A DISCOURSE Proving The Divine Institution OF Water-Baptism: Wherein The Quaker-Arguments Against it, Are COLLECTED and CONFUTED. With as much as is Needful concerning The Lord's Supper.  
By the Author of, The Snake in the Grass.  
If ye Love me, keep my Commandments,  Joh. xiv. 15. 
LONDON: Printed for C. Brome, at the Gun, at the West-End of St. Paul's. W. Keblewhite, at the White Swan, in St. Paul's Churchyard. And H. Hindmarsh, at the Golden Ball, over-against the Royal Exchange, in Cornhill. M. DC.XC.VII.   


THE PREFACE CONTAINS.  

I. A Short Proof for Infant Baptism.  
II. The several sorts of Contemners of Baptism amongst us.  
III. The Presbyterians in Scotland.  
iv In Ireland.  
V In England.  
VI Too many of the Communion of the Church of England.  
VII. Whence this Discourse useful to others besides Quakers.  
VIII. The Particular Occasion of Writing this Discourse.    

The Contents of This Discourse.  

Sect. I. THat Matth. xxviii. 19 was meant of Water-Baptism. Page 1.  
Sect. II. That Christ did Practise Water-Baptism. 2. That the Apostles did it after Him. 3. That the Catholic Church have done it after Them. p. 3.  
Sect. III. That Baptism must be Outward and Visible, because it is an Ordinance appointed whereby to Initiat Men into an Outward and Visible Society, which is the Church. p. 7.   

The Arguments of the Quakers against the Outward-Baptism.  
Sect. IU. 1. That the Baptism Commanded Matth. xxviii. 19 was only the Inward, or Spiritual Baptism. p. 11.  
Sect. V. 2. That Water-Baptism is John's Baptism, and therefore Ceased. p. 12.  
Sect. VI 3. That Christ and the Apostles did Baptise with John's Baptism. p. 14.  
Sect. VII. 4. That Paul was not sent to Baptise, 1 Cor. i 14. 17. p. 21.  
Sect. VIII. 5. That Baptism is not the putting away the Filth of the Flesh; but the Answer of a Good Conscience, 1 Pet. three 21. Therefore that it is not the Outward but the Inward Baptism, which the Apostles Preached. p. 33.  
Sect. IX. 6. That there is but One Baptism, Eph. iv. 5. therefore not both Outward and Inward. p. 35.  
Sect. X. 7. That the Outward Baptism is to be left behind, and we to get beyond it, Heb. vi. 1. p. 38.  
Sect. XI. 8. That there are no Signs under the Gospel. p. 45.  
Sect. XII. The Conclusion. Showing the Necessity of Water-Baptism. p. 59     

Erratum. P. 5. l. 14. r. Act. x. 47.   

There will soon be Published a Discourse, by the same Author, showing whom Christ hath Ordained to Administer the Sacraments in His Church. And another, wherein it is proved, That the Chief of the Quaker-Heresies were Broached, and Condemned, in the Days of the Apostles, and in the first 150 Years after Christ.   

A PREFACE.  
AS Baptism is putting on Christ, giving up our Names to Him; being Admitted as His Disciples; and a Public Profession of His Doctrine: So the Renouncing of our Baptism, 〈…〉 as Public a Disowning of Him; and a Formal Apostasy from His Religion.  
Therefore the Devil has been most busy in all ages (but has prevailed most, in our latter Corrupt times) to Prejudice Men, by many false Pretences, against this Divine Institution. Having been able to persuade some quite to throw it off, as Pernicious and Hurtful: Others too think it only Lawful to be done, but to lay no great stress upon it, and so use it, where it is Enjoined, as a thing Indifferent. Others deny it to Infants, upon this only Ground, That they are not supposed Capable of being Admitted into the Covenant of God, which He has made with Men: For, if they are Capable of being admitted into the Covenant, there can be no Reason to deny them the outward Seal of it.  
But this being Foreign to my present Undertaking, which is to Demonstrate to the Quakers the Necessity of an Outward or Water-Baptism, in the General (for as to Persons capable of it, we have no Controversy with those who deny it to All) therefore, I have not digressed into another Subject, which is, that of Infant Baptism, in the following Discourse.  
I. Yet thus much I will say of it, in this place, That Infants are Capable of being admitted into the Covenant, and therefore that they cannot be Excluded from the outward Seal of it. The Consequence the Baptists cannot deny. And that they are Capable, I thus prove. They were Capable under the Law, and before the Law, of being admitted as Members of the Covenant in Christ to come, made with Abraham, by the Seal of Circumcision, at the Age of Eight Days: And therefore there can be no Reason to Exclude them from the same Privilege, to the same Covenant, now that Christ is come; unless Christ had debarred them from it: The Law standing still, as it was, where He has not Altered, or Fulfilled it. But He has not debarred them. Nay; on the contrary, He has yet further confirmed their being within the Covenant. He called a Little Child, (Mat. xviii. 2, 3, 5.) and set him in the midst of His Apostles; and Proposed him as a Pattern to Them, and to all Adult Christians. And said, That none should enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, except those who should become as little Children. And that whoever did Receive a Little Child in His Name, did Receive Christ Himself. And (for 10.) in Heaven, their Angels (saith Christ) do always behold the Face of my Father which is in Heaven. And therefore He bids us Take heed that we despise not one of these Little Ones; by which term tho Adult Persons are sometimes meant, yet in the Texts before quoted, it is expressly applied to Little Children. And what greater Despising of them can be, than to Reject them as no Members of Christ's Body, and consequently unworthy of the outward Seal of His Covenant?  
Christ was displeased with His Disciples (Mar. x. 14.) for hindering young Children to be brought unto Him. And will He be pleased with the Baptists for the same thing? He took the little Children up in His Arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them. Did He Bless those who were not Capable of being within His Covenant? He said, Of such is the Kingdom of God, (which is a term our Saviour used, to Express the Covenant of the Gospel) Are they not then within the Covenant of the Gospel? The Apostle says, that where either of the Parents is a Christian, (1 Cor. seven. 14.) the Children are Holy: That is, within the Covenant of Christ. And pursuant to this, when any man was Converted, his Children were Baptised with himself. This is the meaning of what we read so often in The Acts, that such a Man was Baptised with his Household. And it was the Custom before with the Jews, that when they admitted any man as a Proselyte to their Religion, they Baptised his Children with himself. Let this suffice for the present. And Proceed.  
II. When Rebellion had fully completed itself, in the Murder of the King, 1648. It soon spawned a multifarious Schism of 30 or 40 different Religions in England, at the same time, of which Catalogues were then Printed, most of all these threw away Baptism: And threatened an immediate and total Overthrow of the Christian Religion, in this Island. But, by the great Mercy of God, the Restauration of the Church, with the King, 1660. has extinguished the very Names and Memory of these, all but 4 or 5 of the Principal Sects. The Presbyterians, (Mother of all the rest) Independents, Anabaptists, Quakers, and Muggletonians. I am told of some Sweet-singers, got up of late. But they are yet inconsiderable. They may Increase, and all the rest Revive, if warmed by a Plenitude of Indulgence. The Socinians, or Unitarians, are already got very high, who make nothing of the Sacraments, but as In-effectual Forms. So think the Deists, who pretend to higher Quality than these. And the Latitudinarians will quarrel with none of these. All Deists are Latitudinarians; and, tho' they despise Baptism, and all Revealed Institutions, yet they can submit to them, because they are Established by Law, as they would to any thing else, rather than lose a Penny, or their Ease. But the Quakers and Muggletonians have (more sincerely) Rejected Baptism, as not allowable, because they think so.  
III. The Presbyterians, Independents, etc. do indeed use Baptism; but as a thing so indifferent, that many of them will suffer a Child to die without it, rather than Baptise it Privately, or not upon a Sermon or Lecture-day, or before Sermon, rather than after it; And an Instance can be given, since this late Establishment of Presbytery in Scotland, of a Child who died in the Church, in Sermon-time; but the Minister suffered that, and the repeated Requests of the Parents, rather than go out of his wont method of Baptising after Sermon, he thought Baptism so little material!  
But the People being used to a greater veneration of Baptism, under the Episcopal Administration, and taking the Presbyterian contempt of it somewhat uneasily, the Presbyterian Ministers there, to instruct them better, had public Preachments, all over the Nation, to show the no Necessity of the Outward or Water-baptism. I will not say the ENGLISH Presbyterians go so far; they are one Degree further from the League & Covenant. I hear that they do now Administer Baptism PRIVATELY, in and about London. Which the Independents do still Refuse, (I have it from some of themselves) let the case be never so urgent, even tho' the child should die without it, before one of their Sermon or Lecture-days. As for the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, I hear that some Independent Congregations in London are come to use it Monthly. And the Presbyterians more frequently than they used to do; or than they do in other places. The frequency of Communion in the Episcopal Churches, in some manner forcing them to it, that their people might not think themselves more neglected by them, than others are. But their own Inclination, and the Value they have for this Sacrament will better appear by their Behaviour while they had the Power in their own hands; and could Dictat to others, instead of Following or Complying with them. And during their Government in the late Revolution, tho' they did not downright (as the Quakers) declare War against it, & Extripate it at once; yet they plainly seemed to have had a design to have Inched it by Degrees out of the world, as far as it was in their power, by letting it fall into Dissuetude, that so it might be Forgotten, & Dye. And they had almost Effected it, among those Unhappy People that were led by them. For from the Birth of their Covenant, A. D. 1638. they had not this Sacrament in many Parishes in Scotland, some for 10, some for 12, some for 15 years; which was almost their whole Reign. And in the Indulged and Connived at Parishes to the Year 1683. many persons (who were not Debarred for any Exception against them) some of 50, 60, 70, and 80 years of Age, never received this Sacrament once in their lives: This I know from certain Information. And since their present Establishment in this Revolution, their neglect of this Sacrament is likewise Notorious. Four Years after which, viz. in the year 1693. it had not been Administered in Edenbrugh; & but once a year, at the most, since. We may imagine then how it has been observed in the Country Parishes.  
iv The Presbyterians in the North of Ireland, are a Sprig of the Scotch Covenant Transplanted thither: Which in that change of Soil, has taken deep Root, and spread Intolerably. And the Bishop of Derry, in his late Clear and Rational Discourse concerning the Inventions of Men in the Worship of God, And Two following Admonitions, has made it fully appear, That not One in Ten of them do ever Receive this Sacrament in the whole Course of their Lives: And the rest very rarely, even now since this last Revolution. And in the Former Revolution of 41, he gives Vndenyable Instances, that in several Churches, even in Dublin, after the turning out of the Episcopal Ministers, the Lord's Supper had not been Administered till the Restauration, 1660, that is, in some Churches for Ten, in some for Twelve Years together.  
V These Presbyterians in Dublin, and in the South and West parts of Ireland, were sent from England, and had learned the Contempt of this Sacrament there. Where, even in Oxford, it was not Administered in the whole University, from the Ejection of the Episcopal Clergy, in the Year 1648. to the Restauration in 1660, as is observed in the Antiquit-Oxon. So that the Quakers have only taken that out of the way, which the Presbyterians had worn into Dis-use.  
VI And from all these Enemies, and the subtle Insinuations which they have broached in Prejudice of Christ's Holy Institution of Baptism, and likewise of the Lords Supper (for both are slightedly the same Persons, and upon the same Grounds) it is to be feared, that several, even of the Church of England, have been wrought, tho' not into a Dis-use, or downright slight, yet into a less Esteem and greater Indifferency as to these Holy Sacraments than they ought; and consequently receive less Benefit by them; much less than if their Knowledge, and their Faith were better rooted, and more sublime. Nay, there is not any Degree of Indifferency, but what is Culpable, in this Case; and may bring a Curse with it, instead of a Blessing: for, whatsoever, especially in Religious Worship, is not of Faith, is sin. And according to our Faith, it is to us, in all our Performances of Religion.  
VII. For all these Reasons, tho' this Discourse was wrote wholly on Behalf of the Quakers, yet, I hope, it will not be un-useful to many others, to see the strong Foundation, Great Necessity, and In-estimable Benefits of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, when Duly Administered, and Received with Full Faith and Assurance in the Power and Love of God, that He will not fail to assist His own Institutions, when we approach unto them, with sincere Repentance, and undoubting Dependence upon His Promises. And many of the Objections hereafter answered, tho' used by the Quakers, to Invalidate BAPTISM, are likewise insisted on by several of the Sects, which I have named above, to Lessen and Disparage it. In which sense, the following Discourse, tho' it respects the QUAKERS Chief, yet not them Only, for it contains the joint Arguments of all the several sizes of the Opposers, or Contemners of Baptism.  
VIII. But as to the immediate Occasion, which engaged me in this Work, it was upon the Account of a particular Person, who had been Educated from his Childhood in the Quaker Principles, and Communion. And the Objections which are here considered against Baptism, are these which, at several conferences with other Quakers, to whom that Person brought me, were insisted upon. At length, after more than Twelve months' consideration of this single Point, and diligently Reading over, and weighing every particular, which Rob. Barclay had wrote, in his Apology, against the Outward, or Water Baptism, it pleased God so to open the Eyes, and persuade the Heart of this Gentleman, that, having Informed himself in the true Principles of the Christian Religion, as contained in our Church Catechism; he has lately with great joyfulness, and satisfaction, Received the Baptism of Christ, as Administered in the Church of England. And it was his Desire, that this Discourse (tho' wrote for his Private Use) might be made Public, in hopes, that it may have the like Effects upon others, as it has had upon himself, by the great Mercy of God. And I knowing several others who have of late been Convinced and Baptised, in the same manner, as this Gentleman; I have not Resisted his invitation to contribute my Mite towards the Recovery of so many Thousand souls as now for 46 years, have thrown off the Sacraments of Christ's Institution: and thereby, as one main Cause, have lest the Substance, even Faith in the Blood of Christ, outwardly shed for our Salvation, as I have elsewhere shown. The Lord accept my mean Endeavours; and make them Instrumental to His Glory, and the Salvation of Souls. Amen.   
A DISCOURSE, PROVING The DIVINE INSTITUTION OF WATER-BAPTISM.  

SECT. I. That Matth. xxviii. 19 was meant of Water-Baptism.  
THE Words of the Text are these: Go ye, therefore, and Teach all Nations, Baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  
The Quakers will not own that the Baptism here mentioned was the Outward, or Water-baptism: Which I will endeavour to make very plain, that it was; and that in the first place,  
From the Signification and Etymology of the word Baptise.  
1. The word is a Greek word, and only made English by our constant usage of it: It signifies to Wash, and is applied to this Sacrament of Baptism, because that is an outward Washing.  
To Wash and to Baptise are the very same: and if the word Baptise had been rendered into English, instead of, Go and BAPTISE, it must have been said, Go and WASH Men, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. So that the outward Baptism, with Water, is as much here commanded, as if it had been expressed in English words, or as we can now express it.  
But because the word Baptise was grown a Technical Term, in other Languages, whereby to express the Holy Sacrament of Baptism, long before our English Translation, therefore our Translators did rightly retain the word Baptise in this Text, Matth. xxviii. 19 and in other Texts which speak of that Holy Sacrament.  
But in other places they translate the word Baptise, as Mark seven. 4. When they come from the Market 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, except they are Baptised, which we literally translate except they Wash. And in the same Verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Baptisms of Cups and Pots, etc. which we translate the Washing of Cups and Pots. and Heb. ix. 10. speaking of these Legal Institutions, which stood only in Meats and Drinks, and divers Washings, and carnal Ordinances, etc. the word which we here translate Washings, is, in the Original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Baptisms: In Meats and Drinks, and divers Baptisms. And in the Vulgar Latin, the Greek word is retained in both these Texts, Mark seven. 4. Nisi Baptizentur, non Comedunt. Except they are Baptised, i. e. Wash their Hands, they eat not. And Baptismata Calicum, etc. The Baptisms of Cups, etc. And Heb. ix. 10. In Cibis & Potibus, & variis Baptismatibus; i. e. In Meats and Drinks, and divers Baptisms. So that it is plain that the word Baptism, and the word Washing, tho' not the same word, have yet the selfsame meaning.  
2. It is true, that the word Baptism is often taken in a Figurative and Allegorical Sense, to mean the INWARD BAPTISM, the Washing, or Cleansing of the Heart: But so is the word Washing also, as often, as Jer. iv. 14, etc. And there is scarce a Word in the World but is capable of many Figurative and Allegorical Meanings. Thus Circumcision is very often used for the Inward Circumcision or Purity of the Heart. And Fire is taken to express Love, and likewise Anger, and many other things.  
But it is a received Rule for the Interpretation of Scripture, and indeed of all other Writings and Words, that the plain Literal Meaning is always to be taken, where there is no manifest Contradiction or Absurdity in it; as when a Man is said to have a Fire burning in his Breast, it cannot be meant of the Literal Fire: so when we are commanded to Wash or Circumcise our Hearts, and the like. But, on the other hand, if any Man will take upon him to understand Words in a Figurative Sense, at his own will and pleasure, without an apparent Necessity from the Scope and Coherence, he sets up to Banter, and leaves no Certainty in any Words or Expressions in the World. Therefore I will conclude this Point of the natural Signification and Etymology of the word Baptise: And, unless the Quakers can show an apparent Contradiction or Absurdity to take it in the Literal Signification, in this Text, Matth. xxviii. 19 then it must be meant of the OUTWARD WASHING or BAPTISM, because that is the only True, and Proper, and Literal Signification of the Word.  
And it will be further Demonstrated in the next Section, that there can be no Contradiction or Absurdity to take it in a Literal Sense, because the Apostles, and Others thereunto Commissionated by them, did Practise it, in the Literal Sense.   

SECT. II. 

I. That CHRIST did Practise Water-Baptism.  
II. That the Apostles did it after Him.  
III. That the Catholic Church have done it after Them.    
I. THat Christ did Practise Water-Baptism. It is written, John iii. 26. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, Behold, the same Baptizeth, and all Men come to Him.  
That this was Water-Baptism there can be no Doubt, because,  
1. The Baptism with the Holy Ghost was not yet given: For that was not given till the Day of Pentecost, fifty Days after the Resurrection of Christ, as it is Recorded in the Second of the Acts. This Spiritual Baptism was promised, John xiv. 16, 26. xv. 26. xuj. 7. And the Apostles were commanded to tarry in the City of Jerusalem till it should come upon them, Luke xxiv. 49. 2. The Quakers allow that John did Baptise with Water, and there is no other sort of Baptism here mentioned, with which Christ did Baptise; and therefore, these Baptisms being spoke of both together, there can be no Reason to interpret the one to be with Water, and the other not. It is said John iv. 1. The Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptised more Disciples than John. How could the Pharisees hear of it, if it was not an Outward and Visible Baptism? For, as before is said, the outward and miraculous Effects of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost were not then given. And since it Was an Outward, it must be the Water-baptism, for there was then no other.  
Obj. But the Quakers start an Objection here, That it is said John iv. 2. Jesus himself baptised not, but his Disciples.  
1. Ans. Tho Jesus himself baptised not, yet it is said in the Verse foregoing, that He made and baptised, i. e. those whom His Disciples, by His Order, Baptised. For, if it had not been done by His Order, it could not be said that he had Baptised those whom his Disciples Baptised. But because, He that doth a thing by Another, is said to do it Himself, therefore Christ himself is said to have Baptised those, whom his Disciples, by his Order, did Baptise.  
2. Answ. That Baptising which Christ is said to have Administered himself, John iii. 26. might have been at another Time than that which is mentioned in the 4th Chapter: And then the consequence will only be this, That, at some Times, Christ did Baptism Himself; and at other Times, he left it to his Disciples. Tho, as to our Argument, it is the same thing, whether he did it Himself, or commanded his Disciples to do it. For, either way, it is his Baptism, his Only; his Disciples did but Administer what he commanded.  
II. As Christ himself did Baptise with Water, and his Disciples, by his Commandment, while he was with them upon Earth; so did his Apostles, and Others, thereunto by them commissionated, after his Death, and Resurrection, by virtue of his Command to them, Matth. xxviii. 19 after he was Risen from the Dead.  
What is said above of the Etymology and true Signification of the word Baptise, is, of itself, sufficient to prove, that by Baptism in this Text, the outward Baptism with Water is meant: especially till the Quakers can show any Contradiction or Absurdity in having the word taken in the proper and literal sense, in this, and the other Texts which speak of it.  
And this will be very hard to do, since, as it is just now proved, that Christ did Baptise with Water, as well as John. And what Absurdity, or Contradiction can be alleged, that his Apostles should Administer the same sort of Baptism, after his Death, as he had Practised and Commanded during his Life? Nay rather, what Reason can be given, why they should not be the same, since the same word, i. e. Baptise, is used in Both, and no new Sense or Acceptation of the word is so much as hinted? And therefore to put any new sense or acceptation of the word, must be wholly Arbitrary and Precarious.  
But, as I promised, I will Demonstrate yet more fully and plainly, that the Apostles did Practise the Outward, i. e. Water-Baptism after CHRIST's death.  
Acts x. 27. Can any Man forbidden Water, that these should not be Baptised?  
Acts viij. 36. As they (Philip and the Eunuch) went on their way, they came to a certain Water, and the Eunuch said, See here is Water, what doth hinder me to be Baptised?— And (Verse 38.) they went both down into the Water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he Baptised him: And when they were come up out of the WATER, etc.  
Acts xxii. 16. And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be Baptised, and wash away thy sins.  
And, to save more Quotations, the Quakers do own that the Baptism of the Corinthians, mentioned 1 Cor. i 14 & 17. was Water-baptism.  
Therefore I will conclude this Point, as undeniable, That the Apostles did practise Water-baptism.  
And the Argument from thence will lie thus: The Apostles did practise that Baptism which Christ commanded Mat. xxviii. 19 But the Apostles did practise Water-baptism; therefore Water-baptism was that Baptism which Christ commanded Matth. xxviii. 19  
III. And, as the Practice of the Apostles is a most sure Rule whereby to understand the meaning of that Command which they put in execution; so the Practice of those who immediately succeeded the Apostles, who were Cotemporaries with them, and learned the Faith from their Mouths, is as certain a Rule to know what the Practice, and what the Sense of the Apostles were. And thus the Practice of the present Age, in the Administration of Water-baptism, is an undeniable Evidence, that this was the Practice of the last Age; the same Persons being, many of them, alive in both the last and the present Age. For one Age does not go off the World all at once, and another succeed all of perfect Age together; but there are old Men of the last Age, and young Men and Children growing up to another Age all alive upon Earth the same time; and Mankind being dispersed into far distant Countries and Climates, who know not of one another, nor hold any Correspondence: It is, by these means, morally impossible for any Man or Men, to deceive us in what has been the Universal and Received Practice of the last Age, to which the present Age is so linked, that it is even a part of it: I say it is impossible for all the Fathers of the World, to be supposed willing, or if they were, to be capable of imposing upon all younger than themselves, namely, That they had been all Baptised, and that this was an universally received Custom; and of which Registers were always kept, in every Parish, of all who had been, from time to time, Baptised; and that such Registers were public, and to be recurred to by all that had a mind to it: Every Man's reason will tell him that it is utterly impossible for such a thing to pass upon Mankind.  
And as certainly as the present Age is thus assured of the Practice of the last Age, in a Thing of so public and universal a nature; so certainly, and by the same Rules, must the last Age know the Practice of the Age before that; and so backward all the way to the first Institution, to the Age of Christ, and the Apostles.  
The public nature of this Water-baptism, as now practised, being an outward matter of Fact, of which men's outward Senses, their Eyes and Ears are Judges; not like Matters of Opinion, which sort of Tares may be privately sown, and long time propagated, without any remarkable Discovery; And to this so public matter of Fact, adding the universal Practice of it, through all the far distant Nations of Christianity: I say these two Marks make it impossible for the World to be imposed upon, nor was it ever, or ever can be imposed upon, in any such public Matter of Fact, so universally practised. All this makes it undeniably plain. That the last Age did practise the same outward Water baptism which is practised in this Age; and that the same was, as certainly, practised in the Age before the last Age, and by the same Rule, in the Age before that; and so onward, as abovesaid, to the Age of the Apostles. I have made more Words of this than needed, but I would render it exceeding plain, considering with whom I have to do. And I beseech them to consider, That all the Authority which they have to Overbalance all these Demonstrations, is the mad Enthusiasm of a Lay-Apostle, George Fox, a Mechanic so Illiterate, that he was hardly Master of common Sense, nor could write English, or any other Language; and started up amongst us in the Year 1650, (the Age of Schism and Rebellion) and Damned, as Apostates, all Ages since the Apostles.  
In all of which no One could be found (before G. Fox) to bear their Testimony against this Water-baptism, tho' it was constantly and universally practised; and that Christians were then so Zealous as to contend against the least Variation or Corruption of the Faith, even unto Death, and the most cruel sort of Martyrdom.  
Can any Man imagine, that if Water-baptism were a Human Invention, or Superstitiously either Continued or Obtruded upon the Church, no One should be found, for 1650 Years, to open his Mouth against it; when Thousands sacrificed their Lives, for Matters of much less Importance?  
But I have over-laboured this Point, to any Man who will give himself leave to make use of his Reason. Therefore I will proceed to the next Section.   

SECT. III. That Baptism must be Outward and Visible, because it is an Ordinance appointed whereby to Initiate Men into an Outward and Visible Society, which is the Church.  
THere goes no more towards the proving of this, than to show, 1st, That the Church is an Outward and Visible Society, 2dly, That Baptism was appointed and used for Initiating or Admitting Men into the Church.  
1st, That the Church is an outward and visible Society. Our Saviour calls it, A City that is set on a Hill, (Matth. v. 14.) The Quakers themselves are an outward and visible Society; and so are all those who bear the Name of Churches upon Earth. They could not otherwise be Churches. For that implies a Society of People; and every Society in the World, is an outward and visible Thing.  
And, as it is so, has an outward and visible Form of Admitting Men into it: For otherwise it would not be known who are Members of it. Every Society is Exclusive of all others who are not of that Society; otherwise it could not be a Society: for that supposes the Men of that Society, to be thereby distinguished from other Men: And that supposes as much that there must be some outward and visible Form whereby to Initiate Men, and entitle them to be Members of such a Society: otherwise it could not be known who were Members of it, and who were not; and it would thereby ipso facto cease to be a Society; for it could not then be distinguished from the rest of Mankind: as a River is lost in the Sea, because it is no longer distinguished from it, but goes to make up a part of it.  
From hence it appears, that the Church, being an outward and visible Society, must have some outward and visible Form to initiate Men, and make them Members of that Society.  
2dly, That Baptism was that outward Form. All the several Baptisms that were before Christ's, were all meant for Initiating Forms. The Jews had a Custom long before Christ, to initiate the Proselytes or Converts to their Religion, not only by Circumcision, but by Baptising, or Washing them with Water. The same was the meaning of John's Baptism, to make Men his Disciples. And the same was the meaning of Christ's Baptism, to initiate Men into the Christian Religion, and make them Disciples of Christ.  
Hence Baptising Men, and making them Disciples, mean the same thing. Thus John iv. 1. it is said, That Jesus made and baptised more Disciples than John. That is, be baptised them Disciples, which was the Form of Making them such. If any will say, that he baptised them to be Disciples to John, that will be answered Sect. VI. But as to the present Point, it is the same thing whose Disciples they were made; for we are now only to show that Baptism, in the general, was an Initiating Form.  
And when Christ practised it, as well as John, as this Text does expressly declare, no Reason can be given that he did not use it as an Initiating Form, as well as John; especially when the Text does express that he did make them Disciples, by baptising of them, as above is shown.  
And pursuant to this, when Christ sent his Apostles to convert all Nations, his Commission of Baptising was as large as that of Teaching, Matth. xxviii. 19 Go TEACH all Nations, BAPTISING them, etc. i. e. Baptising all who shall receive your word. And accordingly it is said, Acts two. 41. They that received the word were baptised. Pursuant to what the Apostle had preached to them Verse 28. Repent and be baptised.  
And accordingly we find it the constant Custom to baptise all that were converted to the Faith. Thus Paul, though miraculously converted from Heaven, was commanded to be baptised, Acts xxii. 16. And he baptised Lydia, and the Jailor, and their Household's, as soon as he had converted them, Acts xuj. 15, 33. And the Corinthians, Acts xviii. 8. And the Disciples of John, who had not yet been made Christians, Acts xix. 5. Philip did baptise the Eunuch, as soon as he believed in Christ, Acts viij. 37, 38. And Peter, immediately upon the Conversion of Cornelius, and those with him, said, Can any Man forbidden Water, that these should not be baptised? Acts x. 47.  
It would be endless to enumerate all the like Instances of Baptism, in the New Testament. And it was always used as an Initiating Form.  
3dly, Baptism was not only an Initiating Form: But it served for nothing else. For it was never to be repeated. As a Man can be born but once into this World, so he can be but once regenerated, or born into the Church; which is therefore, in Scripture, called the New Birth.  
It is said of the other Sacrament (of the Lord's Supper) as often as ye eat this Bread, etc. I Cor. xi. 26. This was to be often repeated.  
Baptism is our Admission, Initiation, or Birth into the Society of the Church; and accordingly once only to be administered. The Lord's Supper is our Nourishment and Daily Food in it; and therefore to be often repeated.  
And as of our Saviour's, so of other Baptisms, of John's, and the Jews, they being only Initiating Forms, they were not repeated. The Jews did not baptise their Proselytes more than once. And John did not baptise his Disciples more than once. So neither were Men twice baptised into the Christian Faith, more than they were twice Circumcised, or Admitted into the Church, before Christ.  
Thus having proved, 1st, That the Church is an outward and visible Society. 2dly, That Baptism was the Initiating Form of Admitting Men into that Society. 3dly, That it was only an Initiating Form. I think the Consequence is undeniable, that this Baptism must be an outward and visible Form: Because otherwise it could be no Sign or Badge of an Admission into an outward and visible Society; for such a Badge must be as outward as the Society.  
Again, Acts of inward Faith are, and aught to be often repeated: Therefore this Baptism, which could not be repeated, could not be the inward, but the outward Baptism.  
And thus having proved that Baptism commanded Matth. xxviii. 19 to be the outward, that is, Water-baptism: 1st, From the true and proper Etymology and Signification of the Word. 2dly, From the Practice of CHRIST, and his Apostles, and the whole Christian Church after them. And, 3dly, From the Nature of the Thing; Baptism being an Ordinance appointed only for Initiating Men into an outward and visible Society; and therefore never to be repeated: Having thus proved our Conclusion from such plain, easy, and certain Topics; I will now proceed to those Objections (such as they are) which the Quakers do set up against all these clear Demonstrations. And shall accordingly, in the first place, take notice of their groundless Pretence in making that BAPTISM commanded in the Holy Gospel, and proved an ORDINANCE external and visible, to be understood only of the Inward and Spiritual BAPTISM, not with WATER, but the HOLY GHOST.   

SECT. iv Quakers say, 1st, That the BAPTISM commanded Matth. xxviii. 19 was only meant of the Inward and Spiritual Baptism, with the Holy Ghost.  
THey say this; and that is all. They neither pretend to answer the Arguments brought against them, such as these beforementioned; nor give any Proof for their own Assertion. Only they say so; and they will believe it; and there is an End of it.  
And truly there should be an End of it, if only Disputation, or Victory were my Design: For to what non plus can any Adversary be reduced beyond that of neither Answering, nor Proving?  
But because the Pains I have taken is only in Charity for their Souls, I will overlook all their Impertinency, and deal with them as with weyward Children, humour them, and follow them through all their Wind and Turn; and submit to over-prove, what is abundantly proved already. Therefore, since they can give no Reason why that Baptism commanded Matth. xxviii. 19 should be meant only of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost; and would be content that we should leave them there, as obstinate Men, and pursue them no further; but let them persuade those whom they can persuade: By which Method (unhappily yielded to them) they have gained and secured most of their Proselytes, by keeping them from Disputing or Reasoning; and by persuading them to hearken only to their own Light within: To Rescue them out of this Snare, I will be content to undertake the Negative (though against the Rules of Argument,) and to prove, that the Baptism commanded Matth. xxviii. 19 was not the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. For,  
1st, To baptise with the Holy Ghost is peculiar to Christ alone. For none can baptise with the Holy Ghost, but who can send and bestow the Holy Ghost. Which is Blasphemy to ascribe to any Creature.  
Christ has indeed committed the Administration of the outward Baptism with Water to his Apostles, and to Others by them thereunto ordained; and has promised the inward Baptism of the Holy Ghost to those who shall daily receive the outward Baptism.  
But this cannot give the Apostles, or any other Ministers of Christ, the Title of baptising with the Holy Ghost; though the Holy Ghost may be given by their Ministration. For they are not the Givers, that is Blasphemy.  
And pursuant to this, it is observable, that none is ever said, in the Scripture, to baptise with the Holy Ghost but Christ alone: The same is he who baptizeth with the Holy Ghost, John i 33.  
And therefore, if that Baptism commanded Matth. xxviii. 19 was the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, it would follow that the Apostles could baptise with the Holy Ghost, which is Blasphemy to assert.  
2dly, It is written, John iv. 2. That Jesus himself baptised not, but his Disciples. If this was not meant of Water-baptism, but of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost; than it will follow, That Christ did not baptise with the Holy Ghost, but that his Disciples did.  
This, in short, may suffice in return to a mere Pretence, and proceed we next to consider, if their main Argument also prove as unsupported and precarious.   

SECT. V The great Argument of the Quakers against Water-Baptism is this: John's Baptism is ceased: But John's Baptism was Water-Baptism: Therefore Water-Baptism is ceased. This their Learned Barclay makes use of. But,  
1st, IT is so extremely Childish, that if it were not His, no Reader would Pardon me for Answering to it. Yet since they do insist upon it, let them take this easy Answer: That John's Water-baptism is ceased; but not Christ's Water-baptism. All outward Baptisms were Water-baptisms, as the word Baptism signifies, (See Sect. I.) The Jews Baptism was Water-baptism, as well as John's. And by this Argument of Barclays, the Jews and John's may be proved to be the same. Thus. The Jews Baptism was Water-baptism: but John's Baptism was Water-baptism: therefore John's Baptism was the Jews Baptism.  
And thus, Christ's Baptism was John's, and John's was the Jews, and the Jews was Christ's; and they were all one and the selfsame Baptism, because they were all Water-baptisms.  
So without all Foundation is this great Rock of the Quakers, upon which they build their main Battery against Water-baptism.  
2 lie, It will be proper here to let them see (if they be not wilfully ignorant) What it is which makes the Difference of Baptisms: not the outward Matter in which they are administered (for that may be the same in many Baptisms, as is shown.) But Baptisms do differ, 1. In their Authors. 2. In the different Form, in which they are administered. 3. In the different Ends for which they were instituted.  
And in all these the Baptism of Christ does differ vastly from the Baptisms both of John and the Jews, 1. As to the Author: The Baptism of the Jews was an Addition of their own to the Law; and had no higher Author that we know of. But John was sent by God, to baptise, John i 33. And it was Christ the Lord who was the Author of the Christian Baptism. 2. As to the Form: Persons were baptised unto those whose Disciples they were admitted by their Baptism. Thus the Proselytes to the Jewish Religion, were baptised unto Moses. And Men were made Disciples to John, by his Baptism. But the Christian Baptism alone is administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This is the Form of the Christian Baptism, and which does distinguish it from all other Baptisms whatever. 3. The End of the Christian Baptism is as highly distant and different from the Ends of other Baptisms, as their Authors differ. The End of the Jewish Baptism was to give the Baptised a Title to the Privileges of the Law of Moses. And the End of John's Baptism was to point to HIM who was to come; and to prepare Men, by Repentance, for the Reception of the Gospel. But the End of CHRIST 's Baptism was to Instate Us into all the Unconceivable Glories, and High Eternal Prerogatives which belong to the Members of his Body, of his Flesh, and of his Bones, Eph. v. 30. That we might receive the Adoption of Sons, Gal. iv. 5. Henceforth no more Servants, but Sons of God and Heirs of Heaven! These are Ends so far transcendent above the Ends of all former Baptisms, that, in comparison, other Baptisms are not only less, but none at all; like the Glory of the Stars, in presence of the Sun; they not only are a lesser Light, but when he appears, they become altogether invisible.  
And as a Pledge or Fore-taste of these Future and Boundless Joys, The Gift of the Holy Ghost is given upon Earth; and is promised as an Effect of the Baptism of Christ. As Peter preached, Acts two. 38. Repent and be baptised every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And Gal. iii. 27. As many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ.  
This of the Gift of the Holy Ghost was not added to any Baptism before Christ's: and does remarkably distinguish it from all others.   

SECT. VI That Christ and the Apostles did not Baptise with John's Baptism.  
THis is a Pretence of the Quakers when they find themselves distressed with the clear Proofs of Christ and the Apostles having administered Water-baptism. They say that this was John's Baptism, because it was Water-baptism. And, as before observed Sect. iv they only say this, but can bring no Proof. But they put us, here again, upon the Negative, to prove it was not.  
As to their Pretence that it was John's Baptism, because it was Water-baptism, that is answered in the last Section.  
And now to gratify them in this (though unreasonable) Demand, I will give these following Reasons why the Baptism which Christ and his Apostles did practise, was not John's Baptism:  
1st, If Christ did baptise, with John's Baptism; then he made Disciples to John, and not to himself. For it is before shown Sect. III. Num. two & three That Baptism was an Initiating Form, and nothing else, whereby Men were admitted to be Disciples to him unto whom they were baptised. Thus the Jews who were baptised unto Moses said, We are Moses' Disciples. John. ix. 28. And those whom John baptised, were called the Disciples of John. And there needs no more to show that Christ did not baptise with the Baptism of John, than to show that the Disciples of Christ and of John were not the same, which is made evident from John i. 35, 37. where it is told that two of John's Disciples left him, and followed Jesus. And Matth. xi. 2. John sent two of his Disciples to Jesus. And the Disciples of Christ lived under a different Oeconomy, and other Rules than either the Disciples of John, or of the Pharisees, to show that they were under another Master. And the Disciples of John were scandalised at it, Matth. ix. 14. Then came to him (JESUS) the Disciples of John, saying, Why do we, and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy Disciples fast not?  
Therefore the Disciples of Christ and of John were not the same: and therefore Christ did baptise Men to be his own Disciples, and not to be the Disciples of John: and therefore the Baptism of Christ was not the Baptism of John.  
2dly, If Christ did baptise with John's Baptism, the more he baptised, it was the more to the Honour and Reputation of the Baptism of John: But Christ's baptising was urged, by the Disciples of John, as a lessening of John, John iii. 26. Therefore the Baptism with which Christ did baptise could not be the Baptism of John. Though it be said John iv. 2. That Jesus himself baptised not, but his Disciples: (For so the Apostles and other Ministers of Christ have baptised more into the Faith of Christ, than Christ himself has done:) Yet here is no ground of Jealousy or Rivalship to Christ, because the Administration of Christ's Baptism, is all to the Honour and Glory of Christ: And therefore Christ's baptising more Disciples than John, could be no Lessening of John, but rather a Magnifying of him so much the more, if Christ had baptised with John's Baptism.  
3dly, When John's Disciples had told him of Christ's out rivalling him, by baptising more than he, John answered, He must increase, but I must decrease, John iii. 30. But if CHRIST did baptise with the Baptism of John, than John still increased, and CHRIST decreased. For,  
4thly, He is greater who institutes a Baptism, than those who only administer a Baptism of another's appointment: Therefore if Christ did baptise with the Baptism of John, it argues John to be greater than Christ, and Christ to be but a Minister of John.  
5thly, All the Jews who had been baptised with the Baptism of John, did not turn Christians; therefore John's Baptism was not the Christian Baptism.  
6thly, Those of John's Disciples, who turned Christians, were baptised over again, in the Name of Christ; of which there is a remarkable Instance, Acts xix. to v. 7. But the same Baptism was never repeated (as is shown above, Sect. III. Numb. three) therefore the Baptism which the Apostles did administer, was not John's Baptism.  
7thly, The Form of the Baptism which Christ commanded Mat. xxviii. 19 was, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: But that was not the Form of John's Baptism: Therefore that was not John's Baptism. See what is before said Sect. V Num. two. of the Difference of Baptisms, as to the Author, the Form, and the End of each Baptism: And, in all these Respects, it is made apparent that the Baptism which was practised by Christ and the Apostles, was not the Baptism of John.  
To all these clear Arguments the Quakers, without answering to any of them, do still insist, That the Water-baptism which the Apostles did administer, was no other than John's Baptism. That they had no Command for it; only did it in Compliance with the Jews, as Paul circumcised Timothy, (Acts xuj. 3.) And purified himself in the Temple, (Acts xxi. 21, to 27.) But this is all Gratis Dictum; here is not one word of Proof: And they might as well say, That the Apostles PREACHING was only in Compliance with the Jews, and that it was the same with John's PREACHING; for their Commissions to Teach, and to Baptise were both given in the same Breath, Matth. xxviii. 19 Go ye— TEACH all Nations, BAPTISING them, etc.  
Now why the Teaching here should be Christ's, and Baptising only John's, the Quakers are desired to give some other Reason besides their own Arbitrary Interpretations; before which no Text in the Bible, or any other Writing can stand.  
Besides, I would inform them, That the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this Text, which we Translate Teach, signifies to make Disciples; so that the literal, and more proper reading of that Text is, Go, and Disciple all Nations, or make Disciples of them, baptising them, etc.  
If it be asked, Why we should Translate the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Matt. xxviii. 19 by the Word Teach, if it means to Disciple a Man, or make him a Disciple?  
I Answer: That Teaching was the Method whereby to Persuade a Man, to Convert him, so as to make a Disciple of him. But the Form of Admitting him into the Church, and actually to make him a Disciple, to give him the Privileges and Benefits of a Disciple, was by Baptism.  
Now the Apostles being sent to Teach Men, in order to make them Disciples; therefore instead of Go, Disciple Men, we Translate it, Go, Teach, as being a more Familiar Word, and better understood in English.  
Tho' if both the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this Text, were Translated Literally, it would obviate these Quaker-Objections more plainly: For then the Words would run thus; Go and Admit all Nations to be my Disciples, by Washing them with Water, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.  
Here the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Teaching, is plainly distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Disciple them; tho' our English renders them both by the Word Teaching, and makes a Tautology: Go Teach all Nations— Teaching them.  
But, as a Child is Admitted into a School before it be Taught: So Children may be Admitted into the Pale of the Church, and be made Disciples, by Baptism, before they are Taught. Which shows the meaning of these two Words, i. e. Discipling, and Teaching, to be different. Because, tho' in Persons Adult, Teaching must go before Discipling; yet in Children (who are within the Covenant, as of the Law, to be Admitted at eight Days old, by Circumcision; so under the Gospel, by Baptism) Discipling goes before Teaching: And that Discipling is only by Baptism.  
But to return. The Quakers are so hard put to it, when they are pressed with that Text, Acts x. 47. Can any forbid Water, & c? That they are forced to make a Suppose, (without any ground or appearance of Truth) That these Words were an Answer to a Question. And that the Question was, Whether they might not be Baptised with John's Baptism? And that this proceeded from a Fondness the Jews had to John's Baptism. And that the Apostle Peter only Complied with them out of Condescension, as Paul Circumcised Timothy.  
Ans. 1. Cornelius, and those whom Peter Baptised, Acts x. were Gentiles and not Jews: They were Romans, and therefore cannot be supposed to have had any Longing after John's Baptism; none of them having ever owned it, or having been Baptised with it.  
2. The Gentile Converts to Christianity, refused to submit to the Jewish Circumcision, or any of their Law (Acts xv.) And therefore it is not to be imagined, that they would be fond of any of the Baptisms which were used among the Jews.  
3. Even all the Jews themselves, no not the Chief and Principal of them, neither the Pharisees nor Lawyers did submit to John's Baptism, Luke seven. 30.  
4. The Ethiopian Eunuch requested Baptism from Philip, (Acts viij.) And it cannot be supposed, that the Ethiopians had more knowledge of John's Baptism, or regard for it, than the Romans, or great part of the Jews themselves.  
5. There is no ground to suppose that St. Peter's words, Can any Man forbidden Water, & c? were an Answer to any Question that was asked him. The most forcible Affirmation being often expressed by way of Question.  
Can any Man forbidden Water? That is, No Man can forbid it. And for the saying, Then Answered Peter. There is nothing more familiar in the New Testament, than that Expression when no Question at all was asked. See Matt. xi. 25. xii. 38. xvii. 4. xxii. 1. Mark xi. 14. xii. 35. xiv. 48. Luke seven. 40. xiv. 3, 4, 5. xxii. 51. John v. 17, 19  
6. Granting a Question was asked, and that Cornelius, as well as the Ethiopian, had desired Baptism, why must this be construed of John's Baptism? Especially considering, that Peter, in that same Sermon which Converted Cornelius (Act. x. 37.) told them that the Gospel which he Preached unto them, was that which was published, after the Baptism which John Preached. What Argument was this for Cornelius to return back again to John's Baptism? Or, if he had desired it, why should we think that Peter would have Complied with him; and not rather have reproved him, and carried him beyond it, to the Baptism of Christ: as Paul did (Acts xix.) to those who had before received the Baptism of John?  
7. But as to the Compliance which the Quakers would have to John's Baptism; and which they compare to Paul's Compliance in Circumcising Timothy: I will show the great Disparity.  
First, The Law was more universally received than John's Baptism: For many and the Chief of the Jews did not receive John's Baptism, as above-observed.  
Secondly, The Law was of much longer standing: John's Baptism was like a Flash of Lightning, like the Daystar, which ushered in the Sun of Righteousness, and then disappeared: But the Law continued during the long Night of Types and Shadows, many hundreds of Years.  
Thirdly, John did no Miracle (John x. 41.) But the Law was delivered, and propagated by many Ages of Miracles. 'Twas enjoined under Penalty of Death, to them and their Posterities; whereas John's Baptism lasted not one Age, was intended only for the Men then present, to point out to them the Messiah, then already come, and ready to appear: And no outward Penalties were annexed to John's Law; People were only Invited, not Compelled to come unto his Baptism: But to neglect Circumcision, was Death, Gen. xvii. 14. Exod. iv. 24.  
The Preaching of John was only a Warning; let those take notice to it that would:  
Whereas the Law was pronounced by the Mouth of God Himself, in Thunder and Lightning, and out of the midst of the Fire, upon Mount Sinai, in the Audience of all the People: And so terrible was the Sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake, Heb. xii. 21. For from God's Right Hand went a Fire of Law for them, Deut. xxxiii. 2.  
From all these Reasons, we must suppose the Jews to be much more Tenacious of the Law, than of John's Baptism; and to be brought off with greater difficulty from their Circumcision, which had descended down to them all the way from Abraham, 430 Years before the Law, (Gal. iii. 17.) than from John's Baptism, which was but of Yesterday; and never received by the Chief of the Jews. And therefore there was much more reason for Paul's Complying with the Jews in the Case of Circumcision, than in that of John's Baptism, as the Quakers suppose.  
When Christ came to fulfil the Law, he did it with all regard to the Law, (Matth. v. 17, 18, 19) He destroyed it not with Violence, all at once; but fulfilled it leisurely and by degrees: Vt cum honore Mater Synagoga sepeliretur. The Synagogue was the Mother of the Church; and therefore it was fitting that she should be Buried with all Decency and Honour.  
This was the Reason of all those Compliances with the Jews, at the beginning, to wear them off, by degrees, from their Superstition to the Law.  
Tho' in this some might Comply too far: And there want not those who think that Paul's Circumcising of Timothy, (Acts xuj. 3.) was as faulty a Compliance, as that which he blamed in Peter, (Gal. two.) For that of Paul's is not Commended, in the Place where it is mentioned.  
And now I appeal to the Reason of Mankind, whether Objections thus picked up from such obscure and uncertain Passages, aught to overbalance plain and positive Commands, which are both backed and explained by the Practice of the Apostles, and the Universal Church after them? All which I have before Demonstrated of Baptism.  
8. But however the Quakers may argue from Paul's Compliance with the Jews, the Reader has reason to complain of my Compliance with Them: For, after all that has been said, there is not one single Word in any Text of the N.T. that does so much as hint at any such thing, as that Peter's Baptising of Cornelius, or Philip's Baptising of the Eunuch, was in any sort of Compliance unto John's Baptism. This is a perfect Figment, out of the Quaker's own Brain, without any Ground or Foundation in the World: And therefore there was no need of Answering it at all, otherwise than to bid the Quakers prove their Assertion, That these Baptisms were in Compliance with John's, which they could never, have done.  
Whereas it is plain from the Words of the Text, (Acts xuj. 3.) that Paul's Circumcising Timothy, was in Compliance with the Jews: It is expressly so said, and the Reason of it given, because, tho' his Mother was a Jewess, yet his Father was a Greek; and therefore, because of the Jews which were in those Quarters (says the Text) he Circumcised Timothy, that these Jews might Hear and Receive him, which, otherwise, they would not have done. Now let the Quakers show the like Authority, that the Baptisms of Cornelius, of the Eunuch, and of the Corinthians, Acts xviii. 8. (For that too they acknowledge to have been Water-Baptism, as I will show presently) let the Quakers show the like Authority, as I have given for the Circumcision of Timothy being in Compliance with the Jews, let them show the like, isaiah, that the foresaid Baptisms were in Compliance with John's, and then they will have something to say. But till then, this Excuse, or Put off of theirs, is nothing else but a hopeless Shift of a desperate Cause, to suppose, against all sense, that these Gentiles, (Romans, Ethiopians, and Corinthians) desired John's Baptism, who rejected all the Laws and Customs of the Jews.   

SECT. VII. The Quakers Master-Objection from 1 Cor. i 14. I thank GOD that I Baptised none of you, but Crispus and Gaius. And Ver. 17. For Christ sent me not to Baptise, but to Preach the Gospel.  
FROM this Passage they argue, That Water-Baptism was not commanded by Christ, because here St. Paul says, That he was not sent to Baptise; and that he thanks God, that he Baptised so few of them. But,  
In Answer to this, I will first of all premise, That a bare Objection, without some Proof on the other side, does neither justify their Cause, nor overthrow ours: For when a thing is Proved Affirmatively, it cannot be overthrown by Negative Difficulties which may be Objected.  
You must dissolve the Proofs which are brought to support it: Nothing else will do.  
For what Truth is there so evident in the World, against which no Objection can be raised?  
Even the Being of a God has been disputed against by these sort of Arguments; that is, by raising Objections, and starting Difficulties, which may not easily be Answered: But while those Demonstrative Arguments, which Prove a God, remain unshaken, a thousand Difficulties are no Disproof.  
And so, while the Command of Christ, and the Practice of his Apostles, and of all the Christian World, in pursuance of that Command, are clearly Proved, no Difficulty from an obscure Text, can shake such a Foundation.  
But I lay down this, only as a General Rule; because this Method is so much made use of by the Quakers (and others) who never think of Answering plain Proofs; but by raising a great Dust of Objections, would bury and hid what they cannot Disprove.  
I say, that I only mind them at present, of this fallacious Artifice; for I have no use for it as to these Texts objected, to which a very plain and easy Answer can be given. And,  
First, I would observe, how the Quakers can understand the Word Baptise to mean Water-Baptism, or no Water-Baptism, just as the Texts seem to favour their cause, or otherwise.  
For there is no mention of Water in either of the Texts objected, only the single word Baptise. And why then must they construe these two Texts only, of all the rest in the New Testament, to mean Water-Baptism? Why? but only to strain an Objection out of them against Water-Baptism?  
But will they let the Word Baptise signify Water-Baptism, in other places, as well as in these?  
They cannot refuse it with any show or colour of Reason. They must not refuse it in Acts xviii. 8. where the Baptising of Crispus (mentioned in the first of the Texts objected) is recorded. And there, it is not only said of Crispus, that he was baptised, but that many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptised. By which, the Quakers cannot deny Water-Baptism to be meant, since they construe it so, 1 Cor. i 14.  
Secondly, We may further observe, that in the Text, Acts xviii. 8. Crispus is only said to have believed, which was thought sufficient to infer, that he was baptised; which could not be, unless all that believed, were baptised: Which, no doubt, was the Case, as it is written, Acts xiii. 48. As many as were ordained to eternal Life, believed. And (Ch. two. 41.) They that received the Word, were baptised, And (V 47.) The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved.  
So that this is the Climax or Scale of Religion. As many as are ordained to eternal Life do believe: And they that believe, are baptised: And they that are baptised, are added to the Church.  
And to show this received Notion, That whoever did believe was baptised, when Paul met some Disciples who had not heard of the Holy Ghost, Acts xix. 3. he did not ask them whether they had been baptised, or not? He took that for granted, since they believed. But he asks, Unto what were ye baptised? Supposing that they had been baptised.  
Thirdly, Here then this Objection of the Quakers, has turned into an invincible Argument against them.  
They have, by this, yielded the whole Cause: For if the Baptism, 1 Cor. i 14. be Water-Baptism, than that Baptism, Acts xviii. 8. must be the same: And consequently all the other Baptisms, mentioned in the Acts, are, as these, Water-Baptisms also.  
But, besides the Quakers Confession (for they are unconstant, and may change their Minds) the thing shows itself, that the Baptism mentioned, 1 Cor. i 14. was Water-Baptism; because Paul there thanks God, that he baptised none of them but Crispus and Gaius. Would the Apostle thank God that he had baptised so few, with the Holy Ghost? Or would he repent of baptising with the Holy Ghost? Therefore it must be the Water-Baptism which was here spoke of.  
Fourthly, But now, what is the Reason, that he was glad he had baptised so few with Water-Baptism? And he gives the Reason, in the very next words. (V. 15.) Lest any should say, that I had baptised in mine own Name. What was the occasion of this Fear? It is told from V 10. That there were great Divisions and Contentions among these Corinthians, and that these were grounded upon the Emulation that arose among them, in behalf of their several Teachers. One was for Paul, another for Apollo's, others for Cephas, and others for Christ.  
This would seem, as if the Christian Religion had been contradictory to itself:  
As it Christ, and Cephas, and Paul, and Apollo's had set up against one another:  
As if they had not all taught the same Doctrine:  
As if each had preached up himself, and not Christ:  
And had baptised Disciples, each in his own Name, and not in Christ's; and had begot Followers to himself, and not to Christ.  
To remove this so horrible a Scandal, St. Paul argues with great zeal, (V 13.) Is Christ divided? (says he) Was Paul Crucified for you? Or were ye baptised in the Name of Paul? I thank God, that I baptised none of you but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say, That I had baptised in mine own Name.  
There needs no Application of this, the Words of the Apostle are themselves so plain.  
He did not thank God, that they had not been baptised; but that He had not done it.  
And this, not for any slight to Water-Baptism; but to obviate the Objection of his baptising in his own Name.  
Fifthly, By the way, this is a strong Argument for Water-Baptism: Because the Inward Baptism of the Spirit, cometh not with Observation and Show, but is within us, Luk. xvii. 20, 21. Nor is it done in any Body's Name, it is an inward Operation upon the Heart.  
But the outward Baptism is always done in some Name or other; in his Name whose Disciple you are thereby made and Admitted.  
Therefore it must, of necessity, be the outward Baptism, of which St. Paul here speaks; because it was outwardly Administered, in such an outward Name. And he makes this an Argument that he had not made Disciples to himself, but to Christ; because he did not Baptise them in his own Name, but in Christ's.  
Now this had been no Argument, but perfect Banter, if there had been no outward Baptism, that the People could have both seen and heard. How otherwise could they tell in what Name, or no Name they were baptised, if all was Inward and Invisible?  
But I need not prove what the Quakers grant and contend for, that all this was meant of Water-Baptism; because otherwise their whole Objection, from this place, does fall.  
VI But they would infer as if no great stress were laid upon it; because that few were so baptised.  
I Answer. That there is nothing in the Text which does infer, that few of these Corinthians were baptised.  
St. Paul only thanks God, that he himself had not done it, except to a few, for the Reasons before given: But Acts xviii. 8. it is said, That besides Crispus, whom Paul himself baptised, MANY of the Corinthians were baptised.  
Nay, they were all baptised, as many as believed, as before is proved. And, in this very place, St. Paul taking it for granted, that all who believed, were baptised, which I have already observed from his Question to certain Disciples, Acts xix. 3. not whether they were baptised, but unto what, i e. In what Name, they had been baptised? So here 1 Cor. i 13. He does not make the Question, whether they had been baptised? That he takes for granted. But in what Name, were ye baptised? Which supposes, not only that all were baptised, but likewise that all who were baptised, were baptised in some outward Name; and therefore that it was the Outward, i. e. Water-Baptism.  
VII. But the second Text objected, V 17. is yet to be accounted for; where St. Paul says, Christ sent me not to Baptise, but to Preach the Gospel. This he said in justification of himself for having baptised so few in that place; for which he blesses God, because, as it happened, it proved a great justification of his not baptising in his own Name.  
But then, on the other hand, here would seem to be a Neglect in him of his Duty: For if it was his Duty to have baptised them all, and he baptised but a few, here was a great Neglect.  
In Answer to this, we find, that there was no Neglect in not baptising them, for that, not a few but many of the Corinthians were baptised, Acts xviii. 8. that is, as many as believed, as before is shown.  
But than who was it that baptised those many? For St. Paul baptised but a few.  
I Answer. The Apostle employed others, under him, to Baptise.  
And he vindicates this, by saying, That he was not sent to Baptise, i. e. principally and chief; that was not the chief part of his Commission: But the greater and more difficult part was that of Preaching, to Dispute with, Persuade and Convert the Heathen World. To this, great Parts, and Courage, and Miraculous Gifts were necessary: But to Administer the outward Form of Baptism to those who were Converted, had no Difficulty in it; required no great Parts, or Endowments, only a lawful Commission to Execute it.  
And it would have taken up too much of the Apostles time, it was impossible for them to have baptised, with their own Hands, those vast Multitudes whom they Converted. Christianity had reached to all Quarters of the then known World, as far almost, as at this Day, before the Apostles left the World. And could Twelve Men Baptise the whole World? Their Progress was not the least of their Miracles: The Bread of Life multiplied faster, in their Distribution of it, than the Loaves by our SAVIOUR 's Breaking of them. St. Peter Converted about three Thousand at one Sermon, Acts two. 41. And at another time about five Thousand, Ch. iv. 4. Multitudes both of Men and Women. Ch. v. 14. Many more than the Apostles could have counted; much more than they could have baptised; for which if they had stayed, they had made slender Progress. No. The Apostles were sent, as loud Heralds, to proclaim to all the Earth, to run swiftly, and gather much People; and not to stay (they could not stay) for the baptising with their own Hands, all that they Converted: They left that to others, whom they had ordained to Administer it. Yet not so, as to exclude themselves; but they themselves did Baptise, where they saw occasion, as St. Paul here did BAPTISE Crispus and Gaius, and the House of Stephanas, some of the Principal of the Corinthians. Not that he was obliged to have done it himself, having others to whom he might have left it: For he was not sent, that is, put under the Necessity to Baptise with his own Hands, but to Preach, to Convert others, that was his principal Province, and which he was not to neglect, upon the account of baptising, which others could do as well as he.  
But if you will so understand the Words of his not being sent, i. e. that it was not within his Commission, that he was not Impower'd by Christ, to Baptise, than it would have been a Sin, and great Presumption in him, to have baptised any body.  
Nay more. This Text, thus understood, is flatly contradictory to Matt. xxviii. 19 which says, Go, Baptise: And this says, I am not sent to Baptise.  
These are contradictory, if by, I am not sent, be understood, I have not Power or Commission to Baptise.  
But by, I am not sent, no more is meant in this Text, than that Baptising is not the chief or principal part of my Commission. As if a General were accused for Mustering and Listing Men in his own Name, and not in the King's, and he should say, in Vindication of himself, that he had never listed any, except such and such Officers; for that he was not sent to Muster, or Drill Men, or to Exercise Troops or Regiments, but to Command the Army: Would it follow from hence, that he had not Power to Exercise a Troop or a Regiment, or that it was not within his Commission? Or if a Doctor of Physic should say, That it was not his Part to compound Medicines, and make up Drugs (that was the Apothecary's Business) but to give Prescriptions; would any Man infer from this, that he might not Compound his own Medicines if he pleased?  
Or if (to come nearer) a Professor of Divinity, or a Bishop' should say, That he was not sent to Teach School; this would not imply that he might not Keep School; nay, he ought, if there were no others to do it: So the Apostle of the Gentiles was not sent to spend his Time in Baptising, Visiting the Sick, or other Parts of his Duty, (which others might perform) so as to hinder his great Work in Converting of the Gentiles: All of whom he could not Baptise, nor Visit all their Sick: Yet both these were within his Commission, and he might and did Execute them where he saw occasion. As if all the Sick in London should expect to be Visited by the Bishop of London; and all the Children should be brought to be baptised by him; he might well say, That he was not sent to Baptise, or to Visit their Sick, but to look after his Episcopal Function: And send them for these Offices, to others, under him: And yet this would not ways imply, that these Offices were not within the Episcopal Commission; or that he was not sent both to Baptise, and to Visit the Sick: But only that he was not sent principally and chief to Baptise, or to Visit the Sick.  
And as to that Phrase of being sent; we find it used in this same sense, to mean only being chief and principally sent. Thus, Gen. xlv. 8. Joseph said to his Brethren, It was not you that sent me hither, but God. It was certainly his Brethren who sent him, for they sold him into Egypt: But it was not They, principally and chief, but God, who had other and extraordinary Ends in it.  
Adam was not deceived (says the Apostle, 1 Tim. two. 14.) but the Woman being deceived, was in the Transgression. Adam was deceived, and fell as well as the Woman; but the meaning is, he was not first, or principally deceived.  
Again. As for you who stick so close to the Letter (when it seemeth to serve your turn) Go ye and learn what that meaneth, I WILL HAVE MERCY, AND NOT SACRIFICE, Matt. ix. 13.  
By which it cannot be understood, that God did not require Sacrifice; for he commanded it upon Pain of Death. Yet he says, (Jer. seven. 22.) I spoke not unto your Fathers, nor commanded them— concerning Burnt-Offerings, or Sacrifices: But this thing Commanded I them, saying, Obey my Voice, etc. according as it is written, (1 Sam xv. 22.) To Obey is better than Sacrifice.  
By all which cannot be meant, that God did not Command the Jews concerning Burnt-Offerings and Sacrifices (for we know how particularly they were commanded) but that the outward Sacrifice was not the chief and principal part of the Command; which respected chief the inward Sacrifice and Circumcision of the Heart.  
Which when they neglected, and leaned wholly to the Outward, then God detests their Oblations; Isa. i. 14. Your new Moons, and your appointed Feasts my Soul hateth, I am weary to bear them. And he says, V 12. Who hath required this at your Hand?  
It was certainly God who had required all these things at their hands; but these outward Performances, (tho' the Neglect or Abuse of them was punished with Death) yet they were not the chief and principal part of the Command, being intended chief for the sake of the Inward and Spiritual Part: From which when they were separated, they were (like the Body, when the Soul is gone) a dead and a loathsome CARCASE of Religion: And which God is therefore said, not to have commanded, because he did not Command them without the other: As he made not the Body without the Soul; yet he made the Body as well as the Soul.  
VIII. And as there is Soul and Body in Man, so (while Man is in the Body) there must be a Soul and Body of Religion; that is, an outward and an inward WORSHIP, with our Bodies as well as our Souls.  
And as the Separation of Soul and Body in Man, is called Death; so is the Separation of the outward and the inward Part of Religion, the Death and Destruction of Religion.  
The outward is the Cask, and the inward is the Wine. The Cask is no Part of the Wine; but if you break the Cask, you lose the Wine. And as certainly, whoever destroy the outward Institutions of Religion, lose the inward Parts of it too.  
As is sadly experienced in the Quakers, who, having thrown off the outward Baptism, and the other Sacrament of Christ's Death, have, thereby, loft the inward thing signified, which is, the PERSONAL Christ, as Existing without all other Men, and having so Suffered, Rose, Ascended, and now, and for ever, Sitteth in Heaven, in his true proper Human Nature, WITHOUT all other Men. This the Quakers will not own, (except some of the New Separation) and this they have lost, by their Neglect of those outward Sacraments, which Christ appointed for this very End (among others) that is, as Remembrances of his Death: For it had been morally impossible for Men, who had constantly and with due Reverence, attended these holy Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, ever to have forgot his Death, so lively represented before their Eyes, and into which they were baptised; or to have turned all into a mere Allegory, performed within every Man's Breast, as these Quakers have done.  
But the Enemy has persuaded them to break the Cask, and destroy the Body of Religion; whereby the Wine is spilt, and the Soul of Religion is fled from them: And by neglecting the outward Part, they have lost the whole inward, and Truth of Religion; which is a true Faith in the OUTWARD Christ, and in the Satisfaction made for our Sins, by his Blood OUTWARDLY shed; and in his Intercession, in our Nature, as our Highpriest, at his Father's Right Hand, now, in Heaven; into which Holy of Holies, He has carried his own Blood of Expiation, once offered upon the Cross, and presents it, for ever, as the Atonement and full satisfaction for the Sins of the whole World; but applied only by true Faith and Repentance, thereby, becomes fully Effectual to the Salvation of every Faithful Penitent.  
This is the only true Christian Faith: And from this the Quakers have totally fallen; and that chief, by their Mad throwing off the OUTWARD Guards, Preservatives, Fences, Sacraments, and Pledges of Religion. And those OUTWARD Means of Grace, which Christ has commanded, and given us as the only OUTWARD GROUNDS for our Hope of Glory. For how can that Man get to Heaven, who will not go the way that Christ has appointed; who came down from Heaven, on purpose to show and lead us the way thither; yet we will be wiser than he, find fault with his Institutions, as being too much upon the Outward; and think that we can and may Spiritualise them finer, and make the way shorter than he has done  
IX. But to return, if the Quakers could find such Texts concerning Baptism, as I have shown above concerning Sacrifices, as if it were said, That God did not command Baptism; that he hated it, and was weary to bear it, that he would not have it, etc. If such Texts could be found, How would the Quakers triumph! Who would be able to stand before them! And yet, if such were found, they would prove no more against the outward BAPTISM, than they did against the outward SACRIFICES, i. e. That if any regarded nothing else in Baptism, than the outward Washing, it would be as hateful to God, as the Jewish Sacrifices, when they regarded nothing more in them but the Outward.  
And it may be truly said, That God did not Command either such Sacrifices, or such a Baptism; because he commanded not the outward alone, but with respect unto, and chief for the sake of the Inward.  
And, therefore, as all these, and other the like Expressions in the Old Testament did not at all tend to the Abolition, only to the Rectification of the Legal Sacrifices: So, much less, can that single Expression, 1 Cor. i 17. of Paul's saying (upon the occasion, and in the sense above mentioned) that he was not sent to Baptise, but to Preach, much less can this infer the Abolition of Baptism; being as positively commanded, as Sacrifices were under the Law, and as certainly practised by the Apostles, as the Sacrifices were by the Levitical Priests.  
X. Now suppose that I should deny, that OUTWARD Sacrifices were ever commanded; or, that the Jews did ever practise them: And should Interpret all that is said of Sacrifices, only of the Inward, as the Quakers do of Baptism; and I should produce the Texts above quoted to prove that God did not command Sacrifices, which are much more positive than that single one which is strained against Baptism: I say, suppose that I should be so Extravagant as to set up such a Notion, what Method (except that of Bedlam, which, in that Case, would be most proper) could be taken to convince me? And suppose I should gain as many Proselytes as G. Fox has done: And we should boast our Numbers, and Light within, etc. would not this following Method be taken with us?  
1st. To see how Sacrifices are actually used now in those Parts of the World where they do Sacrifice. And being convinced that these do use outward Sacrifices, and understand the first Command to Sacrifice, in that sense, to inquire  
2dly, Whether they did not receive this from their Fathers, so upward, to the first Institution? And is not this the surest Rule to find out the meaning of the first Command? viz. How it was understood and practised by those to whom the Command was first given; and from them, through all Ages since. Upon all which Topics, the present Water-Baptism, now used, may be as much demonstrated to be the same which was practised by the Apostles, and consequently, which was commanded by Christ, as the outward Sacrifices can be shown to have been, at first, commanded to the Jews, and practised by them.  
XI. And as for that precarious Plea, before confuted, of the Baptism which the Apostles practised, being only a Compliance with the Jews; there is more Pretence to say, that the Jewish Sacrifices were in Compliance with the Heathen Sacrifices, which were long before the Levitical Law.  
I say, there is more Pretence for this, but not more Truth. More pretence, because it has been advanced of late, by Men of greater Figure than Quakers, That the Levitical Sacrifices were commanded by God, in Compliance with the Gentile Sacrifices, which were before used.  
But this is a Subject by itself. I now only show the Quakers, that there is more ground to spiritualise away Sacrifices from the Letter, than Baptism; more pretence for it from Texts of Scripture, and from some odd Opinions of some Learned Men.  
And if the Denial of OUTWARD Sacrifices would be counted (as the like of Baptism was, when first started) to be nothing short of Madness, the continuance of that Distraction for 46 Years together (as in the Case of Baptism) might make it more familiar to us, but would abate nothing of the unreasonableness.  
XII. I believe the Reader, by this time, cannot but think that I have taken too much needless Pains, in Answer to that Objection of St. Paul's saying that he was not sent to Baptise, but to Preach: But I speak to a sort of Men, who are used to Repetitions, and will not take a Hint (unless it be on their side) and therefore I enlarge more than I would do, if I were writing to any others. But I think I have said enough, even to them, to show, that the Meaning of the Apostle in this Text, was only to prefer the Office of Preaching, before that of Baptising. But I must withal desire them to take notice, that the Preaching, that is, Publishing of the Gospel, at first to Heathens, was a very different thing, and of much greater Necessity, than those set Discourses, which we now call Preaching in Christian Auditories.  
XIII. Let me (to conclude) add one-Argument more, from this Text, 1 Cor. i 17. why that Baptism, mentioned Matt. xxviii. 19 cannot be meant of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. Because if when Christ sent his Apostles to Baptise, the meaning was (as the Quakers would have it) to Baptise with the Holy Ghost; then the Apostle Paul said in this Text, 1 Cor. i 17. That he was not sent to Baptise with the Holy Ghost. Which sense, since the Quakers will not own, they cannot reconcile these Texts, without confessing, that that Text, Matt. xxviii. 19 was not meant of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and then it must be meant of the Water-Baptism.   

SECT. VIII. Objection from 1 Pet. three 21.  
THE Words of the Text are these. The like Figure whereunto (i. e. the Ark) even Baptism, doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the Filth of the Flesh, but the Answer of a Good Conscience towards God) by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  
From whence the Quakers argue thus: That Baptism doth not consist in the outward Washing, but the inward.  
And so far they argue right, That the inward is the chief and principal part; and therefore, that if any regard only the outward Washing of the Skin, in Baptism, they are indeed frustrated of the whole Benefit of it, which is altogether Spiritual.  
And it has been observed Sect. VII. latter part of Numb. seven. That if only the outward Part of the Sacrifices, or Circumcision, and other Institutions under the Law, were regarded, they were hateful to God, and he rejected them; tho', at the same time, he commanded the Performance of them, under the Penalty of Death.  
Thus it is in the Institutions of the Gospel. The Inward and Spiritual Part is the chief; and for the sake of which only, the Outward is commanded: But this makes the Outward necessary, instead of throwing it off; because (as it was under the Law) the Outward was ordained as a Means whereby we are made Partakers of the Inward: And therefore, if we neglect and despise the Outward, when we may have it, we have no Promise in the Gospel to Entitle us to the Inward: As he that neglects the Means, has no Reason to expect the End. It is true, a Miracle may do it; but it is Presumption, and Tempting of God, to neglect the Outward Means of God's Appointment, in expectation of his Miraculous Interposition, against the Method which he has commanded. As if provoking of God, did Entitle us the more to his Protection! Or, as if we were Wiser than He, to mend and alter his Institutions, and dispense with them, at our Pleasure!  
Here let it be minded, that the Ark is put only as a Type of Baptism: Therefore Baptism is the more worthy, and more necessary. And to neglect Baptism, is to venture swimming in the Deluge, without the Ark.   

SECT. IX. The Quaker-Objection from, Eph. iv. 5.  
I. THE Words of the Text are these. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; whence the Quakers argue thus. That Water-Baptism is one Baptism, and the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, is another Baptism; because the one is the Outward, and the other the Inward Baptism; and outward and inward are two Things: Therefore that these must be two Baptisms: which, they say, is contrary to this Text, that says, the Christians have but ONE Baptism, as they have but ONE Lord, and ONE Faith.  
II. I Answer. Outward and Inward are Two things; but yet they hinder not the Unity of that which is composed of Both. Thus Soul and Body are Two things, and of Nature's the most different of any Two things in the World; yet they hinder not the Unity of the Man, who is composed of Both. Nay, it is the Composition of these Two that makes up the One MAN; insomuch, that when these Two are Divided, the MAN is no more; for it is nothing else which we call Death, but the Separation of Soul and Body.  
And (as before shown, Sect. VII. Num. VIII.) while there is Soul and Body in Man, there must be a Soul and Body of Religion, that is, an Outward and an Inward Part of Religion: And if we destroy the Outward, we shall lose the Inward; because the Outward was designed for the Safety and Preservation of the Inward.  
It is true, that the Inward is the Chief and Principal Part, as of Man, so of his Religion: But this does not infer, that the Outward is not likewise necessary. We are commanded, Rom. xii. 1. to Present our Bodies a living Sacrifice, and this is called our Reasonable Service. For, is it not Reasonable, that, since our Bodies are God's Creatures, as well as our Souls, He should have the Adoration and Service of our Bodies, as well as of our Souls?  
There is no Outward or Public WORSHIP but by our Bodies; we cannot otherwise express the INWARD Devotion and Adoration of our Minds.  
And this is so Natural, that whoever has a due Reverence and Awe of the Divine Majesty, cannot help to Express it Outwardly, by the Adoration of his Body, in his Approaches to God, even tho' in Private. As our Blessed Saviour, in His Agony, fell prostrate upon His Face to the Earth.  
And whoever deny the Outward Worship to God, or perform it slovenly, and carelessly, it is a full Demonstration that they have no True and Real Devotion, or Just Apprehension of the Almighty.  
Therefore the Outward Part of Religion must, by no means, be let go, because the Inward certainly dies, when the Outward is gone.  
But the Outward and the Inward WORSHIP of God are not Two Worships, but only Two Parts of the same Worship. As Soul and Body are not Two Men, but Two Parts of the same Man; so the Adoration of this One Man, Outwardly in his Body, and Inwardly in his Soul, is not TWO Worships, but TWO Parts of the SAME Worship.  
III. There is but one Faith, yet this Faith consists of several Parts. There is a Faith in God, of which the Heathens do partake: There is a Faith in Christ, which denominates Men Christians: Yet these are not Two Faiths in a Christian, but TWO Parts of the SAME Faith. There is likewise a Faith in the Promises of the Gospel; and that what is therein Commanded, is from God: And there are Degrees of this Faith, of which one Christian does partake more than another. And yet to Christians there is but One Faith.  
The Belief of a God, and of Christ, are TWO Faiths or Beliefs, because many do Believe a God, who do not Believe in Christ: Yet, in a Christian they are not TWO Faiths, but ONE Faith; because the one, that is, the Faith in Christ, does suppose the other, that is, the Belief of a God; it only Adds to it, and Builds upon it. And this makes them no more TWO Faiths, than building an House a Story higher makes it TWO Houses.  
iv There is but One Lord, that is Christ; yet He consists of an Outward and an Inward Part, of Body and Soul. Nay more, of both the Divine and Human Natures. I might urge the different Persons in the One Divine Nature; but this will be no Argument to the Quakers, who Deny it. But they Deny not (seemingly at least) the Divinity of Christ; and therefore, as this Lord is but One, tho' consisting of several Natures; and His Faith and Worship but One, tho' consisting of several Parts; why may not His Baptism be likewise One, tho' consisting of an Outward and an Inward Part?  
V There was an Outward and an Inward CIRCUMCISION, as well as an Outward and Inward BAPTISM; yet no Man will say, that there were TWO Circumcisions under the Law. As little Reason is there to say, That there are TWO Baptisms under the Gospel. See what is before said, Sect. VII. Num. X, & XI, of the stronger Presumptions to deny the Outward SACRIFICES under the Law, than the Outward BAPTISM under the Gospel.  
VI Let me add, that Circumcision was discontinued 40 Years in the Wilderness (Josh. v. 5.) yet this was made no Argument against the Reviving and Continuance of it afterwards.  
But Baptism has not been discontinued one Year, nor at all in the Christian Church, since its first Institution by Christ.  
If the Quakers could find such a Discontinuance of Baptism, as there was of Circumcision, they would make great Advantage of it; tho' it could be no more an Argument in the one case, than in the other.  
But since they have not even this small Pretence against it, the Constant and Uninterrupted Practice of Baptism, in all Christian Churches, through all Ages, is an Irrefragable Argument against them; and shows them to be Dissonant from the whole Church of CHRIST.   

SECT. X. An Objection from Heb. vi. 1.  
I. I Could not have imagined that this should have been made an Objection, if I had not seen it urged as such, in a Book printed this Year, 1696. Entitled, John Baptist's Decreasing, etc. By John Gratton. Where he urges mightily this Text, as a plain Prohibition to the further Continuance of Baptism. He lays great stress upon the Word Leaving. Therefore Leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto Perfection. LEAVING (saith he, P. 45.) Mark, LEAVING the Principles, etc. And Baptism being named in the second Verse, he infers, That the Apostle here Commands to leave off the Practice of Baptism, which, he says, had been Indulged to the first Converts to Christianity, with other Jewish Ceremonies. As to the supposed Indulging of Baptism, on account of its being a Jewish Ceremony, it is answered before, Sect. VI Pag. 19, 20, 21. But now as to this Inference from Heb. vi. 1. John Gratton says, P. 47. That this word LEAVING seems to entail the foregoing words in the Chapter before, where he (the Apostle) had been telling them of their Childishness (he mentions the Doctrine of Baptism, which cannot prove the Imposing of Water-Baptism, any more than all the rest) and was now for bringing them on to a further State, where they might know Perfection— And it seems clear to me, that there was some need for those things, they had so long lain like Children weak, and Babes in, to be left. Therefore leaving these, let us go on to Perfection; and saith further; This will we do, if God permit: But if they had been commanded by Christ, to have been used to the World's End, then why should Paul have been so earnest at that Day, which was soon after Christ's Ascension, to have had them then to leave them? These are his words, and a great deal more to the same purpose. And in the same Page, he ranks Baptism with Circumcision, Passover, and other Jewish Rites.  
II. But it is very wonderful, how any Man could shut his Eyes so hard, as to oversee not only the whole Scope, but the very Words of this Text. Can such a Blindness be other than wilful? The Apostle was reproving some of the Hebrews for their slender Proficiency in the Knowledge of the Gospel. And that he could not lead them to the Higher Mysteries, they hardly yet being well fixed in the very Rudiments and Fundamentals of Christianity: As if one should say, That he would make an ill Doctor of Divinity, who had not yet learned his Catechism.  
For the Apostle in the former Chapter having treated of the Mysterious Parallel 'twixt Christ and Melchisedec, he stops short, Ver. 11, upon the account of their Incapacity, of whom (that is, of Christ and Melchisedec) we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing: For when for the time ye ought to be Teachers, ye have need that one teach you again, which be the first Principles of the Oracles of God. Then he goes on to provoke them to a further Proficiency in the words of the Text we are now considering, Therefore (says he) leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto Perfection, not laying again the Foundation of Repentance from dead Works, and of Faith towards God, of the Doctrine of Baptisms, and of laying on of Hands and of the Resurrection of the Dead, and of Eternal Judgement. And this will we do, if God permit.  
Here is the Doctrine of Baptism placed in the very Heart of the Fundamentals of Christianity; yet the Quakers would filch it out from amongst all the rest, and refer it alone to the Ceremonials of the Law spoken of in the former Chapter. This was dropped at a venture; for the former Chapter treats only of the Melchisedecal Priesthood, which was no Part of the Law; and there are none of the Legal Types or Ceremonies so much as mentioned in it. Yet Baptism in the next Chapter must refer to them!  
There cannot be a greater Confession to Baptism than this Objection of the Quakers; nor a stronger Proof for the Necessity of it, than to see it ranked with these most-acknowledged Foundations of Christian Religion, and called one of the First Principles of the Oracles of God.  
III. And as to the word Leaving, upon which this Author lays so great a stress, in this Text, as if it meant Forsaking and Abandoning, it is strange that he should bring in the Apostle Exhorting to Leave off, and Forsake the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ! But Leaving there is very plainly meant of leaving or intermitting (as the Vulgar renders it) to treat further at that time of these Principles, which the Apostle is so far from forsaking, that he fixes them as the Foundation; which he says he will not lay again, as supposing it laid already; but build further upon it, improve and carry up the Superstructure. So that this Leaving, is only leaving or ceasing to Discourse further upon these Principles, Intermittentes Sermonem, intermitting or breaking off the Debate. Which is literally, according to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, leaving that Word or Subject of which he then spoke, he went on to discourse of other things.  
The Reader could not forgive this Trifling in me, to prove things which are self-evident, if he did not see that I am forced to it.  
However, this Advantage is gained by it, to see the very slender Foundations upon which the Quakers build their Objections against Baptism; which they must either grant to be one of the Principles of Christianity, or that Faith and Repentance are not.  
IU. But indeed (it is frightful to say it, I pray God they may seriously consider of it) they have, together with Baptism, thrown off all the other Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, which are mentioned in this Text. 
See The Snake in the Grass, 1st Part, or Preface, p. 313, 314. 2d Part, p. 40, 41, 61, 62.  1. Repentance. Against this they have set up a Sinless Perfection, which needeth no Repentance. They never beg Pardon for Sin, supposing they have none; and mock at us for saying, Lord have Mercy upon us; and upbraid our Liturgy for having a Confession of Sin in it. Edward Burrough, p. 32. of his Works, printed 1672, says, That God doth not accept of any, where there is any failing, or who doth not fulfil the Law, and doth not Answer every Demand of Justice. 2. Faith towards God. This is the Christian Faith; or Faith in God through Christ. But the Quakers say, 
Part 1. p 330, 331.  That they can come to God Immediately, without the Mediation of Christ, and therefore they do not Pray to Christ, whom they utterly deny to be that Person who suffered for them upon the Cross; as Mr. Penn in his Serious Apology, p. 146.  
They make Christ to be nothing else than what they call The Light within; which, they say, is sufficient of itself, without any thing else, to bring us to God; and that whoever follows it, needs no other Help.  
Now they say, That all the Heathen, every Man that is born into the World, has this Light within, that is, Christ; and, that this Light within is sufficient for his Salvation, without any thing else: Whereby they take away any Necessity of an Outward Christ to die for our Sins, and make the Heathen Faith as good as the Christian: And therefore they have taken away that Christian Faith towards God, which is the Second of the Principles mentioned in this Text. The Third is Baptism, which they openly disclaim. The Fourth is, the laying on of Hands, that is, the Ordination, Confirmation, and Absolution of the Church, which are all performed by laying on of Hands. And how much soever the Quakers and others do despise them, yet the Apostle here reckons them among the Fundamentals: For the Government and Discipline of the Church are Essential to it, as it is a Society, it could not otherwise be a Society. The Sin of Korah was nothing but concerning Church-Government. And Aaron's Rod that Budded, 
Num. 16, & 17 Ch.  in confirmation of his Priesthood, was ordained to be kept for ever in the Ark, for a Token against the Rebels; so are they called, who Rebelled against that Priesthood which God had then appointed by Moses; and the Sin cannot be less to Rebel against that Priesthood which Christ himself appointed. Which is shown more at large in the Discourse mentioned in the Advertisement.  
Now if Aaron's Rod, that is, Church-Government, was one of the Three sacred Depositums which were ordained to be kept in the Ark, why should we wonder to see it here placed among the Fundamentals of Christianity?  
The Pot of Manna, Aaron's Rod, and the Tables of the Covenant, 
Heb. ix. 4.  were all that was kept in the Ark.  
Which shows Church-Government to be Necessary next to our Manna, the very Support of our Life; and the best Guard to preserve the Decalogue, i. e. our Duty to God and Man.  
V And tho' the Quakers cry down Church-Authority in others, yet they magnify it as much in themselves as any Church whatsoever.  
The Ingenious W. P. in his Judas and the Jews, writing against some Dissenters amongst the Quakers, asserts the Authority of the Church very high, and the Power of the Elders in the Church, p. 13. and presses that Text, Matth. xviii. 17. Tell it unto the Church, to extend to Matters of Faith and Worship, as well as to Private Injuries or Offences amongst Christians. That Christ (says he) as well gave His Church Power to Reject as to Try Spirits, is not hard to prove. That notable Passage, Go, tell the Church, does it to our hand: For if in case of private Offence betwixt Brethren, the Church is made Absolute Judge, from whom there is no Appeal in this World; how much more in any the least case that concerns the NATURE, BEING, FAITH, and WORSHIP of the Church herself?  
But the Case was quite altered when he came to Answer that same Text, as urged against the Quakers by the Church; which he does in his Address to Protestants, p. 152, 153, & 154. of the Second Edition in Octavo, printed 1692. And then that Text does not relate at all to Faith or Worship, but only to private Injuries. For having denied the Authority of the Church in Matters of Faith, he puts the Objection thus against himself: But what then can be the meaning of Christ's Words, Go, tell the Church? Very well. I Answer (says he, p. 153.) 'Tis not about Faith, but Injury, that Christ speaks; and the place explains itself, which is this; Moreover, if thy Brother shall TRESPASS against THEE, go and tell him his FAULT, between thee and him alone. Here is Wrong, not Religion; Injustice, not Faith or Conscience concerned; as some would have it, to maintain their Church-Power.— The words TRESPASS and FAULT prove abundantly, that He only meant Private and Personal Injuries; and that not only from the common and undeniable signification and use of the words TRESPASS and FAULT, but from the way Christ directs and commands for Accommodation, viz. That the Person wronged speak to him that commits the Injury, alone; if that will not do, that he take one or two with him: But no man can think, that if it related to FAITH or WORSHIP, I ought to Receive the Judgement of one, or two, or three, for a sufficient Rule.— Therefore it cannot relate to Matters of FAITH, and Scruples of CONSCIENCE, but PERSONAL and PRIVATE INJURIES.  
Thus he. But tho' the Judgement of one, two, or three, is not of itself a sufficient Rule, (none ever said it was) yet may not one, two, or three ADMONISH one another, even in Matters of Faith and Worship, as well as of Private Injuries, and, in case of Refractoriness and Obstinacy, bring the Cause before the Church? Thou shalt in any wise Rebuke thy Neighbour, and not suffer Sin upon him. 
Leu. xix. 17.  Yet was not the Judgement of every Man a sufficient Rule to his Neighbour. And our Saviour's commanding to bring the Cause finally before the Church, shows plainly, that the Judgement of the one, two, or three, was not meant for a sufficient Rule, that is, the ultimate Decision.  
But in Answer to Mr. Penn's Argument, That this Text, Tell it unto the Church, was meant only of Private Injuries, I shall repeat but his own words before quoted, and grant, that as it was meant of Private Injuries, so, as Mr. Penn very well infers, How much more in any the least Case that concerns the Nature, Being, Faith, and Worship of the Church herself?  
VI But, to return. The fifth Article in that Enumeration of Fundamentals, Heb. vi. 1, & 2. is, The Resurrection of the Dead; which the Quakers do likewise deny; as it is fully proved in The Snake in the Grass, Par. 2. Sect. 13.  
The last is that of Eternal Judgement, which depends upon the former, and may be made one with it; and is likewise denied by the Quakers, that is, turned into Hymeneus and Philetus' Sense, of an Inward only and Spiritual Resurrection, or Judgement performed within us. I have frequently heard Quakers say, that they expected no other Resurrection or future Judgement, than what they had attained already, that is, the Resurrection of Christ, or the Light, and the Judgement or Condemnation of Sin, in their Hearts.  
George Whitehead, in his Book called The Nature of Christianity, etc. printed 1671, p. 29, thus ridicules it: Dost thou (says he to his Opponent) look for Christ, as the Son of Mary, to Appear outwardly, in a Bodily Existence, to save thee? If thou dost, thou mayst look until thy Eyes drop out, before thou wilt see such an Appearance of him.  
And now what Wonder is it, that these should throw off Baptism, who have likewise thrown off all the other Fundamentals, which are reckoned with it in this Text?  
VII. But let us hence observe, and beware of Neglecting or Despising the Outward Institutions of God; because these depending upon the Authority of God, no less than the Inward and Spiritual, rejecting of the one overthrows the Obligation and Sanction of the whole, and is a rejecting of God the Institutor; who, in His just Judgement, suffers those to lose the one, that think themselves too good for the other.  
Men were made Partakers of Christ to come, by the Sacrifices which were appointed, as Types of Him, under the Law: So now are we Partakers of Him, who is come, by the Sacraments, which He has appointed in Remembrance of Him, under the Gospel.  
And as those who neglected or despised the Sacrifices, when they might be had, from the Legal Priests, according to God's Institution, were made liable to Death, and did forfeit their Title to the Participation of Christ the Architype: So those who neglect or despise the Sacraments which He has commanded as the Means of Grace, and of our Inward Participation of Him, under the Gospel, do thereby justly forfeit their Title to such Participation.  
For, if we will not take God's Way, we have no Promise nor Reason to secure us in the following of our own Inventions.   

SECT. XI. The Quaker-Objection, That there are no Signs under the Gospel.  
I. THE Quakers throw off all Outward Institutions, as not only useless, but Hurtful to the Christian Religion; which, they pretend, consists not only chief (which is granted to them) but solely in the Inward and Spiritual Part. They say, That all Figures and Signs are Shadows; and that when Christ, who is the Substance, is come, the others cease of course. That they have attained to Christ the Substance; and therefore these Shadows are of no use to them. That Baptism and the Lord's Supper are some of these Shadows; and these were Indulged to the Early and Weak Christians, but that the Quakers, who have stronger Participations of the Spirit, are got beyond these Beggarly Elements, etc.  
II. This is settled as a Foundation-Principle, That no Figures, or Signs, are perpetual; or of Institution, under the Gospel-Administration, when Christ, who is the Substance, is come; though their Use might have been Indulged to young Converts in Primitive Times. 
A Key, etc. by W. P. Printed, 1694. C. 10. of Water Baptism, and the Supper, P. 24.   
Ans. 1. To say they were not Perpetual, is one thing; but to say, That they were not so much as of Institution under the Gospel, seems a strange Assertion, when Christ gave the Institution out of his own Mouth, Matt. xxviii. 19 Go Baptise. And of his Supper, said, This do, Luk. xxii. 19  
2. The Reason why this should not be Perpetual, is very Precarious, to suppose that the Holiness of any Person should exempt him from observing the Institutions of God; whereas Christ himself submitted to them, and said, That it became him to fulfil all Righteousness, 
Mat. iii. 15.  i. e. all the Righteous Institutions of God. This is the Reason which Christ gave for his Baptism; yet the Quakers think that their Holiness will excuse them from Baptism. Christ submitted to John's Baptism, saying, That we ought to fulfil all God's Institutions: Yet the Quakers will not submit to Christ's Baptism, saying, That they are got beyond it. All were required to submit to John's Baptism, during his Ministry, because he was sent from God to Baptise; therefore Christ also submitted unto it; and did receive his own Commission to Baptise, by the visible Descent of the Holy Ghost, upon his receiving the Baptism of John. All are yet more expressly commanded to receive the Baptism of Christ. Go, Baptise ALL NATIONS. 
Mat. xxviii. 19  Go ye into ALL THE WORLD, and Preach the Gospel to EVERY CREATURE: He that Believeth, and is BAPTISED, shall be saved. 
Mar. xuj. 15.  But the Quakers and Muggletonians excuse themselves, as being too Good for it; They truly feeling in themselves (as it is expressed in the Key before quoted, p. 26.) the very Thing, which outward Water, Bread and Wine do signify, they leave them off. But were they as Holy as they pretend, yet would not this excuse them from observing the Institutions of Christ; nay, the greatest Sign of Holiness, and true Humility, is, not to think ourselves above his Institutions, but obediently to observe them, after the Blessed Example of Christ our Lord. And it is the greatest Instance of Spiritual Pride, and the most Fatal Deception in the World, thus to over-value ourselves; it betrays the grossest Ignorance of Spiritual things: For the more a Man knows of himself, and of God, the more he discovers of his own Weakness and unworthiness; he appears less in his own sight, and frames himself the more Obsequiously, with the most profound Humility and Resignation, Dutifully and Zealously to observe every the least Command of God. They are Novices in the Knowledge of God, who are lifted up with Pride; and these fall into the Condemnation of the Devil, 1 Tim. three 6.  
And what can be greater Pride, than to think ourselves in an higher Condition of Perfection, than the Holy Apostles, and all those Glorious Saints and Martyrs, who were the First-fruits of the Gospel, called (in the Key above quoted) by the Lessening Style of Young Converts, in Primitive Times?  
St. Paul, though IMMEDIATELY Converted, and Enlightened MIRACULOUSLY from HEAVEN, was commanded to go to Ananias to be Baptised. But our Quakers pass him off as a Young Convert, they have got beyond him, and think themselves more HIGHLY Enlightened than he was: And, for that Reason only, not to need that Baptism, which was thought necessary for him.  
And all the other Christians, from Christ to George Fox, were Young Converts! Then it was that a greater Light was given than ever was known in the Church of Christ before, to make the Outward Baptism cease, as of no longer use to those who had attained the Substance! Or otherwise none of the Primitive Christians knew their own Holiness; or were so Humble as not to own it, to that Degree as to place themselves above all outward Ordinances!  
These are the Grounds and Reasons of the Quakers, why Baptism, and the Lord's Supper were not Perpetual!  
Which, in the mildest word that I could frame, I have called Precarious. And they must appear to be such, till the Quakers can give some other Proof besides their own saying so, either that the Holiness of any Person can excuse him from the Observance of Christ's Institution: Or, that they have a greater Degree of Holiness than all others since Christ, who have been Baptised.  
3. But the Perpetuity of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, are fully expressed in the Words of the Scripture. When Christ gave Commission to his Disciples to Baptise, he promised to be with them, in the Execution of that Commission, even unto the End of the World, Matt. xxviii. 20. which shows, that the Commission was to descend after the Death of the Apostles to whom it was given. And it tells how long; Always, even unto the End of the World. The like Perpetuity is annexed to the Institution of the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. xi. 26. Till Christ come again. It was Instituted in Remembrance of him; and therefore to be continued till his Coming again.  
III. I know the Quakers do Interpret this, not of Christ's Outward and Personal coming at the Resurrection, which (after Hymeneus and Philetus, 2 Tim. two. 18.) they say is passed already, that is, Inwardly performed, by the Spiritual Resurrection of Christ, or the Light in their Hearts. And they say, That the Institution of the Lord's Supper was only to continue till that Inward Coming, or forming of Christ in our Hearts; which they having obtained, (as they presume) therefore they throw off the Outward Supper.  
But was not Christ form in the Hearts of the Apostles, to whom Christ gave his Holy Supper, as much as in the Hearts of the Quakers now? Was he not Come SPIRITUALLY to Paul, after his Conversion? And before his Command, above quoted, of continuing the Practice of the Lord's Supper, till his Coming?  
If they say, That this was only to have it continued to those weaker Christians, who had not Christ thoroughly form in their Hearts.  
First, Who can say, That Christ is thoroughly form in his Heart? May there not be greater and greater Degrees of the Inspiration of Christ in our Hearts? And can we ever come to the End of it, so as to need no further Inspiration, or Coming of Christ within us? Therefore Christ's Inward Coming is always to be expected. His further and further Coming and Inspiration.  
But if that Coming, which the Quakers would make to be the Determination of the Outward Institution of the Lord's Supper, be the Least Degree of his Coming, than every Christian, nay, according to the Quakers, every Man in the World, not only is, but always was exempted from the Observation of that Institution; because the Quakers do own, That every Man in the World has, and ever had the Light within, which they make to be Christ, at least, an Influence and Inspiration from Christ; and so to be a Coming, or Presence of his in the Heart: And therefore, by this Rule, Christ is Come to every Man, in some Degree or other: And, if there be not some stinting, or ascertaining of this Degree, than Christ was always so Come to All, as to make the Institution of the Lord's Supper useless, at all Times, to All. Nay, it was ended, before it began. For, if his Inward Coming does end it, it could never begin, because he was always so Inwardly Come.  
But if there are some Degrees of his Coming so weak as to need the Help of the Outward Institution, to which God has annexed the Promise of his Grace, when duly Administered, and Received, than these Degrees must be known, else those may be deprived of the Benefit of it, who have most need of it: And those are they who think that they need it least.  
Secondly, The Quakers do not always pretend, all of them, to the same Degrees of Perfection (if there be Degrees in Perfection) they must be sensible sometimes (at least others are) of the many Weaknesses of some of their Number: Why then do they not allow the Lord's Supper to those Weaker ones? Else they must say, That it was not intended for the Weak more than for the Strong. And so, that the Institution and Practice of it, by Christ and his Apostles, was wholly useless, and to no purpose. And that all those high Things said of it, That it is the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, 1 Cor. x. 16. And Christ's own Words, This is my Body: And therefore, that the receiving it unworthily, is being Guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord: That therefore we should approach to it, with the greatest Reverence and Preparation, to Examine ourselves seriously and diligently, that we may receive it with pure Hearts and Minds: And the Dreadful Judgements which do attend the Neglect, or Abuse of it, not only sundry Discases, and divers kinds of Deaths, but Damnation, 1 Cor. xi. from Ver. 27. I say all these were Words thrown into the Air, of no Meaning, nor Import at all, if the Quaker Interpretation be true, which makes nothing at all of the Lord's Supper, but renders it wholly Precarious and Insignificant, even at the time of its Institution; and now to be hurtful and pernicious, as drawing Men from the Substance, to mere Shadows; for they make of it no more!  
IU. But I would beseech them to consider how much more highly God does value it; and how Material a part of his Religion he does make it: For when St. Paul was taught the Faith immediately from Heaven, and not from those who were Apostles before him (as he tells us, Gal. i. 16, 17.) Christ took care to instruct him as to this of the Lord's Supper particularly. And he presses it upon the Corinthians, as having received it from God. For I have received of the Lord (says he, 1 Cor. xi. 23.) that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same Night in which he was Betrayed, took Bread, etc. and so goes on to relate the whole Institution of the Lord's Supper, and the mighty Consequences, the Benefits and Advantages of it; the Examination preparatory to it; and the Vengeance both Temporal and Eternal, which was due to the Contempt of it.  
This shows, that Christ did not Institute this Holy Sacrament by Chance. It was the last Act of his Life; and his Dying Bequest to his Church; filled with all his Blessings, and carrying with it, to the Worthy Receivers, the whole Merits, and Purchase of his Death and Passion, the Remission of our Sins, and full Title to Heaven! Brethren, I speak after the Manner of Men; tho' it be but a Man's Testament, yet, if it be confirmed, no Man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 
Gal. iii. 15.  How much less than can any Man take upon him to disannul this last Will and Testament of Christ's, which he has left to his Church; and Bequeathed it to her with His Dying Breath!  
This was the Reason that it was not only so particularly Recorded by the several Evangelists in the Gospels; but when St. Paul was taught Immediately from Heaven, this most Material Institution was not forgot, but Christ Himself instructed him in it; to show the great Stress and Value which He laid upon it.  
And let this suffice, to have said in this place, concerning this other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. It's Institution is as Plain and Express as that of Baptism. And the Practice of it, in the Days of the Apostles, and all Ages since has been as Universal. And what has been said of Baptism, is of Equal Force as to this: And the Quaker Arguments against this, are upon the same Foundation as those against Baptism; only they have not so many Objections against this: Therefore I have made Baptism the chief Subject of this Discourse; yet so, as likewise to Include the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Therefore we will go on to consider what remains of the present Objection (which Militates equally against both) that there are no Signs under the Gospel.  
V And here let me observe,  
First, That these Signs and Figures which the Quakers make Incompatible to the Gospel State, ought only to be understood of the Signs and Figures in the Law, which were ordained as Types of Christ. And of these it is truly argued, That when Christ, who is the Substance, is come, they must cease of course; which Argument the Quakers bring against the Signs and Figures which Christ did Institute under the Gospel. But how foreign this is from their purpose, let any one judge. For those Signs and Figures which were appointed by Christ, could not be Types of Christ; because a Type is what goes before a Thing, and shows it to come. And therefore, when that which it foreshews is come, it ceases. But, as there were Types under the Law to foreshow Christ's coming in the Flesh, and his Sacrifice upon the Cross, which therefore are ceased; so Christ has appointed other Types to foreshow his second coming to Judge the World; and which therefore must last till he shall so come, as the Types of his first coming did last, till he did so come. The Sacrifices under the Law, did praefigure the Death of Christ; but the Sacraments under the Gospel, were Instituted in Remembrance of it; as well as for Types of our future Union with him in Heaven. Therefore the same Reason which makes the Legal Types to cease, does infer, That the Evangelical Types must not cease, till they likewise shall be fulfilled; which will not be till we arrive at Heaven. Thus, as they are Types. And then,  
Secondly, As they are Remembrances of what is past, they are to last as long as the Remembrance of that which they Represent aught to last with us. Christ did not Institute his Supper, that we should thereby Remember his Death, a Day, or a Year, but till his Coming again. His Death took his Personal Presence from us; and therefore till that Return, we must continue the Remembrance, that is, of his Absence, till the Glorious Return of his Visible Body, which was separated from us by his Death.  
Thus no advantage can be brought to the Quaker Pretences against the Christian Sacraments, from the Sacrifices and other Signs or Figures under the Law.  
VI We come now to Examine, what they set up against any Signs or Figures under the Gospel, from another Topick; and that is, That the Gospel is all Substance, and therefore that there must be no Sign or Figure at all in it.  
Answ. By Substance here they mean that which is Inward, or Spiritual, that every thing in the Gospel is Spiritual.  
But this will overthrow all outward, or Bodily Worship. For that is distinguished from Spiritual, or Inward Worship.  
And, in one sense, all Bodily Worship is a Sign or Figure of the Inward, or Spiritual; which is the Principal and Substantial Worship. Thus Bowing the Knee, or Uncovering the Head at Prayer, are Signs or Figures of the Inward Reverence and Devotion of the Heart.  
And this the Quakers practice; therefore, by their own Argument, they have Signs and Figures as well as others; only they throw off those of Christ's Institution, and make new ones of their own.  
It is impossible to be without Signs and Figures. For this whole World is a Figure of that which is to come. We ourselves are Figures of God, being Images of him: And what is an Image but the Figure or Sign of a Thing? Christ is a Figure of God, being the Express Image of his Person, Heb. i 3. And we now have the Knowledge of God in the Face of Jesus Christ. God is a Light Inaccessible to Angels, as well as unto Men, without some Medium: His Essence cannot be seen or known Immediately, by any but Himself. All Creatures partake of him in Signs and Figures of him; each in their several Degrees; there are Higher and more Noble Figures; but all are Figures. And God has, in all Ages, through the World, Dispensed himself to Mankind in Signs and Figures; we could not otherwise apprehend Him. Christ is the most Noble and Lively Figure of God: Therefore his Dispensation is far beyond all others that went before him. Yet even now, We see through a Glass darkly, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. or, in a Riddle; as our Margin reads it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in a Figure.  
What is the Bible that we read, what are Words but the Signatures, the Signs or Figures of Things? We can see the Essence of no one thing in the World, more than of God. And what are all those Accidents of Colour, Quantity and Quality, by which we distinguish Things, but so many Figures, or Signs of them?  
So very wild is that Notion, that there must be no Signs or Figures under the Gospel!  
It would be much Truer, if they had said, That there are nothing else but Signs and Figures: There is nothing else without a Figure but God For all Creatures are Figures of Him, Christ, the Highest.  
But have the Quakers no Figures? G. Fox in his Saul's Errand, p. 14. says, That Christ's Flesh is a Figure. They call the Body of Christ generally, a Figure, a Veil, a Garment. Then either they have none of it, or they have Figures. Richard Hubberthorn wrote, 
Snake in the Grass, 1st Part, pag. 208.  That Christ's coming in the Flesh was but a Figure: He meant of the Inward coming of Christ, or the Light in the Heart, which they call the Substance and the Mystery; of which Christ's Outward coming in the Flesh, they say, was but a Shadow, or the History (to use their own words.) G. Fox made a great Mystery, or Figure of his Marriage, which, he said, 
2d Part, p. 43.  Was above the State of the first Adam, in his Innocency; in the State of the second Adam that never fell. He wrote, in one of his General Epistles to the Churches, (which were read, and valued by the Quakers, more than St. Paul's,) That his Marriage was a Figure of the Church coming out of the Wilderness. This, if denied, I can Vouch undeniably, but it will not be denied, tho' it be not Printed with the rest of his Epistles, but I have it from some that read it often. But why was it not Printed? That was a sad Story. But take it thus. He Married one Margaret Fell, a Widow, of about Threescore Years of Age; and this Figure of the Church must not be Barren; therefore, tho' she was passed Childbearing, it was expected, that, as Sarah, she should miraculously Conceive, and bring forth an Isaac; which G. Fox promised and boasted of, and some that I know have heard him do it, more than once. She was called, The Lamb's Wife. And it was said amongst the Quakers, That the Lamb had now taken his Wife, and she would bring forth an Holy Seed. And Big she grew, and all things were provided for the Lying in; and, he, being persuaded of it, gave notice to the Churches, as above observed. But, after long waiting, all proved Abortive, and the Figure was spoiled. And now you may guests the Reason, why that Epistle which mentioned this Figure, was not Printed.  
I would have brought nothing into this Discourse that looks like a Jest; but they have compelled me. And it may be of use to them, to show them, that while they throw off the Sacraments of Christ's Institution, upon the Pretence that there must be no Signs or Figures under the Gospel, they, at the same time, make Ridiculous Signs and Figures of G. Fox, and his Fantastical Marriage; and of several other things; every thing almost among them, is a Sign or Figure of something to come upon the World. How many of their Lying Prophets have called themselves Signs to the Men of their Generation, as the Holy Prophets were in their Day?  
VII. There have been Outward Signs, in all the Institutions of Religion, since the beginning of the World; as well before, as under the Law, and now under the Gospel. Only they have been varied, or Ended according to what they praefigured. Thus those Signs which had no further Tendency, than to point out what Christ did or suffered upon Earth, are fulfilled and therefore Ended.  
But there were some Signs, which, though they pointed to Christ upon Earth, had yet a further Tendency: For Signs may be appointed to more Ends than one. Thus the Institution of the Sabbath was appointed for the Commemoration of God's Rest from the Works of the Creation, Gen. two. 3. and Exod. xx. 11. and likewise the rest of the Children of Israel (who were the Type of the Church) from their Captivity and Slavery in Egypt, Deut. v. 15. (which expresses the Servitude of Sin and Hell) and their final Rest in Canaan (the Type of Heaven) after their forty Years wandering in the Wilderness, (which represent the Labours of this Life.) But this was not the Ultimate Rest, or Sabbath, Heb. iv. 18. For if Joshua had given them Rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another Day; there remaineth therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the keeping of a Sabbath (which signifies Rest) to the People of God. For he that is entered into his Rest, he also hath ceased from his own Works, as God did from his. Thus Christ, as he suffered the 6th Day of the Week, the same Day that Man was created, and fell; so, on the same Day on which God Rested from his Work of Creation, viz. the 7th Day, did Christ Rest in his Grave, from his Work of Redemption. And there is yet a farther Rest or Sabbath beyond this; and that is, the Eternal Rest in Heaven, Heb. iv. 11. Let us labour therefore to enter into that Rest.  
Now, though several Significations of the Sabbath are already past, as the Deliverance out of Egypt; the Entrance into Canaan; and the Rest of Christ, in his Grave: Yet there being one behind, that is the Sabbath of Heaven, therefore do we still keep the Sabbath as a Type of it.  
But there is another Reason for the Continuance of the Sabbath; and that is, That it was not only ordained as a Type of Things to come; but as a Commemoration of what was past, viz. Of God's Rest from his Works of Creation. And, by the Alteration of the Day of the Sabbath, it serves likewise to us Christians, as a Commemoration of the Resurrection of Christ, and his Conquest over the Powers of Death and Hell. It was the first Day in which Light was created; and Christ (who is our True Light, of which the Visible Light is but a Shadow, and was ordained as a Type) Arose from the Dead, the same Day; and gave Light to those who sat in Darkness, and the Shadow of Death, by the Joyful Tidings of our Redemption from Hell, and Eternal Bliss in Heaven!  
Now so long as the Works of our Creation and Redemption are to be kept in Memory, so long is the Sabbath to continue, as a Commemoration of these Inestimable Benefits.  
And, by the same Reason, so long as we ought to commemorate the Death and Passion of our Lord; so long aught the Sacrament of it to continue; which he Instituted in Remembrance of it; and commanded it to be continued till his Coming again.  
Thus you see that there are Signs under the Gospel; not only the two Sacraments of the Church (which flowed distinctly out of Christ's Side, after his Death, upon the Cross) but that the Gospel does still retain the Signs of Commemoration, which have descended down to us all the way from the Creation: And likewise such Signs or Types as have yet a Prospect forward, and are not wholly fulfilled.  
And 3dly, The Signs of Present Signification, as the outward Acts of Worship: To which we are as much, nay more strictly obliged under the Gospel, than they were under the Law. As St. Irenaeus argues, (advers. Haeres. l. 4. c. 34.) That the manner of Worship, as of Sacrifices, is changed: but not the Worship abolished. Non Genus oblationis Reprobatum est, oblationes enim & illic, oblationes autem & hic: Sacrificia in Populo, Sacrificia & in Ecclesia; sed Species Immutata est tantum. i e. The Kind or Nature of the Offering is not Abolished; for there were Offerings under the Law, and there are Offerings also under the Gospel: there were Sacrifices among the People of the Jews. There are Sacrifices likewise in the Church: but the Species or Manner of them only is changed, viz. That some Sacrifices under the Law were Bloody, as Praefiguring the Death of Christ: and therefore that Sort or Manner of Sacrificing is ceased, because Fulfilled in the Death of Christ: But their Unbloody Sacrifices, and Oblations, as of Tithes, and other Offerings Remain still among Christians: and are Signs, as much as they were under the Law. The outward Worship of God must be by Actions proper and significant. Nihil enim Otiosum, nec sine Signo, nec sine Argumento apud eum. 
Iren. ibid.  i e. For there is nothing Empty, nor without a Sign, nor without Signification in the Worship of God. And, in the very next words, he applies this to Tithes. Et propter hoc illi quidem Decimas— And for this reason the Jews paid Tithes, viz. as a Sign of their Dependence upon God, and having Received All from Him: And in Hopes of their Receiving More from Him. Sed nos omnia— But the Christians, instead of a Tenth Part, which the Jews gave, Give All that they have, because (says he) they have a Better Hope. And, ch. 27. showing how Christ did Heighten the Law, as, instead of Adultery, to forbid Lust; instead of Murder, to forbid Anger; and, instead of giving the Tithe, commanding to sell All: And this, says he, is not a Dissolving of the Law, but Enlarging it. 
Matth. v. 17, 18.  So that no Part of the Law is Destroyed; and All is not Fulfilled; and since All must be Fulfilled, it follows, that what is not yet Fulfilled, must yet Remain: And Many of the Signs in the Law not being Fulfilled in Christ's Death, nor ever to be Fulfilled while we Live upon this Earth, consequently do Remain, and must so Remain to the End of the World. So that the Gospel has Signs as well as the Law; and, in Great Part, the same Signs; with other Sacramental Signs added by Christ, which are those of which we now Treat, Baptism, and The Supper of The Lord.  
VIII. And let us Reflect, that ever since God made outward Things, and gave us this Body, as the Soul does act by the Mediation of the Body; so has God ordained, that his Gifts and Graces shall be conveyed to us by Outward Signs and Means.  
Christ used outward Signs and Means for his Miraculous Cures; to show, that tho' the Virtue did not come from the Means, yet that they were of Use, and not to be Despised.  
But why do we say, that the Virtue does not come from the Means? We say so, when we cannot tell the Reason and Manner how the Means work their Effect, and can we tell it, in those which we call Natural Means? No surely, we know only by Observation, and Experience; and what often comes to pass, we call it Natural, as being the common Course of Things; not that we know the Reason of it, more than of those Occurrences which we call Miraculous and Extraordinary.  
Man doth not live by Bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the Mouth of God.  
Bread has no Virtue of its own to nourish; but only what it receives from God: And if he give his Virtue (for it is His only) to a Stone; or any thing else, it will nourish: And Bread will, and does cease to nourish, when he withdraws his Blessing from it.  
Therefore the Spittle of Christ and the Clay, the Waters of Siloam and Bethesda, and the Brazenserpent had as great Virtue to Cure, when they were Appointed by God, as Bread has to nourish; and the Virtue came as much from Them, as it does from the Bread, in our Daily Food.  
Now, if the Brazenserpent, which was but a Type of Christ, had Virtue to Cure the Body; shall we deny that the Bread, which Christ blessed, for the Remission of Sin, has Virtue to work that Effect?  
He whose single Fiat made the Worlds, and whose Influence gives Power to all Things, and makes them what they are; he said of that Blessed Bread, THIS IS MY BODY. And his Holy Apostle said of it, The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? And do we doubt, how it works this Effect? Dare we Reject it, because it seems strange to us, how it should work this Effect, who know as little how our Daily Bread does nourish our Bodies? Do we object our Ignorance how a Man can be Born of Water and the Spirit, who can give as short an Account how we are form, of a drop of Water, in the Womb; and by what Ligaments such different Natures as Soul and Body, are compacted and linked together? How can we pretend to have Faith in Christ, and yet not believe his Words, because of the seeming difficulty to our Understandings (who know nothing) of the Method and Manner, how He can bring them to pass?  
According to our Faith it will be unto us. Therefore let us Humble our Souls greatly, and imitate the Holy Angels (far more Enlightened than we are) who vail their Faces before God; and presume not to dispute his Commands; or pretend to understand all the Methods of his Power and Wisdom unsearchable! but desire to look into those Things, 1 Pet. i 12. those Glorious Mysteries of the Gospel, which the Quakers despise, as below the Measure to which they have attained! And the Principalities and Powers in Heavenly places, do submit to learn the Manifold Wisdom of God, Ephes. iii. 10. from that Church, which the Quakers do vilify and trample under their feet; as thinking it uncapable to teach them any thing, or to administer to them the Sacraments which Christ has commanded.  
But because the Dispute will arise which that Church is, in the miserable Divisions of Christendom, and amongst the various sorts of the Pretenders to it, I have in the Discourse mentioned in the Advertisement, I hope, given a plain and sure Rule to guide all Honest and Disinterested Enquirers, in that most necessary and fundamental Point.   

The Conclusion. Showing the Necessity of Water-Baptism.  
THE Sum of what has been said, concludes in the great Necessity there is of Water-Baptism.  
But before I say more of it, I will obviate an Objection, which may arise from the word Necessary.  
If it be Absolutely Necessary, than none can be saved without it: Which sort of Necessity I do not plead for. This is plainly distinguished in the Catechism of our Church, where this, and the other Sacrament (of the Lord's Supper) are said to be Generally necessary to Salvation. Generally, that is, in the General and Common Methods which are prescribed in the Gospel. For no Body will pretend to Limit GOD; as if HE could not save by what Means and Methods HE pleases. But we are tied up to those Rules which HE has Prescribed to Us: Yet We must not Tie HIM up to those Rules, to which HE has Tied Us.  
But who are they who have Reason to expect God's Extraordinary Mercies, out of the Common Methods of Salvation; and to be made Partakers of the Inward, without the Outward Baptism?  
I. Those who being conscientiously concerned for the Outward, yet cannot obtain it, through the Want of a Minister of Christ, Lawfully Ordained to Administer it; as in Turkey, Africa, etc.  
These are under an Invincible Necessity: And their Earnest Desires (I doubt not) will be accepted by God; and the Spiritual Baptism be conferred upon them, without the Outward.  
II. Those who have been Baptised by Persons, not lawfully Ordained, and consequently they have received no Baptism, having received it from those who had no Commission to Administer it; but who were Guilty of the Highest Sacrilege, in Usurping such a Sacred Commission, not Lawfully Derived to them by a Successive Ordination from the Apostles: But yet, through a General Corruption of the Times, such Baptisms are suffered to pass, whereby the Persons so Baptised, swimming down the Stream, do think their Baptism to be valid, and therefore seek not for a Rebaptisation from those who are truly empowered to Administer it. I say, Where no such Rebaptisation is taught, and thereby the People know nothing of it; in such Case, their Ignorance is, in a Manner, Invincible; and their Sincerity and Devotion in Receiving No Sacraments, yet thinking them True Sacraments, may be Accepted by God, and the Inward Grace conferred, and the Defects in the Outward and Visible Signs may be Pardoned.  
But neither of these Cases does reach those, who neglect the Outward Means, upon Pretence of Inward Perfection without them. These Despise the Ordinance of Christ, and make themselves Wiser than He; as if He had appointed Means either Unnecessary, or Ineffectual to the Ends. for which they were intended!  
And I desire these to consider the Great Necessity there is for Water-Baptism, as before Explained.  
1. Because it is ordained as the Means whereby the Inward Baptism of the Holy-Ghost is given, as I before quoted, Acts two. 38. Be BAPTISED, and ye shall Receive the Gift of the HOLY GHOST. By This Baptism, could not be meant the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, because This Baptism is Here proposed as the Means whereby to Receive the Inward Baptism of the Holy Ghost.  
Again, Ephes. v. 26. That He (Christ) might Sanctify and Cleanse it (the Church) with the Washing of Water, by the Word. Here the Washing of Water is the Means, tho' the Operation and Virtue is from the Word: And therefore the Outward Washing or Baptising (which means the same, as before told, Sect. 1.) cannot be the same with the Word in this Text.  
2. Christ having appointed this as the Means, you see what Stress He lays upon it, and how Necessary He makes it.  
John iii. 5. Except a Man be Born of Water and the Spirit, he cannot Enter into the Kingdom of God. Here the Water and the Spirit are plainly Distinguished, and Both made Necessary to Salvation, the Outward as well as the Inward: As it is written, Rom. x. 10. For with the Heart Man Believeth, unto Righteousness; And with the Mouth Confession is made unto Salvation. The Belief of the Heart is Necessary unto Righteousness, i. e. to make Us Righteous before God: But the Outward Confession of the Mouth is likewise as Necessary to our Salvation. As Christ said, (Matt. x. 32.) Whosoever shall Confess me before Men, etc. We must Outwardly, and before Men, Confess to Christ, by the Due Performance of His Outward Ordinances; without which our Inward Belief in Him will not be sufficient to our Salvation. Baptism is an Outward Badge of Christianity, by being the Outward Form, appointed to admit Men as Members of the Church of Christ; and whereby they own themselves to be such, before Men: But those who will not wear this BADGE, as a Confession to Christ, before Men; Christ will not Confess them, before His Father, in Heaven.  
Mark xuj. 16. He that Believeth and is Baptised, shall be saved. Here both the Outward and the Inward are joined together, and both made Necessary; For, by Baptism, Here, cannot be meant the Inward Belief, that would make a Tautology of the Text, and mean thus, He that Believeth and Believeth— Thus it must be, if by Baptism, in this Text, the Inward Baptism, or Belief of the Heart be meant. But this being plainly meant of the Outward Baptism, the Consequence from this Text is plainly this, That he who doth not Believe, and is not Baptised, shall not be Saved. Of which I adjure the Quakers to Consider most seriously: For tho' they had the Inward Baptism as much as they Pretend to it, yet were the Outward necessary. Peter thought Water necessary to give Outward Baptism to those who had already Received the Inward Baptism of the Holy Ghost, Acts x. 47.  
And the Doctrine of Baptism is reckoned among the Principles and Foundations of Christianity, together with Faith and Repentance, etc. Heb. VI 1, 2.  
But the Quakers, like Naaman, flout at the Means, as too easy to be effectual; and call Baptism, in contempt, Water-Sprinkling, And I will answer them with Naaman's Servants, (2 Kings V. 13.) If Christ had bid thee do some great thing, wouldst thou not have done it? How much rather than when He saith to thee, Wash and be Clean? And as necessary as the Waters of Jordan were to the Cleansing of Naaman, so necessary are the Waters of Baptism to the Cleansing of our Souls. None dare say, that GOD could not have Cleansed Naaman otherwise: But GOD having, by his Prophet, appointed that Means, if Naaman had neglected it, he had not otherwise been Cured. How much more, when GOD has appointed the Means of Baptism, by his Son, if we Neglect it, shall we be Saved without it? He that Despised Moses 's Law, died without Mercy: Of how much sorer Panishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Institution of the Son of GOD, and counted it an unholy thing, doing Despite to it, Inventing Contemptible Names for it, and Ridiculing the Administration of it? But as the Spirit of God moved, at first, upon the Face of the Waters (Gen. 1. 2.) to Impregnate them, and make them Fructify; and gave a Miraculous Virtue to the Waters of Jordan, of Siloam, and Bethesda, for Healing of the Flesh; Why should we Doubt that the same Spirit can and will Sanctify the Waters of Baptism to the Mystical Washing away of Sin, having the Positive Institution and Promise of Christ for it? Acts II. 38. Repent and be Baptised, every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the Remission of Sins, and ye shall Receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  
This was not the Extraordinary Gift of Miracles, which is here Promised, (and which all Baptised Persons did not Receive or Expect) but the Remission of Sins. And let me add, That the Ordinary Saving Graces of the Spirit, which work silently, without Observation or Show, are much Preferable, and more Desirable, than the Extraordinary Gift of Miracles, which, for a time, were Necessary, at the first Propagation of the Gospel; and held Men's Eyes in Great Admiration: But were of Dangerous Consequence to the Possessors, and a Temptation often to Vanity; which had almost over-set the Great Apostle, 2 Cor. xii. 7, 8, 9 and threw others into the Pit of Destruction, Matth. seven. 22, 23. 1 Cor. xiii. 2. and therefore were not to be Prayed for, or Desired: We must be totally Passive in this Case; and when sent, being for the Conviction of others, to Receive such an Extraordinary Gift, with Fear and Trembling, lest it Hurt our weak Minds, not capable, but by as Extraordinary an Assistance of Divine Grace, to Bear such mighty Revelations, and not to let in with it a secret Pride in ourselves; which spreads our Sails so wide, that without a Proportionable Ballast of deep Humility, we shall be driven from our Compass. The Enemy throws in this strong Temptation, with those Miraculous Gifts; which vain Men do Ignorantly Covet, and some falsely Pretend to, to their own Destruction. But much more Valuable are those Saving Graces, which we are commanded Daily to Pray for, and Daily to Endeavour: Much more Available to us, and Precious in the sight of God, than all Miraculous Gifts, is that Gift of The Holy Ghost, the Remission of Sins, which is Promised to the Due Reception of Baptism, and enrolls our Names in Heaven. Behold (said Christ to his Disciples, who Boasted, that even the Devils were subject to them, through His Name) I give unto you Power to tread on Serpents and Scorpions, and over all the Power of the Enemy; and nothing shall, by any means, hurt you; notwithstanding in this Rejoice not, that the Spirits are subject unto you; But rather Rejoice, because your Names are written in Heaven. 
Luk. x. 17, 18, 19, 20.    

To be added to the End of Sect. VIII. p. 34.  
But R. Barclay argues in his Apology, That the Baptism, of which the Ark was a Type, could not be the Outward, or Water-Baptism, because that itself is a Type, viz. Of the Inward or Spiritual Baptism. And he supports this Notion by a Criticism upon the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text, which he says is not rightly Translated in our English by The like Figure. Because, he says, the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the thing Typifyed, and not the Type.  
But, by his leave, it signifies the quite contrary. Heb. ix. 24. not the thing Typifyed, but only the Type: For there the Holy Places made with Hands are called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Figures or Types of the True. And that Word is not to be found, except in these two Texts, in the whole New Testament. And therefore if one of these Texts must explain the other, the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Anti-Type, 1 Pet. three 21. must be taken in the same Sense, in which it is used, Heb. ix. 24. because there it cannot possibly be taken to mean the thing Typifyed, or the Architype; therefore neither aught it to be so strained, as Barclay does, to mean the quite contrary, in the present Text. And our Translation is Justified, which renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the like Figure, as does the Vulgar, Similis formae. For both the Waters of the Ark, and of Baptism, are the outward and visible Signs, but not the thing signified, which is the Salvation of the Soul, by the Re-generation and Washing of the Spirit. And they are like Figures, both signifying the same thing, in a manner very like to one another. That as Noah, etc. were saved in the Ark by Water from Corporal Death, so are the True Believers saved by the Water of Baptism, from the Death of Sin and Hell. In which Sense the Ark was a Type of the outward or Water-Baptism, tho' both were Types, but one nearer than the other. And because the Baptism mentioned in this Text, 1 Pet. three 21. is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Type or Figure; therefore it must be the Outward and Water-Baptism, which is here meant. For the Inward and Spiritual Baptism is not the Type or Figure, but the thing signified. And thus Rob. Barclays Argument and Criticism has turned into a full Demonstration of the direct contrary of that for which he brought it: And has thoroughly Established the Divine Institution of the Outward or Water-Baptism.  
July 17. 1696.  
FINIS.