it. And whether the end for which Prayer, with Imposition of Hands can now be attained, is the Business now to be considered.

And if it cannot, the reason is, for that the Promise made to the Church then, is since taken away de jure, so that we may not lawfully ask it. For Men not having the Promise, is no Argument: James 4. 2, 3. — Ye have not, because ye ask not; ye ask and have not, because ye ask amiss.

Now, that the gracious Promise of the Holy Spirit (at least) as it belonged to the Members of the Church in the Primitive Times, and that in every part of it, from the time of its first effusion upon the Day of Penticost, Acts 2. doth belong to the Church throughout all Ages, to the end of the World; I hope hath been evinced to the satisfaction of such as desire to know the Truth, in the second part of the 2d Book.* 2.115

Beside, The Cloud of Witnesses, ‖ 2.116 which the holy Scriptures do afford in this Case, we shall more particu∣larly consider what the Apostle hath offered, 1 Cor. 12. 13, 14. Chapters. And 1. Whereas it is his designed Subject, to discourse of the Gifts of the Spirit: So he doth inform us, that God hath set those Gifts in his Church,

i. e. hath placed and fixed that one Spirit (whose operations are divers, or many) in that one Body, not for a few days only, and then to leave her as a Body without a Spirit for ever after, in respect of SPIRITUAL GIFTS, but to abide there as in his Temple, both by Gifts and Graces, e∣ven the same, which Christ by virtue of his Ascention obtained; when He ascended on High; which Gifts are given to the Church for the Work of the Ministry, for the edification of the Body, till the whole be complea∣ted.

What shall I say? The Scriptures are evidence sufficient that this Or∣dinance is of Divine Institution, is from Heaven. The Promise which it leads to, is Perpetual and Universal, it belongs to the whole Body. There is one Body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your Calling.

Neither is there any reason for the Author to be astonished, (as he pretends, pag. 35.) because we urge him to produce better Evidence for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper; or clearer Precept, or President for the Ordination of Officers by Prayer, and Laying on of Hands, than we are able to produce in our Case; nor need he count this a thing either unreasonable, or dangerous, &c.

For how should this be dangerous? May not the grounds of one Pra∣ctice be examined as well as another? Or why unreasonable? Are not our Brethren bound to stand to their Principles one time as well as another? Or will they impose Principles to lead us through the whole Work, and not be lead by them themselves?

For my part, I am fully satisfied there is sufficient ground in holy Scripture for Womens coming to the Table of the Lord; and for the Or∣dination of Church Officers by Prayer, and Laying on of Hands. And I do solemnly profess, to dislike any Principle, or Practice in Religion, which cannot fairly be demonstrated by the Evidence of holy Scripture: But yet, this I must needs say, That there is as clear (if not clearer) grounds for the Fourth Principle, as we hold it, as there is for either of the other Points, specially the latter. For first, Womens receiving at

the Lord's Table, it is gathered by a rational deduction from the holy Scripture, as appears by Mr. D. pag. 54. wherein he hath done well, as others in the same Case have done before him: Yet should any Man use his own Weapons against him, which he uses against his Brethren, they might worst him, because of his Inconsistency, though his Cause be good.

2. In all the Scripture, there is no express command to lay Hands on Deacons, nor any example that Prayer was used at all in their Ordinati∣on, nor that any but Apostles ordained such Officers, and but one Example for that neither; and for Elders of particular Congregations, not one example that Hands were imposed on them, or Prayer used in the act of their Ordination, nor any plain Precept for so doing (as is said before). Yet this Author is satisfied in these things, and thinks 2 Tim. 5. 22. a full precept for Imposing Hands upon Officers, (howbeit his Brethren, no less judicious than himself, believe no such thing, as is seen in their Search for Schism). And to speak as it is, this place is an express Prohibi∣tion to lay Hands on any Man suddenly. And though it may hence be in∣ferred, that Hands ought to be laid on some Men deliberately; yet this is a Consequence, and when so much is granted, he is yet to prove that this is meant of Officers (for some think otherwise) and here he must use our Logick, from Heb. 6. 2. It can be no other, Ergo it must be that on Officers. And his Antecedent must be demonstrated by Reason, with which he may easily satisfie me. But if another will not be satisfied with him, I cannot help him; because he denies the same Reason in our Case, which he makes use of in his own.

By this it may appear, how little cause he had to be grieved at us, as if we should slight the Wisdom, or Authority of Christ; or as if we should think we had not sufficient direction in the Scripture, for all parts of God's Worship; for we do cordially believe these holy Directions to be suf∣ficient: Yet as one of the Ancients truly said, these things are so penned, As that he that will learn, may learn; and he that will cavil, may find occa∣sion. And the truth is, those are they whose arguings do render these Directions insufficient, who destroy, or condemn the same reason in ano∣ther, which they allow in themselves, specially when they become Per∣tinacious.

Sufficient therefore is that which hath been said, if not to convert them (in this particular) yet to leave them without excuse.

But to the residue, who have stumbled at this Truth, either through our default, in not asserting this Truth as was meet; or their own, in not duly considering what we say, or through those unhappy Divisions which have fallen out, through the heats of Men, intemperately Zealous on either side; I say to those, I now address my self;

Declaring in all faithfulness, that though the Truth in question is to me as dear as other Truths, (and therefore am resolved; what in me is, to defend it with the rest) yet I stand ready to abate whatsoever, upon a fair Trial, may appear too harsh, or any way justly offensive as to the business of Separation; not doubting (though I was unconcern'd in the original of the Division) that he hath too much cause to complain of some, whose unkindness to their Brethren, in the ill management of a good

Cause might prejudice the Truth it self; but withal, I must tell him, he was too short in that he did not also blame some of his own Party, whose Impatience and Imprudence, too much provoked to that Division, which by all means should have been prevented. And let me be faithful to him, in remembring him of the saying, Medice cura teipsum: For he that blames another for making unnatural Separations, should remember, that he that judges another, and doth the same thing, is in danger of the Judg∣ment of God.

The Conclusion.

Finally, I am resolved to meet my Opposite (after all this Conflict) in that friendly and moderate Passage wherein at length he delivers him∣self, saying, Pag. 51. We are not offended at a Practice of that kind, be it Lifting up, or Laying on of Hands, provided it be not urged as a thing of absolute necessity.

To which, I say, Let the Spirit of opposition to the Practice of Pray∣er with Imposition of Hands for the Spirit of God, but be laid aside, that the Truth may grow as God shall enlighten his People in it; and then let an Expedient be concluded, for settling all the Churches concern'd in such a state, as may comport with the Peace of the whole, and the Prosperity of every part.

A Defence of the Office of Subordinate Apostles of Christ, or Messen∣gers of his Churches, and the perpetuity of his Ministry by Divine Institution, for the more orderly Promulgation of the Gospel, and the better settlement of Churches to the end of the World.

SEeing all sorts of Christians do allow of an Itinerate, or Travelling Ministry, as necessary to promulgate, publish, or preach the Gospel where it is not known, and to strengthen the Churches of God, specially where there is a Paucity, or Insufficiency of Instruments; it may there∣fore seem strange that any should give occasion to write a defence of that which themselves do allow; and yet so it falleth out at this time, through some mistake, partly about the Titles, or Appellations prefixed, and partly about the nature of the Institution of this Ministry, whether it be Divine, or of Humane Prudence only?

But surely, for Men to strain more at the word Apostle, [as some do at the word Bishop] than at the Work, or Office signified thereby, is no other thing (as I conceive) than groundless Humility, or hypocritical Subtilty; seeing it is evident, that these Titles are as lowly, as any that can be given to suit with the Matter thereby intended: [Apostle] signi∣fying a Messenger, or Sent: [Bishop] importing an Overseer.

Therefore that I may avoid this Humour, I will not fear to call Old

things by their old names, and therefore shall call the Officers of Christ's Church by the same names which the Wisdom of God hath given them; not to make Men proud, but rather humble, being fitted as a memento concerning the Work, which by their Office they stand engaged to do.

What the meaning of the other Scruple should be, which supposes the Office of Messengers or Apostles, as aforesaid, to be only of humane Prudence, and not of Divine Institution, is to me very suspicious, being in effect to make all the Offices in the Church of Christ to be no Divine Institutes, which yet I hope will not be hastily asserted; however, it is by us here affirmed, That the Office of Messengers or Apostles, as aforesaid, is of Divine Institution, in the same manner as the Office of Bishops, Elders, and Deacons, and not otherwise.

Wherefore, albeit we do say, that as other Officers in the Church have Successors, so the Apostles also have some to succeed them, yet our mean∣ing is not that they, to wit, the chief Apostles, have any to succeed them in all the parts of their Office; because there were some things in their Office extraordinary and temporary, and some things ordinary and fixed; the latter are the things by us to be insisted upon only, but for the for∣mer we say,

* 2.117 That it is certainly a very sinful and impious thing for any to pretend to any Power or Office Apostolical like that of the Twelve, or others of that Dignity, in respect

1. Of their immediate Mission, which was so much like the Mission of our great Apostle Christ himself, that he saith, As my Father sent me, so send I you.

2. They learned their Doctrine either from the sacred Lips of the Lord Christ, or received it by infallible Revelation of the Holy Ghost, and were not taught it by Man, * 2.118 as Timothy and other their Successors were, Heb. 2. 3. — so great Salvation which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by them that heard him, 1 John 1. 1, 5. That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have look∣ed upon, and our hands have handled the Word of Life, — that which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you. Gal. 1. 11, 12. But I certifie you, Brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me, was not after Man: for I neither received it of Man, neither was I taught it, but by the Revela∣tion of Jesus Christ.

3. They were to lay an Infallible Foundation, and to deliver Rules for Government, which all other Teachers are to build upon, and to ob∣serve as their Pattern and Standard, by which to try other Doctrines and Spirits; 1 Cor. 3. 10. — As a wise Master builder I have laid the Foundati∣on, and another buildeth thereon. 1 John 4. 6. He that knoweth God, heareth us; he that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the Spirit of Truth, and the Spirit of Error.

4. They were necessarily endowed with the Gift of Tongues, Mira∣cles, Signs, or mighty Deeds, to demonstrate that they were sent of God, and that their Doctrine was from Heaven: Luke 24. 49. But tarry ye in the City of Jerusalem, until ye be endowed with Power from on high. 2 Cor. 12. 12. Truly the Signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all

patience, in Signs, Wonders, and mighty Deeds. Heb. 2. 4. God also bearing them witness with divers Signs, Miracles, and Gifts of the Holy Ghost. In these and the like respects, the chief Apostles can have none to succeed them; for if they had, then must their Words and Writings have the same force and authority; and thus we should still be receiving new Ora∣cles, and so never know when the whole Counsel of God is made known to us. Howbeit this we do say,

* 2.119 That God hath given to his Church, a Ministry of Messengers or Apostles, (though much inferior) yet truly to succeed the first Apostles, in such things as were ordinary and fixed to that Office: As,

1. In respect of lawful Power, or Authority, to preach the Gospel in all Places, at all Times, to all Persons, as occasion and opportunity by God's Providence shall be given them. Mark 16. 15. Mat. 28. 19, 20.

2. Unwearied diligence in teaching and strengthning both Pastors and Churches, (chiefly those which are but newly setled in the Faith) in all the Counsel of God; and by labouring to perfect that which is lacking concerning the Faith of any Churches. Act. 20. 31. Act. 19. 1, — 6. 2 Cor. 11. 28. 2 Pet. 1. 12, 13, 14, 15. Tit. 1. 5.

3. In being set for a Defence of the Gospel, or Doctrine once delivered, against false Apostles, or such as would introduce false Doctrines, Phil. 1. 16, 17. 1 Tim. 1. 3. and also to strengthen the hands of particular Pa∣stors against Usurpers, or such as despise the Ministers of Christ, 3 Epist. John 5. 1 Tim. 1. 17. Gal. 4. 17, 18.

Now that the chief Apostles have some to succed them in the Apostle∣ship, as we have affirmed, in these and the like Services, as we have now declared: Will appear,

1. From a due consideration of the perpetuity of every part of that Commission, Mat. 28. 19, 20. Mark 16. 15, 16.

2. From the duration of these Spiritual Gifts which our Lord obtained, and gave to his Church by virtue of his Ascension.

3. From the Order and State of the Primitive Churches, their having such Apostles or Messengers, and the non-abrogation thereof, by good authority to this day.

4. From the Practice of those who most question the being of a Mini∣stry of Messengers, or Apostles, in the Churches at this day.

5. From the State of the World, their necessity to be taught the Truth as it is in Jesus, and the danger they lie under by means of false Apostles.

First from the Commission, Mat. 28. Mark 16. It is very evident that it is the Will of God that the Nations be taught, and that the Gospel should be preached to every Creature: so that we must of necessity stick to one thing out of three, and that is, Either some body in special are bound to preach the Gospel to those that are without, to the Nations that know it not; or else that all Christians are equally bound to perform this Work, if capable, in respect of Gifts; or else that this Work ended with the Apostles.

The last of these will not be said by any that considers, how the making void any one branch of that Commission, as not obliging the Church, or

any Person in it, is in effect to make the whole Commission void; for seeing there is nothing more plain, than that this Commission did once impower a Ministry of Messengers or Apostles to preach the Gospel to the Nations; if this great part of the Commission shall be supposed to be vanished, and no Man bound thereby to preach the Gospel, how can any Man, with shew of Truth or Reason, pretend any Power by virtue of this Commission to baptize, sith both works are commanded, as it were, in one breath? Neither can the Church be truly said to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded his Apostles, if they do not observe this great Work, to preach the Gospel to the World, by Men endowed with fit Power to do it.

Nor can it rationally be said that this Work belongs to every Gifted Christian alike, because the imployment of the Gospel consists in divers Offices; and all such Members have not the same Office, meer Gifts do not (in any ordinary way) make Men Officers in any part of the Mini∣stry; and that the Teaching, Mat. 28. and the Preaching, Mark 16. is a preaching, not by virtue of Gift only, but by Office or Authority also, cannot be denied; and doubtless as this Work of preaching the Gospel to the World, or those that are without, requires the greatest Abilities, so it requires the greatest Care, that none do enter into that Ministry without fit Qualifications, and Authority to go forth to plant, and settle Churches, according to the Pattern of the first and best Apostles, Phil. 3. 17. But they that would have this Work no Man's concern, by vir∣tue of Office, (and no Officer in the Church, as such, is bound to do this Work, unless he be an Apostle or Messenger) whilst such deny the being of a Ministry of this nature, they contradict themselves, in sending Men about this great Affair; or if they be not sent, then we demand how they can preach? And the Answer must be silence for ought I can say, sith ex∣traordinary Missions are not by wise Men pretended.

Objection. Against what is said from the Commission, it is objected, 1. That this place contains the Authority, by which all that are Christ's Ministers do preach or officiate in any ministerial capacity. 2. Others more wise (as themselves be∣lieve) tell us this place gives no such Authority at all, to any Ministers of Christ, but this Commission was only for the Apostles, to whom it was first de∣livered, &c.

Answer. To the first Objection I answer, by granting what is said to be very true; but saying withal, That this confirms rather than weakens that which we have for the Messengers Office; for here our Lord being invested with all Power, in Heaven and in Earth, gives a Commission for preaching the Gospel, baptizing the Converts, and for teaching them to observe all things whatsoever he commanded to the end of the World; and hi∣therto we have believed that no Power Ministerial, contained in this Com∣mission, died with the Apostles: and therefore the second Objection ap∣pears, levissimus fructus ingenii, like some light or undigested Matter; for how should any solid Christian once imagin that any thing here com∣manded, is not obliging to the Church? especially the Objectors, who, whilst they hold that here is a Commission for baptizing to the end of the World, they can with no fairness deny a Commission here also for teach∣ing

them who are to be baptized; otherwise they must inform us when this mischief befel this Commission, Mat. 28. that it lost its force, for enabling us to preach to the Nations, and yet kept full power to enable us to baptize Disciples.

2. That there is such a Ministry of Messengers or Apostles as we have defined, of right remaining to the Church to the end of the World, is yet more evident, from the fixedness of the Gifts bestowed on the Church through the ascension of Christ, Ephes. 4. When he ascended up on high — he gave Gifts — and he gave some Apostles and some Prophets, &c. — till we all come to the unity of the Faith, &c. See 1 Cor. 12. 28. Here we ob∣serve the Gift of God's Spirit is that which fits Men for the Ministry; this Ministry so fitted, is fixed in the Church to the end of the World; part of this Ministry are Apostles, and therefore to continue in the Church to the end of the World. Diodat takes the word Apostles here in a strict sense, yet grants that the Ministry here spoken of, is to remain in the Church till the end of the World: I conceive he had been more consi∣stant, if he had here taken the word Apostles largely, as he doth else∣where, namely in Rom. 16. 7. & 2 Cor. 8. 23. Phil. 2. 25. where, as he grants the Title of Apostle to have been given to many beside the chief Apo∣stles, so he interprets it to intimate a larger ministerial or pastoral Autho∣rity, than is committed to particular Elders.

However, the Text Ephes. 4. gives being to the Ministry of Apostles in the Church of Christ, till the whole Church be perfected, as clearly as to Pastors and Teachers; and a Man may as soon deprive the Church of the latter, as of the former; but in vain are the attempts of Men to de∣prive her of either.

Our third Argument is taken from the Order of the Primitive Churches, who certainly had many Apostles, beside those which were Foundation-Layers, and Master-Builders, such were Andronicus and Junia, Rom. 16. 7. who are said to be Men of Note among the Apostles. * 2.120 By Apo∣stles here some do understand the LXX, and that these two were of note among them; however they were Apostles, and Men of note in that Mi∣nistry: for, it is a strange Interpretation, to turn the words thus, They were noted by the Apostles, being a plain perversion of the Text from its native sense.

Of this sort of Ministers, in all probability (and 'tis the Opinion of some Interpreters), were those mentioned in 3 Ep. John, who are said to go forth for the Names sake of Christ, taking nothing of the Gentiles; whom Gaius is commended for courteously entertaining, and Diotrephes reproved for rejecting. For, had not these Brethren been sent to preach, I see not how John should sharply reprehend them that received them not, nor stir up Gaius to bring them on their Journey whithersoever they would go. But John's care of them, and his holding them in reputation, and defending them against Opposers of their Ministry, and there-withal

their forsaking all for the Name of Christ, preaching freely to the Gen∣tiles that they might be saved, shews that they were the Ministers and Messengers of Christ, and the Churches: otherwise if they ran before they were sent, they could not manage the great Affairs of the Gospel among the Gentiles; * 2.121 nor doth their being termed Brethren only, argue that they were not in ministerial capacity; for we find the same phrase used concerning those that are expresly called the Apostles or Messengers of the Churches, and the Glory of Christ, 2 Cor. 8. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

To say those Brethren, 2 Cor. 8. were Messengers or Apostles, only as they were sent with contribution from the Gentile Churches to the Church at Jerusalem (as some would have it) is a very cold Exposition, (and justly slighted by our best Expositors). For first it cannot be pro∣ved that they were employed in that business at all; or if it could, how should they for this service be called the Glory of Christ? Surely this Character must refer to their being intrusted with better Treasure than Silver or Gold, sith either Brethren or Sisters, of very ordinary capacity, (if faithful) might have been sent with earthly Treasure.

Epaphroditus is not only called the Apostle or Messenger of the Church at Philippi, but Paul's Companion also, and fellow-Souldier: which shews that though he might bring the Churches Bounty to Paul, yet this did not confer upon him the title of Apostle, sith he had a greater Imployment which better deserved that Title, even to War in the Holy Warfare of the Gospel, as Paul himself did.

Of this sort of Ministers of the Gospel were Barnabas, Luke, Mark, Sylas, * 2.122 Silvanus, Tichicus, Trophimus, and Apollos; as appears by their being frequently Fellow-Travellers, and Fellow-Labourers in the Gospel with the Apostles; concerning whom I argue thus.

These Persons were Ministers of the Gospel, and not gifted Brethren only; but they were not Ministers of particular Churches. Therefore their Office was general, and by consequence Messengers or Apostles. The Major is true, otherwise they ran before they were sent; and then how could they Preach? Rom. 10. or be Fellow-Labourers with Paul? The Minor is out of doubt, because of their unfixedness in respect of place, (as before we have said) being frequent Travellers through sun∣dry Countries upon the Business of the Gospel; and some of them are expresly called the Apostles of Christ; 1 Thess. 1. 1. Here Silvanus is joined with Paul, as speaking by this Epistle to the Thessalonians. And Chap. 2. 6. it is thus said, Nor of Men sought we glory, when we might have been burthensome, as the Apostles of Christ. Here Silvanus is as open∣ly called an Apostle of Christ, as Paul himself: Of this Opinion was the Assembly of Divines, see their * 2.123 Annotations.

Timotheus is evidently a Minister of the same Order, as appears from the place even now alleaged, in which as Paul and Silvanus, so also Timotheus is expresly called an Apostle of Christ; which is yet further evident, from the tenor of those Epistles which Paul sent to him, 1 Tim. 1. As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedo∣nia, — that thou shouldst warn some that they teach no other Doctrine, so do.

Now had Timothy's Charge been only at Ephesus, as the Pastor of that Church only, there had been no need to beseech him to abide there, it being not unknown to him, that it was by all means needful for particu∣lar Pastors, to reside near their respective Congregations, and not to go to Forreign Countries to manage the Affairs of other Churches: But evident it is that Timothy was Paul's Fellow-Traveller in divers Countries, and frequently sent by him to sundry Churches, from the time he was called to go forth with the Apostle, till Paul sent for the Elders of the Church at Ephesus, which was not long before he was a Prisoner; see to this purpose Act. 16. 1, 2, 3, 4. & 17. 25. & 18. 5. & 19. 22. & 24. 4, 10, 18.

And though in a certain Postscript added to 2 Ep. to Timothy, he is cal∣led the first Bishop of the Church at Ephesus; yet this cannot be true, see∣ing the Church at Ephesus had Bishops, Acts 20. even when Timothy was a Fellow-Traveller with the Apostle Paul in divers Countries. Nor are the Ancients positive in this Matter, for I find Eusebius only saying, That it is reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus, and Ti∣tus of Grete, but he affirms it not. But this we know is plain, that Ti∣mothy's care was as much for other Churches as that at Ephesus, Phil. 2. 19, 20. I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus unto you, — for I have no Man like minded, who will naturally care for your state. — But ye know the proof of him, that as a Son with the Father he hath served with me in the Gospel. Finally, I could shew that in the Writings of the Ancients, Timotheus was frequently called Timothy the Apostle; and so was Cle∣ment, and divers others; * 2.124 and why this Appellation should now be thought strange by any that have considered these things, I cannot easily imagin. But to proceed;

Of Titus the same consideration may be had, seeing he was left in Crete to set in order things that were wanting, and to ordain Elders in eve∣ry Church; plainly shewing, that his Power in the Affairs of the Gospel, and his Care for the Churches, was the same for every Church that it was for any of them, which is a far different Charge from that which was given to the Elders of the Church at Ephesus, Acts 20. for they are not bid to look to all the Churches in Asia, but only to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops or Overseers. Neither was Titus his care for the Churches in Crete only, for Paul calls him his Partner and Fellow helper concerning the Church at Corinth, 2 Cor. 8. 23.

Of the same import is that place, Gal. 1. 18, 19. I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter. — but other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's Brother. Here James the Lord's Brother is called an Apostle, and yet he was not one of the Twelve, for that James is called the Son of Alpheus, Mat. 10. 3. and of this mind is Eusebius. Jerom indeed would some∣times make these two the same Man, yet other-whiles he calls him deci∣mum tertium Apostolum, i. e. the thirteenth Apostle. But that James the Lord's Brother was not one of the Twelve, may be collected from 1 Cor. 15. 5, to 8. our Lord is said to appear, first to Cephas, then to the Twelve; after that he was seen of James, then of all the Apostles. Here we see James distinguished from the Twelve Apostles, and the Twelve are distin∣guished from all the Apostles. By all the Apostles therefore are meant (pro∣bably)

the Seventy, whom Jesus sent forth by two and two, to the pla∣ces whither himself would go, who were sent forth with these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I Apostolize, or send you, &c. Luke 10. 3. and these became famous Preachers and Officers in the Church after the Ascension of our Lord, as Eusebius and others have intimated in their Writings. We see then partly, from evident places of Scripture, and partly from rational demonstration of the places which probably hold forth such things, that the Primitive Churches were endowed with a Ministry of many Messengers or Apostles, beside those who were the Foundation-Layers, and Master-Builders in the Church of Christ.

The sum of that which hath been said, from the State or Order of the first Churches, lieth in this Syllogism.

The first Churches had a Ministry of many Apostles or Messengers, beside the chief Apostles.

This Ministry was never taken away, or de jure made to cease.

Therefore the Church of Christ hath, or ought to have, such a Mini∣stry of Apostles or Messengers to the end of the World.

Objection. Against this it is objected, That though it be true, that the Primitive Churches had a Ministry of Messengers or Apostles, beside the chief Apostles; and that the Church ought now to send her Ministers to preach to the World to gather and settle Churches, &c. yet it is denied that either the former or latter Messengers of the Churches, are or were the Apostles † 2.125 of Christ, or that they were, or any other are, Messengers or Apostles by Divine Institution.

To this Objection I answer, * 2.126 That as the Church is of Divine Institu∣tion by Christ, so are all her Officers; in whose Name she sends them forth, and not in her own Name, or in the Name of any other Creature, and so of no humane Institution, nor to act in their Ministry by humane Authority.

2. We have shewed some of those Inferior Apostles of Christ, from 1 Thess. 2. 6. which may be further evinced from 2 Cor. 5. where Timo∣thy is called in conjunction with the Apostle Paul, an Ambassador of Christ, [now then we are Ambassadors for Christ]: and it's granted by the Learned, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, here rendred Legatione, or Ambassador, is a word of the same import with that of Apostle: Hence the Argument is, If Timothy was an Ambassador for Christ, then he was an Apostle or Mes∣senger of Christ. But, &c. Ergo,

3. That this Office is of Divine Institution, may appear thus; It is either of Divine or Humane Institution; not of Humane, Ergo, of Di∣vine Institution. Or thus,

If any other Offices in the Church (as Bishops, Elders, or Deacons) be of Divine Institution, then the Office of Subordinate Messengers or Apostles (such as Timothy and Titus) is of Divine Institution also. But, &c. Ergo.

If any deny the Minor, he is too far gone in Error to be disputed with by me. And for the consequence of the Major, 'tis thus demonstrated.

Such as by virtue of their Office are to ordain others to Offices that are Divine, must themselves have an Office that is Divine: But Timothy and Titus, and other such Messengers, are to ordain others, by virtue of their Office, to Offices which are Divine.

Ergo, They had, and ought themselves, to have an Office which is Divine.

That Timothy and Titus were, by virtue of their Office, to ordain Bi∣shops and Deacons, is evident enough by those Epistles which the Apo∣stle Paul wrote to them respectively. And that they should do this, and have no Divine Authority, is not to be imagined; sith here they were not upon an immergency, (which may alter the case) but in the ordinary course of the exercise of their Ministerial Authority in the Churches of Christ.

4. Our fourth Argument is taken from the practice of our Brethren, who question the Being of Messengers, as a Ministry remaining in the Church at this day. For, do they not frequently send forth Men to act Authoritatively, both in preaching to the World, and setting things in order in remote Congregations, to exercise Discipline by Excommu∣nication of Offenders, and remitting the Penitent; by ordaining them Elders, and dispensing to them the Holy Mysteries or Ordinances? As these things cannot be denied, so we may justly require how it comes to pass that they do thus, if indeed the Church hath none to act in the ca∣pacity of Messengers or Apostles, as we have defined? sith it cannot be proved, neither do our Brethren affirm, That Elders of particular Churches have equal Power, or any Power as Elders in other Churches: Neither is it in the Power of any Congregation to take the Pastor of ano∣ther Church from them, nor may any Church impose their Pastor upon another Church: wherefore, unless there be a Ministry remaining in the Church, which is related by virtue of their Commission to all Churches indifferently, we may perceive what confusion is like to ensue.

For, if those who go to preach to the World, cannot justifie their Calling, as being inabled with lawful Power from God, and his Church; how shall they comfort themselves in their Undertakings, or answer Op∣posers when questioned, concerning their Commission, especially in such places where the Holy Scriptures are received? sith all that read may know, that as the Gospel is to be preached, so those that go forth as Mi∣nisters thereof, must be sent, either by immediate Mission from Heaven, or some mediate Mission from him by his Church, which none can pre∣tend to, who deny the Office of Messengers, because other Officers are not by virtue of their Office, to go out into the World to teach the Na∣tions, to plant Churches in remote Countries, or to settle the Affairs of remote Congregations.

If now to that which we have said, it should be replied, That such Churches as want Elders, and are distinct from one another, may allow by consent, that the Elders of one Church do act as Elders in another, &c.

To this we rejoyn, saying, This is sooner said than proved: for seeing Officers have their Commission at what time they are ordained, it cannot be that they should have their Power, de jure, made either less or grea∣ter, by the consent or non-consent of any Person or Persons whatsoever, unless it be by conferring another Office upon him; nor can that be done, but by another Ordination.

Again, it would be understood how long the Power given by our Bre∣thren, to Elders of one Church, to act as Elders in another Church, doth remain? Whether they thence-forth stand equally engaged to over∣see those Churches as the Church who first called them to serve as Pa∣stors? And also how many Churches such Elders may act in as Pastors by consent? whether two only, or ten, or an hundred, and ad infinitum? Surely, if once they give particular Pastors power to act as Pastors in more Congregations than they were at the time of their Ordination ap∣pointed to over-see, they can never bound their Power; And then what Messenger of the Church did ever exceed them in that respect? And further, if our Brethren can give their Pastors power to act as Pastors in many Churches for a Month, or a Year; then why not for five or ten Years, yea, for term of life, the occasion still being the same? And how much comes this short of the Power committed to any Messenger in the World at this day? Wherefore seeing your Brethren do exercise as great Authority in sending Men to Preach, or to exercise Ministerial Authority in the Churches of Christ as we do, it is strange they should dislike us for calling those Officers by such a Name as the Scriptures give them, ra∣ther than by such a Name as is exclusive of that Power which of necessity they put into exercise, whether they minister to the World, or to the Churches.

True it is, Peter calls himself an Elder, and that he was an Elder in one Church as well as in another; but this was because he had an Office which was comprehensive of all Offices in the Church. And hence it is that we find the Apostles sometimes performing the Office of Dea∣cons, when it might be done without let to the preaching of the Word, Acts 6. 2. Gal. 2. 9, 10. But though it be true, the greater does thus contain the less, yet the less does not contain the greater, for it's evi∣dent that the Office of a Pastor of a particular Congregation, and a Charge to Teach all Nations, and to Oversee all Churches, are things inconsistent to the same Person.

What may or ought to be done in Preaching the Gospel by Persons gifted in the Church, as a general Duty or Priviledg, it is not my busi∣ness here to discourse, but only to shew what is the true intent of the Offices which he hath ordained in his Church: otherwise it were easie to shew, That God hath not only provided a liberty in his Church for the modest exercise of the Gifts of his Spirit, that the Church may be edified; But also when by his Providence any Gifted Disciples are exposed to re∣mote Places, or otherwise called to testifie their Faith, they may then law∣fully Evangelize or Preach the Gospel, as is evident both from Holy Scrip∣ture, Act. 8. 4, 5. and other very Ancient Authors. See Socrates Scholasti∣cus, l. 1. c. 15, 16.

5. Our last Argument is from the state of the World, in respect of their continual need to be taught the Gospel in the ancient purity thereof, and the rather, because of false Apostles which are gone out into the World, and do corrupt the Word by sundry Artifices, to the hindrance of the Salvation of Mankind.

The World is God's Harvest, where-into he is pleased to send his La∣bourers; and the Church is commanded to Pray, that the Lord of the Harvest would send forth more and painful Labourers into his Harvest, Luke 10. Now these Labourers (at least generally) must be such as are in Ministerial Capacity to Preach the Gospel; and they can no way so well be understood of any particular Function in the Ministry, as that of Messengers, partly for that the other Ministers are bound to particu∣lar Churches, (as is shewed before) partly for that our Saviour gave this direction to his Church, upon the occasion of sending forth an Inferior Order of Apostles or Messengers, to wit, the Seventy. * 2.127 And hence I argue, If it be the Duty of the Church in all Ages, to pray to the Lord that he would send forth such a Ministry into the World, there is not any room left for any to doubt of the continuance of such an Office, as that of Messengers or Apostles, as by us asserted; for that very clause of being sent, and that as Lambs in the midst of Wolves, doth still more familiarly inform us what manner of Ministers these Labourers are. A necessity thereof lieth upon the Church to dispose of her Members to that needful Work, as the Lord vouchsafes to fit them for it, lest otherwise she be like those which make many Prayers, for that they never intend to do, but rather to hinder the doing thereof.

It is certain the Church hath no power to cause the World to come to her Assemblies; and yet considering that the Gospel is for the Illumina∣tion of all, it must needs be, that God should yet have his Ambassadors to beseech the World in Christ's stead to be reconciled to God; even as one Fruit of Christ's Ascension, is a Gift for the Rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell among them, Psal. 68. 18. which being compared with Ephes. 4. may very well be interpreted of a gifted Ministry, to turn re∣bellious Sinners from Darkness to Light, and from the Power of Satan to God. To which agrees John 16. 8. where our Lord doth assure his Dis∣ciples, that when he should send the Holy Ghost, he should convince the World of Sin, of Righteousness, and of Judgment; and this no doubt, as he should operate or work upon Men by the Ministry of the Word; which Promise either ended with that Age (which is absurd to think) or else remains to this day, it supposes a Ministry to hold forth to the World the everlasting Gospel, for the Obedience of Faith, such I mean as are bound by their Office, as Debtor to the Wise and Unwise, to preach to them that are without.

There is no doubt but Satan hath his Apostles in the World at this day, as well as in times past, 2 Cor. 11. It were strange if our Lord

should have none to withstand them, with an Are they Apostles? So am I; as well as with an Are they Bishops or Elders? so am I. And it's ob∣servable Paul did not deny the Appellation of Apostle to others beside himself, and the chief Apostles; whereas had it been unlawful to be called so, he had a ready way to discover them to be Deceivers, even by their saying their professing themselves Apostles, was proof sufficient; but this Argument he never mentions, but vindicates himself, by shew∣ing he was not inferior to them, no, not to the chief Apostle. The Church, Rev. 2. 2. is not commended for denying any to be Apostles beside the Foundation-Layers, but for trying them which said they were Apostles, and were not, and found them Lyars. And like as if any shall arise, saying, I am Christ; his very saying so would be the best evidence he is a Lyar, (seeing there is one only Lord Jesus Christ); so, if there were no more Apostles than the Twelve, &c. it were one of the easiest things in the World to discover a false Apostle, because his saying he was an Apostle, would be the badg to know him for a Deceiver.

Finally; The Gospel must be preached in all the World, for a Wit∣ness to all Nations, and then shall the end come, Matth. 24. 14. which supposes the being of a Ministry, whose Work it is to Preach to all Na∣tions, even to the end of the World, Rev. 14. A Ministry must go forth to preach the Gospel to every Nation, Kindred, Tongue, and People, imme∣diately before great Babylon's fall; so then, though darkness hath much prevailed since the first publication of the Gospel, yet Light shall rise out of obscurity, and the Earth shall still be enlightned. The Wisdom of God, said he, would send Prophets and Apostles, Luke 11. 49. which is inter∣preted of wise Men and Scribes, Matth. 23. 34. and that they should be persecuted and slain. This Prophecy was not so amply fulfilled by the Jewish Nation; but that Mystery Babylon shall bear a part in the ful∣filling of it, Rev. 18. 20. which doth further shew a succession of Apo∣stles, after the Jewish Nation had done their worst to those whom God sent unto them.

Object. The Signs of Apostles are Wonders and mighty Deeds: these Signs are not found, Ergo there are no Apostles.

Answ. This Objection is deceitful, because it distinguisheth not be∣tween the chief and subordinate Apostles. Signs were a necessary conco∣mitant to the Office of the chief Apostles, because they were to deliver New Oracles, and to abrogate Old ones; but the inferior Apostles needed no such Signs: nor do we read of any mighty Deeds done by Timothy and Titus, who yet were Apostles of the Order which we con∣tend for.

2. Though we hold it unsafe to say Miraculous Gifts are so ceased, as that the Church may in no case ask them, yet we say, If Men should shew Signs to prove themselves Apostles, it would now rather prove them Deceivers.

Object. If there be any Messengers or Apostles in these days, shew us the Men and that sufficeth us, less than this will not satisfie.

Answ. Ezra 5. 4. What are the Names of the Men that make this Build∣ing? or, what would it profit you to tell you their Names?

2. Is not this curiosity the Filum certissium, or leading Thread, to call in question your Bishops, Pastors, Deacons, yea in fine, your Church it self?

3. Therefore let the Office contended for he granted or denied upon the grounds of Holy Scriptures, and not asserted because of the eminen∣cy, or rejected because of the meanness of the Persons concern'd in this Vocation.

Object. If there be any such Apostles as you contend for, why do they not magnifie their Office, and impose themselves upon the Churches where they come?

Answ. 1. Although he that gave this Ministry, hath endowed them with Power and Capacity to serve his Churches, yet have they no dominion over their Faith, to force themselves upon them whether they will or no, especially such Churches as they never planted: For Paul (that great Apostle) hath taught them more modestly, 1 Cor. 9. 2. 2 Cor. 10. 12, to 17.

2. These Messengers, or Apostles, do magnifie their Office in de∣fending it against Gain-sayers, and by doing what they can, in the Servi∣ces they are obliged to by it; and when Diotrephes hath learned more mo∣desty than to reject them, they may be more serviceable than now they are.

Object. But do you not give to these Ministers, or Messengers, a super∣intendency over Bishops or Elders? And may not this in time lead to the set∣ting up Arch-Bishops, or some Anti-christian Usurpation?

Answ. 1. There is no better way to prevent such Usurpation, than by preserving the Ministry by us contended for, because it preserves all par∣ticular Churches Right to send forth such Ministers as there is occasion for them so to do, and no one Church is herein priviledged above ano∣ther.

2. We give them no more superintendency than Timothy and Titus had, whose care was for the Churches indifferently, so that their pre∣heminence was only a degree of Honour, (not of Power) in being grea∣ter Servants than others, as Christ taught them, He that is greatest, let him be your Servant.

3. The necessity of this Ministry lieth in three things chiefly; 1. To plant Churches where there is none. 2. To set in order such Churches as want Officers to order their Affairs. And, 3. To assist faithful Pa∣stors,

or Churches, against Usurpers, and those that trouble the Peace of particular Churches by false Doctrines, 3 Ep. John v. 10. 1 Tim. 1. 3.

Object. But do you not give the sole Power of Ordination to your Messen∣gers, or Apostles?

Answ. In no wise: for though we say they only are in a regular ca∣pacity to ordain Elders in Congregations newly planted, which have no Officers; yet where the Churches have an Eldership, there they are in a capacity to ordain their own Officers; yea, they may ordain and send forth Messengers, 1 Tim. 4. 14.

Object. But who shall deal with, or correct those Messengers, if they shall fall into Errors in Life or Doctrine?

Answ. 1. It is meet every Christian (and so every Minister) be a Member of some particular Church, and this Church is the most proper Judg to execute Justice (as far as it concerns the Church) against such Offenders.

2. Any true Church may lawfully anathematize, or hold in execrati∣on an Angel, or an Apostle of the greatest dignity, if they prevaricate in Doctrine, Gal. 1. And therefore these subordinate Messengers may be dealt with accordingly, if they deserve it.

To conclude; The sum of that which we have said, is this, That as God hath given to his Church a fixed Ministry of Bishops, Elders, Pa∣stors, &c. to take the care of particular Churches; so he hath given her a travelling Ministry, unfixed, in respect of particular Societies, to whom it pertains, by virtue of their Ministry or Office, to take all occasions to cause the Light of the Glorious Gospel to shine unto such as sit in Dark∣ness, to plant Churches, to confirm or settle them in the Faith, to visit and comfort those who have believed through Grace.

And when we say the Messengers are unfixed, in respect of particular Societies, our meaning is not thereby to deny, but that for the more con∣venient management of the great Affairs of the Gospel, they may divide themselves into divers parts, and accordingly be called the Messengers of such Countries, as with whom they most frequently converse of the Go∣spel, Gal. 2. 9.

In Asia we read of seven Messengers, and those related to seven Churches, in seven principal Cities in that Country: yet it may not be doubted, but that there were many Churches, and scattered Disciples in Country Villages, and so many Elders also in Asia; yea, in these very Churches which are particularly named: for in the Church of Ephesus there were divers Bishops long before John wrote these Epistles from the Isle of Patmos, Acts 20. 17, 28.

It is true, the Ancients call these seven Messengers Bishops, or chief Ministers; But then we know by Bishops, they mean ordinarily such as

had the care of many particular Societies or Churches: Thus they make Timothy a Bishop, yet confess him to be a Preacher of the Gospel through∣out Hellas in Achaia, and from Ephesus unto Illiricum.

Titus they make Bishop of Crete, yet such an one as preached the Go∣spel in all that Country, which was very large. And our Modern Writers call him and Timothy, Evangelists, which they say, was an Office much inferior to that of Apostles; and so say we, if by Apostle be understood the chief Apostles: However the difference between us is not great, lying more in the name of the Office, than the Office it self.

Silvanus also is by some Writers made Bishop of Thessalonica; but the Scripture, as we have seen, calls him, and other such Ministers as he was, Apostles. Now, whether it be more safe to call these Travelling-Ministers of Christ Bishops, after the manner of Men, or Messengers, or Apostles, after the manner of the Holy Scriptures, is the business for the sober and unprejudiced Reader to consider: which that he may the better do, I shall note briefly what is granted by the Learned in this particular.

• 1. And first, Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 24. calls Mark an Apostle; When Nero (saith he) had reigned eight years, first after Mark the Apostle, and Evan∣gelist Anianus took the Government of the Church of Alexandria.
• 2. Anonim. in Photius, calls Timothy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Timothy the Apostle, and Theodoret calls him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Asian Apostle.
• 3. The same Theod. calls Titus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Apostle of the Cre∣tians.
• 4. He also calls Epaphroditus an Apostle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• 5. Clem. Alexandrinus, calls Clement, Paul's Companion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Apostle Clemens.
• 6. Chrysostom terms Ignatius, (who lived in the first Century) both Bishop and Apostle.

And saith Dr. Hammond, (out of whom these Collections are taken) Irenaeus informs us, that the followers of Marcus contemned the very Apostles in respect of themselves, which he expounds of the Bishops, or Apostles, which were in the time of Irenaeus, who flourished, Anno 175.

Now saith Theodoret, in process of time, they left the Name of Apo∣stles to them that were immediately sent by Christ, and imposed the Name of Bishops on those that had been anciently called Apostles.

Hence it is evident, the Office, in respect of the very Name and Au∣thority, which now we assert, continued in the Church unquestionable for about two hundred years; and by what Authority that Title so suitable to the Office was taken away, and another imposed (as is confessed) in∣stead thereof, may admit of consideration.

For when the Churches had thus deprived themselves of their subor∣dinate Messengers, or Apostles of Christ and his Churches, then were they constrained to set up Diocesan-Bishops, Lord-Bishops, Arch-Bishops, &c. For seeing the word Bishop was formerly used to express the Office of particular Pastors, or Elders, (as Jerom. Episcopum & Presbyterum unum esse); and yet having given divers of their Bishops the government of whole Coun∣tries,

or many Churches, they were forced to dev••se distinctions of their own, to know one sort of Bishops from another. Nor can this miscarri∣age or disorder be rightly reformed, till the good old way of the Primi∣tive Churches be re-assumed to the Glory of God, and better settlement of the Churches, which is the real and only design of this Treatise.

A POSTSCRIPT, In Answer to three Queries, received from a Judicious Friend in London, since the finishing the precedent Work.

Question 1.

WHether there be Messengers or Apostles of Christ to exercise a Mini∣sterial Authority in the Churches of Christ, by Divine Institution, to continue to the end of the World?

Answer.

This Query doth not deny a Ministry of Messengers to be sent to preach the Gospel where it is not known; to plant Churches where there is none; to ordain Elders in Churches remote, and to assist in dispen∣sing the Holy Mysteries, &c. for it is known the Enquirer allows of this.

The Question therefore is only about the Nature of their Office, (viz.) Whether it be of Divine Institution, or of Humane Prudence only?

To which I Answer, 1. Negatively, This Ministry is not of Humane Prudence only; because no Men, or Society of Men, meerly as such, though endued with much prudence, are in any capacity to transact Affairs of the Church of God, specially those that relate to the Ministry, 1 Cor. 2. 12, 13, 14. 1 Tim. 2. 2.

2. I say, this Ministry is of Divine Institution, because the whole Ministerial Authority, which the Church hath received as such, is of Di∣vine Institution; yea, the very Church her self is of Divine Instituti∣on; and therefore said to be built up a Spiritual House to offer Spiritual Sacrifices; called also an Holy Nation, a Royal Priesthood; the Temple of the Holy Ghost, which also is Holy: The House of the Son of God, dignified above the House or Church under Moses, which yet was an Holy People, and their Ordinances Divine, specially those that concern'd the Ministry of that Church, Numb. 3. 3, 9, 10, &c. Sith therefore I suppose it will not be denied that the Offices in the Jewish Church were of Divine Institution, it were strange that the Church of Christ should only enjoy a Ministry jure humano, or of humane Prudence only: for albeit this Que∣stion

doth only suppose the Itinerating Ministry, or Messengers of Christ and his Church, to be of humane Prudence, yet it's well known there is the same opinion of the Office of Elders, Deacons, &c. and the Messen∣gers Office is only made the Mark to shoot at, whilst yet the rest do stand or fall with it, as to the nature of their Institution. From the Premises therefore I shall offer this Argument.

The Ministry of the Jewish Church was of Divine Institution. Ergo, The Ministry of the Church of Christ is of Divine Institution.

That the Ministry of the Jewish Church was of Divine Institution, (though said to be but carnal in respect of that which was more glorious) will not (I think) be denied, and so the Antecedent is certain. That the Consequence is good, is evident, because the Ministry of the Church of Christ is more excellent than the Legal Ministry. And to this very purpose doth the Apostle argue, 2 Cor. 3. the whole Chapter, compared with the latter part of the 2d Chap. and the beginning of the 4th Chap. And as he most clearly sets out the Glory, both of the Ministration, and the Ministers of the Gospel, to be such as that; that of the Law had no Glory in respect of the other, the Ministers of Christ being Ministers, not of the Letter, but of the Spirit, &c. So it is very remarkable, that he gives this Character and Commendation to the subsequent Ministers, as well as to himself, viz. to Timotheus, whom he joyns with himself in the dedication of the Epistle, 2 Cor. 1. 1. and likewise personates him fre∣quently with himself in the greatest part of the Epistle, and particularly in Chap. 4. 1. Therefore seeing We have this Ministry, as we have re∣ceived Mercy, we faint not; otherwise they must both have fainted under those pressures which did attend them.

And here we have a full Argument for the Divine Institution of Timo∣thy's * 2.128 Office, (who was a Messenger) and consequently of all such Mi∣nisters as he was. The Argument is this;

Such Messengers, or Subordinate Apostles, as have received their Mi∣nistry [not their Gifts only] of the Lord, are Ministers by Divine In∣stitution. But Timothy, and all such Messengers or Apostles as he was, have received their Ministry of the Lord; Ergo, such Messengers or Apo∣stles as he was, are Ministers by Divine Institution.

This Argument à pari between the Institution of the Legal and Go∣spel Ministry might be abundantly improved; but I speak to wise Men, I hope a word to them will suffice.

Argument 2. from 1 Cor. 4. 1.

Those that are to be accounted Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God, they are Ministers by Divine Institution: but the Subor∣dinate Ministers, such as Sosthenus, Apollo, and Timotheus, are to be ac∣counted Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God. Ergo, as they are such Ministers, they are of Divine Institution.

If any deny the Major, he sights against Paul himself: and for the Minor, it is evident Paul includes such with himself as were his Compa∣nions, or Fellow-helpers, calling them also Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God, and that in conjunction with himself, as a Steward or Minister; and that Timothy and Sosthenus were his * 2.129 Com∣panions, doth appear 1 Cor. 1. 1. & 4. 17. whom also he calls Apostles, vers. 9, 10, 11, 12. For surely as they were his Companions, of whom he saith, to this present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and labour, working with our hands, &c. so vers. 9. he expresly calls the same Persons Apostles, and that in conjunction with himself also, (though they were much inferior to him); so that we conclude these Sub∣ordinate Ministers of Christ, Stewards of God's Mysteries, Messengers or Apostles, had this their Ministry by Divine Inspiration.

As for Apollo and Cephas, (who also are included in 1 Cor. 4. 1.) it appeareth not that they were Paul's Companions at this time; and so all things said concerning the other that were with him, cannot be so ap∣plicable to them; yet that they are included also in the Ministerial Ap∣pellations, is not hard to be demonstrated.

Question 2.

Whether you are such [Messengers] or Apostles? This you must answer before any one is bound to obey you.

Answer.

The Apostle Paul was constrained to become a Fool, 2 Cor. 12. 11. and it is no marvel if such as are not worthy to loose the latchet of his Shoes, be constrained, by the unfriendly dealing of some of their Brethren, to come into the same predicament. And therefore (leaving others to do as they see cause) I here expose my self to your contempt, (if so it must be), and I am the rather content to do this; for that I am the last, and therefore the least of all my Father's Children in this Nation, (that I know of) called to this so much despised Employment. Thus I am be∣come a Fool; but ye have compelled me.

Question 3.

Whether all Churches of Christ are bound to receive you as such? or whe∣ther any Church is guilty of Sin, if they refuse to receive you? By being bound or guilty, I mean, by virtue of some Divine Institution antecedaneous to any Compact or Agreement of their own, &c.

Answer 1.

That such Messengers, as Timothy, Titus, Sosthenus, and Apollo, and consequently our selves, if such ought to be received by the Churches

generally as Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4. 1. Let a Man, (viz. every Christian Man) so account of us, &c. Nor know I any agreement of their own necessary, antecedaneously, save the knowledg of the same Truth in this particular. But the Churches, ignorant of the Mind of God in this particular, are to be instructed in it; which being faithfully performed, I say the Churches which shall then re∣ject such Servants of Christ, do sin, and are to be blamed as Diotrephes was, who would neither receive such Brethren himself, nor suffer them that would, 3 Ep. John; And it were well if he had none in this Age to follow his ill Example.

2. Yet in this Answer these things are to be considered; 1. That they bring the Doctrine of Christ, 2 Epist. John vers. 10. And that they either are such whose praise is so in the Church as not to need, or else that they have Letters of Commendation from the Church of Christ, for * 2.130 some do not need such Letters, 2 Cor. 3. 1. Yet others had such Let∣ters to the same Church, Acts 18. 27. However, for the greater secu∣rity of the Churches, such Testimonials are expedient for all, and neces∣sary in remote places.

3. How far the Justification of this Ministry is Divine, and so ob∣liging to the Churches, may be considered from what hath been said before.

Christianismus Primitivus.

The Sixth TREATISE. GOSPEL-SEPARATION, Briefly considered and limited, according to TRUTH & CHARITY: LEST Under a pretence to the Later, the Former do suffer Injury.

CHAP. I. The Separation maintain'd by the Baptized Churches, Warrantable upon two Important Considerations, be∣side the case of Baptism.

* 2.131 TO omit the case of Baptism at present; there are many, but specially Two Causes which War∣rant the Separation maintained by the present Baptized Churches from National Churches. And, that is, First, That Impiety, and Ungodly Living, which too frequently attends such Com∣munities. For the worst Livers to be sure will croud into those Churches as their Sanctuaries; yea, let the most vigilent Magistrate, and the well minded persons in National Churches do what they can, there will they be; as is undenyable, by common experience through∣out many generations, so that a Demonstration herein is superfluous. But,

Secondly, The manifold Innovations and continual * 2.132 Alterations in Religion, not to be avoided in National Church-Constitutions and Go∣vernment, by reason of the Revolutions incident to the Government of Nations▪ do necessarily inforce a Separation, or Distinction between those Churches which depend upon National Government, with respect to their Rituals, and the Baptized Churches; whose professed Princi∣ples, are constantly to adhere to the Apostolical Institutions only, in respect of Ecclesiastical Oeconomy, which ought to be semper idem, however the Nations do change or alter with respect to the settlement of Religion.

Now it is not to be imagined that the Lord Jesus would constitute a Church, which was to excel the Jewish Constitution, as far as the Gospel excels the Law, and the Spiritual man the Natural, 2 Cor. 3. throughout, and yet leave her under such unavoidable pollution in matters of Life, and mutability or uncertainty in things pertaining to the Worship and Ser∣vice of God: But rather that he hath graciously provided for her con∣tinual purity in Doctrine, Life and Discipline. That his Churches might constantly live under the observation of all things whatsoever he com∣manded them, even to the very end of the world, Matth. 28. 20. and keep the Ordinances as they were delivered unto them, 1 Cor. 11. 2. as they are a people distinguished from the World. 1 John 4. 4, 5, 6. Ye are of God, little Children, and have overcome them, because greater is he that is in you then he that is in the world. They are of the world, therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them: we are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us: and he that is not of God heareth not us; hereby know we the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Forasmuch then as it is evident beyond contradiction, that all Nations (even in that part of the World called Christendom) for the greater part are ungodly Men, and are too likely to remain so, let the most pious Rulers thereof do what they can to have it otherwise; Christs in∣terest must needs be asserted, and a distinction maintained in matters of Religion, between them and the Church of Christ: and as for other causes, so in a special manner for this, that by occasion of this Separa∣tion, those unrighteous Livers may still be provoked to turn to God, and be translated from the power of darkness into the Kingdom of the dear Son of God, which is his Church; Colos. 1. 13, 14. where they shall find Re∣demption

through the blood of Christ, and obtain the forgiveness of their sins.

Thus then Separation in it self is allowed on all hands as a most holy thing, and that which is necessary for Mans salvation. We have there∣fore no further concern upon us to maintain the thing it self, but only to state it in its due bounds. And though we might inlarge very much up∣on these two Considerations, to the Vindication of the Separation, which is held needful by the Baptized Churches, from all National Churches, in the sence explained, notwithstanding the many thousands of Vertu∣ous, and (in their way) very Pious Persons among them; yet we shall intermit any further prosecution of these Particulars, and insist upon the case of Baptism only, which alone will suffice to justifie us in our Sepa∣ration, from those who (in our judgment at least) are unbaptized.

CHAP. II.

SECT. I. Baptism as necessary to a true Church-state, is essential to Chri∣stian-Communion in a Church capacity.

THat the Baptism of Repentance for Remission of Sins is necessary to a true Church-state, is, I trust, evinced above, and may be fur∣ther argued after this manner: All the first Principles of the Doctrine of Christ are necessary to a true Church-state, ever since they had a being in the Christian profession: But the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of sins, is found among the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, and hath an evident being in the Christian profession. Ergo, it is necessary to a true Church∣state. The Minor is evident from Heb. 6. 2. & Ephes. 4. 5. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; as well as one Body, and one Spirit. The Major is as plain, because first Principles are either necessary in the Constituti∣on of a Church, or else not necessary at all: Now to say they are not necessary at all, is to destroy the being of Christianity; and if we re∣move them out of the beginning of the Christian Profession, we shall certainly lose them; because we can assign no other time for the Pro∣fession and Observation of them; but more may be objected against the times so assigned, than can be against the time of any mans beginning to be a Christian. Wherefore whiles Milk is necessary for Babes, these Principles, Heb. 6. 1, 2. (wherein Baptism of Repentance is recounted) will be found necessary to the beginning of Christian Professors; and whiles the whole Foundation (to wit, the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, or Christ as held forth in his holy Doctrine) is necessary to the superstructure, every one must allow the Doctrine of Baptism a place in the foundation, being as evidently a branch thereof as the rest.

Now if Mens offering this injury to the third Principle of Christs Doctrine, as either to deny the Baptism of Repentance, to be necessary at all, or to set up Paedo-rantism instead thereof, must be indulged and no Separation made about it; it is certain none of the other Principles

can be secured from the like injuries, and consequently they will all be lost in Conclusion. This will evidently appear by yielding to each Par∣ty the same plea, which in the case of Baptism lyeth thus: You ought not to Separate from us, saith the Paedobaptist; for though we do condemn your Baptism as Anabaptism, and say it is not any part of Christs Doctrine, Heb. 6. 2. yet we own the Doctrine of Baptisms there mentioned to be a part of Christs Doctrine, and we say, our Paedobaptism is the Baptism there in∣tended.

If now we may hold Communion with the Paedobaptist, then come the Quakers and plead, That though they do indeed deny our Faith to∣wards God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, as our own carnal imagination; yet they grants that Faith mentioned, Heb. 6. 1. to be true Faith, and affirm their Faith to be that Faith which was once delivered to the Saints; and hence urge that our Separation from them is unwarrantable. And the same plea will serve them in the case of the Resurrection and eternal Judgment, &c. So that evident it is, if we yield to those who have no Baptism, or that have set up their own Tradition instead of sacred Baptism, to be communicable Christians, as members of the visible Church of Christ, we cannot pos∣sibly make any one of these great Truths the boundaries of our Com∣munion in a Church-capacity. And if none of these Principles be neces∣sary in that case, it will be hard to assign any Doctrine or Practice in Religion which will have Authority above these, to limit the Commu∣nion of Men professing Christianity: yea Popery it self will obtrude upon us, and we cannot avoid it, if this gap be once opened; and it will be utterly uncertain what is true Faith or Baptism, or when Men should be Baptized. The Pastor is disabled to assign the time for Mens submis∣sion to Baptism, that is wholly lest to every Mans will, since 'tis not now made necessary to his being embodied in the Church, and if he neg∣lect it to the day of his death the Minister cannot blame him. To avoid all which pernicious inconveniencies, this sacred Ordinance of the Ba∣ptism of Repentance for Remission of Sins, must be held necessary to Christian Communion in a Church-capacity.

SECT. II. Paedobaptists themselves make Baptism necessary to Church-Communion.

THE Papists (the greatest assertors of Paedopabtism in the World) do not only make Baptism necessary to Church-communion, but even to Salvation also. And so do many Protestants also, as is very well known by their Printed Books, which may be seen; wherein they teach, That without Baptism, or the desire of Baptism, the Salvation of Infants is (at least) doubtful. But to leave that as too uncharitable an Opinion; it is certain they generally agree in this, That without Ba∣ptism there is no orderly admittance into the Church of Christ. That no unbaptized Person may lawfully Communicate at the Table of the Lord.

* 2.133 Mr. Baxter himself acknowledging, that it is to destroy all Order to ga∣ther Churches without Baptism, giving many instances in the holy Scri∣ptures to justifie his Doctrine in that behalf. * 2.134 Doctor Hammond also tells us, That in Baptism we are entred into one body to be fellow-members with all Christians of what quality or sort soever we are. And that it is a known rule, That all of what sort soever that have received the Faith, and are ac∣cordingly Baptized into it, are made members of Christ. And that as we have but one Master, whose commands we are bound to obey — Some have the same form of imitation, the same vow of Baptism appointed to be administred to all. And saith Mr. A. If Baptism be the visible means of ad∣mission into the Church, then this end is not to be expected without this means, where there is opportunity of making use of it; God never being used to vouchsafe things in an extraordinary way when ordinary means are at hand and neglected: and consequently that none are to be looked upon, as re∣gularly visible members, no not of the universal, who are not Baptized; for Men are not left to their own Liberty herein, but are tied up to a rule to judg by; and indeed should there not be a certain standing rule, such as Baptism is, by which to determine when Men are visibly of the Church universal, and when not; there would be a great deal of uncertainty, by what, how, and when to esteem them members thereof.

SECT. III. Nothing to be proposed, more apt then Baptism, to be a rule of vi∣sible Church-membership.

AND because the Author last named hath made ready certain dis∣courses to my hand, in Vindication of the Separation maintained by the Baptized Churches, from the Paedobaptists, I shall insist upon them with very little alteration, save that I shall take occasion to reckon with some Objections elsewhere found in the same Author, as they shall occur in due place. And certainly should we make any thing else (so as to exclude Baptism) the rule of this judgment, we should find our selves at a strange loss to give judgment herein. For example, Should we make a mans profession of the Christian Religion in general this rule; then the Question will be, Whether every profession of the Christian Religion does render a Man reputatively a member of the universal Church? If not (as I suppose it will not be asserted that it doth) then the Question will be, To what a degree a Man must profess, before he be worthy of that denomination? And who is able to give the rule to his Brother in this case? yea, or unto himself either? but that he will be in danger of making it too high or too low, too narrow or too wide. But now if we take the rule which God hath fitted to our hands (Baptism of Repentance I mean) we shall then find our selves delivered from those uncertainties, difficulties and dissatisfactions; yea, from that ungospel-like arbitrari∣ness in the things of God (which leaves every Man to form his own me∣thods in forming of Churches) which will otherwise of necessity befall

us herein. For according to Scripture rule, all they, and only they, are to be esteemed of the visible Church, who so far profess Repentance from dead Works, Faith towards God, and the rest of the foundation-Principles; as thereupon to submit to the Ordinance of Baptism, as in∣gaging themselves thereby to be no longer the servants of Sin, but thence forth the servants of Jesus Christ.

Object. It is here Objected, That in probability the 120 Disciples, Act. 1. were not under Laying on of hands, nor yet the first Church of the Gentiles, Act. 10. For the first, The holy Ghost was not given to them till the day of Pente∣cost: and for the second, They received the holy Ghost before they were Ba∣ptized, and consequently had no need of Laying on of Hands, and so that part of the foundation was wanting in both these Churches, yet they were com∣municable Churches: and then why may not such as are defective in the case of Baptism be looked upon as communicable also?

Answ. 1. I Answer, to the last instance, in the first place, That the ground of this Objection is faulty in two respects; first, for that it supposeth, that if the end of an Ordinance be obtained, the Ordinance ceaseth; which supposition is fully confuted in this very place, Act. 10. for Baptism it self, in Gods ordinary way, goes before the pouring out of the gifts of the holy Ghost, Act. 2. 38. and yet we see it is here given before Baptism. Nevertheless the Apostle shews, that this gave no Man power to forbid Water; and commands these very Persons to be Baptized. 2. This Objection supposes, there could be no more blessings of the Spirit given to those that received it, whiles Peter was Preaching to them, which is a great mistake; for the best of Gods Children, do always find cause to beg more of his holy Spirit; yea Paul desires the prayers of others for him in that behalf, Ephes. 6. 18, 19. And how should any Man forbid Prayer that these should not yet receive the continual supplies of Wis∣dom and Grace, to use those gifts which they had already received; and if no Man can forbid Prayer for such, why they should forbid impo∣sition of hands, no reason can be shewed.

Answ. 2. To the first instance, I Answer, That seeing the 120 Disciples, Act. 1. continued purposely together in Prayer and Supplication, and that in continual expectation of receiving the promised Spirit; and sith the Apostles received their instructions how to order the affairs of the Go∣spel, during the time that Christ was with them; why is it not more ra∣tional to believe, that as they Prayed and waited for the promised Spi∣rit (as Christ directed) even so they might Pray for the promise of the Father, with the putting on of hands too; and much more safe it is thus to conjecture (for there is but conjecture on both sides) seeing we find Laying on of Hands a Principle in which the Hebrew Church had been instructed, Heb. 6. 2. without the least intimation that any one of them were ignorant of it. 2. There must be some time for every truth to take its being in the Church of God. If then Christ had ordered the Apostles not to use this service till after the holy Ghost was given to them, accor∣ding to his Promise, then they were not to observe it till after that time, and so this instance is not at all to the purpose. But if they had order to Pray with putting on of hands before the day of Pentecost without

doubt they were faithful and did wait for the promise of the Father, in the very way wherein they were directed: So that let the Adversary take which hand he please there is no weight in this Objection.

Answ. 3. Now whether some Christians neglect of the Imposition of Hands, Heb. 6. 2. will not as well render them Incommunicable, as the neglect of Baptism by others will justifie our Separation from them; or whe∣ther both may not be alike communicable with true Churches? (which is the import of the Objection) is, I confess, a case I delight not to dis∣cuss. Nevertheless, I say, as we ought to prefer all Men in point of Christianity, according as they excel others in their approaches to the simplicity thereof; so there is a vast difference between a Baptized Be∣liever, and such an one as does not only reject the Counsel of God in that particular, but also sets up that Innovation of Paedobaptism in stead thereof. And though it is true, Baptism and laying on of Hands, are indifferently called Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, yet we know that by Baptism they are Incorporate with the universal Church, 1 Cor. 12. By one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body. And there∣fore to Separate from such, as no members of the Body, cannot be War∣rantable. We are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus. And as many as are Baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. Hence all Baptized Believers must be deemed as persons in Christ; born of Water and of the Spirit, and called by (or Baptized into the Name of) the Father, Son and holy Spirit, and must therefore be received as Brethren and as Members of the visible Church, considered as universal. Howbeit they are not in a better capacity (in respect of the Order of their Christian-state) then the Samaritans were, Act. 8. 12, 13, 14. before Peter and John came to them; or the Disciples at Ephesus, Act. 19. 1, 2. And are therefore to be taught the way of the Lord more perfectly. And as we have good reason to believe, that had the Christians at either of these Cities rejected the Apostles, in their Ministery of Prayer and laying on of Hands, they would not on∣ly have rendred themselves thereby less perfect in the Constitution of their particular Church-states, but also have been distinguished from those Churches which had received their Doctrine intirely. And if so, it cannot be evil for those who bring the same Doctrine, to use the same method in these days, not because they are not Churches, but because they refuse to serve the Lord in due Order.

SECT. IV. None to be esteemed Members of particular Churches till Baptized.

IF then none are to be esteemed Members of the universal Church, but only such as are Baptized; Then only such as are Baptized may be admitted Members of a particular Church. For it is altogether irregular, indeed absurd, to admit any into particular Church-fellowship, who are not first visible

Members of the universal; because particular Churches, and so particu∣lar Church-members, receive their right of being such, of and from the universal Church, and from that precedent standing they had there as Branches and Members of it. As the special doth and must agree with the general kind, in the general nature of it, or else it is no special of that general, as Logicians speak: so must a particular Church agree with the universal, in the universal nature of it; otherwise it is no particular of the universal, but is something of another kind.

But now Baptism is so essentially, formally, and universally necessary, to the visible being (I say, visible being) of the universal Church, and of every Member of it; as that it is the distinguishing mark between those that are, and those that are not visibly of it — The Baptism of Repentance then, being so much of the general nature of the Churches visible being, as that that no man can according to Scripture rule, esteem any one duly, and regularly a Member thereof, without it; those parti∣cular Churches, or Church-members then, that partake not hereof, cannot in due form of Evangelical Law, nor according to the principles of Rea∣son be esteemed particular Churches, or Church-members of the uni∣versal; but either of some other kind, or at best of an Ungospel-like form and constitution.

This being Gods order, method and way of bringing Men into the in∣joyment of Church-Communion, by the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of their Sins, as is largely shewed above; this his Order ought to be very sacred unto us, For God is the God of Order, and not of Confusion in all the Churches of the Saints, 1 Cor. 14. 40. And he hath commanded us to do all things Decently and in Order. Now what is it to do all things in Order? but to do every thing in due place; that first which in Order of Institution is first, and that afterward which hath a Relative dependance upon that which goes before. That example of Gods dis∣pleasure, 1 Chron. 15. 13. is written for our Admonition, where the in∣verting or neglecting that Order, which he had prescribed, occasioned such a breach, as that David was afraid of God. And he will make all the Churches know, that it is he which searcheth the heart, and is a strict observer of what and how all things are done in his Churches, Rev. 2. 23.

We know that none were admitted of old to the Passover (how ho∣ly soever they might otherwise seem to be) but such as were Circumci∣sed, Exod. 12. 48. and therefore if Baptism bear the like relation to the Supper of the Lord, as Circumcision did to the Passover (which is a thing generally acknowledged by all) then it follows that as no Uncir∣cumcised person might be admitted to the Passover, and so none Unba∣ptized may be admitted to the Table of the Lord, and consequently not to Church-Communion, whereof that is a special part.

I would gladly know according to what rule or principle of Reason, Judgment or Wisdom, any Man is to steer his course in Spiritual affairs, in a way that is more dubious and dark, when he hath opportunity of pro∣ceeding therein upon terms of clear and certain satisfaction, and such as are full of Lights; the footsteps of so many of the Primative Churches ly∣ing

fare before them. We suspect them that wait for the twilight, and unto whom the morning is as the shadow of death, Job 20. 15, 17. 'Tis the property of those that work Righteousness to come to the Light, that their deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God.

And now is it not as clear as the Light at noon day, that Baptized persons were received into the fellowship of Baptized? yea, so clear that none can deny it? But that Baptized and Unbaptized persons did Incor∣porate themselves into Church-Bodies, I suppose none will affirm, at least it will be found there is no reason so to do. And beside, he opposeth himself against the consent of all Men (or the generality of them) pro∣fessing Christianity, in all ages since Christ, though differing in many other particulars.

CHAP. III.

SECT. I. Objections Answered, usually brought in opposition to the necessity of Baptism for Church-Communion.

Object. 1. SOme may possibly Object, That though it do not lie so fair and clear in Scripture, with that degree of evidence, that Ʋnbaptized Persons were admited into Church-fellowship with those that were Baptized, as it does appear that such as were Baptized held Communion together; yet it seems probable that Ʋnbaptized Persons were Church-Members with those that were Baptized in the Churches in Galatia and Rome, Gal. 3. 27. Rom. 6. 3. for do not these words, so many of us, &c. as many of you as have been Baptized, &c. imply that there were some in, and of those Churches that were not Baptized into Christ? for the form of speech and manner of phrase, is pa∣ritive or distributive, and supposes the Churches to whom he writes to be part of them Baptized and part of them Ʋnbaptized.

Answ. 1. Upon consideration of the manner of speaking, the scope of the Apo∣stle, and the collation of other Scriptures herewith, it will appear, that no such thing can be duly collected from the Scriptures mentioned, as is pretended in the Objection. For, first, Though this form of speaking, As many of you; and so many of us, &c. is sometimes used in a paritive or distributive sense, and doth denote a difference between the persons of whom the predication is made; yet it is not always so used, nor doth it always import such a thing. For example, 1 Tim. 6. 1. Let as many Ser∣vants as are under the yoke, count their own Masters worthy of all honour: that the Name of God, and his Doctrine be not blasphemed. Now if we take the words here in a parative or distributive sense, then we must suppose that only some servants were under the yoke of servitude, and others were not; and that it is the duty of some servants to honour their Masters, and that some are not bound to honour their Masters: which were absurd to imagine. But the Apostles meaning is, that all

servants, forasmuch as they are under the yoke, should give all due re∣spects of honour to their Masters, which as servants it becomes them to exhibit.

Answ. 2. Secondly, I answer therefore, That the scope of the Apostle being consulted, the Objection is altogether groundless and unreasonable; for the Apostle having said, Gal. 3. 26. Ye are all the Sons of God, by Faith in Christ Jesus; those words, vers. 27. viz. For as many of you as have been Baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, are alledged by him as the rea∣son of what he had said before in v. 26. But now if their puting on of Christ in Baptism, was a proof of their relation to God as Children, (as the Apostle brings it to that very end;) then that which he gives in by way of reason and proof, that they were all the Children of God by Faith, would fall very short of this end, if only a part of the Members of these Churches had been Baptized, and not all: for how would it follow, that they were all the Sons of God by Faith, from such a saying as this, i. e. for some of you have been Baptized, and thereby have put on Christ? sure this were to fasten a Soloecism upon the Apostle, yea to render him absurd and altogether unconvincing in his Argument. But on the contrary, it is very rational for him to conclude, they were all the Sons of God by Faith, because they had all given Testimony of their Faith by puting on Christ in Baptism.

Neither will the scope of that place, Rom. 6. 3. admit of a distribu∣tive sence, Know ye not, that so many of us as were Baptized into Christ Jesus, were Baptized into his death. For the Apostles pressing the great duty of Mortification upon this whole Church at Rome, he, to make his Exhortation the more Effectual, remembers them how they ingaged themselves to the Practice thereof by their Baptism; now seeing he pres∣seth them all to reckon themselves to be dead to sin: and alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord; and had shewed them that Baptism did sig∣nifie both, and therefore he makes it Argumentative for both. It fol∣lows that he must needs use that as an Argument equally to all, wherein all were equally concerned; and therefore of necessity they had all been Baptized into one Body, as well as the Corinthians, and had all, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, as the Ephesians.

SECT. II. Answereth an Objection taken from the Faith and excelling Pie∣ty of many who are not Baptized.

SOme Object, That such Persons as have Repented, and do believe, and are Sanctified, are fit mater whereof to make a Church, and according∣ly are to be admitted into Church-fellowship. For the Christian Churches in the Apostles times, are described to be such, as are Sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be Saints, Rom. 1. 7. 1 Cor. 18. and sometimes Faithful in Christ Jesus, Ephes. 1. 1. Col. 1. 2. and consequently ought to be admitted into Church-fellowship, their want of Baptism notwithstanding.

Answ. There is a twofold fitness in respect of the matter of a Church, the one Remote, the other Immediate; that which is Remote may be con∣sidered with respect to certain degrees of fitness; yea, perhaps to such a degree, as that there wants but that only thing to render them capable of Church-membership: but yet this other qualification which they is not yet invested with must intervene, before they be regularly, compleatly, and according to Gospel-order capable of admission. Now we deny not but that there are very many, fit matter to become Church-members, who are not Baptized, and that there is nothing wanting but their Baptis∣mal obedience to render them Members of the visible Church of Christ. How far Prayer, with imposition of Hands, for a more full injoyment of the Spirit, may be needful to their admitance to such or such a particu∣lar Church (which was wont to be practised next after Baptism, in the the first Churches, Act. 8. 15, 16. & 19. 5, 6. Heb. 6. 2.) I shall not here dispute.) For we may well suppose the Persons we now speak of, to be as fit for admission to Church-membership, as the Converted Jews, Act. 2. and the Eunuch, Act. 8. or as Lydia and the Jaylor, Act. 16. before they were Baptized, and only professing Repentance, and Faith in the Lord Jesus.

But that either the one or the other are or were immediatly fit for ad∣mission into Church-fellowship, by virtue of their Repentance, Faith, or Sanctification, without the Baptism of Repentance, is that which must still be denyed, there being no ruled case in Scripture to justifie such an admission: what ever the Faith or Holiness of any man was be∣fore his Baptism, yet his Baptism did still go before his Church-member∣ship in the Primitive times, as is fully shewed above. Let us illustrate this Case by a similitude; Suppose a Man be as fit as fitness can make him, to be the Husband of such a Woman, yet he may not have society with her as a Wife, untill the Solemnities of Marriage are passed be∣tween them. And the same God which hath ordained Marriage for the uniting Persons in the state of Husband and Wife, hath ordained Ba∣ptism to unite us to the mystical Body of Christ His visible Church.

1. To the Scriptures alledged in this Objection, I answer, three things, 1. Though they to whom these writings were sent, are not de∣scribed by their being Baptized, yet that the Persons described by their Faith, were Baptized, is so evident that it cannot be unknown to such as make these Objections, being to be found in those very Epistles, 1 Cor. 12. 13. Col. 2. 12. Ephes. 4. 5. & 5. 26. with Act. 19. 1, 5. as is also shewed above.

2. When they are said to be Sanctified in Christ Jesus, they are In∣clusively, or by way of Implication said to be Baptized, because their Baptism was a special means of their Sanctification: Ephes. 5. Christ loved his Church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctifie and cleanse it by the washing of water through the Word, Act. 22. 16. Arise, and be Baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the Name of the Lord. Or if we take into the signification of the word Sanctified, their being Separated from the rest of the World, and set apart and dedicated unto God (which most properly answers the notion of Sanctification;) then their being

said to be Sanctified may be understood of their Baptism (as well as any other part of their Christian Profession;) because by their Baptism they were visibly put into a new Condition, and into new Relations, being thereby transmitted or carried over from the fellowship of the World, into the fellowship of Christ and of the Saints, and solemnly set apart for the service of Christ.

* 2.135 The sum of all that is Objected against the Separation maintained by the Baptized Churches, from the Paedobaptists, lieth in these Propo∣sitions. 1. The Paedobaptists are godly men. 2. Such as are Believers in Christ. 3. Have the Spirit of God. 4. Have the Doctrine of Baptism in the Spiritual part. 5. Are confident they have it Practically in the Literal part. 6. That we have no example of the Primitive Saints refusing Com∣munion with such as the Godly Paedobaptists are. 7. They have Communi∣on with God, and therefore as God hath received them, we ought also to receive them to the glory of God, Rom. 14. 1, 3.

Answ. 1. The Answer to these Objections shall be short. And first, It is not Godliness in general that renders any Man capable of Communion in the Church of Christ: for it may be said of the Eunuch, Act. 8. that he was a Godly-man, before he believed in Christ; and the same may be said of the Centurion, Act. 10. who Prayed to God daily and gave much Alms, and yet neither of them by virtue of that Godliness capa∣ble of Church-membership. Yea there is no doubt but there are many at this day among the Papists who are as Godly as any other Paedoba∣ptists; and among the Turks not a few who have a great share of Pie∣ty, so as to excel the greatest part of Men professing Christianity, both in Devotion to the God of Heaven, and in honesty of Life, and love towards their Neighbour: yet assuredly these things will not prove them fit for Communion in the Church of Christ. And the reason is, that they do not perform their Devotions according to the Doctrine of Godli∣ness. Now if any teach otherwise, and consent not to wholsom words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Doctrine which is according to Godliness; or that receives not the form of Doctrine once delivered to the Saints, and especially when they are so abundantly put upon the Considerations of their doings in that behalf; certainly such Men (even those that are called Godly Paedobaptists) are not fit for Com∣munion in the Church of Christ. But this is not all neither, for they do not only reject the Counsel of God against themselves, being not Baptized, but they also labour as violently as any to set up an Humane Institute instead thereof; and it is impossible, or at least very unlikely, that that Innovation should go alone.

2. To say they are Believers, does not infer their right to Commu∣nion in the Church: for they may believe aright concerning God and Christ in many things, and yet worship God in vain, Matth. 15. 9. For as our Saviour did not blame the people for worshiping an Idol, but allows that they worshipped the true God, and so justified them in respect of their Faith, in that case; and yet protests against their Wor∣ship as being in vain; Even so may we by his example, grant the Faith of many Paedobaptists to be sound in most things, and yet say that they

worship God in vain, whilest their fear towards God is taught by the Pre∣cepts of Men.

3. That the Paedobaptists have the Spirit of God, is sooner said then proved, at least it will be hard to assign which sort of them hath it; and whether we may not as charitably believe the zealous Papist hath it, as well as the zealous Presbyterian. It is out of my understanding to make a real difference between them in that respect; or if I should speak my thoughts, I should doubt the Presbyterian rather the more, because of the greater means of Light which he injoys above the other ordinarily: but I hold it best to judge neither this way nor that, but this we know, if they have the Spirit of God, they daily rebel against his Do∣ctrine, who commands even them that have received the Spirit to be Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus. And had Cornelius done so, he had certainly been unfit for Communion with the Church; and I know no allowance which God hath given to the Presbyterian, &c. above other Men; and therefore cannot imagine them fit for Church-Communion without Baptism.

4. If the Paedobaptists have the Doctrine of Baptism in the Spiritual part, then it is certain they live in the daily Transgression of their own Doctrine; for the Spiritual Doctrine of Baptism is, to put on the Lord Jesus Christ in Baptism, to be dead with him from the Rudiments and Tra∣ditions of the World. But they are so far from being dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the World, that as Men living in the World they are subject to many Humane Innovations. Now unless Mens having the Spiritual part of the Doctrine of Baptism, to transgress from day to day, be a qualification for Church-Communion (which, I hope, none will affirm) then this objection does not weaken us in the grounds on which we found our Separation from Paedobaptists.

5. But they are confident (saith the Objecter) that they have Baptism practically in the Literal part. But are not the Baptized Churches as confident they have it not; and abundantly more ground for their con∣fidence too, in the Opinion of Mr. A. himself. We shall therefore an∣swer our Confidents out of the Mouth of the Appostle, only applying his words to the Case in hand, Rom. 2. 17. Behold thou art called a Presbyterian, &c. and makest thy boast of God, and art confident that thou thy self art a Guide to the blind, &c. Thou therefore that teachest ano∣ther that he should not Worship God after Mens Precepts, dost thou thy self do so? Thou that sayest Christs Ordinances are to be kept as they were delivered, dost thou keep them as Men have prophaned them? and dost thou think these things no impediment to thy Communion with the Church of God?

6. As we have no Example that the Primitive Christians did refuse to Communicate with such as the Godly Paedobaptists are: So the Reason is, for that we had no such kind of Godly Men in those days, for true Godliness led Men to justifie God, being Baptized with the Baptism of Repentance, in the Primitive times; we find some (but we cannot call them Godly Men) that rejected the Counsel of God in the case of Baptism, Luke 7. 29. And that though they were convinced in their

Conscience the Baptism of Repentance was from Heaven, yet they had not the goodness to comply with such conviction, but had rather pre∣tend they could not tell what to say about it, then to obey God in it. And we have cause to fear many of these Godly Paedobaptists too much like these their Predecessors. Now like as those were not admitted either by Christ or John the Baptist into the Church of Christ, we think it well becomes all Christs followers, to walk as they have him for an Example: and to believe his holy Doctrine, which shews, John 3. 3, 5. that except a man be born again, i. e. Baptized (as the Antients and many Modern Writers expound the place) of Water and the Spirit, they cannot enter into the Kingdom, i. e. the Church of God. And hence our Saviour himself, according to this Exposition (allowed to be the true Exposi∣tion even by a * 2.136 Paedobaptist) Baptism is made a boundary of Church-Communion, and therefore may not by any specious pretences to God∣liness be removed out of that place where God hath fixed it. Nor was it in vain that our Lord himself would not enter upon the Ministry in the Christian Church, or the Gospel, before he was Baptized; where∣by he reproveth all those that presume to take in hand so Sacred an Im∣ployment, without hearkning to his voice, who saith, Thus it becomes us to fulfil all Righteousness, Matth. 3. 15.

7. What Communion those Presbyterian and Independant Paedoba∣ptists have with God, I do not certainly understand; nor do I think but some among the Prelates or Papists have as much Communion with God as themselves. And yet even the Objector himself would not have the Baptized Churches go joyn with the Papacy. But alas there is no stay when once we have gone beyond the antient Landmarks which our Fathers (I mean the Apostles) have set us. Surely Mens Commu∣nion with God, is a thing of which no certain Judgment can be made; we may think such a Man to have it, and another to be without it, and yet be deceived in both; nor hath God made this invisible or difficult Case the rule of our Communion; according to which we shall be more apt to reject a sincere soul, then an Hypocrite.

SECT. III. Considereth the Scripture, Rom. 14. 1, 2, 3. upon which the Ob∣jections are wont to be framed which are brought against our Separation from Paedobaptists.

HIM that is weak in the Faith, receive ye, but not to doubtful Dispu∣tations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not; — For God hath received him.

For Answer, 1. It is not to be supposed that the Paedobaptists are willing to be taken for those that are weak in the Faith, and therefore do not make this Objection cordially. 2. The Romans, to whom these things were first spoken, were all Baptized into the Death of Christ, planted with Christ in the likeness of his Death, and Buried with him by Baptism; so that the Apostle saying nothing at all in this place of Ba∣ptism, the Objection is weak. And that, 3. Because it is manifest from the place it self that he intends things indifferent in themselves, as the eating or abstaining from Flesh or Herbs, and is not treating of the so∣lemn Institutes of Christ, such as Baptism is. But because this Text is thought to be considerable against our Separation, we shall therefore give a more full Answer to the Objecters, in this Particular.

Several things admit of consideration here by which we may gradu∣ally come to a clear Resolution and full Satisfaction in the Case; as, First, It must be granted on the one side that it is not every weakness in Faith, or error in Knowledge about the things of the Gospel, that does either keep a Man off, or exclude him from Communion with the Church of Christ; this is evident from the Text under consideration: But then it is as true on the other side, that it is not every Profession of Faith which Men do make, that does render them duly capable of Church-Communion; for then the worst of Men, if but making any Profession of the Christian Religion, should be admittable into the Com∣munion of the Church of Christ, but this is contrary to the Laws of that holy Communion. Some Errors therefore must be acknowledged to be in some Men professing the Gospel, which do justly debar them from Church-Communion.

Secondly, This being granted, Then to the end we may be certain what Errors they be, which do de jure put a bar against Communion in the Church, and what do not; recourse must be had to some fixed standing Rule, by which to make a right Judgment in the Case. other∣wise Men will walk at random, and be in danger of making such Errors

to comport with Church-Communion as do not, or else to make Mens access to that Communion more difficult then it ought to be.

Thirdly, The Standard or Rule therefore in this Case must needs be something which God hath certainly appointed, as the next and imme∣diate means, which also must be of general use, to admit Men to visible Communion in the Church of Christ; and the Reason hereof, is, Be∣cause on the one hand, less then a Mans coming up to that mean (what ever it be) which is the immediate inlet to Communion or Membership in the universal Church visible, cannot minister a right, or opportu∣nity of his being of the Church: so on the other hand, nothing more then this can be insisted on, as absolutely necessary to make a Man capa∣ble thereof; and therefore whoever attains thereto, cannot upon pre∣tence of Impediments, or otherwise, which intrench not upon this Rule, be justly debarred his Communion with the Church.

Fourthly, That thing then which is the appropriate and immediate means of a mans visible entrance into and union with the Body or visible Church of Christ, is, The Baptism of Repentance for Remission of Sins, Act. 2. 38. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the Remission of Sins — vers. 40. Then they that gladly received his Word, were Baptized: and the same day were added unto them about three thousand souls. Act. 10. Who can forbid Water that these should not be Baptized, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we? By one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body, 1 Cor. 12. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, Ephes. 4. Add hereunto the consent of all Christians (a few Notionists excepted) who have all consented to this, that in Baptism, Men profess to renounce the World, and to imbrace the Faith of Christ. * 2.137 Thus Austin, What is the reason that we spend so much time in exhorting those whom we Baptize, to live in chast Widowhood, honest or honourable Marriage? &c. * 2.138 Whereupon saith Vives, Lest any should mistake this place, let him know that none were Baptized of old time till they desired Baptism, &c. Then shews that by the Responses made at Baptism, there was a solemn Profession of departing from Sin, and ingagement thenceforth to live holily. Scripture and all Antiquity, with the consent of Modern Authority, is so full for this, that nothing can with pretence to strength be said against it. And if any be so hardy to say, that though this is one way, and very laudable, yet not the only way, he must be inforced to tell us how many ways God hath appointed to bring Men into Communion with his Church, two, ten, twenty, an hundred, and which be these ways? And when he doth this, he may rationally ex∣pect a further Answer to this Objection. Mean while we may safely conclude, That if Baptism duly Administred and Received be the Standard, or ordinary way, according to which Men are to be judged capable of Church-Communion, then it follows that what ever mis∣takes or infirmities are in Men, yet if they be not of that nature, as to detain them from imbracing sacred Baptism on Scripture terms,

those weaknesses do not, cannot justly debar them of Communion with the Church; and on the other hand, what ever qualification there is in Men towards the disposing and fitting of them for Church-Communion, yet if they be under the power and command of any such Error, which causes them to refuse Baptism upon those terms, according to which, upon Scripture account, they ought to obey God therein, and so causes them to fall short of the formal and immediate mean, of their regular union and visible conjunction with the Church, (and much more when they assert an Error in opposition to that Truth or way which God hath ordained to that end) this does ne∣cessarily deprive them both of right and opportunity of being of the Church visible, so long as they indulge themselves in such Er∣rors.

These things considered, it is a plain Case that an Error which makes void so sacred an Ordinance as the Baptism of Repentance, must needs justifie any Church which refuses admission of Persons erring so into their Communion; and yet they may safely receive those that are weak in the Faith, who doubt the eating of certain meats (which in themselves are indifferent) which is the matter the Apostle treats of; and its evident it did not keep them from the Baptism of Re∣pentance, for they had obeyed the form of Doctrine which was de∣livered unto them, and had been Baptized into the Death of Christ, as we have shewed before.

SECT. IV. Certain Arguments against Church-communion, between Per∣sons who are, and who are not Baptized with the Baptism of Repentance.

Arg. 1. THat Communion which naturally tends to make void any stand∣ing Ordinance in the Church of Christ, or in the Christian Profession, is unlawful, and of dreadful consequence to all other of Christ's Ordinances.

But to allow Church-communion between Persons Baptized with the Baptism of Repentance, and those that neglect or oppose it, na∣turally tends to make void that standing Ordinance in the Christian Profession. Therefore such Communion is unlawful, and of evil con∣sequence to all other Ordinances of Christ.

The Major is evident. The Minor cannot be denied, because by what right the Church dispenses with some of her Communicants in their neg∣lect of Baptism, or in their opposing it (for that is the Case of the Pae∣dobaptists,

to the Baptism held or maintained by the the Baptized Churches) she may and must dispense with all if they desire it; and by what right she allows Men Communion in that Case, she will be inforced to do the like in others, or else be inconsistent.

Arg. 2. That Communion which leads Christians to neglect one of the great Blessings of the New Testament is unlawful, and of evil con∣sequence with respect to other Blessings also.

But to allow Church-communion between Persons Baptized with the Baptism of Repentance, and those that neglect or oppose it, does lead Christians to neglect one of the great Blessings of the New Te∣stament. Ergo, such Communion is unlawful, &c.

The Major will not be denied by any good Christian. The Minor is true, Because he that neglects the means wherein a Blessing is offered, neg∣lects the Blessing also; and much more when he opposeth that means, as is evident, Act. 13. For here the same, that put the Word of God from them, did render themselves unworthy of the Blessing offered in that Word Preached. In like manner the Baptism of Repentance is the Word of God, and therein is offered Remission of Sins; Act. 2. 38. as truly as eternal Life is offered in the Word Preached: and those Jews which rejected this part of Gods Counsel did themselves no small injury, Luke 7. 29. as also did the other, Act. 13. Had not Naaman the Assyrian washed himself in Jordan, he had certainly lost the Blessing of his cleansing, 2 King. 5. though that Blessing came from God; and so do all the Blessings held forth to us, and Ministerially communicated in Baptism, Act. 22. 16.

Arg. 3. That Communion which puts well-ordered Churches out of good order, and upholds disorder among such as are out of order, is un∣lawful, and of evil consequence to all Churches.

But to allow Church-communion between Persons Baptized with the Baptism of Repentance, and those that neglect or oppose it, puts well∣ordered Churches out of order, and upholds disorder where Churches are out of order. Ergo, &c.

Still the Major is very evident. And the Minor is apparent, For it cannot be denied but those Churches which have been settled, in the pra∣ctice of the Baptism of Repentance in order to their settlement, are in that respect well-ordered Churches, it being to accuse the Apostolical Church to deny this. Now to break this good order must needs be disorder: and it is broken when Persons are brought into such Churches without being Baptized, or as holding Paedobaptism; and when once such a disorder is allowed in some Churches, tis of ill consequence to the rest; and which is no small evil, those that neglect Christ Ordinances are by this means strength∣ned in such their negligence.

Arg. 4. That Communion which exposes the Pastors of the Church of Christ to unanswerable difficulties, and unavoidable absurdities, is unlawful and of very ill consequence to all Churches.

But to allow Church-communion between Persons Baptized with the Baptism of Repentance, and those that neglect or oppose it. Ergo, &c.

No fault can be found with the Major, and the Minor is as blameless: Because it is certain, such a Communion exposes the Pastors to those dif∣ficulties. 1. He cannot answer him that should ask why one is received into the Church by Baptism and another without? Nor why he may not omit it altogether as well as to omit it sometimes? Nor can he shew that he follows Christ herein, nor any faithful Pastor that hath gone before him; neither can he give a reason why he Preacheth it according to the Scriptures, being the next step to Repentance and Faith, and yet practises not accordingly.

The absurdities are intollerable, It supposes the Pastor knows not when to dispense Baptism, every Babe must teach him that: if the Babe say he will come to the Lords Table before he be Baptized, the Elder must not gain say it; but if, he say, he will be Baptized before he come to the Lords Table, the Pastor must allow it: Nay, the Babe will grow to be a Pastor himself, and after be Baptized, or if he please it shall be deferred for ever, and the Pastor cannot remedy any of these absurdities, nor must he offer to go about it. And that which is as bad, if the Babe will sprinkle his, or other Infants, and Preach that Doctrine too in the Church: such Pa∣stors as admit of the Communion pleaded for by some, must indure all these things, which is either absurd, or there is nothing which may be called absurdity.

The Conclusion. CONTAINING A Defence of the Christian Doctrine, touching the Resurrection of the Dead; and of the Eternal Judgment. Also Solemn Invectives against Atheism, Idolatry, and Super∣stition, the Mortal Enemies of Christian Religion. With earnest Motives to all Christians to endeavour the Propa∣gation of Pristine Christianity in all the Nations of the World.

CHAP. I. Of the Resurrection of the Body, &c. The Objections answered.

ALthough we have already asserted the Great Article of the Resurrection of the Dead, Book 1. Section 8, 9. Book 2. Chap. 3. Sect. 8, 10. Part. 2. Chap. 5. Article 20. And Book 4. Treat. 2. Chap. 4. throughout: yet it may not be superfluous to add something further as a close to this whole Work; that the sense of that near-approaching Day being upon our Hearts, we may with the greater comfort prosecute the Holy Duties of Religion. And to this purpose we shall briefly shew,

• 1. The Definition of the Resurrection of the Body, according to Chri∣stian Doctrine.
• 2. That the Resurrection of the Body is not impossible with God.
• 3. That it is very plainly delivered in the Scriptures, the Word of God.
• 4. The Objections which some make against it shall be answered.

For the first; * 2.139 The Resurrection of the Body is an Act of Divine Power, quickning dead Bodies, and restoring them to a state of Perfection; namely so as not to die again; but does not necessarily infer the happiness of the Dead so raised, but with respect to the event of that Trial which they then shall undergo: and thereupon the Resurrection is distinguished in two parts; John 5. 28, 29. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming,

in the which all that are in the Graves shall hear his Voice, and shall come forth; they that have done Good, to the Resurrection of Life; and they that have done Evil, to the Resurrection of Condemnation. And hence it's most plain, that the Matter to be raised being those that are in the Graves, it must needs be the same Bodies which once lived upon the Earth, according to that of Job 19. 26, 27. Though after my Skin, Worms destroy this Body, yet in my Flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for my self, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another, though my Reins be consumed within me. And indeed (as the Learned have observed) the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, translated Resurrection, signifies to stand again, or the re-subsistance or second state of that which was before. All which is fully cleared to us in the Resur∣rection of our Lord, who rose with the same Body which was laid in the Sepulcher; and therefore did avouch it was he himself, even he that was dead, as before we have shewed. Howbeit, though we thus affirm the Resurrection of the same Body, even those which sleep in the Dust of the Earth, yet we also say with the Apostle, It is changed in the Resurrecti∣on, from its vile or low Condition, from its mortal or corruptible State, freed from Weakness and Dishonour, raised in Power and Honour; God Almighty therein giving evidence of his Power and Glory, in raising both the Just and Unjust to a state of duration, though under very different Circumstances.

2. That this is possible with God; or that it is not impossible for God to raise the Dead, as we have defined, is the clear sense of the Apostle, Acts 26. 8. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the Dead? And it is as clear as the Light, that Paul here speaks of raising the Dead in the sense we have defined: for this is that which was mocked at, or derided by the Sadducees and some Heathen People, Acts 17. 32. There is nothing but Ignorance or Atheism that can cause Men to look upon the Resurrection among things impossible; for (as before is shewed) he that believes what he reads of the Creation, and the many wonderful Works which God hath done since, before the eyes of the Children of Men; can never question the Power of the Almighty to raise the Dead. Cicero (as quoted by Augustin) will not allow the Re∣surrection to be possible, because, Nature (saith he) allows no place for an earthly Body but Earth, and cannot possibly be contain'd in Heaven; every Element having its peculiar poize, and tends to its proper place. To which Augustin answers very well, * 2.140 That there are many earthly Bodies which live in the Air, and that we our selves do live between the Earth and the Air; not in the Earth, as Fishes do in the Sea. And then demands, Why earthly Crea∣tures do not live in the Water, which is the next Element to the Earth, but in the Air, which is the third? And seeing earthly Bodies belong to the Earth, why doth not the Air, the next Element, presently choak them? And undoubtedly, take away the Power of the Creator, and Nature would fail to effect those things; for as it was his Power which at first brought forth all Created Things, so by his Power they continue. And though it be true, that Nature produceth great things, yet this Na∣ture hath always such a dependence on the Creator, that it doth nothing without him; as is evident to him that reads the Lord's Answer to Job, * 2.141

concerning his Continual, as well as Original Power exerted or put forth in the great Works of Creation; otherwise Nature might array, or deck it self, with Majesty, Excellency, and Beauty, as being able of it self to act. But for as much as this Point is not determined by Reason, (though Reason rightly taken will not question the Power of God) we must stick to the Attribute of God's Omnipotency for the possibility, and to his Word for the certainty of the Resurrection of the Body, to which we proceed.

3. It is observed by some Christian Writers, that the Resurrection of the Dead is proved in the Scriptures four ways: 1. By plain Testimonies. 2. By plain Examples. 3. By Types. 4. By Reasons. The Testimonies are such as these; Many of them that sleep in the Dust of the Earth shall awake, some to everlasting Life, and some to shame and everlasting Contempt, Dan. 12. 2. Though after my Skin Worms destroy this Body, yet in my Flesh shall I see God, Job 19. 25, 26.

I will ransom them from the Power of the Grave; I will redeem them from Death. O Death, I will be thy Plagues; O Grave, I will be thy De∣struction; Repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. Hosea 13. 14. with 1 Cor. 15. throughout.

The Sadducees denied the Resurrection of the Seven Brethren, and the Woman which was dead; whereupon our Saviour saith of them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the Power of God — as touching the Resurrection of the DEAD: Have ye not read — I am the God of Abra∣ham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the Dead, but of the Living, Mat. 22. 29, &c.

— We look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile Body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious Body, according to his working, whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself, Phil. 3. 21. Where we have specially to observe, both from our Saviour's words, and of this Apostle, that the Resurrection is referr'd to God, as the Act of his Power; even that Power by which he is able to subdue all things to himself; which is not the ordinary course of his Power, but his great or mighty Power; an instance of which he gave, in raising up Christ from the Dead, Ephes. 1. 19. So that we conclude with that Testimony, 1 Thess. 4. 15, 16, 17, 18. For this we say unto you by the Word of the Lord, That we which are alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not pre∣vent them which are asleep: For the Lord himself shall descend from Hea∣ven with a shout, with the Voice of the Arch-Angel, and with the Trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive, and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the Clouds, to meet the Lord in the Air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words. Doubtless there is nothing delivered in the Ho∣ly Scriptures with more plainness than this great Truth concerning the Resurrection; insomuch that it may truly be said, they are willingly ig∣norant who see it not. We come next to the Examples.

The greatest Example in this case is Christ our Lord. For that there shall be a Resurrection both of the Just and Unjust, God hath given full assurance, * 2.142 in that he hath raised up Christ from the Dead. Certainly such

as will not believe, having such a president before their eyes, are not to be convinced by Instances of a lower kind; such are the reviving of the dead Man at the touching of the Bones of Elijah, 1 Kings 13. 21. The reducing the Soul of a Child to the dead Body at the Prayer of Elijah, 1 Kings 17. 22. And the like was done at the Prayer of Elisha, 2 Kings 4. 33, 34. Thus had the Jewish Nation Examples of God's Power this way. Yea, Austin gives some instance of the Records of some Act of God's Power in this kind which happened among the Heathen; * 2.143 and it is certain, that many of them did believe the Resurrection to be possible; the belief of a state of future happiness was found in many of them. Though it is very true, that this Life and Immortality whereof we speak, is clearly set forth by the Gospel; where (beside what is already said) we find an evidence of great weight, Matth. 27. 52. * 2.144 And the Graves were opened, and many Bodies of Saints which slept, arose, and came out of the Graves after Christ's Resurrection. Christ himself raised Lazarus, and some others, John 11. 11. Mat. 9. 25. Luke 7. 14. Some were raised from Death to Life by the Apostles, Acts 9. 14. & 20. 10. We must therefore either believe the Resurrection of the dead Bodies of Men to be both possible, and which certainly shall come to pass, or else deny cre∣dit to these plain Testimonies, the least whereof prove the thing possible; but considered together, do prove it certain and necessary, insomuch as the Apostle saith, If the Dead rise not, then Christ is not risen; — But now Christ is risen, and become the first Fruits of them that slept: for since by Man came death, (even the death of the Body) by Man came also the Resurrection of the Dead, (even of the dead Bodies of all the Sons and Daughters of Adam): for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive, 1 Cor. 15. 20, &c.

The Types serving to set forth the Resurrection are chiefly these, of Enoch and Elijah, * 2.145 who were taken up, or translated, that they should not see death. For there is no reason why we should think that these things were done to them for their sakes alone, but rather that we might see in these some Instances of the Power of God, and of his Love towards those that fear him. Some do take the budding of Aaron's Rod, * 2.146 and the return of the Jews from Captivity, (signified by a Valley of Dry Bones) and of their standing up as an Army, to be a Type of the Resurrection. And doubtless the same God that could cause a dead Staff to bud and blos∣som, yea, to bear Almonds, can as easily raise the Dead: So that we con∣clude, He that believes the Scriptures, cannot question the truth of the Resurrection of the Body.

The Reasons which prove the Resurrection of the Dead, are,

First, That of our Saviour, Matth. 22. For God's Covenant was not dissolved which he made with Abraham, because he was dead. But had not God provided for Abraham that he should live with him, it would not answer the intent of the Covenant, which is Life for ever-more, this being the sum of the Blessing promised, Psal. 133. 3.

The second Reason is taken from that which the Scripture so plenti∣fully declares of God, how that he is just; and therefore cannot let un∣godly Men go unpunished, no more than to suffer the Righteous to perish

without the reward of his Righteousness. Should there be no Resur∣rection, much Wickedness would lie hid for ever; God should not do so equally himself, as he requires Man to do in the Acts of Righteousness. But far be it from us to think that the Judg of all the Earth should not do right. Now we know that the Wicked live long in this World, are full of Days, full of Children, full of Honour and Riches; and on the contrary, good Men are sometimes soon cut off, and are often either not endowed with, or deprived of the Comforts which this World affords, at least so as not to compare with many Worldly Men, in respect of Ad∣vantages of this kind, Psal. 73. 2. to 15. And doubtless, the conside∣ration of this, caused the holy Apostle to express these most true words of himself, and other faithful Christians: If in this Life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all Men most miserable.

The third Reason is taken from Saviour's being the Head, not only of his Church in a peculiar Sense, but of Mankind Universally; and therefore as we all derive Death from the First Adam, for that by his sin Death entred into the World. Even so, For this cause Christ both Died, Rose, and Revived, that he might be Lord (and so the Head) both of the Dead, and Living. Hence it is, that by virtue of his Death and Resur∣rection, He will draw all Men unto himself. And thus, As by Man came Death, even so by Man came also the Resurrection of the Dead. It is bet∣ter to argue from Christ's Universal Headship over Mankind, to the Re∣surrection, than from his Peculiar Headship to the Church, as Mem∣bers of his Body; the Resurrection of the Wicked being as necessary an effect of the Death and Rising of our Lord, as the Resurrection of the Righteous. And as he is that Lord which brought all Men, (even them that deny him, 2 Pet. 2. 1.) so Reason wills, that every Man indiffe∣rently appear before his Lord to give an account of himself, and to re∣ceive a reward according to his Work. But when all is said that can be said, this great Point of the Christian Faith standeth much more firmly upon the Authority of God's Word asserting it, than upon the strength of Reason to demonstrate it. Happy therefore are they, that with the Mouth so confess the Lord Jesus, as in their Heart they stedfastly believe that God hath raised him from the Dead. This will certainly teach them to live to him that died for them, and rose again. This will cause them also to walk in the steps of the Faith of Abraham, even to believe that God is able to raise the Dead: And this shall make them willing to obey this God, even unto Death, because Christ their Lord hath swallowed up Death in Victory.

Finally, As touching the Eternal Judgment, we have already spoken to that, Book 2. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. & Chap. 7. Sect. 6. Part 2. pag. 72. And indeed, the Resurrection being proved, does necessarily infer the Eternal Judgment: For in this World many have undergone a Tempo∣rary Judgment, even for that Sin which possibly may be their Condemna∣tion; as Witchcraft, Murther, &c. unrepented of. How plainly does the Word of God give notice of this Great Day of the Lord, saying; Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his Saints, and that to exe∣cute Judgment upon all. All must come under Trial. And to convince all

THAT ARE UNGODLY among them, of ALL their ungodly deeds, which they have ungodlily committed AGAINST HIM. And is not this enough? Shall we need to assign the place of Judgment, the Ac∣cuser? &c. No, the Time will sufficiently declare all these things. God in mercy grant, that all Men whilst they have time, would prepare for the coming of their Judg, whom they must know will execute Judgment righteously. I shall rather refer the curious to the Author of The Mileni∣um great Judgment, or to Mr. Baxter's Discourse; or Sermon of Judgment. But above all, to the account given, Rev. 20. throughout, and 22. 12. to the end, where he that will may learn sufficiently how dreadful to the Wicked, how comfortable to the Righteous, that great and terrible Day of the Lord shall be. We come now to the Objections.

CHAP. II. Certain Objections of the Quakers, against the Resurrection of the Bodies which die, and turn to Dust in the Graves of the Earth, &c. transcribed verbatim out of the Writings of George Whitehead, and answered.

* 2.147 GEorge Whitehead taking notice of several things which (he says) make Men Atheists, makes this in particular to be one, viz. The affirming that these self same Terrestrial Bodies of Flesh, Blood, and Bones, shall be made Spiritual, Immortal, and Incorruptible, and yet the same Matter and Substance as now. He should rather have said, Mens not be∣lieving this Doctrine, (though not so well expressed by him as it might be) is that which makes them Atheists; and to be plain with him, I fear Quakerism is not far from Atheism, whilst they count this an incredible thing, that God should thus raise the Dead. But seeing he seems to hold the Immortality of the Soul, it would be understood what it is that he sometimes would have to be the Resurrection of the Dead. The Spirit, or Soul dieth not, therefore it riseth not from the Grave, Mat. 27. 52, 53. That self-same Substance and Matter, which was laid in the Grave, G. W. will not have said to rise and be made Spiritual, Immortal, and Incorruptible. What is then become of the Resurrection of the Body? But let us hear the Difficulties (as he calls them) which (saith he) I object upon our Opposers Doctrines and Conceptions.

Object. 1. * 2.148 How the self-same Bodies should arise compleat after dissolved to Dust, without a new Creation, appears not, nor is demonstrated by them.

Answ. Here the Quaker plainly confesses, That it appears not to him, that the same Bodies which are dissolved to Dust, can arise without a new Creation; which new Creation he is not willing to admit. (Object. 2.) But for Answer, I say, To raise up a Body dissolved into Dust, is not properly a new Creation, but a Restauration of the same thing to its pristine, or better Estate: And doth appear as credible, and as demon∣strable,

as that an Hand dried up, or withered, should by a word of Christ's Mouth, be restored to its * 2.149 life and activity in the Body; or that Aaron's dry Staff should bud, blossome, and bear Almonds. It's every whit as easie for God to restore a Body dissolved to Dust, as to restore a Body that is wi∣thered, or dried up. Can Men cause Ashes or Sand to become Glass? and cannot God cause that Dust which was Flesh, to become Flesh again, and give a Perfection and Glory to it? Oh the infidelity of these Qua∣kers! Did not Christ raise a Body who had been dead four Days, (and in reason was putrified in that time) as in the case of Lazarus? No∣thing but unbelief can question his Power to have raised him, if he had been dead four Years, in which he should have been dissolved to Dust.

2. How can the Quakers look upon that Text, Mat. 27. 52, 53. The Graves were opened, and many Bodies of the Saints which slept arose, and came out of the Graves — and appeared to many. And is there not all the reason in the world to believe, that these Bodies had been dissolved to Dust? for we read of no Saints that died at that time of Christ's Cru∣cifixion. Sure, this is a Demonstration of God's Power to raise the Dead, beyond the reach of Exception.

Object. 2. * 2.150 If a new Creation of compleat Bodies of the same Dust, and Elements, should be conceived, or admitted, it is incredible that God should create any corrupt, sinful, or polluted Bodies thereof, for perpetual Torments, seeing his Works are pure; and as incredible that he should make a pure Body to be invested with the former evil habit of Sin and Corruption, for perpetual Torment in Hell-fire. And to be sure, the first Elements, or Dust of dissol∣ved Bodies, is as pure as at the first.

Answ. 1. To concess a little. The word Creation, as used in the Scriptures, does not always signifie the making of another Substance, but often intend only a renewing of the same thing. Ephes. 2. 10. We are his Workmanship created in Christ Jesus. 2 Cor. 5. 17. If any Man be in Christ, he is a new Creature. Psal. 51. Create in me a clean Heart. Here the Creature is still the same Man, and the Heart the same Flesh, but freed from those gross Impurities which sometimes had dominion over them, and endowed with vertuous principles and qualifications of Holi∣ness and Righteousness. Let the word Creation be taken after this man∣ner in our present Question, and it will not at all prejudice our Doctrine of the Resurrection. Nor will it be any incredible thing that God should thus create, or restore the same Substance, devoid of Mortality and all Imperfections which once oppressed it, and confer perfections upon it of Immortality, and eternal Life and Glory.

2. God never did create any corrupt, or sinful Bodies, as such; nei∣ther do we read that the Bodies of the Wicked shall be invested by God, (or otherwise) with the former evil habit of Sin, but rather lie under perpetual Conviction. Luke 16. 27, 28. I pray thee, Father Abraham, send Lazarus, &c. For I have five Brethren, that he may testifie unto them, lest they come into this place of Torment. The Wicked therefore shall be raised, and made capable to suffer for the Sins they committed against God, in the day of Grace, Jude Epist. ver. 15. &c.

3. It is very wicked to say, that the Bodies of Wicked Men being

turned to Dust are as pure from Sin, as the Elements were at the first, (which is the sense of this Quaker). And might not any Man as groundlesly say, That the Body of a wicked Whoremonger is as pure from Sin within one day after it is dead, as within a thousand Days? Does length of Time, or the dissolving a Body of Flesh into Dust, take away its Sin? This conceit is incredible, and not yet demonstrated by the Quaker.

Object. 3. * 2.151 If Infants be supposed to arise at the stature of Men, how can theirs be the self-same Bodies they were.

Answ. This is the same Objection that the Infidels made against the Resurrection of the Body, in the Days of Augustin, as may be seen in his Book De Civit. Dei; and it seems the same spirit is now at work in the Quaker. But I answer, Is not George Whitehead's Body which once was an Infant, the same Body still? It is not another Substance, because it's bigger now than it was then. And what if God cause an Infants Bo∣dy to attain Man's Stature in a little time, whilst George Whitehead was long in growing up to it, is the difference here so great as to cast an absur∣dity upon our Doctrine, that in the Resurrection, the Body which died and was buried in weakness and dishonour, shall be raised in Power, and glorified? Nay, rather this idle Objection shews the absurdity of the Quaker, for according to his Reasonings, no Man hath the self-same Body scarce a Year to an end; for from our coming into the World to our going out of it, we either grow, or decay, according to that most true Verse.

Nascentes morimur finisque ab origine pendet.

Being born we die, our ends hang on our Birth.

Object. 4. * 2.152 How the Bodies of the Saints, and Children of the Resur∣rection, should be either a Celestial, Spiritual, Glorious, or Angelical Body, and they equal to the Angels in Heaven; and yet the self-same Earthly Ele∣mentary Body, that dissolved to Dust, &c. Such a strange Transubstantiation appears not, unless that the Natural Body and the Spiritual, the Terrestrial and the Celestial, the Humane and Angelical, be both one and the self∣same.

Answ. 1. We readily grant, that the same Bodies of the Saints which shall come out of the Graves, even the same which was dead and buried, shall be Spiritual; shall be as the Angels of God in Heaven, in respect of Immortality, not marrying, or being given in Marriage: and yet we say also, these Bodies shall be the same which was first Natural, and remains the same Flesh still, though Spiritual; for so was Christ's Body, and ours shall be like his. * 2.153 He shall change our vile Body, that it (even the same Body) may be fashioned like unto his Glorious Body, according to the working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself: So that this Objection fights against the evident Light of this Scripture.

2. It is false to say, The Saints Bodies in the Resurrection shall be Angelical, (in a strict sense) for that were wholly to destroy the Nature of Man; so that G. W. may keep his Transubstantiation to himself. For why should it seem a thing incredible that we should be like the Angels,

and yet retain true Humane Nature? It is said of Stephen, That all that sat in the Council looked stedfastly on him, saw his Face as it had been the Face of an Angel; and yet it's certain he was a Man, and short of that per∣fection which he shall enjoy in the Resurrection. It's certain Christ was true Flesh and Bone after his Resurrection; yet who dare deny him to be a Spiritual or Heavenly Body, though he retain his Manhood? Christi∣ans are called Spiritual, even before they rise again, 1 Cor. 2. 15. Gal. 6. 1. even because their Hearts are endowed with Spiritual or Holy Qualifica∣tions. And how then can it be such a strange thing to call the same Men (or Christians) Spiritual, when raised from the dead? And let it be ob∣served, that though Christ's Body, and the Bodies of his Saints, are very Spiritual, as raised from the dead; yet are they not called Spirits, Christ himself affirming, that a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bone as ye see I have; and we shall have the same, for we shall be like him.

Object. 5. * 2.154 That the Soul should not enjoy her self in absolute felicity, or misery, in perfect glory or contempt, (in her proper Vessel or Cloathing spi∣ritually) without the earthly cloathing, which is Dust, appears not, while the Children of the Resurrection are equal unto the Angels of God in Heaven, who are absolutely happy; and the Devil and his Angels absolutely mise∣rable.

Answ. What perfect felicity soever the Soul attains before, it's certain it shall have more in the Resurrection, Heb. 11. These all died in Faith, not having received the Promises — These having obtain'd a good report through Faith, received not the Promise. Acts 2. David is not yet as∣cended, &c. Hence it's evident, there remains a greater felicity for Abraham, and the Faithful with him, than yet they enjoy; God having provided some better for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Neither are the Angels so compleat in felicity, but they may have more; they have fresh cause of joy as often as any Sinner is converted; and then sure it will be augmented when they see them all in glory with themselves. The Devils are not so in torment as they shall be; they tremble to think of the Torments to come, Art thou come (say they) to torment us before the time? They are reserved in Chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great Day, even the Day of Perdition of ungodly Men.

2. Away then with your dark Speeches, and tell us what is more truly the Soul's proper Vessel than the Body? And how will you prove the Souls to be the Sons of the Resurrection, without the Bodies belonging to them? When did these Souls rise from the dead in a proper sense? Is their Resurrection past already? If not, shall not these Souls be more compleat at the Resurrection than they are now? Answer plainly, Yea, or Nay.

Object. 6. * 2.155 We cannot believe that the Invisible, Infinite God should be seen with bodily or fleshly Eyes after dissolution. Nor that Job intended he should see God with his Flesh or bodily Eyes; it being inconsistent, both with his being an Invisible, Eternal, or Infinite Spirit, and with the true spiritual sight of him, which Job received, Job 42. 5.

Answ. 1. Good is the Lord who forceth thee to bear witness of thy own Infidelity. But yet see if peradventure this thought of thy heart

may be forgiven thee. Canst thou not believe that Christ now beholds his Heavenly Father with those very Eyes, which once wept for poor Sin∣ners? Nay, dare you deny that he could see him even with those Eyes when he was on Errth? Certain it is, that the same Body which de∣scended into the Sepulcher, ascended to the right hand of the Majesty on High, even into Heaven it self, there to appear in the presence of God for us. Did not God enable Stephen to see Heaven open, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God before he fell asleep? And is it incredible he should see him when raised from that sleep, even with the same eyes made perfect and glorious? Sure these things were written to inform us, that it is no impossible thing for God to enable us to see him in our Flesh, though Worms destroy these Bodies, and our Reins be consumed within us. The sight which Job had of God, Job 42. 5. was not that menti∣oned, Job 19. for Job was yet alive, his Reins were not yet consumed, Worms had not yet destroyed his Body; after all which he believed to see God in his Flesh, and to behold with those Eyes (though immortalized) whom he should see for himself, and not another.

2. Though God be invisible, (as to us in our mortal State, unless by Miracle he enable us) yet he is not altogether invisible, for the Angels do always behold his Face, as Christ witnesseth. And remember now how thou hast urged, that the Saints when the Sons of the Resurrection shall be as the Angels; Wherefore they also shall see God.

Object. 7. * 2.156 That the Seed to which God giveth a Body as it pleaseth him, 1 Cor. 15. and the Body given to it, should be one and the self-same earthly Body, is a nonsensical Doctrine, and an apparent incongruity.

Answ. But is this nonsense? Tell me then what Seed was sown in the Sepulcher when the Body of our Lord lay there? Was it not real Flesh? And what Body was given to that Seed? Sure the same Body which was sown in weakness, (as Christ was, 2 Cor. 13. 4.) was raised by the Power of God; and therefore thou must either say, that the same Body of Christ which died and was buried, never rose again, or else keep thy nonsense to thy self, and confess it to be good sense to say, of the same substance it is sown in Weakness, it is raised in Power: the difference ly∣ing not in Body, or Substance, simply considered, but in the state or con∣dition of Mortal and Immortal, &c. Even as Barly sown cometh not up Wheat, nor Wheat Barly, but Wheat is Wheat still, &c. Even so Flesh is sown, and Flesh is raised; the Body is not sown Flesh and raised Spi∣rit, but it's sown natural, weak, dishonourable and mortal; and raised Spiritual, Strong, Honourable, and Immortal. By its own Body then we understand its own Kind, even the humane Nature exalted in the Re∣surrection; or else let the raising up the Body of our Lord Christ himself serve to expound the Apostle in this place, and then the difficulty va∣nisheth.

Object. 8. * 2.157 That the Terrestrial Bodies should be so desirable to the Souls of the Righteous after dissolution, (for the compleating their Felicity, and per∣fecting their Glory) appears plainly inconsistent with their desiring here to be dissolved; and to be absent from the Body, to enjoy and possess a Building of God, an House Eternal in the Heavens.

Or that the Souls of the Righteous should be so variable, as to desire to be absent from the Body, and presently after dissolution, to desire the resuming of the same earthly Body, or a reunion to it. This implicitly accuseth the Souls of deceased Saints, with being in their Affections, both earthly, varia∣ble, and unquiet, as in a kind of Purgatory, which we can never assent to.

Answ. 1. This Objection is plainly foolish; As if it were a fault in the Souls of the Righteous to desire what they know is the Will of God. They know God hath decreed both the Death and Resurrection of the Body; the first brings them to a rest from their Labours; the second gives them a full enjoyment of the Fruit of their Labours. The Righ∣teous Soul is not so unkind as to desire to enjoy all the happiness, and that the Body should perish for ever, which in its place did and suffered for Christ as well as the Soul. It is therefore very rational that the Soul should desire to be dissolved and reunited, &c. However it seems the Souls of the Quakers desire no such thing, as any reunion with their Bodies, and yet they would have the World believe they own the Resurrection of the Body; but that they do so, I do not, nor I hope never shall believe them till they change their minds.

2. Well, what think you of Christ's Soul? It left the Body, and de∣lighted to do the Will of God, in being separated from it by death, Heb. 10. His Soul may rationally be supposed to be as happy after death as any Saints whatsoever. And yet we are sure (and let who dare deny it) that it was united to the Body again: And it is also certain, that his Soul desired to be glorified with his Body, witness the Prayers which proceeded from his Holy Lips on that account; and it knew as well that Christ ought to suffer death, and so enter into Glory, and therefore his Soul de∣sired that also; yet was not variable, earthly, unquiet, nor in a Purgatory, or inconsistent: No, let these pertain to the Quakers, whose abuses they are, by which they would obscure the Glorious Truth of the Resurrection of the Body, both of Christ and all his faithful Followers.

Finally; Let all that fear the Lord, beware of the dangerous conse∣quence of these Objections; and let me hereby provoke those that are particularly concern'd, to examin that Book whence I have taken these Objections, and to give a full Answer to it; for it is so framed, as it re∣quires a diligent hand to lay open the subtilties and cunning craftiness thereof; by which the Pen-men thereof do certainly lie in wait to turn Men away from Christianity, in the plain honest simplicity thereof, in many of the most important particulars of it.

CHAP. III. Containing Serious Invectives against Atheism, Idolatry, and Supersti∣tion; with some earnest Motives to all Christians, especially the purest Churches, to endeavour more industriously the propagation of Christian Religion in the World.

HAving, by the help of God, finished those several Systems of Doctrine, together with these short Polemical Discourses, in which we have endeavoured, with all possible sincerity, to give Testimony to the Christi∣an Religion, according to its native Purity and Integrity, wherein not ma∣ny things are intermitted, though some (perhaps) too briefly touched; which if God permit, and this present Work find acceptance, may be farther amplified.

I shall now, for a Conclusion to this Work, add a few Considerations, as well for the propagation of this Holy Profession, as to dissuade Men from the too much prevailing Errors of Atheism, Idolatry, and Superstiti∣on, the mortal Enemies of Man's Salvation, and Inlet to all Prophaneness.

SECT. I. Against ATHEISM.

1. Atheism is either a flat denial that there is any God, who rules the Uni∣verse by his Power and Providence; or else, an utter regardlesness whether there be any God, what he doth or requires to be done.

This damning Sin, in the first Branch of it, I hope is not very com∣mon; and where it is, it obtain'd its entrance by Mens desiring to be overwise, and are withal of bold and daring Spirits, such as Paul menti∣ons, 1 Cor. 1. 21. The World through Wisdom knew not God: or, as Pha∣raoh, who said, I know not the Lord; and who is the Lord that I should obey his Voice? Exod. 5. 2. Or as Statius, who held, That only Fear made Gods first in the World. Or rather as Diagoras and Theodorus, who are said flatly to deny there was any God at all; * 2.158 Protagoras Deum in dubium voca∣vit, Diagoras exclusit. These Men (how wise soever) are justly censured by the Apostle, Rom. 1. 22. Professing themselves Wise, they make them∣selves Fools: and so they stand upon Record, Psal. 14. 1. The Fool hath said in his Heart, There is no God. Of this sort were our late Ranters, (the Fore-runners of the * 2.159 Quakers) as may be seen by their execrable Books yet extant.

The Atheist fights not against the Scriptures only, but against Heaven it self; which hath wont to convince Men that there is a God which ru∣leth the very Stars themselves. Homines ceperunt Deum agnoscere, &c. * 2.160 Men first began to acknowledg a God, when they considered the Stars to main∣tain such a comliness Day and ight, both in Winter and Summer, to ob∣serve their designed Risings and Settings. Why then should any so far un∣man themselves, as not to lift up their Eyes, and dispose their Minds to consider the Eternal Power and Godhead, which shineth forth in the Creation and continuation of the World. * 2.161 He that would see (saith Boetius) the Laws of God, let him with a prudent mind look up to Heaven, and observe there how all things agree. The Stars run their Courses in peace. the Moon's cold Sphere is not injured by the heat of the Sun, but each one keep their Course with exact motion, &c. The consideration whereof, seems to have kept Aristotle himself from Atheism: * 2.162 What (saith he) can ever be compared with the motion of the Stars in their several Revolutions, which move exactly as it were by the Rule and Square, by Line and Level, from one Generation to another.

The Atheist being required to shew how the World came to be, and to bear so excellent a Form and Order? Is said (by a learned Pen) to give only this account: That the World was produced of certain Atoms, dancing in an Eternal Circle. But this is so vain, that it cannot be heard without just indignation; and it may well be demanded, Why Atoms do not still produce the same effects? Why are there not new Heavens, new Earths, new Suns, new Moons? &c. No Reason can be given why there are not the same things produced, if they had no other cause of their first being than Atoms: And it would be understood whence these Atoms had their beeing? But surely, as the Scripture informs us, that the Heavens are God's Handywork, Psal. 19. 1. * 2.163 So Lactantius said well against the Heathen Man, As that which is made, had never been, had not God commanded, Let it be: So neither had they continued, unless he had gi∣ven the Charge, &c. Now he that denies a Deity, is confuted by every Creature in the World. All which in their kind proclaim a Creator, seeing their state is such as evidently shews they could not give themselves a Being; nor are they able to continue, though they desire it. Which shews they are under a Power, to which all must submit.

2. Atheism in the second Consideration, is justly chargeable upon the Irreligious, or those that make no Conscience of Religion. Seeing there is no sufficient evidence that Mankind does either know, or love God, any more than the Beasts of the Field, but as he is distinguished from them by the Bond of Religion: And hence it was that Adam only, of all Crea∣tures, had an Institution of Religion given him in his Innocency, which he not observing, was like the Beast that perisheth, Psal. 49. 10.

Those Men therefore are without God in the World, who are without Religion, or make no Conscience of the Worship of God (though they do not flatly deny his Being) the impious language of whose ungodly Con∣versation is expressed, Job. 21. 14, 15. They say unto God, Depart from us, for we desire not the knowledg of thy Ways. What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? and what profit should we have if we pray unto him? Yea,

they plainly say, It is in vain to serve God, Mal. 3. 14.

These kind of Atheists are not only opposed to the principles of Theo∣logie, but have therewith cast off the very Documents of Nature, which leads Mankind to acknowledg their Maker, and to delight to please him in all things: The Gentiles having not the Law, do by Nature the things contain'd in the Law; Whilst those sordid Creatures defile themselves in what they know, (or might understand naturally) as Jude speaks.

They arrive at this Impiety, to neglect Religion, by the love of pre∣sent things: Ye cannot serve God and Mammon, saith Christ. And by de∣grees conclude, that God takes no notice of Religious Performances; yea, their Cogitations often-times are very strange concerning God, as that the Lord hath forsaken the Earth; that he will not do good, neither punish them with evil, Ezek. 8. 12. & 9. 9. When yet it is most certain, that nothing ever so much provoked the Lord to Wrath, as the neglect of Re∣ligion; this brought the Curse on Adam, Gen. 3. and this brought De∣struction on the old World, Gen. 6. and 7. This often hindred the Mercies of God from descending upon his Ancient People, and particu∣larly in the time of the Prophet Haggai, Chap. 1. ver. 9. Ye looked for much, and loe it came to little — Why, saith the Lord of Hosts? Because of mine House that is waste, and ye run every Man to his own House. * 2.164 And hence Lactantius truly said, Discite igitur, si quid vobis relictae mentis est, &c. Learn thus much then (if you have any understanding left) that Mischief daily befals Men, because God the Greator and Governour of the World, is for∣saken of them — and finally because you will not permit the Worship of the True God, so much as to a few.

2. Another great cause of Irreligion, or want of Conscience, is the ill example of many who are set over the People, in this and other Nations, as their Guides and Teachers, who live not in any measure as they teach, nor are they fixed in the Worship, or Religion they profess; but have been found ready to change with the Times, as if Religion was only to serve a turn. This the Vulgar observing, are stumbled, and made to regard no Religion at all. And here we may justly remember the complaint of the Prophet, Isa. 3. 12. O my People, they that lead thee, cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy Paths. Worldly-minded Preachers are the ruine of true Religion, and the promoters of this kind of Atheism; for whilst they make their Belly their own God, in vain do they preach another God to the People. Against these, holy Paul en∣veigheth most bitterly, and under his just Censure I leave them, Phil. 3. 18, 19. For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are Enemies of the Cross of Christ: Whose end is De∣struction, whose God is their Belly, whose glory is in their Shame, who mind Earthly things.

Let all Men seriously consider, that unless there be some duty of Reli∣gion pertaining to Mankind, as previous to a state of Happiness, it will be hard to dignifie Mankind (generally) above the Beasts of the Field. For though some few by reason of their Wealth and Honours, may seem to out-vie those Animals, yet the generality of Men seem to be (and doubtless are) exposed to a more anxious Life than the Fowls of Hea∣ven,

the Fishes in the Sea, and many Beasts of the Earth; to whom it is hard to add any thing to make their Life more happy than it is, save that they are Mortal. But wretched Mankind, if now debarr'd of the Know∣ledg of God, and true Religion, and the Glory that shall follow, is an ob∣ject of the greatest Contempt (especially the Poor of this World) of all other; and by how much he hath reason to consider his state as such, it will by so much augment his Sorrows, and not relieve him at all.

But now, Consider him as capable to know the Lord, and to walk with him in a way of Faith and Religion whilst here, and to be thereby fit∣ted to live for ever in the full enjoyment of the Presence of that God, who giveth Life and Being to all things; this, even this, and only this, makes him the most happy of all Creatures here below. This makes him forget his Sorrows as Trifles which last but for a moment, and which (by the power of the true Religion) work for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of Glory, whilst he can chearfully look at the things (by Faith) which appear not to sense: for the things which are seen are Tempo∣ral, but the things which are not seen are Eternal.

Wherefore let all Men be perswaded to hate, scorn, and detest the odi∣ous principles of Atheism, which so basely ignobles the Children of Men, as to make them the most wretched of all others. And let us love, walk, and delight our selves greatly in Religion, the true Religion, even the An∣cient Christian Religion; which so advanceth, dignifieth, and for ever secureth the Faithful, to, and in, that Joy which is unspeakable, and full of Glory. Nor shall we actum agere, shew here what this true Religion is, having done that already.

SECT. II. Against IDOLATRY.

Idolatry, is the next crying Iniquity to Atheism, by which the Honour of God is given to a thing of naught. For so the word Idol is truly taken, 1 Cor. 8. 4. An Idol is nothing in the World. So far from being a God, that 'tis a meer empty Sound, a thing of no Existence, a meer Fancy. For though the Image in respect of the Matter be something, as Gold, Sil∣ver, Wood, Stone, &c. yet the Internal form is meerly imaginary, and hath nothing of a Deity pertinent to it. As for the Controversie among Learned Men about the agreement, or difference between the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Imago, an Idol, or Image, we shall not enter into it; it's sufficient that we know, God hath forbidden us to Worship any but him∣self. Mat. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Exod. 20. 5. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them. He therefore that is the Object of Religious Worship, must be God, yea, very God, as John teacheth, 1 John 5. 20. This is the true, or very God, and Eternal Life; namely, that God whom he hath set forth un∣der the Name of Father, Son, (or Word) and Holy Ghost: And then, inhibits the worshipping of any other: Little Children, keep your selves from Idols. Amen.

Idolatry may be considered as it is more gross, or as it is more obscure, and hard to be detected. 1. David shews the great vanity of the first, Psal. 115. 4. Their Idols are Silver, and Gold, even the Works of Mens hands, &c. They that make them are like unto them, and so is every one that trusteth in them. For as the Idol hath Eyes and sees not, even so the Idolater is blinded in his understanding, not perceiving the Living God, because of the blindness of his Heart, Ephes. 4. 18. And so the Prophet, Isa. 44. 9. at large discovers the unreasonableness of Idolatry: For a Man to worship a Tree, with part whereof he warms himself, and with the other part he makes an Idol, and saith, Deliver me, for thou art my God.

Now though this gross Idolatry is greatly impared where the true Light of the Gospel shineth, yet it is not wholly extirpate there. Wit∣ness (beside other Vanities not a few) that Worship which the Papists give to the Bread and Wine, which they consecrate and sacrifice, and then adore it, as very God. A thing too evident to be by them denied, (neither do they deny it) and therefore to be by all that love Christ la∣mented, that ever those who pretend to advance that holy Name, should so obstruct the growth of Christianity, by such Idolatry. * 2.165 These Men seem to come under the censure of Lactantius, which he wrote against the Hea∣then: Quae amentia est, &c. What a madness is it either to make things which themselves fear, or to fear those things which themselves have made? Neither do these foolish Men understand, that the Images [or Wafer-Cakes] which they adore, had they but sense and motion, would adore them who formed and framed them: But these things none, [no not the Papists] do consider — : They which have sense, adore things without sense, &c. What shall we think, that the Romanists who of old Time, were (as 'tis said) without Images, till they had conquered all the World, and then re∣ceiving into their Cities the Idols of all the Conquered Nations, be∣came Vassals to the Idols of all the World. * 2.166 Shall these, I say, be the pattern of the Roman-Christian Church? Who at the first, we are sure, held forth the only Bread of Life throughout the World; As may be gathered, Rom. 1. 8. And shall they now adore, as the Godhead it self, the Common Bread of every Nation? And what though they say it ceases to be Bread when they have Consecrated it, doth not a silly Mouse con∣vince them of Falshood, whilst she will eat it up before their Faces? How then can it be God? How then is it not Bread?

When we consider this, how should we wonder, That the Nations of the World which are without that means of Knowledg which we enjoy, should worship either they know not what, or the things which they be∣hold. As some the Devils, some Men living, others dead-Men, others four-footed Beasts, creeping Things, Fowls of the Air, and Fishes in the Sea, and the Hosts of Heaven; of all which, the last hath the fairest shew. Yet as it is abundantly reprehended in the sacred Oracles, so some of the An∣cient Christians, even by Reason, did convincingly shew the Vanity there∣of; which for the clearness of the Demonstration, I will here set down at large. Argumentum illud, &c. * 2.167 That Argument from whence the Hea∣then do collect, that the Stars must needs be Gods, doth most plainly prove the

contrary: For if they take them to be Gods, because of the certainty of their Courses; this rather shews they are no Gods, because they are not able to de∣part from their set courses; whereas if they were Gods, they would move both this way and that way in the Heavens, as freely as living Creatures do upon the Earth; who, because they have the freedom of their Will, they go up and down whither themselves think fit. But for the Stars, their great∣ness in their Creation, comliness in their Order, constancy in their Courses and Seasons, could never at first have been framed without a cunning hand, nor so long have been preserved without a powerful Inhabitant, nor so wisely governed without a skilful Regent, as even Reason it self maketh plain and evident.

If then the Constellations of Heaven may not be accounted Gods, as by the Light of the Scriptures and Reason we see they may not, then no Created thing known by Man is worthy of that honour, the Heavenly Lu∣minaries being far more excellent than any thing upon the Earth, or in the Sea. And therefore we are justly lead to the Maker of these things, as to him who only is worthy to have all Divine or Religious Worship, Service and Obedience: Let us then hearken to him, who saith, Fear God, and give glory to him, — and worship him that made Heaven, and Earth, and the Sea, and the Fountains of Waters, Rev. 14. 7. Yea, let us say from the heart, Whom have I in Heaven but thee? and there is none upon Earth which I desire in comparison of thee.

2. There is yet another kind of Idolatry too common among Men, and that is, the love of earthly things, more than him that is the bountiful doner thereof, to the Children of Men. Against this great Iniquity, Christiani∣ty in the Purity and Power of it, is a most sure Fortress: In this case her Sacred Doctrine crieth out on this wise; Mortifie your Members which are upon the Earth, — inordinate Affection, and Covetousness, which is Idolatry, Col. 3. 5. For this ye know, that no Covetous Man, which is an Idolater, hath any inheritance in the Kingdom of God, and of Christ.

Now Covetousness standeth in these Particulars;

1. Dissatisfaction with our present Condition, be it never so plentiful; Heb. 13. 5. Let your Conversation be without Covetousness, and be content with such things as ye have. Thus this Vice is known by the Vertue of Contentment, which is its opposite. Against this part of Covetousness, which is the Inlet to all the rest, our Saviour bends his Discourse, Luke 12. 15. Take heed and beware of Covetousness; for a Man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. And the Apostle shews the dangerous nature of this Sin, even in this first branch of it, whilst it takes away the profit of Religion from us; Godliness with (not without) Contentment, is great gain, 1 Tim. 6. 6.

2. Covetousness is a desire of that which is another Man's, or none of our own, and strictly forbidden by the Lord, Exod. 20. 17. Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbours House, &c. nor any thing that is his. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or lover of Silver, is the root of much evil among Men. This Covetous∣ness hath been the ruin of Kingdoms, and the disgrace of Christians; and is so at this day, as well as the prevention of the conversion of the Heathen, who have occasion to observe the abounding of this Iniquity

among those who bear the Christian Name. * 2.168 He that would know the truth of this, (among others) let him read the doleful History of Benzo the Italian, where he will find cause of holy indignation, when he shall hear the God of the Christians blasphemed by the Covetousness of the Spaniards; the poor Natives having too much cause to say, The God of the Spanish Nation is Gold; insomuch that when they of America could take one of them, they would pour Gold into his Mouth, supposing nothing else would satisfie the God of Christians.

3. Covetousness is a with-holding that which we possess, when we may do good with it, and especially the best good, namely to help forward the Salvation of Men, by the publication of the Gospel of Peace. For like as it profits nothing to say to a poor Man, Be filled, be cloathed, go in peace, if we do not withal give him those things which are needful; even so neither will it argue that we have a true Zeal for the Conversion of Souls, when we only pray for the Conversion of the Nations; but with these Prayers, Endeavours must be used; Men must be sent, whom God hath fitted to preach the Word, and this cannot be done without denying our selves, and laying out of our Substance. Would Christians but do what they can this way, it would certainly be blessed with some advantage; for in all Labour there is profit, but the Talk of the Lips only tends to pover∣ty, Prov. 14. 23.

Mr. Stanley having described the Covetous Man, * 2.169 by certain devouring Creatures, who live upon the ruin of their Fellows, gives too notable Rules by which such may be known. 1. They will often plead, and con∣tend for the upholding profitable Sins, (or sinful wayes by which they get profit). 2. They will plead and contend against charitable and chargeable Duties. And in this he saith most true. Nevertheless, we know that there is no Duty pertaining to Christian Religion, but is under the reach of such Blessings, both Temporal and Eternal, as will more than requite all that we can do. Let me therefore exhort all Christians, especially the most pure Churches of Christ, to consider and labour after some singular Atchievment this way, to do more than others for the information of the Nations. They are not destitute of Men (let not that be pretended) who are competently capacitated to do the Truth service in many Nati∣ons. The greatest difficulty seems to be the different Languages of Men: for though in natural things Men can help with ease to understand each others meaning; in Heavenly things it is not so, these being the most hard to unfold, and yet require the most plain demonstration. Howbeit, sith (as we have proved) the Gifts of God, even that of Tongues, is not so taken away from the Church, but that the right of it remains to her, with other Gifts, to the end of the World; during which time she is obliged * 2.170 to Teach all Nations, to Preach the Gospel (by her Ministers) to every Crea∣ture: We may not lawfully doubt that there shall ever be any failure on God's part, his Servants doing what in them lieth. So that upon the whole Matter, let us but refuse to serve Mammon, and devote our selves to serve God with all our Heart, with all our Might, and with our whole Sub∣stance, (part whereof is given for necessaries for our selves, and part for pious and charitable Uses, and God is served in both) and then if blessed

Effects follow not, we shall have a strange disappointment. But let us remember, That he is faithful that hath promised, Heb. 10.

SECT. III. Against SUPERSTITION.

As Atheism and Idolatry, even so Superstition, hath been a very great hinderance to true Religion, as some have observed, but have not been so happy as to remove such a pernicious Stumbling-block, as * 2.171 Mr. Calvin, and many other Protestant Writers; for seeing it is granted by the Learned, that Will-Worship and Superstition are of the same import; and that the latter does signifie, (of supra statutum) more than is appointed by God in his Word; voluntary Religion, such as Man's Wit deviseth to himself, without any Precept of God * 2.172. We are sufficiently admonished thereby, against the manifold Innovations in the Papal Worship, and the too too many yet remaining unpurged in many of those Churches, who have contended for Reformation. I shall do little in this case, but call to mind the Te∣stimonies of our Reformers, which may be worthy the consideration of those that succeed them. Luther teacheth expresly, * 2.173 That no Man can avoid Idolatry, if God himself doth not shew — the manner how he will be wor∣shipped. And speaking of the Sacraments, particularly he saith, That the Pastors are then cloathed with Righteousness, when they execute a Righteous Office; that is, when they teach the Word sincerely; also when they minister the Sacraments purely without corruption; so that whatsoever they do, or speak, be either the Word or Work of God.

And Wicklif before him is very positive against supra Statutum, Super∣stition, or adding any Ceremony in the Worship of God, which is not appointed by the Word of God: His words are, * 2.174 That we must receive no∣thing but what is in the Scripture, — That no Rite or Ceremony ought to be re∣ceived in the Church, but that which is plainly confirmed by the Word of God. That wise Men leave that as impertinent which is not plainly exprest. That we are to admit of no Science or Conclusion that is not proved by Scripture-Te∣stimony. And that whosoever holds the contrary Opinion, cannot be a Christian, but slatly the Devil's Companion.

Calvin makes little difference between Superstition and Idolatry, * 2.175 but seems to make the terms convertable. So oft (saith he) as the Scripture affirmeth that there is but one God, it striveth not for the bare Name of God, but withal commandeth this, That whatsoever belongeth to the Godhead, be not given to any other. Whereby also appeareth that pure Religion doth differ from Superstition, — because always even the Blind themselves have found that this Rule ought to be holden, that God be not worshipped but as he hath ordered. EUSEBIA, in Greek, signifying as much as true Worship. — And that it is a fond colour which the Superstitious do pretend, when with indiscreet Zeal they give themselves leave to do all things, — but herein shameful igno∣rance bewrayeth it self, that neither they cleave to the one God, nor have any regard to Order in the worshipping of him; who will be a severe revenger, if he be mingled with any fained God. And then he setteth forth the lawful

manner of worshipping, to hold Mankind in Obedience, containing both these Points in his Law.

* 2.176 To these we shall add the Testimony of Dr. Fulk, upon Colos. 2. 18. What Religion of Angels soever it be, such as the Heathen used, such as Si∣mon Magus invented; such as some Jews observed, or such as Papists use: All Religion of Angels is forbidden; yea all Superstition or Will-Worship which is not after the prescript of God's Word. And indeed who can imagin that any thing devised by Men, (though never so specious) can add any ad∣vantage to the Way and Worship of God; and if not, to what end are such additions made? And who seeth not, to add one Ceremony, is the same as to add one thousand; if therefore we desire God's Worship to be kept in purity; Let all that love Christ beware of Superstition altoge∣ther; because, as a Learned Protestant observes, * 2.177 That as the Atheist is like hard Ground where no Corn groweth, so the Superstitious exceeds in his Worship, and runs as far into the other Extremity: Christ suffered between two Thieves, so Christ suffereth between Atheism and Superstition.

SECT. IV. Motives to all that Love Christ, specially the Purest Churches, to endeavour the propagation of Christian Religion in the ancient pu∣rity of it.

1. In Undertakings of Moment, consideration is to be had of the pos∣sibility of the thing; and especially whether it comport with the Will of God, seeing where these oppose, no undertaking can be warrantable; however, the pride or confidence of any may prompt Men thereunt••▪ But in our Case the way is most clear, for (not to scrutinize into the Se∣crets of God) his Word abundantly shews his Will to be, That his Church (and particularly his Ministers) should labour to make all Men see what is the Fellowship of the Mystery, which from the beginning of the World hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ, Ephes. 3. 9. In pursuance of which gracious Design, Christ hath given perpe∣tual Authority to his Servants to Teach all Nations; to Preach the Gospel to every Creature; and hath promised his concurrence therein by his pre∣sence with them to the end of the World. So that (as hath been shewed abundantly in our Defence of the Office of Messengers to preach the Go∣spel) no Man hath Power to teach any thing which Christ commanded, if this Commission be not in force for the teaching all Nations; and in∣deed this Work is Antecedent to all other Teaching, in reference to what Christ commandeth, seeing Faith comes by hearing; nor can they hear (ordinarily) without a Preacher, Rom. 10. Moreover when the Church prayeth, Thy Kingdom come. Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven; It must needs respect the Propagation of the Church, as well as the Ac∣complishment of her Glory. And when we consider how that Prayer for all Men is good in the sight of God, because he will have all Men to be saved, and come to the knowledg of the Truth, 1 Tim. 2. 3, 4. We must believe it is

agreeable with his Will that the Truth be preached to them: And hence the possibility of the thing is apparent, seeing God puts not his Servants upon any Impossibilities: And this shall suffice for the first Motive.

2. The most glorious and worthy Work to be done by God's People, is to ad∣vance his Truth, and to seek the Salvation of the World, by all possible means. About this Work God sent his only Son into the World, as be∣ing the most glorious Service he had to concern him in, in the days of his Flesh. 1 John 5. The Son of God is come, and hath given us an under∣standing, that we may know him that is true. God hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son, Heb. 1. 1. He that is an Ambassador of Peace from an Earthly Monarch, is a glorious Minister commonly. But how much more glorious is it to be sent with an Ambassage from the Prince of Life, to proclaim Peace and Reconciliation between God and Man, yea Peace on Earth, to the whole Earth, and good Will towards Men. Sure∣ly 'tis so glorious, the very Angels desire to look into it. How beautiful up∣on the Mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good Tidings? Glorious and worthy Actions do excite great Spirits to undertake them. How have Men undertaken to subdue Nations, yea, the whole World, to themselves! How much better is it to endeavour the subjection thereof to God, that Souls may be saved, and the Kingdom of Satan subverted. What a beggarly Warfare is it to obtain an Earthly Crown, a Corrupti∣ble Crown, and to bring a Nation into Bondage, when compared with the Spiritual Warfare, which vesteth every faithful Souldier with an Incorrup∣tible Crown, and brings the Conquered out of Bondage, into the glorious Liberty of the Sons of God? Suppose all the People in a Nation, or City, were smote with Blindness, would any thing be more worthy than for some skilful Artist to restore their Sight? Why, this is our case, Paul was sent to open the Eyes of the Gentiles, and to turn them from Darkness to Light, Acts 26. 18. And are not many Nations Blind at this day? Is there not the same Eye-Salve in the Church as afore-time? Why then is not the sight of the Nations recovered? Surely there wants Physicians, or else they are not industrious to endeavour the Cure. It is true, There is a Lion in the way. But who delivered Paul out of the Mouth of the Lion? Who stood by him, that his Preaching might be fully manifested? Is the Arm of the Lord shortned that it cannot save? And is not any good Work so much the more glorious, as by how much it is attempted under diffi∣cult Circumstances? Let these things serve for the second Motive.

3. No Work under the Sun so needful, all is but Trifles in comparison: Yet the peril of Waters, Robbers, differing Climates, the absence of Friends, great Labour, great Cost, &c. all is put to the venture, and dispensed with for a Ship burthen of Earth, Wood, Stone, &c. and often∣times without any necessity, either on the part of the Adventurer, or those that furnish him with Commodities. But who is able to express this one thing needful? to wit, the Hearing (and by consequence the Preaching of) the Word of Man's Salvation. A necessity was laid upon Paul to Preach the Gospel; It's strange no Man should be under a necessi∣ty now! The darkness of many Nations is as great now as then. The Truth is more opposed in the purity of it now, then it was in his days.

The Enemy hath had a long time to corrupt the Word. There is the same necessity of Salvation as formerly, a Soul was then of more va∣lue than the gain of the World, and so it is now; Men are in as great danger to be lost to Eternity as then; there is therefore a necessity that the Gospel be faithfully Preached now as well as then. Thus much for the third Motive.

4. It is but wisdom to avoid an eminent Danger. We must e're long ap∣pear before the Lord to give an account of our Stewardship; some trust God hath committed to the present Churches, to hold forth the Word of Life to them that sit in Darkness. And why did Paul cry out, Wo is me, if I preach not the Gospel? Sure he saw the Danger to be very great! To him that knoweth how to do good, and doth it not, to him it is sin. In for∣mer times God suffered all Nations to walk in their own ways, but now he ex∣horteth all Men every where to repent. Doth he exhort them (or command them) to repent? but then we know he doth this by his Ministers (ordi∣narily). The Jews had no special Commission to go to the Nations, but we have. Our danger in the neglect of this Duty must needs be great, if indeed we are negligent. Consider this fourth Motive.

5. Many (and some short of the Truth as now understood by many) have done much more this way than we have done. To say nothing here of the Primitive Labourers in the Lord's Harvest, of whom it will be said they were attended with miraculous Operations: Which is true of some of them, but not of them all. One shining and burning Light there was, who did no Miracle, and yet made ready a People for the Lord. We read not that Timothy or Titus did any Miraculous Works, yet did they Preach in many Countries, (as shewed above); but to let these pass, and come to lower Instances, we shall find our selves so poor in Works of this kind, as we may justly be moved to jealousie with our selves.

It is reported of one Remigius, about Anno 550, That he converted all France from Idolatry to the Faith of Christ. And that about the same time, one Martin reduced the Sweeds from the Arrian Heresie. How much Augustin the Monk prevailed in England in opposition to Paganism, is famous in our own Histories, though he came from Gregory, when the Church of Rome had not all its Pristine Purity. 'Tis said also, That one Lambert, a Religious Man, brought Taxandria in Lower Germany to the Faith of Christ, about Anno 620. And that Kilian a Scotch-Man, wrought the like in Franconia, where he died a Martyr. Wilfrid is said to perswade the Inhabitants of the Isle of Wight to receive the Faith, in Anno 683. These indeed were zealous Men, yet not so Apostolical in their Doctrine as might have been desired. I could multiply Examples out of the Works of Jerom Platus, whence also I have taken these In∣stances; and though many things recorded by him are doubtful, yet many also are true. However thus much may be observed from him, That it is no impossible thing for such as have a love and zeal for Christ, being ordi∣narily gifted, (for these Men were no more) to do (through God's bles∣sing) very great service for God in the instruction of the Nations that know not the Truth. One Instance my Author hath, not unfit to be

remembred, 'tis this; One Hieronimus Esculus being sent to Constantino∣ple, prevailed with the Greeks to a kind of Reconciliation; And brought (saith my Author) forty Peers of the Country to submit themselves; and (which was (saith he) a joyful sight) they kissed the Popes feet. The use I make of it is this; first, To shew the need true Christians have to be active to prevent those false Conversions wrought by Papists. 2. To perswade true Christians to be as zealous for Christ, as others are for the Pope; for why should not Noble Men be perswaded to kiss the Son, lest he be angry, as to kiss the Popes Feet? Thus we have the fifth Motive.

6. The certainty of being highly favoured of the Lord in this Work, may greatly encourage us to go about it; for being thus devoted to God, and being faithful in our Endeavours, we shall be accepted according to that Ability and Opportunity which we have, and not according to that which we have not. If things succeed not according to our desire, yet shall we not lose our Reward. The same Jesus who said of the Woman that did not much, She hath done what she could, will bear witness to our Work and Labour of Love. Small beginnings often prove excellent; and if the Lord be with us, we shall find the Work more easie than we can conceive it at a distance. May these Motives be some-way useful to further the sincere Reformation of Religion where it is wanting, and the Propagation of it where it is not known, to the Glory of God, I have my end.

Notes

• * 1.1

  These were both General Councils.
• * 1.2

  Mat. 26. 1 Cor. 11,
• * 1.3

  Cyprian Serm. Penit.
• * 1.4

  Gelas. cons. Dist. 2.
• * 1.5

  Aug. de Nat. & Grat.
• * 1.6

  Aug. in Joh. Tract. 94.
• * 1.7

  Aug. ad For∣tunat.
• * 1.8

  Aug. Prolog. l. 3. de Trin.
• * 1.9

  Orig. in Jer. Hom. 1.
• * 1.10

  The Apo∣stles are here excepted.
• * 1.11

  Gerson ex∣am. of Doct.
• * 1.12

  Panor. chap. signif.
• * 1.13

  Note; There is not the word AS in my words. only I say the same, that is, God must take up our Quarrels; and how that must be, is shewed in my Answer following.
• * 1.14

  Heb. 1. 1.
• * 1.15

  Not denying Christ to be her Foundation in the main. Ephes. 2. 20.
• † 1.16

  Chrys. Hom. in Mat. 24.
• * 2.1

  Aug. Cont. Petil. c. 85.
• * 2.2

  Aug. Cont. Max. l. 3. c. 14
• * 2.3

  S. N. Antidot
• * 2.4

  Chrys. Hom. in Matth.
• * 2.5

  Iren. l. 3. c. 4.
• * 2.6

  Aug. 7. Tome Cont. Eres.
• * 2.7

  Author 7. Qu.
• * 2.8

  T. B. End to Controv.
• * 2.9

  Author of the 7 Queries.
• * 2.10

  Author of the 7 Queries.
• * 2.11

  It would be here noted, That nei∣ther the Marks of Unity, Universa∣lity, &c. nor the Creed, do prove a People that have them all, to be the Church; because none of them menti∣on Baptism, without which there can∣not be a visible Church.
• * 2.12

  See a Book, entituled, A well grounded. Treatise con∣cerning Bap∣tism.
• * 2.13

  Justin Mart. in orat. ad Autho. pium.
• * 2.14

  Jerom. super Mat. 28.
• * 2.15

  Athan. in serm. 3. cont. A•…•…an.
• * 2.16

  Haimo. in po∣stil. sup. text.
• * 2.17

  Beda super Acts 19.
• * 2.18

  Tertul. Qui sunt Bapt. parvi.
• * 2.19

  Aug. de Civi∣tat. Dei.
• † 2.20

  2 Cor. 5. 20.
• * 2.21

  Hil. cont. Auxen.
• * 2.22

  Willet. Synops.
• * 2.23

  Rhem. Test. Annot.
• * 2.24

  Dist. 32. c. 10.
• * 2.25

  Fab. Chron.
• * 2.26

  Rhem. Test. Annot. in Rev. 17.
• * 2.27

  Aug. de Civi∣tat. Dei, lib. 18.
• * 2.28

  Chrys. in Rev. 13.
• * 2.29

  Luke 12. 51, 52, 53.
• * 2.30

  Mat. 10. 34, 35. Luke. 21. 16. 1 Cor. 7. 11, 13, 15, 21, 22, 23.
• * 2.31

  Mat. 3. 9.
• * 2.32

  2 Cor. 5. 16, 17, 18.
• * 2.33

  Gal. 3. 2, 6, 29.
• * 2.34

  Acts 10. 35. Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8.
• * 2.35

  Rom. 5. 16, 18.
• * 2.36

  Acts 2. 38. to 41.
• * 2.37

  Fab. Chron. 4th Part. Yet this Eusebius doth seem to contradict.
• * 2.38

  Willit Synop. Papis.
• * 2.39

  Jerom in Ep. ad Rom.
• * 2.40

  Luke 24.
• * 2.41

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Is Educo vel Ex∣traho, to bring forth, draw, or pluck out. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is Nuncius, a Messenger: both fit appel∣lations for the first Penman of the Scripture.
• * 2.42

  I observe that he hath left off much the phrase used formerly; to wit, the Light within.
• * 2.43

  The Pas∣•…•… is this; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Eternal •…•…it is the •…•…ur of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 World, (and then cunningly adds) and not the visible Man exclusively considered: Which is a •…•…olous distinction, no Man being found his Adversary; For who holds that Christ's Manhood •…•…ed the World without the Spirit?
• * 2.44

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…peak here •…•…y of God's •…•…dinary way 〈◊〉〈◊〉 making 〈…〉〈…〉 the Sa∣•…•… of the •…•…ld to Men; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 denying but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 may mi∣•…•…ulously •…•…ke him •…•…wn, as he •…•…d to Paul.
• * 2.45

  See Alchoran
• * 2.46

  Exod. 20.
• * 2.47

  Act. 5. 30, 31.
• * 2.48

  Acts 2. 38.
• * 2.49

  Such as we are in Word, by Letters, when we are absent, such will we be also in Deed when we are present. 2 Cor. 10. 11.
• * 2.50

  R. R. always begs what he ought to prove, whilst he takes it for granted that the Qua∣kers have the holy Spirit, which is the thing I con∣stantly deny:
• * 2.51

  And this he doth by abu∣sing Heb. 10. where he would have Christ distinguished from the Body of Christ. Which is absurd, for neither the Body nor the Spirit, distinct from each other, is the Christ, but in conjunction they are one Christ. And when we speak of the Man Christ, we intend the whole Man; and by the Death of Christ, we mean the pri∣vation of his Life for a time.
• * 2.52

  This he added.
• * 2.53

  Rom. 6. 23. Mathusalem li∣ved near 1000 years, which was the effect of a superven∣ing Power, more than ter∣rene Food, which is the same now that it was then.
• * 2.54

  Gen. 3. 22.
• † 2.55

  Rev. 2. 7.
• * 2.56

  Mat. 21.
• * 2.57

  Luke 7.
• * 2.58

  So then the Quakers never had the lead∣ing of the Spi∣rit in the case of Baptism.
• * 2.59

  Jud. Epist.
• * 2.60

  Vin. Fro∣theringham.
• * 2.61

  Gal. 3. 27. Heb. 6. 2.
• * 2.62

  Acts 2. 38. Mark 1. 5. Acts 8. 12. & 18. 8.
• * 2.63

  Rom. 6. 1.
• * 2.64

  Libert. Proph. pag. 228, to 246.
• * 2.65

  Which yet the Baptists do not grant.
• * 2.66

  It is a saying of Augustine, De∣trahe verbum, quid est aqua, &c. Take away the Word, and what is Water? Nothing but Water: Joyn the Word and the Element, and it is made a Sacrament. This consi∣deration is very concluding against Pedo-baptism, for to the Infant the Word is as it were taken away from the Element, and consequently, ac∣cording to Augustine, it can be no Sacrament to them at all.
• * 2.67

  Ex man. controv. Un∣der the pro∣bation of di∣vers of their Doctors, Professors and Stu∣dents in Theologie, p. 372, to 377.
• * 2.68

  S. N. Antid.
• * 2.69

  See Diodat. in Act. 2.
• * 2.70

  A thing whol∣ly unknown that they have any such receit of the Spirit.
• * 2.71

  Eras. Paraph. in 1 Cor. 7.
• * 2.72

  Eras. Paraph. on Mat. 28.
• * 2.73

  Ludovicus Vives.
• * 2.74

  Fabian.
• * 2.75

  Hugo Grotius
• * 2.76

  Anno 315. Con. Neocaes.
• * 2.77

  Tertul. lib. de Bap. cap. 18.
• * 2.78

  Tertul. lib. de Bap. cap. 18.
• * 2.79

  Orat. to quest. in St. Baptisma.
• * 2.80

  Mark 6.
• * 2.81

  Perseverance in Faith must here be under∣stood, with the fruits of Faith also.
• * 2.82

  For they do not only deny such Infants the Act, but the right to Baptism, be∣cause the Chil∣dren of Unbe∣lievers.
• * 2.83

  Rom. 6. 3.
• * 2.84

  Ver. 6. 4.
• * 2.85

  Liturgy.
• * 2.86

  Marquess of Worcest. Cert. Relig.
• * 2.87

  Secundum Fisher.
• * 2.88

  For God's ways are not to be left to mans will; he com∣mands, and 'tis mans duty to obey.
• * 2.89

  Ex Op. Perk. See the Scho∣last. discourse against Sym∣bol. with Anti∣christ.
• * 2.90

  The Princi∣ple is this, viz. The promise of the Holy Spirit which God hath made, and Christ obtain∣ed for the Church under the New-Te∣stament, and Prayer, with the Laying on of Hands as the way of God for his People where∣in to obtain it.
• * 2.91

  Euseb. Hist. lib. 6. c. 20.
• * 2.92

  Tertul. de Baptismo.
• * 2.93

  Tertul. de Resurrect.
• * 2.94

  Eusebius lib. 7. cap. 2.
• * 2.95

  And for the Ʋnction men∣tioned in Ter∣tul. de Bap. its shewed by the Learned Protestants to be that which was used at Bap∣tism, and not at laying on of Hands.
• * 2.96

  Cyprian.
• * 2.97

  Sure I am, in this Mans days, both Christians and all Men, had free liberty to serve God as they see they ought, this Man not seek∣ing to hinder it, which is not like the Popes of our days. He go∣verned the Roman Church, Anno 312. and it certainly gratifies the Papists too much, to acknowledg Popes to have been ever since the time of Clement, as Mr. D. is plea∣sed to do, pag. 7.
• * 2.98

  Jerom.
• * 2.99

  Augustin.
• * 2.100

  Conc. Laod.
• * 2.101

  Conc. Elib.
• * 2.102

  Cyprian.
• † 2.103

  Sacramentum Confirmationis ab initio sola manuum Impositione, ex∣hibitum: Nam cum initio Spiritus Sanctus, ad evidentiorem recentis ad hine fidei Confirmationem signo visibili influerit confirmatis, externa Ʋnctione tum opus non erat.
• * 2.104

  The form of words used in their Confirmation, is so far from a rejection of all that the Pa∣pists hold in that Point, that they seem to have too great affinity therewith, viz. Sigillaros primo sclicet unctos unguento Chrismatis & signantes eos dicimus sigillum doni Spiritûs Sancti.
• * 2.105

  Greg. Naz. Theodor.
• * 2.106

  Perrin.
• * 2.107

  Luke 3. 21, 22. Job 6. 27.
• * 2.108

  Dr. Taylor.
• * 2.109

  Calvin.
• * 2.110

  But alas, its more than a Supposition: for if he do not know infallibly which it is, why doth he not tell us which it is, and why are we counted im∣modest for shewing posi∣tively, unless he arrogate more to him∣self than he will allow us?
• * 2.111

  As if the Au∣thor's Princi∣ples were more Infallible than those in Heb. 6.
• * 2.112

  Heb. 6. 1, 2.
• * 2.113

  You see, I do adhere to the Ancient Exposition of this place, rather than to our late Curtail'd Expositions made by the Pedo-Baptists, who because they are unwilling to mend their Errors in Baptism, would fain have Paul to be of their mind, but they should remember that Reformati∣on or amendment is no Error.
• † 2.114

  So I call it, for five Causes, 1. Because of Prayer, the Moral part. 2. Because of Imposition of Hands, the Ritual part. 3. Be∣cause of the Promise to which it refers, as the Blessing signified by it. 4. Because it is placed among the Fundamentals of Religion or called a Principle of the Doctrine of Christ. 5. Because it will bear the denomination of an Ordi∣nance, as well as Imposition of Hands on Deacons, or other Officers of Christs Church.
• * 2.115

  But Note that we have pro∣ved that the Promised Spirit is truly received where the Sealing Graces are received, though Gifts be not received, and the Promise being received, the end of Imposition of Hands is received: See our Sigh for Peace.
• ‖ 2.116

  Some of which I will here insert in a Column by themselves. John 14. 16, 17. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth.

  John 7. 38. He that believeth on me — out of his Belly shall flow Rivers of Living Water, — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on his Name should receive.

  Acts 2. 23. Therefore being by the right Hand of the Father exalted, and having received of the Father the Promise of the Spirit, he hath shed forth that which you now see and hear.

  Acts 2. 38, 39. For the Promise is to you, and to your Children, and to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call, ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

  Eph. 4. 4, 11. There is one Body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling. — And he gave some Apo∣stles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, — till we all come to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

  Ephes. 4. 30. — The Holy Spirit of God, by which ye are sealed to the Day of Redemption.

  1. Cor. 31. Covet earnestly the best Gifts. — Covet to Prophesie, and forbid not to speak with Tongues. We Prophesie in part, — but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

  Gal. 3. 13, 14. Christ hath redeemed us, — that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that they might receive the Promise of the Spirit through Faith.

  Isa. 59. 21. As for me, this is my Covenant with them, saith the Lord, My Spirit which is upon thee, and the words which I have put into thy Mouth, shall not depart out of thy Mouth, nor out of the Mouth of thy Seeds Seed, from hence forth for ever.
• * 2.117

  In what respect there are now no Apostles.
• * 2.118

  Mat. 28. 19, 20 Gal. 1. 1. 2 Tim. 1. 13.
• * 2.119

  In what re∣spect there are •…•…w Apo∣stles.
• * 2.120

  Assemb. Divines, on Rom. 6. 17. The word Apostles (say they) is ascribed not to the twelve alone, but in a larger sense to other Do∣ctors and Ministers of the Church.

  Dr. Ham. on Rom. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies primarily that Office whereto the 12 were set apart by Christ immediately, and so Paul and Barnabas; secondarily, it be∣longs to others that receive the like Commission from the 12, or from Paul, &c.
• * 2.121

  Dr. Hammond on 3 Ep. John, calls these bre∣thren the Mi∣nisters of Christ. But they were not Pastors of particular Churches. Ergo, Itinerate Mi∣nisters or Mes∣sengers of Christ, and the Churches.
• * 2.122

  Some take Silus and Sil∣vanus to he the same Man, but it is uncer∣tain, wherefore I note both.
• * 2.123

  Their words are these, We might have taken upon us, and exercised our Apostolical Authority, as might befit the Ambassadors of Christ, yet we took a con∣trary course.
• * 2.124

  Theodoret saith these cal∣led Bishops, were in the first times called Apostles. D. Hammond.
• † 2.125

  The twelve Apostles and Paul are here excepted.
• * 2.126

  Mat. 16. 18. Heb. 3. 6.
• * 2.127

  Which may serve to give some light to the Divine Institution of the Office which we contend for, seeing those that are given to the Ministry at the Prayer of the Church, are here said to be sent by the Lord, and they that are sent by the Lord into his Har∣vest, are sent by Divine Autho∣rity.
• * 2.128

  Note, It hath been told me, in words at length, that Ti∣moth & Titus their office, was not of Divine Institution; which is a dan∣gerous Error.
• * 2.129

  Though it's certain he was some degrees above them.
• * 2.130

  Viz. The Companions of Paul as well as himself.
• * 2.131

  The clear grounds of Se∣paration be∣tween the Church and the World, in general is shewed in the Second Part of the Second Book.
• * 2.132

  It is worth Observation, how earnestly the Papists and the Prote∣stants do maintain their Separations respectively, each from other; and we know the chief grounds, are taken from the Innovati∣ons of the one hand, and the Alterations on the other, which have been made to the offence of each other. See the severity of the Papists in their Expos. in 2 Cor. 6. Rhem. Test. And the Protestants on the same place, ground their Separation from the Papists. See Diodate. Annot. on a Cor. 6. Their words are as followeth, Generally here is forbidden conversation and dealing with all Infidels, and consequently with Hereticks, but especially in Prayers or meetings at their Schismatical Service — which the Apostle here uttereth in more particular and different terms, that Christian Folk may take better held of it; No society (saith he) nor fellowship, no participation nor agreement, no consent between light and darkness, Christ and Baal, the Temple of God, and the Temple of Idols: all Service as pretended Worship of God set up by Hereticks, or Schismaticks, being nothing else but the Service of Baal, and plain Idolatry, — from such therefore specially we must sever our selves always in heart and mind, and touching any act of Religion in body also: according as the Children of Israel were commanded by God to separate themselves from the Schismaticks, ••orah, Da∣and Abiram, and their Tabernacle, by these words: Depart from the Tabernacles of these impious men, and touch ye than not those things which pertain to them, lest ye be inwraped in their sin.

  2. The Protestants, with more care do thus Expound the Text, 2 Cor. 6. 14. Be not unequally yoked, &c. namely by fellowship in their sins, or by any tye of common Life, which may hinder you from serving God in Liberty, or may draw you to do evil, especially by Matrimony, — withdraw your selves from all manner of intimate Conversation and Communion with t•…•…, which may draw you to the participation or imitation of their sins.
• * 2.133

  Mr. Baxter.
• * 2.134

  Dr. Hammond.
• * 2.135

  A summary of the Objections against the Se∣paration of the Baptized Churches from the Paedoba∣ptists. Mr. A. retract. Sep.
• * 2.136

  Dr. Hammond on John 3. 5. Jesus answered him, Except a man be recei∣ved as a Pro∣selyte, and that not of an ordi∣nary sort, such as are among you Jews, but a Christian Proselyte, such as received Baptism in the Christian Church — he cannot en∣ter, &c.
• * 2.137

  Austin.
• * 2.138

  Lud. Vives.
• * 2.139

  Mat. 22. 29. Phil. 3. 21.
• * 2.140

  Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 22. c. 5.
• * 2.141

  Job 38, 39, 40, 41. chap.
• * 2.142

  Acts 17. 31.
• * 2.143

  Austin de Civit. Dei. l. 20.
• * 2.144

  ☞
• * 2.145

  Gen. 5. 2 Kings 2.
• * 2.146

  Numb. 17.
• * 2.147

  Post-script to his Chri∣stian Qua∣ker.
• * 2.148

  Whitehead.
• * 2.149

  Luke 6. 6. 10.
• * 2.150

  Whitehead.
• * 2.151

  Whitehead.
• * 2.152

  Whitehead.
• * 2.153

  Col. 3.
• * 2.154

  Whitehead.
• * 2.155

  Whitehead.
• * 2.156

  Whitehead.
• * 2.157

  Whitehead.
• * 2.158

  Lact. de fal. Reli. c. 2.
• * 2.159

  See Mr. Pennington in his Book written to all the Madmen in Great Bedlam, (meaning the Ranters in Great Britain) where he prophesies of their Revolution, and how they should be very famous in it; and it was not long before the Quakers shewed themselves: and what the natural consequence of their Doctrine is, hath been sufficiently made manifest by many Witnesses.
• * 2.160

  Plutarch.
• * 2.161

  Boetius.
• * 2.162

  Aristotle.
• * 2.163

  Lactant.
• * 2.164

  Lactant.
• * 2.165

  Lactant.
• * 2.166

  Hakewell.
• * 2.167

  Lactant. l. 2. Instit. c. 5.
• * 2.168

  Benzo.
• * 2.169

  Serm. p. 22.
• * 2.170

  Mat. 28. 19. Mar. 16. 15.
• * 2.171

  Instit. l. 1. c. 12.
• * 2.172

  Leigh. Crit. Sac.
• * 2.173

  In Psal. 132. vers. 5, 9.
• * 2.174

  As quoted by Mr. Danvers, Treat. of Bapt. p. 286. second Edition.
• * 2.175

  Instit. l. 1. c. 12.
• * 2.176

  Dr. Fulk.
• * 2.177

  Wils. Christ. Dict. p. 629.