AN ANSWER TO THE LAYMAN's Treatise on Baptism: In which the Author is pleased to say, That the Quaker Doctrine of Water Baptism is CONSIDERED, their Objections ANSWERED, and the Doctrine of the Church of England, upon that important Point, STATED and VINDICATED.


Wo unto you Lawyers, for ye have taken away the Key of Knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and those that were entering in, ye hindred.

Luke xi. 52.

My People have committed two Evils; they have forsaken me the Fountain of living Waters, and hewed them out Cisterns, broken Cisterns, that can hold no Water.

Jeremiah ii. 13.


[Page iii]


POLEMICK Writers, or Books of Controversy, especially upon religious Subjects, are not in gene­ral agreeable to the prevaling Disposition of the present Age: And it must be acknowledged that an enquiring Mind is too often disappointed in the Perusal of such Works. It frequently happening that Persons who engage in disputable Points are either biassed by their Education, or else act from Prepossession; and instead of sincerely endeavouring to promote Truth in its Sim­plicity, they labor to maintain the Doctrines of a Party, or the Principles of their Education, which perhaps they have implicitly assented to, and deem Founda­mentals in Religion, tho' they have never impartially examined into their Validity.

There are scarce any People who have been more fre­quently attacked than those called Quakers; or whose Principles have, thro' the Ignorance or Malevolence of their Adversaries, been more grosly misrepresented.— 'Tis not long since a Treatise made its Appearance in this Part of the World under a specious Title, probably [Page iv] with a View to obtain Readers or vend large Numbers of so extraordinary a Performance.—The Author asserts that the Quaker Doctrine of Water Baptism is considered, their Objections answered, and the Doctrine of the Church of England upon that impor­tant Point stated and vindicated.—The following Sheets contain an Answer to that Treatise, which we recommend to the serious Perusal of every impartial and judicious Reader.

Our Antagonist pretends in his Preface that his only Motive for entering into the Enquiry was to obtain Satisfaction to himself upon the Doctrine of Water Baptism; and that he had no Thoughts of appearing in Print: From which, we suppose, he would have us conclude that he was a sincere Seeker after Truth, and entered into the Enquiry free from Bias or Preju­dice: But whether he commenced his Enquiry upon this Bottom must be left to his own Conscience. Tho' if to miscite or mutilate the Quotations he brings from the Writings of those whom he opposes, and to insert them as fair and genuine, be Evidences of the Contrary, our Opponent is, we think, highly culpable; and which we conceive will evidently appear on Perusal of the ensuing Sheets.—Is it not hard to know what re­ligious Principles this Author is of? For, notwith­standing he affects to advocate for the Church of Eng­land, does he not advance Doctrine contrary thereto, when he says, It, Water Baptism, is made one of the Conditions upon the Performance whereof eternal Sal­vation [Page v] is to be obtained? Do not Protestants deny that Water Baptism is absolutely necessary to Salva­tion, tho' Papists say none can be saved without it?

Our Adversary's Notion of Water Baptism seems somewhat like the Papists Doctrine of Transubstan­tiation: They say the Bread after Consecration is the real Body of Christ; He suggests that Water duly administred washes the most inveterate and malignant Diseases from the Soul. Is not this to make the Water spiritual, or to add some Virtue it had not before? It being evident that elementary Water cannot reach the Soul.

How lamentable is it that Men will not study to be quiet and mind their own Business: Were they to act in their proper Sphere they might be of Use to Man­kind. —And if Divinity or the right Knowledge of the saving Truths of the Gospel were to be attained by human Study, as the Laws of Nations are, our Op­ponent might probably have obtained the Character of Learned and Wise: But as he appears so great a Stranger to the experimental Knowledge of the Nature, End and Design of the Gospel Dispensation, it is no Wonder he has run into so many and great Absurdities respecting the Doctrine of Water Baptism.

The Author of this Reply is a plain Man, not practised in the Art of Controversy, nor inclined to Disputation; but is diffident of his own Abilities and [Page vi] Qualifications for such Undertakings; and nothing short of an Apprehension of Duty and good Will to Mankind was his Inducement to appear in Print. We think he has treated our Antagonist with Coolness and Moderation, and avoided unfair Deductions.—And if any Thing herein written should contribute towards informing the Ignorant or Unprejudiced, or tend to remove Stumbling-Blocks out of the Way of the Weak, the Design of the Author will in great Measure be answered.

[Page 1]

AN ANSWER TO THE LAYMAN'S Treatise on Baptism.

THE Author, here to be answered, intro­duces his Complaint, against Robert Barclay, with a Perversion of his Words, in adding the Word [Utter] Strangers, instead of ‘how much Strangers to, and averse from, that true and acceptable Worship that is performed in the Spirit of Truth.’

ROBERT BARCLAY, in his Apology, (Page 411) after he has mentioned some Expressions, of which our Opponent has taken Notice, in his first Page, makes the following Remark: ‘Which Zeal, says he, if they would but seriously examine it, they would find to be but the Prejudice of Education, and the Love of Self more than that of God or his pure Worship; this is verified concerning those Things which are called Sacraments.’ And then the Author, by another Perversion of his Words, saith, ‘which are empty Shaddows, and mere out­side [Page 2] Things, and not commanded by Christ, nor any Way necessary to Salvation.’ All which I readily grant him, but would have him speak the Truth, and render others Words as they are. See Apology, Page 411.

HE confesseth, that if what is here said of the Sa­craments be true, the Church of England falls very justly under the Censure before complained of. The Question with me is not what Church or Society falls under that Censure, but what is agreeable to Scrip­ture, Truth and sound Reason in this important Point; and in Order to give a Reason to such as asketh us of the Hope that is in us, in Meekness and Fear: ‘First we believe that there is but one Baptism, as well as but one Lord, one Faith, &c. Apology, Page 413.’

‘SECONDLY, that this one Baptism, which is the Baptism of Christ, is not a Washing with, or Dipping in Water, but a being baptised with the Spirit.’

‘THIRDLY, that the Baptism with elementary Water was but a Figure of the spiritual Baptism; and therefore the Figure must give Place to the Substance, and when the Substance is enjoyed, the Figure ceaseth.’

AS to the Truth of our Principles, ‘that there is but one Baptism to continue in the Church of Christ, there needs no other Proof than these Words, Ephesians, iv. 5. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; where the Apostle plainly affirms that as there is but one Lord, one Faith, &c. so there is but one Baptism. Apology 414.’ And the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, being an Ordinance of Christ, by which, according to the Scriptures of [Page 3] Truth, Sinners have been made Saints, [...] [...]greeable to the Principles of the People called Qua [...] the one saving Baptism.

KNOW ye not that the Unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither For­nicators, nor Idolaters, nor Adulterers, nor Effeminate, nor Abusers of themselves with Mankind, nor Thieves, nor Covetous, nor Drunkards, nor Revilers, nor Ex­tortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God, and such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanc­tified, but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians, vi. 9, 10, 11.

AND now according to the Acknowledgement of the nameless Author the Substance of the Controversy depends upon this, Whether Christ instituted a Water Baptism in his Church as a standing Ordinance, or not.

FOR Confirmation of his Water Argument (Page 4) he cites Matthew, xxviii. 19. Go ye there­fore and teach all Nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. From which he boldly asserts two positive Duties are enjoyned, to wit, the Duty of Teaching, and the Duty of Baptising; but the Reader will find that the Text doth not say, teach and baptise (which according to his Definition it should have done) but teach all Na­tions baptising them &c. But herein he explains this Text contrary to most of the approved Authors of the Church of England, for they say it should be, go ye therefore and disciple all Nations by baptising them, &c. well knowing that if they admit of the Word (Teach) according to the Text, it makes against the Baptism of Infants, they being incapable [Page 4] of being Taught; and altho' this Author saith in his Preface, that he hath on Purpose avoided saying any Thing of Infant Baptism: Yet Robert Barclay, with whom he is contending, saith, ‘It is a meer human Tradition, for which neither Precept nor Practice is to be found in all the Scriptures.’

AND indeed that Text will make against him in that there is no Water there mentioned, or that can by any necessary Consequence be deduced thence. And as a certain Author of Note observes, ‘The Commission there to baptise is not into the Water, but into the Name or Power (as the Word frequently signifies in the Scripture) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and this Interpretation is strongly supported by Verse 18. All Power, saith Christ, is given unto me in Heaven and Earth, where Power and Name (Verse 19) are of the same Import: And likewise by Acts, i. 5. John truly, said Christ to his Apostles, baptised with Water, but ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost not many Days hence: Compare with Verse 8. Ye shall re­ceive Power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be Witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost Part of the Earth. Thus far Joseph Besse, from R. C's Lux Evangelica Attestata.

AND as Robert Barclay observes, in Page 437, ‘Altho' it should be granted, that for a Season they did so far mistake the Commission, Matthew xxviii. as to judge that Water belonged to that Baptism (which, however, I find no Necessity of granting;) yet I see not any great Absurdity would thence follow, for it is plain they did mis­take that Commission, as to the main Part of it, [Page 5] for a Season, as where he bids them go teach all Nations, since some Time after they judged it unlawful to teach the Gentiles, yea Peter himself scrupled it, until by a Vision constrained there­unto; for which, after he had done it, he was for a Season (until they were better informed) judged by the rest of his Brethren. Now if the Education of the Apostles, as Jews, and their Propensity to adhere and stick to the Jewish Religion, did so far influence them, that, even after Christ's Re­surrection and the pouring forth of the Spirit, they could not receive or admit of the teaching of the Gentiles, tho' Christ in his Commission to them commanded them to preach to them; what further Absurdity were it to suppose, that thro' the like Mistake, the chiefest of them having been the Disciples of John, and his Baptism being so much prized there among the Jews, that they also took Christ's Baptism (intended by him of the Spirit) to be that of Water which was John's, and accordingly practised it for a Season. It suffices us that if they were so mistaken (tho' I say not that they were so) they did not always remain under that Mistake, else Peter would not have said of the Baptism which now saves, that it is not a putting away of the Filth of the Flesh, which certainly Water Baptism is.’

OUR Opponent, in Page 6 and 7, brings several Scriptures to prove the Descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles at the Day of Pentecost, which in my Opinion, are a Confirmation of the Truth of that which he cannot deny, viz. That Christ's Bap­tism was a Baptism with the Holy Ghost and Fire: But he labors afterwards to confine that glorious [Page 6] Gospel Privilege to the Days of the Apostles only, and to prove that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is now ceased; and the easier to impose upon his Readers, cites much of the 11th Chapter of Acts, till he comes to the 39 Verse, which is, For the Promise is to you and to your Children, and to all that are a-far off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call; not considering likewise, that no Man can (knowing­ly and experimentally) say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost.

I would have the Reader observe his Argument in his 7th Page, where he makes this Remark: ‘Now the Baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus, being one of the Conditions upon which the Holy Ghost is promised, the Condition must be per­formed before the Promise is to be fulfilled.’ But how he will make this Doctrine agree with the Tes­timony of the Apostle Peter, when at the House of Cornelius, for my Part I cannot see; but think that this one Instance is enough to lay waste his whole Building. See Acts, x. 44. While Peter yet spake these Words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word; and after this it was that he commanded them to be baptised in the Name of the Lord, Verse 48. So that it is evident that the Thing pro­mised, viz. the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, was powerfully received by the efficatious Ministry of the Apostle Peter, before the Administration of elementary Water was performed in the Name of the Lord Jesus: And therefore I would hope the Author will take Heed least he be found darkening Council with Words without true Knowledge, and not only not entering himself but hindering those that are about to enter.

[Page 7]THAT the Samaritans were baptised with a different Baptism from that of the Holy Ghost, as our Op­ponent saith, Page 8, we freely grant; and that it was such a Baptism as fell short of giving the Answer of a good Conscience in the Sight of God, appears very plain in the same Chapter, from the Instance of Simon. For notwithstanding he was baptised with Water, yet Peter saith to him, Acts, viii. 23. I perceive thou art in the Gall of Bitterness and Bond of Iniquity. Now if this Water Baptism had had that Virtue in it, which this Author hereafter urges from the Ex­ample of the River Jordan, in the Case of Naaman the Assyrian, I should think that it would have broken Simon's Bond of Iniquity and taken away his Gall of Bitterness, which it seems it did not, and therefore cannot be the Baptism commanded; be­cause according to Mark, xvi. 16. He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved; and to say that he was in a State of Salvation, and yet in the Bond of Iniquity at the same Time, would be a Contradic­tion in Terms.

AS to what this Author saith, Page 9 and 10, concerning Philip's baptising the Eunuch with Water, take the Reply of Josiah Foster, in the Quaker's An­swer to the Norfolk Letter, Page 47. ‘That Philip baptised the Eunuch with Water we question not, but that he baptised him in Pursuance to Christ's Command, Matthew xxviii. we do not believe can ever be proved. It seems most probable by the concurring Circumstances to have been in Relation to John's Dipensation. First, it does not appear that the Action sprang from any Motion in Philip, but from the Eunuch's Request: See here is Water, what hindreth me to be baptised? Which Words [Page 8] shew that the Eunuch understood that Water Bap­tism was then in Use, which he well might being himself a Proselyte to the Jewish Religion, on the Account of which he had then been at Jerusalem, where he could not easily miss of being informed of the so noted Administration of Water Baptism by John the Baptist. And it is evident that John's Baptism was in Practice a long Time after that. See Acts, xix. 3. Secondly, the prerequisite Qua­lifications for the Reception thereof agrees with that of John's: A Belief in Christ was the Terms upon which the Eunuch was baptised: When John baptised he said unto the People that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. Acts, xix. 4. Thirdly, Philip's answering so cooly in the permissive Form [Thou mayest] denotes it to be a Matter of In­difference, and not that which Christ had so so­lemnly enjoyned. Matthew, xxviii. 19. and Mark, xvi. 16.’

AS to the Case of Paul, mentioned Page 10, after his Conversion, Acts, ix. I would have the Reader observe how the Author, in Order to evade the Scope of the Text, leaves out Verse 17, where it is said, And Annanias went his way, and entered into the House, and putting his Hands on him, said Brother Saul, the Lord (even Jesus that appeared to thee in the Way as thou camest) hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy Sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. From which it is evident that Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost by Virtue of this Message, and Annanias, who was not one of the twelve Apostles, was made the Instrument. But the Author has, in the Margin, referred the Reader to Gallatians i. 11. [Page 9] to 17. which I hope was not done with Design to pervert Paul's Meaning, but to draw from thence some Pretence of Argument: Tho' he must be a weak Reader who cannot see his Confusion when Paul's Words are fairly stated; Verse 11 and 12. But I certifie you Brethren that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after Man; for I neither received it of Man, neither was I taught it but by the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Which Text is very plain that Paul here spake positively of his Commission to preach the Gospel, and it hath no Reference to the Manner in which he was baptised.

AS to what he urges, Page 11, of Peter's baptis­ing the House of Cornelius with Water, after they had received the Holy Ghost, he must have forgot his Assertion in Page 7, where he makes a being baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus so necessary a Condition of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost that it must be performed before the Promise is to be fulfilled. For here it is evident they had received the Promise, viz. the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, before they were baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus.

AND is it not manifest, from this Text, to every unprejudiced Reader, that Water Baptism is not necessary to Salvation; for it is undeniable that when they had received the Holy Ghost they were in a State of Salvation, and Water Baptism, with which they had not been baptised, could not put them in that State.

AND observe, the Apostle puts the Question, Can any Man forbid, &c. and that being an Appeal to the Judgement of Men, concerning the Fitness or Unfitness of the Thing, one would think he would [Page 10] not have done it had it been a plain and positive Duty; which appears to me a good Argument that this cannot be the Baptism enjoined, Matthew xxviii. But that the being baptised in the Name of the Lord was no other than John's Baptism we shall endeavour to make appear.

THE Author, Page 11, cites Acts xix. 2, &c. and from thence attempts to prove three different Bap­tisms, viz. First, John's; secondly, In the Name of the Lord; and thirdly, The Baptism with the Holy Ghost. And as he has made Choice of that of being baptised in the Name of the Lord, for his Foundation to build his Argument upon, for a Water Baptism to remain a standing Ordinance in the Church, by Virtue of a Command of Christ, I shall pro­duce sundry Authorities taken from Josiah Foster, Page 64, &c. ‘To make appear that a being bap­tised in the Name of the Lord was understood to be no other than that of John's Baptism;' Am­brose says, John, baptised in the Name of Christ, not in his own Name, for the Remission of Sins.' Gregory, Bishop of Neocaesarea, who flourished in the Beginning of the third Century, maintains in his Exposition of Matthew iii. 14. 'That John baptised in the Name of Jesus.' Du Viel, on Acts xix. 5. Tertullian makes John's Baptism and what the Apostles used the same. Calvin saith, 'That both John and the Apostles baptised in the Name of Christ; for (says he) the diverse Hands where­with it is administred makes not the Baptism di­verse, but the same Doctrine shews it to be the same Baptism: John and the Apostles agreed in one Doctrine; both baptised unto Repentance; both for the Remission of Sin; both in the Name of Christ. Instit. Lib. iv. Chap. xv. Sect. 7.’

[Page 11]DOCTOR Willet, speaking of the Ephesians, Acts xix. 4, 5. says, ‘They had received the Baptism of John, which was nothing but to be baptised in the Name of Jesus. Synop. Papismi. Page 585. Ibid. John used the same Form in baptising which the Apostles did; they baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus, Acts ii. 38. and so did John.

DOCTOR Fulk, on Acts xix. 4. says, ‘They that heard John's Doctrine were baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus.’ See also Doctor Lightfoot's Harmony, Page 15 and 105.

NEITHER can the Baptism, used by the Apostles, in the Name of the Lord Jesus, be the Baptism commanded by Christ, Matthew xxviii. because the Form is wanting. ‘It being essential to Christian Baptism (says Doctor Burkett, on Acts xix.) to baptise in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.’

AND the common Prayer-Book, towards the Con­clusion of what relates to private Baptism, signifies, ‘That the Form in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are essential Parts of Baptism.’

Josiah Foster, in his before mentioned Discourse, Page 73, in Answer to an Opposer much in the same Strain with this Author, hath this Remark: ‘For as much then as upon an impartial Examination, it ob­viously appears not only consistent with the holy Writ but also correspondent with the express Doc­trine of the Church of England, as laid down by sundry of her apologetical Theologists, and other Protestant Writers, that the Water Baptism which the Apostles used was no other than that of John the Baptist; and that it is too apparent to be de­nied (even as this Author himself allows) that the [Page 12] Baptism of John is abolished, it therefore naturally follows, as an undeniable Consequence, from the the Premises, that that Baptism which the Apostles used is abolished likewise.’

WHEREFORE, upon the whole, I doubt not but it will be plain to every unprejudiced Reader, that this Author, by his maintaining the Abolition of John's Baptism, has quite done the Business of Water Baptism for ever, and laid his own Structure as prostrate as ever the Image of Dagon lay before the Ark of God.

THE Author asserts, in Page 12, that Robert Barclay, in his Apology, Page 431, acknowledges that the Word baptise ‘always signifies in Scripture a being baptised with Water, and not with the Spirit, when it stands singly and without other Words to distinguish the particular Baptism with the Holy Ghost.’ But as I have examined that Page and can find nothing that will bear that Construction, I shall return it upon him as a false Accusation till he makes it fairly appear.

HE has risen to a great Height, Page 14, even to assert that Christ's Baptism was a Water Baptism as had been and would be further proved; which, if he means elementary Water, appears to me to be a great Presumption▪ but, for the Satisfaction of the Reader, let us examine his Proofs, as referred to in the Margin: The first is Acts, ii. 28. Thou hast made known to me the Ways of Life; thou shalt make me full of Joy with thy Countenance. This hath not the least Shadow of Proof in it, but quite the contrary, as it refers to inward Communion with God.

HIS second Proof is Mark, xvi. 16. He that be­lieveth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that be­lieveth [Page 13] not shall be damned. Which will be of no Service to support his Argument, unless he can prove the Baptism herein mentioned to be a Water Baptism. But it is evident to me that this Text ought not to be understood of Water Baptism, from the following Considerations: First, the Case of Simon, mentioned before, who was, notwithstanding his being baptised with Water, left in the Gall of Bitterness and Bond of Iniquity. As to the Author's Reply to this Argu­ment, in his Treatise, it will be answered in its proper Place. Secondly, that of Peter in his first Epistle, iii. 21. The like Figure whereunto 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. And as elementary Water can only wash the Filth of the Flesh, but not give the Answer of a good Conscience, so the Baptism which saves must be that which will wash the Heart from Wickedness. Jeremiah, iv. 14. O Jerusalem wash thine Heart from Wickedness, that thou mayest be saved.

THAT the Baptism of John had God for its Author we agree with our Opponent, Page 15, and that it was preparatory to Christ: And we further agree with him that it is now ceased, as has been observed before.

THAT the Baptism of Christ hath not only God for its Author, but was instituted for much higher and more excellent Ends, we also heartily agree; but that it was with outward Water he has not yet proved, and therefore we shall deny his Assertion in that Respect, as it would greatly tend to eclipsing the glorious Gospel Dispensation.

[Page 14]AND that Baptism which is to continue in the Church of Christ to the End of the World, and which he will accompany with his Presence, must necessa­rily be with the Holy Ghost and Fire; as that alone purifies the Heart, and effectually cleanses from former Defilements, and puts Mankind into a State of Salvation, by becoming true Members of that mystical Body, of which Christ is the Head, thro' Sanctification of the Spirit of God the Father: With­out unnecessarily running Men and Women into that frequent Presumption, of promising that for others which they acknowledge they cannot do for themselves, when they stand as God-Fathers and God-Mothers, in executing the Ceremony of Water Baptism, according to what the Church of England requires.

I agree with the Author, Page 16, that the Ends for which the Baptism of Christ and that of John were instituted are quite different, and that they can­not be the same Baptisms; but that they were both of Water he has not yet proved, without his bare Assertion can be taken for Proof. And that the Difference between these two Baptisms, both in Sub­stance and Effect, is very great, will plainly appear, by considering John's to be elementary, Christ's to be spiritual; the one to be preparatory to Christ's Dispensation and figurative of his Baptism, and the other to be the inward Purgation of the Soul from Sin, by the cleansing Virtue of the Holy Spirit.

THE Author, Page 16, brings what he calls a most familiar Instance of entering into three Cove­nants, and sealing them all with Wax, which, in the Conclusion, that he confesseth he would willingly have excused himself the Trouble of stating. ‘But [Page 15] as those who deny Water Baptism have confounded this Distinction and complicated all Water Bap­tisms, so as if they were one and the same, and not to be distinguished, he could not allow himself to pass it by altogether.’ And so by the Way he asserts three different Baptisms, and that Water is the Wax in all of them, as if he intended to impose upon his Readers by taking the Point in Dispute for granted, viz. That Christ's Baptism is a Water Baptism, without one clear Scripture Proof: So that Reader, if thou wilt believe him, thou must rely upon his own bare Assertion, notwithstanding it contradicts the Scriptures of Truth, and the Judgement of several approved Writers of the Church of England, for which he would make the World believe that he is now become an Advocate.

WE deny his Assertion that Water is the Wax in these three Baptisms, seeing he intends Christ's to be one of them; and he might have spared his Pains, and shuned running into so great an Absurdity.

AND now I would have the Reader take Notice, that this Author, Page 18, is going about to prove a Difference between the Baptism ordained by Christ, as a standing Ordinance in his Church, and the Bap­tism of the Holy Ghost, which, if he should do, the whole Point must be given up to him; and most of the Writers upon the Subject of Baptism may put their Hands to their Mouths and say, That he has done more than ever could be done before.

BUT as the Subject is very important, and ought not to be handled carelesly, it will be very proper for us to take good Heed that he doth not impose upon us, by endeavouring to limit the Dispensations of the Most High to Mankind. That the Baptism [Page 16] of Christ was with the Holy Ghost and Fire, is too evident to be denied; and he himself cites several Places of Scripture to prove it; but then endeavours to confine this Privilege to the Days of the Apostles only. Which is a taking away the Key of Know­ledge, and falling into the two Evils complained of, of old: Jeremiah, ii. 13. They have forsaken me the Fountain of living Waters, and hewed them cut Cisterns, broken Cisterns, that can hold no Water. Now to know whether the pouring forth of the Spirit, on the Day of Pentecost, was an Accomplishment, according to this Author (by which I suppose he means a finishing or ending) of the Prophecy of the Prophet Joel; or whether it had only fallen out at that Time, and upon those Persons, agreeable to what that Pro­phet had foretold should come to pass in the latter Days upon all the Church of Christ, it will be ne­cessary to have the Words of Peter fairly stated: Acts, ii. 16, 17, 18. But this is that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel, and it shall come to pass in the last Days saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all Flesh; and your Sons and your Daughters shall prophecy, and your young Men shall see Visions, and your old Men shall dream Dreams, and on my Servants, and on my Handmaids I will pour out in those Days of my Spirit, and they shall prophecy: And in Verse 39, before cited, For the Promise is to you, and to your Children, and to all that are a-far off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. So that the pouring forth of the Spirit, even in Peter's Judgement, must be the Privilege of every Christian. Yet this Author affirms, Page 19, That this amaz­ing and miraculous Effusion of the Holy Ghost is expresly said by St. Peter to be the Accomplishment [Page 17] of Joel's Prophecy. If he had not intended here to mislead the Reader, he might have kept to the Words of the Text, This is that which was spoken, &c. and not brought a false Charge against the Apostle Peter, in rendering it an Accomplishment, &c. but it suited his Purpose here to evade the Scope of the Text.

AND in Order to confine the Baptism with the Holy Ghost to the Days of the Apostles, and to ex­clude it after, he tells us the Meaning thereof, is, being endowed with extraordinary and supernatural Gifts; such as a Power to work Miracles, speak with Tongues, &c. And this he saith, Page 20, ‘will be more manifest by considering the Scriptures which speak of those, who, after their Conversion to Christianity, were baptised with the Holy Ghost.’ Herein the Author seems hard to be understood, without he looks upon Believing and Conversion to be the same. It is said indeed of those Samaritans that they believed Philip preaching; but that they were converted before they were baptised with the Holy Ghost, I do not find, and believe he never will be able to prove it.

AS to his insisting upon Miracles, see 1 Corinthians xiv. 22. Wherefore Tongues are for a Sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not. And that he may see how he is joining Papists against Protestants, I would have him read The Protestant Answered, in Barclay's Apology, Page 296, viz. ‘That we need not Miracles, because we preach no new Gospel, but that which is already confirmed by all the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles; and that we offer nothing but that which we are ready and able to confirm by the Testimony of the Scrip­tures, which both already acknowledge to be true.’

[Page 18]AS to his Arguments concerning the Samaritans being visibly baptised with the Holy Ghost, in the Sight of Simon, where he queries, ‘If the Gift of the Holy Ghost was not visible, how could Simon see it?’ I shall answer him, in his own Words, in the same and the next Page, who asketh, ‘How did those of the Circumcision know that the Holy Ghost was fallen on the Gentiles? Why they heard them speak with Tongues, by which visible Evidence they were convinced that the Gentiles had received the Gift of the Holy Ghost; by some such like Evidence was Simon also convinced that the Samaritans had received the Gift of the Holy Ghost:’ Herein the Author has fully answered his own Objection to my Satisfaction. But it looks to me as if he had forgo which Side of the Question he was of, or else he would not have contradicted himself in such a Manner.

THE Author, again insisting, that being baptised with the Holy Ghost always signifies, in Scripture, the being endowed with some extraordinary and wonderful Gift; such as a Power to work Miracles, to speak with Tongues, to prophecy, &c. In Order to make sure▪ Work of it, that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost has long since ceased, he saith, Page 21, that the Promise of Christ was fully accomplished be­fore the Apostles departed from Jerusalem; not con­sidering how weak, and indeed ridiculous this Doc­trine of his own Brain must make the Practice of the Church of England appear in the Judgement of all such as consider it. For when the Priest admi­sters Baptism he saith, ‘I beseech you to call upon God the Father, thro' our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous Mercy he would grant to this Child that Thing which by Nature it cannot have, [Page 19] that he may be baptised with Water and the Holy Ghost. Which Prayer, if they that use it are of the Opinion of this Author, must be Sin; because it cannot be of Faith.

AND that he may see his Emptiness, in his new stated Antichristian-Plea against the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, I would have him consider candidly the following Citations of Josiah Foster, in his Book mentioned before, Page 175. ‘The spiritual Bap­tism is that which Christ daily baptiseth all that willingly receive him, says Chrysostom: That which baptiseth our Spirits, says an antient and learned Author: That which regenerates and renews the Hearts of the Elect, saith Piscator: That which cleanses the Faithful from Sin, saith Alapide: That which washes the Soul as Water doth the Body, saith Calvin: That which purges the Conscience, says the learned Peters: That which kindles Zeal in our Hearts, says Doctor Willet: That which is necessary to Salvation, says Doctor Fulk: That which purges our Lusts and Corruptions, says Pool: That which consumes the Dross, saith Henry: Makes Partakers of the Adoption of the Sons of God, says the famous Stevens: The only necessary Bap­tism, according to Walter Brute: That wherewith Christ baptises all that come to him, saith Bishop Taylor: What the Common-Prayer-Book directs to pray for: That which only saves, says Doctor Burket: And without which none can be saved, according to the Assembly of Divines: That whereby we are all ingrafted into, or made Members of that mystical Body of Christ, agreeable to the Apostle, 1 Corinthians xii. 13.’ Here is such a [Page 20] Cloud of Witnesses against him that it is high Time for him to acknowledge, that he hath uttered Words without true Knowledge.

IN the Bottom of Page 22, this Author asserts that no Person, but the Apostles themselves, could be the instrumental Cause of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost; but I have before shewn, that Annanias, who was not one of the twelve Apostles, was the Instru­ment to Paul's being baptised with the Holy Ghost; which doth evidently appear by Acts ix. 17. And Annanias went his way, and entered into the House, and putting his Hands upon him said, Brother Saul, the Lord (even Jesus that appeared unto thee in the Way as thou camest) hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy Sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. If he should say that this is only a single Instance, I answer, that one single Instance, supported by un­deniable Authority, is sufficient to overthrow his whole Building, as it stands upon so sandy a Foun­dation; and I hope there are but few Members of the Church of England, who are serious in their Re­ligion, that will venture to join with him.

BUT least he should become wiser in his own Conceit than seven Men that can render a Reason, I shall add some further Considerations, taken out of Josiah Foster, Page 168, ‘That this Doctrine is not inconsistent with, but agreeable to what several Doctors of the Church of England have taught. Doctor Hammond holds that Christ's Ministers were impowered to communicate spiritual Gifts: See his Paraphrase and Annotations on Acts i. 5, 11, 38. viii. 17. Romans i. 11, 12. Doctor Burkett, on Acts ix. 17. asserts, That Annanias, tho' but an ordinary and private Christian, yet had Power [Page 21] to confer the Holy Ghost: And on John vii. 38. He says Christ and his Spirit are a living Fountain whose Waters never fail; they are not a Water Brook, but a Spring of Waters; we shall never miss of the Waters of Life, if we seek unto, and wait upon Christ for them, for, If we believe on him, out of our Bellies shall flow Rivers of living Waters, sufficient for ourselves, and therewith to refresh others.’ Which (I think) is, in Effect, to say the Ministers shall baptise with the Spirit.

SEVERAL Pages of this Author's Treatise seem, in my Opinion, to be little else but the Product of his own Imaginations, to limit the Baptism with the Holy Ghost to the Apostles only; and his Arguments will amount to little more than this: That the Apostles were sent for to those that were lately convinced of the Chris­tian Religion, and that upon the laying on of their Hands the Holy Ghost was given, or fell on them; but how this doth limit that Favor to the Apostles only doth not yet appear, but quite the contrary, in the Case of Annanias beforementioned. And that the Author may see how ticklish he stands, I shall add to the foregoing Authorities, as a full Answer to what he has asserted on this Head, an excellent Passage of Bishop Taylor, who speaking concerning Matthew iii. 2. He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and Fire, says, ‘Altho' this was literally ful­filled in Pentecost, yet morally there is more in it, for it is the Sign of the Effects of the Holy Ghost, and his Productions on the Soul; and it was an Excellency of our Saviour's Office that he baptises all that come to him with the Holy Ghost and Fire. For so St. John, preferring Christ's Mission and Office before his own, tells the Jews (not [Page 22] Christ's Disciples) that Christ shall baptise them with Fire and the Holy Ghost, that is, all that come to him, as John the Baptist did, with Water.’ Libert. of Proph. Page 231.

THE Authorities before mentioned are so far from confining the Baptism of the Holy Ghost to those extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit bestowed on Particu­lars in the Apostles Time, as that of Tongues, heal­ing the Sick, raising the Dead, &c. that they una­nimously make it to be that Gift, or Measure of the Holy Spirit, which regenerates and renews the Heart, purges the Conscience, cleanses from Sin, illuminates the Mind, kindles Zeal and Love both towards God and our Neighbour, warms and influences the Heart with a Sense of God's Love, raises spiritual Habits in the Soul, &c. Nay, in fine, they seem to ascribe thereto the whole Work of Regeneration and Sancti­fication produced in the Soul from a State of Nature to a perfect Man in a State of Grace.

THAT the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is not ceased, the many excellent Effects and Operations which are appropriate thereunto sufficiently demon­strate; for take away these and Christianity itself ceaseth. Wherefore if this Author will abide by his Assertion, that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is ceased, he must renounce all the before cited Autho­rities (and lay by his Common-Prayer-Book, since it teacheth to pray for the Baptism of the Holy Ghost) and thereby, at once, declare himself to be neither Roman-Catholic, Church of England-Man, Presby­terian, nor Anabaptist, since this dark Notion will not agree with the Judgement of either of the before­mentioned Communities.

[Page 23]FROM whence this Author has imbibed such a Notion about the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, as its being ceased, seems strange; but as it is such an antiscriptural and antichristian Doctrine, it is very necessary to be expelled the Regions of Christianity. But is there not Reason to fear, that his Envy against the Baptism of the Holy Ghost proceeds from the same Spirit that caused Saul's Anger to burn so hot against David, when he said to Jonathan, 1 Samuel xx. 31. As long as the Son of Jesse liveth thou shalt not be established nor thy Kingdom. For he no Doubt foresaw, that his new-found Water Baptism could not be established, without disannulling that of the Holy Ghost and Fire; but his Endeavour to effect that, has run him into great Absurdities. For is it not surprising, that a Man professing himself to be a Member of the Church of England, should tell the World, in Print, that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is long since ceased; when at the same Time, not only the Rubrick of the said Church enjoins every Congregation, wherever the Common-Prayer-Book takes Place, at the Administration of public Baptism, to pray for the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, but also since several learned Bishops, Theologists, and approved Authors of most Christian Societies, are so pathetic, clear, and express in maintaining the Continuance of the same, as a Thing absolutely necessary for every true Believer to experience, in Order to their eternal Salvation.

'TIS indeed strange that Men in their right Senses, should lose themselves so in Confusion, that whilst they oppose the religious Principles of others, they should proclaim themselves Antagonists to the chief Doctrines of their own Church.

[Page 24]THE Premises duly considered, I doubt not but it will appear plain to every unbiassed Reader, that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is so far from being ceased, that it is that whereby Christ our Lord bap­tises all his Disciples, every true Christian, and with­out which none can be saved; and considering it as such, 'tis certainly most agreeable to conclude, that that was the very Baptism commanded, Matthew xxviii. 19.

AND moreover, since this Author, Page 27, would make the (supposed) Cessation of the Spirit's Bap­tism a decisive Argument to prove that the Baptism enjoined, Matthew xxviii. was a Water Baptism: The Proof of the Non-Cessation or Continuance of the Spirit's Baptism must, by the same Parity of Reason, be a decisive Argument to prove that the Baptism commanded, Matthew xxviii. is that of the Spirit, especially seeing there is but one Baptism to continue in the Church of Christ, Ephesians iv. 5.

THIS Author saith, Page 28, That he agrees with Robert Barclay in his Argument drawn from Ephe­sians iv. 5. that there is but one Baptism; but saith, he cannot agree with him that this one Baptism (which is the Baptism of Christ) is not a Washing with Water but a being baptised with the Spirit. And yet he allows, that the one Baptism mentioned Ephesians iv. 5. is the same with the Baptism com­manded, Matthew 21. and that it is the Baptism of Christ, he don't deny; so that as it hath been proved already that the Baptism of Christ is that of the Spirit, not only according to Scripture, but by the Testi­mony of several famous Writers, there needs no other Proof now than this, That the one Baptism is not a Water Baptism, and then his whole Building [Page 25] must of Consequence fall to the Ground. And altho' he saith that Robert Barclay's Arguments are not satisfactory to him, yet as they are so clear and evi­dent they may prove satisfactory to others: Apology, Page 419. ‘That the one Baptism of Christ is not a Washing with Water, appears from 1 Peter iii. 21. The like Figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away the Filth of the Flesh but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God) by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. So plain a Definition of Baptism is not to be found in all the Bible, and therefore seeing it is so plain it may very well be preferred to all the coined Defini­tions of the Schoolmen. The Apostle tells, first negatively, what it is not, viz. not a putting away of the Filth of the Flesh; then surely it is not a Washing with Water, since that is so. Secondly, he tells us, affirmatively, what it is, viz. the Answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Where he affirmatively defines it to be the Answer (or Con­fession as the Syriack Version hath it) of a good Conscience. Now this Answer cannot be but where the Spirit of God hath purified the Soul, and the Fire of his Judgment hath burnt up the un­righteous Nature; and those in whom this Work is wrought, may be truely said to be baptised with the Baptism of Christ, i. e. of the Spirit and of Fire.’

BUT this Author, Page 34, seems to be offended with Barclay for saying that this Place is the plainest Definition of Baptism in the Bible. This he denies, and proposes, as equally plain, sundry other Passages of Scripture; as John iii. 5. Except a Man be born [Page 26] of Water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. And Titus iii. 4, 5. But after the Kindness and Love of God our Saviour towards Man, appeared not by Works of Righteousness which we have done, but according to his Mercy he saved us by the Washing of Regeneration and Renewing of the Holy Ghost. And then he labors to maintain that all these Scriptures are agreeable to those Expressions of the Church Catechism, The outward and visible Sign, and the inward and spiritual Grace. And then men­tions Mark xvi. 16. and saith, Belief, or being born of the Spirit, or the Answer of a good Conscience, or the Renewing of the Holy Ghost, or the inward and spiritual Grace, is made one of the most ne­cessary Parts; and the being born of Water, or the putting away the Filth of the Flesh, or the wash­ing of Regeneration, or the outward and visible Sign, is made the other and less necessary Part of the same Baptism. Now I would have the Reader consider how this Author has been laboring to prove the Bap­tism of the Holy Ghost to be long since ceased; and yet now he allows the Renewing of the Holy Ghost to be the most necessary Part of the Baptism of Christ (which is granting the Point to us, that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is not ceased) and that at most Baptism with Water is but one of the less necessary Parts of Baptism.

AND since he has been so kind to furnish me with the before-mentioned Scriptures, and allow them to be equally plain and descriptive of the same Thing with that, 1 Peter iii. 21. mentioned by Robert Bar­clay, I shall now endeavour to shew that they are good Arguments for us against him. See Joseph Besse, Page 293. ‘The Washing of Regeneration and [Page 27] the Renewing of the Holy Ghost mentioned Titus iii. 5. signifying but one and the same purifying Virtue of the Spirit: An Expression like that in John iii. 5. Except a Man be born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.' Which Text Calvin thus interprets: "'Tis an Error in those, who, because they hear the Name of Water, think that Kind of Baptism to be made mention of in this Place. For when Christ had explained to Nicodemus the Corruption of Nature, and taught him the Necessity of a new Birth, because Nico­demus dreamt of being born again bodily, Christ declares in this Place the Manner how God doth regenerate us, to wit, by Water and the Spirit, as if he had said by the Spirit, which in cleansing and watering the Souls of the Faithful performs as it were the Office of Water: I take therefore Water and the Spirit simply for the Spirit, which is as Water; nor is this any new Way of speak­ing, for it is like that which is used in Matthew iii. He that cometh after me, he it is that baptiseth with the Holy Ghost and Fire. So then as to baptise with the Holy Ghost and Fire is to give the Holy Ghost, which in Regeneration hath the Office and Nature of Fire; so to be born again of Water and the Spirit, is nothing else but to receive that Virue of the Spirit which effecteth the same Thing in the Soul as Water doth in the Body. I know that some otherwise interpret that Text, but that this is the genuine Sense I have no Doubt or Question.’

THE Author, in Page 30, says, ‘It has been proved that Christ did institute a Water Baptism different from John's;’ and from this Supposition [Page 28] denies Robert Barclay's Argument to prove the Doc­trine contained in the Proposition; but where, or what his Proof is, I cannot find, without his bare Assertion (from the Imagination of his own Brain, in Opposition to most or all that have wrote on the Subject of Water Baptism) is taken for Proof, which, in my Opinion, proves nothing: And therefore he might have forborn quarrelling with Robert Barclay, Page 31, for calling John's Baptism the Water Baptism, in as much as it hath not, nor cannot be proved from Scripture, that there was more than two Water Baptisms then in Use, viz. that of the Jews and John's. And that Christ's Baptism is not John's, we freely grant; but that Christ's Baptism, com­manded as a standing Ordinance in his Church, is a Water Baptism, we do deny; and have sufficiently proved the contrary. And even according to this Author's own Doctrine, if he should have his Argu­ments before cited allowed him, the most that he can make of Water Baptism is, that it is but one of the less necessary Parts of the one true Baptism which saves. And that he could not do without running into that gross Absurdity (often attempted by others when pinched) of taking the Baptism of the Spirit for one Part, and elementary Water for the other Part, to make the one Baptism.

BUT as Josiah Foster observes, Page 123, ‘It is an incontestible Point, that the Baptism with Water and the Baptism with the Holy Ghost are two different Baptisms and distinct from each other; and the Apostle asserts no more than one Baptism in the Christian Church, Ephesians iv. 5. it must be allowed to be one of the two.’

[Page 29] ‘To maintain it to be the first, viz. Water Bap­tism, would be diametrically opposite to Matthew iii. 2. Mark i. 8. Luke iii. 16, 17. and John i. 33. which Texts declare Christ's Baptism to be the Second, viz. that of the Spirit; and it would be erroneous to suppose the Apostle intended any other but Christ's Baptism.’

BUT it is worthy of Observation, that this Author has run himself into a Round of Confusion: First, to plead that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost has long since ceased: Secondly to argee with Robert Barclay that there is but one Baptism: Thirdly, to agree that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is the most necessary Part of the Baptism of Christ, and that Water is one of the less necessary Parts of the same Baptism of Christ: And Fourthly, to say that he has proved that Christ did institute a Water Baptism, different from John's, as a standing Ordinance in his Church; so now he has need of equivocal Ar­guments of which he has falsly accused Robert Barclay.

IS it not a Pity, that a Man should presume to appear in Print, on a Point of so great Importance as he acknowledges this to be, who is so much a Stranger to the Nature of the Cause which he un­dertakes to vindicate, that he involves himself in such Absurdities that cannot be reconciled, which, if exposing of himself was all, it would not be of so bad Consequence; but it may have a Tendency to ensnare others, and lead the Weak into such dark Notions, respecting Baptism, as may draw them from adhering to the Truth; by which he will become guilty of causing the Blind to wander out of their Way.

[Page 30]THE Author, in Page 33, says, 'Enough has been said already about Robert Barclay's confounding the Distinction between Water Baptisms, by his using the Word the Water Baptism, instead of John's Baptism;' but I see no Reason but that Robert Bar­clay meant any Water Baptism, and had no View of equivocating with the Water Baptism he has pre­tended to set up under the Name of Christ's Water Baptism, and I apprehend that Robert Barclay's Arguments stand good against him.

AND his own Arguments will resolve in this, that at most Water Baptism is but the less necessary Part of the one saving Baptism; and as he grants John's Water Baptism to be ceased, we shall deny any Water Baptism to be to continue as a standing Ordinance in the Church of Christ, by Virtue of a Command of Christ. But he observes, in the same and the [...] Page, that as Robert Barclay's other Argument to prove that Christ's Baptism, which now continues is not a Water Baptism, are taken from several Texts of the Epistles of the Apostles, in which are [...] Things hard to be understood; so in Consideration of the Danger of wresting them unto our own Destruction, we must examine them with great Caution lest being led away by the Error of the wicked one we fall from our own Stedfastness. This is indeed very good Caution, and if he had kept to it himself he would not have run into the frequent Perversion I have before shewn.

AND since we are to enter upon the Examination of those Texts with so much Caution, I would have the Reader carefully examine whether he makes [...] Substance of them prove any Thing further than what I have mentioned, viz. That a Belief, or [Page 31] being born of the Spirit, or the Answer of a good Conscience, or a Renewing of the Holy Ghost, or the inward and spiritual Grace, is made one and the most necessary Part; and the being born of Water, or the putting away the Filth of the Flesh, or the Washing of Regeneration, or the outward and visible Sign (which he says are all Phrases of the same Im­port) is made the other and less necessary Part of the same Baptism. And as he allows that that Bap­tism which is by the Renewing of the Holy Ghost, is the most necessary Part of the one Baptism, we shall not allow him the Liberty of confounding that of the Spirit with that of Water. For according to 1 Corinthians xii. 13. By one Spirit are we all baptised into one Body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. But according to this Doctrine it makes the Apostle confused and inconsistent with himself (as our Opponent is) to hold two Baptisms, for it is undeniable that the Apostle here asserted the Baptism of the Spirit. And as Josiah Foster observes, in Page 124, ‘As the Apostle told the Ephesians, there is one Body and one Baptism; so he told the Corinthians, that by one Spirit they were all bap­tised into one Body.’

OUR Opponent saith, Page 35, ‘That these Words of St. Peter prove nothing more than what the other Texts do, viz. That the outward Ad­ministration of Water Baptism is necessary, but not so necessary as the Answer of a good Consci­ence, without which, in the Sight of God, the outward Administration will avail nothing.’ Which indeed would have been a good Confession if he had put the Words not necessary after Water Baptism in­stead of is necessary.

[Page 32]BUT now he proceeds, and says, That Christ who is gone into Heaven hath put that Virtue into Baptism that by it we are saved; so say I: But if he means Water Baptism it is denied, and the Con­trary sufficently proved. The Substance of what remains in the 35 Page, seems to be comprehended in this, That in Order to make Water Baptism a saving Baptism there must first be the Answer of a good Con­science in the Sight of God, by renouncing the Devil, the World, and the Flesh, which, whoever has at­tained to, as it is the Conclusion of the whole Matter, viz. to fear God and keep his Commandments, will see beyond empty Shadows and mere out-side Things, which are not commanded by Christ, nor any ways necessary to Salvation; and will also see his Emptiness in striving to join the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with that of elementary Water.

IN Page 36, our Opponent asserts, that those who say St. Peter's Words, Not the putting away the Filth of the Flesh, &c. are a Negation of Water Baptism, must charge him with a Contradiction, bacause he said, Acts xi. 38. Repent and be baptised every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins; but here I would have the Reader observe, that this Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ has already been proved, by undoubted Authorities, to be John's, which this Author himself acknowledges to be ceased. And the other Words of Peter, Not the puting away the Filth of the Flesh, were penned about twenty Years after, by which Time the Apostles (whatever they had thought to the contrary before) were no Doubt fully convinced that Water Baptism was not necessary to Salvation, or Peter would not have been so express and clear in the Point. And let our Op­ponent [Page 33] make appear, by any Text of Scripture, that ever any of the Apostles baptised with Water after the penning of this Epistle of Peter.

BUT before I leave this Paragraph I would willingly query with the Author concerning those Words of Peter Acts ii. 38. Repent and be baptised for the Remissi­on of Sins; whether this Baptism is the same which is practised by the Church of England? And if it is, whether Infants are capable of Repentance, or of pro­mising that they will repent; or whether they have any Sin to repent of? Seeing where there is no Law there is no Transgression. And our Saviour said of such is the Kingdom of God, and proposes little Children to us as Patterns of Innocency, agreeable to that Ex­pression in the Common Prayer-Book: How he ex­horteth all Men to follow their Innocency, i. e. little Children's Innocency.

OUR Opponent will not admit, Page 37, of the Sufficiency of that Argument, viz. That, ‘be­cause many are baptised with Water that are not saved, therefore Water Baptism is not the Baptism meant by Peter. But being here met with in a narrow Place, and like Baalam still willing to rush on, let his Way be never so perverse in the Eyes of the Lord: He stuffs two or three Pages chief­ly with this Argument, That altho' many are bap­tised with Water that are not saved thereby, yet it is no more an Argument against Water Baptism than for those who had been baptised with the Holy Ghost and fell away from that State, to be brought as an Argument against the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. According to which, in Page 41 and 42, he saith, ‘If there was a Symon who was baptised with Water whose Heart was afterwards found not right in the [Page 34] Sight of God, there was also a Nicholas who was baptised with the Holy Ghost whose Practices and Doctrine were afterwards hated by the beloved Apostle of our Lord;’ and these Comparisons seem to be supposed by him to be equal, which in my Opinion may be easily confuted. For first, we can prove that Simon was in the Bond of Iniquity and Gall of Bit­terness at the Time of his being baptised with Water, by the Testimony of the Apostle Peter, Acts viii. 23. But if he cannot prove that Nicholas was guilty of such Practices, and held such Doctrine as was hateful to the beloved Disciple at the Time of his being bap­tised with the Holy Ghost, I say, that if he cannot make that appear, his Comparison is no way equal. And we have always denied that Doctrine, Once in Grace ever in Grace; but do believe a Possibility of falling from Grace and high Attainments, and that our Safety depends upon a constant Obedience to the righteous Law of God written in our Hearts; and that no Man after he has put his Hand to the Plough and looks back again is fit for the Kingdom of God. Luke ix. 62. So that a Person's falling from Grace of heavenly Attainments is no Argument that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is not Christ's Baptism which is to continue to the End of the World; but a Person's being in the Gall of Bitterness and Bond of Iniquity at the Time of receiving Water Baptism, is an undeniable Proof that People may be admitted to that Ceremony, and yet be far short of acquiring the Answer of a good Conscience thereby; and that Water Baptism cannot be that Baptism mentioned Mark xvi. 10. because Simon both believed and was baptised, notwithstanding which he remained in the [Page 35] Gall of Bitterness and Bond of Iniquity, which is far short of a State of Salvation.

HAVING thus endeavoured to remove this Author's Cavil against Robert Barclay on this Head, I shall insist upon his Arguments being sound and undeni­able until I see them confuted by better Reasons than [...] has offered. And that the Reader may see the Absurdity of his Arguments, Page 39 and 40, where he seems to allow, that those who have been baptised with Water have put on Christ, I shall offer some Observations taken out of Josiah Foster, Page 109, who speaking concerning Galatians iii. 17. For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ; saith, ‘The clearest Way to find out what Baptism the Apostle has relation to here, whether the Baptism of the Spirit or that of Water, is to consider what he means by that rhetorical Phrase, to put on Christ. Beza on Romans xiii. 14. says, "To put on Christ is to possess him, so as to have him in us and us in him." Doctor Hammond ex­pounds it thus, "set yourselves to the Practice of all Christian Purity." Burkett thereon says, "Set the Doctrine and Life of Christ continually before you; follow every Institution and imitate all the Parts of his holy Conversation; even as the Gar­ment is commensurate to the Body." May not the Exposition, saith he, imply that the Soul of Man since the Fall is in a naked State, destitute of those divine Graces of the Holy Spirit which were its original Cloathing in the Day of undefiled Innocency.’

AND as this Author, Page 39, seems also to ex­plain the Meaning of this Text, Know ye not that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were [Page 36] baptised into his Death: Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into Death, that like as Christ was raised up from the Dead by the Glory of the Father, even so we also shall walk in Newness of Life. Romans vi. 3, 4, in Favor of Water Baptism, I shall furnish the Reader with the Judgment of Bishop Taylor on the same Place, taken out of Josiah Foster, Page 113, who says, ‘All this is nothing but Crucifixion of the old Man; a destroying the Body of Sin, that we no longer serve Sin.’ And if so, then it is easily forseen what naturally follows from this Author's Doctrine, viz. That Water Baptism crucifies the old Man, or Nature of the first Adam, destroys the Body of Sin, &c. which is such a whimsical Notion as even a Papist would be ashamed of: So that here is a great Absurdity arising from his Doctrine, and more especially when it is considered that by his own Con­fession the most he can make of Water Baptism is this, that it is but one of the less necessary Parts of the one saving Baptism.

BUT when the Apostle says we are buried with Christ by Baptism into his Death, his Meaning is very obvious, that as Christ's Humanity or Veil of Flesh was crucified and buried, so by Baptism, that is, through the regenerating Power of the Holy Spirit, which washes and sanctifies the Soul, the old Man, the Body of Sin in us, is crucified, destroyed, and as it were laid in the Grave. Then with Respect to our being raised from the Dead by the Glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in Newness of Life; which plainly sets forth that as Christ was raised from the Dead by the glorious Power of the Father, so is our new Man raised to Holiness of Life by the same divine Power or Spirit of God. In [Page 37] short if all this according to the learned Bishop's As­sertion be nothing but Crucifixion of the old Man, destroying the Body of Sin, &c. then most evidently the Baptism which produces such an Effect is nothing else but that of the Spirit, and the very same is to be understood concerning Collosians ii. 12. 13, where the Apostle expresses himself in Terms equivalent to this of Romans vi. 4. As to the Author's Paraphrase on these Texts, what can it be called more properly than a Jargon of Words without Coherence respect­ing the Nature of the Case? Considering that he him­self is obliged to allow that the Renewing of the Holy Ghost is one and the most necessary Part of the true and saving Baptism, Page 34.

THE Author being met with in a narrow Place, as I said before, and sorely pinched, rather than yield to common Justice, has Recourse to the Conclusion of the Harlot, who had no just Claim to the living Child; 1 Kings iii. 26. Let it be neither mine nor thine but divide it. For in the Nature of his Arguments, and by his unequal Comparisons, he has confounded both Baptisms, viz. that of the Spirit as well as that of elementary Water; but then confesses, Page 42, that this Argument is false, which I shall readily grant him; but shall deny him his faint Argument, ‘That Christ's Baptism, instituted as a standing Ordinance in his Church, may be a Water Baptism, notwith­standing some of those who were baptised with it afterwards became wicked Men:’ If he had dealt honestly he should have said were then wicked Men. But the Reader may observe that his confident As­sertions are now come to a may be a Water Baptism, and this I utterly refuse to grant him, without he can bring me into such a Streight, that like the true [Page 38] Mother of the living Child, I should rather chose to see the false Mother have it than that it should divided. But I am confirmed of the Truth of those Expressions quoted by him, The Truth endureth, and is always strong, it liveth and conquereth for ever. 1 Esdras iv. 38.

HE now would insinuate, Page 43, that as soon as the Messias was made known to the World, John's Baptism must cease of Course; and that John's Bap­tism may be the Figure of a Water Baptism instituted by Christ. I answer, that when the Messiah offered up himself upon the Cross he blotted out the Hand Writing of Ordinances, and put an End to Circum­cision and all the Ceremonies of the Law; and he now circumciseth the Hearts of People by which they are made true Jews, whose Praise is not of Men but of God. Romans ii. 29. And yet we find that Circumcision was practised thro' Condescension, after the Assension of our blessed Lord, in the Case of Timothy, and that of Peter's constraining the Gen­tiles to be circumcised; and why might not the Apostles baptise with John's Baptism of Water from the same Motives of Condescension of becoming all Things to all Men, to save some, without giving any more just Argument for Water Baptism to re­main a standing Ordinance in the Church of Christ, than for Circumcision; seeing that the most that can be made of either of them, is this, that they were but Types or Figures to point out the Substance, and where the Substance is enjoyed, now under the Gospel, they are become but like the brazen Serpent, a mere Piece of Brass; which tho' very good in its Time, yet the good King Hezekiah, 2 Kings xviii. 4▪ when he found the People idolizing it, broke it [Page 39] in Pieces; and I take this Water Baptism which this Author seems to be in so much Pain to establish the Necessity of, to have no more Virtue in it than a mere Piece of Brass, a Nehushtan.

AS to John's Baptism being a Figure of a Water Baptism instituted by Christ, I would have the Reader consider what an absurd Notion it must be; seeing Christ's Water Baptism (if we could suppose any such Thing) can be nothing but a Type or Figure, for there is no one I presume so weak as to say it is the Substance: And is there any Sense in these Ex­pressions? A Figure of a Figure, a Type of a Type, or a Shadow of a Shadow. But does it not look as if this Notion proceeded from a Desire of keeping us from the Substance, and ever grasping after Sha­dows.

AS to his Assertion, Page 43, that the Apostles always understood the Command of Christ, Matthew xviii. to mean a Water Baptism, I cannot allow it to be Truth; and herein he may see that it is not beyond Contradiction: I have before shewn that the Text is, Teach all Nations baptising them, &c. which never can fairly be construed to mean two positive Duties (as he before affirms) but simply that as Christ promised his Presence to accompany them in this Service, their Doctrine should be attended with that Power which should prick the Heart, and have in it that baptising Quality (as it was not they that were to speak, but the Spirit of their Father which was in them) that the Holy Ghost should fall on the Hearers by Virtue of their Ministry, as on Cornelius and his House at the preaching of Peter. And so I shall agree with this Author that that Ordinance which Christ has been pleased to institute, and has promised to [Page 40] accompany with the sanctifying Graces of his divine Spirit must be some thing more than a mere carnal and ceremonial, it must be a pure and spiritual Ordi­nance which I do assert to be the Baptism of the Holy Ghost; and deny his Water Arguments as being much beneath the Dignity of a glorious Gospel or spiritual Dispensation.

AND now, friendly Reader, if thy Patience has been sufficient to accompany me in tracing this Author thro' his sometimes one Thing and sometimes another, I doubt not but thou hast, with me, found many In­consistencies, notwithstanding his Learning and Abi­lity as a Man.

BUT let us have a little more Patience and see whether the rest of his Arguments have any more Weight in them.

AS to his Argument, Page 45, concerning the Sameness of the Word in the general Command, Matthew xviii. 19. and in 1 Corinthians i. 17. it can have no more Force to prove these two Baptisms one and the same, than it would to prove all Baptisms alike in the whole Scriptures wherever that Word is made Use of; seeing there are other Words in both Texts sufficient to point out plainly what Kind of Baptism is meant in each. That in Matthew xxviii. is, Teach all Nations baptising them, &c. which, as has been shewn before, signifies a baptising Quality to accompany a true Ministry, and so must be meant of the Spirit of Truth, which leads into all Truth. The other in 1 Corinthians i. is, Christ sent me not to baptise but to preach the Gospel; so that this must be understood of Water Baptism as this Author rightly observes, and therefore it may be safe to con­clude that neither Paul nor any of the Apostles had [Page 41] a Commission to baptise with Water, and what they did in this Respect was in Condescension to the In­fancy of the Times, like that of Circumcision; and herein Paul was nothing behind the chiefest of the Apostles either with Regard to Water Baptism or in Respect of the general Commission in Matthew. For this Author has brought Timothy and the Disciples at Ephesus as Seals that Paul had Power to confer the Baptism of the Holy Ghost: But to make Water Baptism saving would not only make Paul inferior to the rest of the Apostles, but also to accuse him of being guilty of thanking God for having done him so little Service as the baptising so few with Water.

AND I would have the Reader observe how this Author, about the Middle of Page 46, makes an Addition of the Word and baptise, in the general Command, which if allowed would bring a Con­tradiction on Paul, who said Christ sent me not to baptise but to preach the Gospel, 1 Corinthians i. 17. but it has been acknowledged to be a Water Baptism, in this last Place, that Paul meant, which he says he was not sent to baptise with; and the other, in the general Command, has been proved to be the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and such a Baptism as accompanies, or is the Effect of Christ's true Minsters teaching or preaching the Gospel.

THESE Things considered, I doubt not but we are in the Judgment of every unprejudiced Reader, sufficiently freed from the Dilemma this Author would gladly bring us into, and all seeming Contradictions fairly reconciled. For the Reader may see that the Basis or Foundation on which our Opponent's Ar­guments on this Head are built, is th [...] [...]ameness of the Words baptising and baptise, in the two Texts [Page 42] of Scripture, Matthew xxviii. 19. and 1 Corinthians i. 17. But as it has been made appear by plain and express Words in both Texts, that the Baptisms in those Places are different, it removes his Pillar, and so all his Arguments built thereon must of Course fall to the Ground.

BUT this Author has wrested Paul's Meaning, 1 Corinthians i. by adding, Page 47, as tho' they had been Paul's Words; 'I tell you that tho' I have Power to baptise, yet my chief Business is to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. And again after the same Man­ner, Page 48, ‘but tho' it is I that plant or convert you, and Appollos or any other Minister that watereth or baptiseth you, it is Christ that you should call yourselves after, &c. By this Rule of Construc­tion we may wrest the Scriptures to our own De­struction, and by making the inspired Writers say what we please, may pretend to prove the most erro­neous Doctrine from thence.

THIS Author, like the poor ignorant Samaritan Woman, descends to material Water upon the Words Appollos watereth, which shews his Weakness, but being in a great Streight he will catch at any Thing that has the Name of Water: And seeing he is so in Love with Water I shall furnish him with some other Texts of Scripture in which Water is mentioned also, from whence the Reader may have an Opportunity to ob­serve that we can prove a spiritual Water proceeding from the Well of Salvation that shall be drawn with Joy; with which I apprehend Appollos watered as an Instrument; and which they who have once drank of shall never thirst after this Author's elementary Water, or go to him or any in his Spirit to draw. See John iv. 13, 14. Jesus answered unto her (the [Page 43] Samaritan) whosoever drinketh of this Water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the Water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the Water that I shall give him shall be in him a Well of Water springing up into everlasting Life. And again, Chap. vii. Ver. 37. &c. In the last Day, that great Day of the Feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, if any Man thirst let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his Belly shall flow Rivers of living Water. But this he spake of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive; for the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified. But it is evident that before the Time of Appollos's watering the Church Jesus was glo­rified, and the Holy Ghost given; and so Appollos and the other Ministers, being Believers in Christ, watered the Church with living and spiritual Water. And this Author's endeavouring to render it elemen­tary Water is one of the weakest Arguments that I ever saw in Print on the Subject; and so I shall re­ject it as having no Substance.

BUT now he says, Page 49, that Robert Barclay affords him another Argument to prove that Paul's Words cannot be understood in the Sense he contends for: Because he says that those few baptised by Paul were not baptised by Virtue of his apostolic Com­mission, but rather in Condescension to their Weak­ness, even as at another Time he circumcised Timothy. To which our Opponent saith, it not being prohibit­ed, was a Matter of perfect Indifferency, and brings some Reasons for the Policy of it; but saith, as soon as it became a Question of Importance and likely to be hurtful, then the Apostle declared against it. Now what this Author here saith in Regard to Circumcision, [Page 44] may also be the Case with Water Baptism. For, as that was not at that Time prohibited, it was a Mat­ter of Indifferency, and some of the same politic Reasons might be added, as of meeting with less Op­position, &c. and so baptising those few mentioned by the Apostle Paul might be in Condescension, and not by Virtue of his apostolic Commission; but when he saw so bad Use made of Water Baptism, that they distinguished themselves by the Name of those who baptised them, and that it was likely to cause Divi­sions in the Church, it was high Time to take them down a little, and no better Way could this be done than to lessen their Thoughts of that Ceremony on which they so valued themselves, and to tell them plainly that Christ sent him not to baptise, &c. and that he thanked God that he had baptised so few of them.

HE seems to be offended with Robert Barclay, Page 50, and says, but it is insisted on with great Positiveness, that the Text, Matthew xxviii. 19. is not to be understood of baptising with Water; and that the Form of baptising in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, hath [...] Warrant from the Text. To which he saith, when the foregoing Proofs, that the Text Matthew 28. is to be understood of a Water Baptism, are answered, then he will believe these positive Asser­sions, and not before.

ROBERT BARCLAY indeed doth say, in Page 434, ‘That this Scripture is not to be understood of bap­tising with Water; and that the Form of baptising in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, hath no Warrant from Matthew xxviii. 19.’ And this Author accuseth him of de­parting [Page 45] from his own Maxim, laid down not to go from the literal Signification of the Text, without some urgent Necessity forceth thereto; but he thinks that Barclay has broke this Rule, because he argues that the Name of the Lord is often taken in Scrip­ture for something else than a bare Sound of Words or literal Expression, even for his Virtue and Power, as may appear from Psalm liv. 3. Canticles i. 3. Proverbs xviii. 3. and in many other Places. But as this cannot be denied, so I cannot see how Robert Barclay has gone from the literal Signification of the Text; and if this Author will keep so well to the Text as Robert Barclay has done, and prove Water Baptism an Institution of Christ, as a standing Ordi­nance in his Church, by that Text, Matthew xxviii. then I shall yeild the Argument to him. But this he cannot do, and yet will be carping at something, if it be only to amuse others, without the least Proof; for he will find it harder to keep to the literal Sig­nification of that Text and prove Water there men­tioned, than we shall to prove the Holy Ghost there mentioned, which has been already done.

AS to the Baptism which Barclay contends for, into the Virtue and Power of the Father, &c. this Author says if it means any Thing; it must be a being endowed with the Virtue and Power of that Person into whom you are baptised, which he thinks must signify to work Miracles, and if this is not the Mean­ing of the Words he confesses he does not understand the Meaning of them. Now if he will please to read Matthew v. 48. he will find that Christ has said, Be ye perfect even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect; and how this Perfection can be attained without the Virtue and Power of the Father I cannot [Page 46] see: Neither can any partake of the Virtue and Power of the Father but such as are baptised with the Holy Ghost, for it is thereby every Christian becomes Members of the Body or Church of Christ, or in other Words, Branches of him who is the true Vine, this appears to be Robert Barclay's Meaning.

AS to what he calls a very strong Argument, Page 52, deduced from Robert Barclay's own Words, to prove that the Text Matthew xxviii. must mean a Water Baptism, this Author allows that the Apostles did mistake that Part of their Commission in Regard to teaching all Nations, but agrees that as God was pleased in so particular a Manner to remove their Mistake in that Respect, he certainly would have set them right as to the other Part of their Commission which related to baptising, if they had mistaken the Meaning of it. It may not be a-miss here to inform the Reader, that Robert Barclay says in the same Place which this Author is now carping at, Page 438, ‘It sufficeth us that if they were so mistaken (tho' I say not that they were) they did not always re­main under that Mistake, else Peter would not have said of the Baptism which now saves, that it is not a putting away the Filth of the Flesh, which certainly Water Baptism is.’ To which I shall add Paul's declaring that Christ sent him not to bap­tise, 1 Corinthians i. 17. which fully imports that such a Baptism, that he there makes Mention of, was not saving; for we may safely conclude, that if it had been saving or conducive to the Salvation of the Soul the same would have been in Paul's Com­mission. And as this Author has allowed before, that the Baptism alluded to by Paul must be a Water Baptism, has strengthened our Proofs, that if the [Page 47] Apostles were once under such a Mistake concerning Water Baptism, that their Mistake was removed, and their Judgments so clearly informed that they have left many full Proofs in Scripture that the one saving Baptism is that of the Spirit and not elemen­tary Water, which neither this Author nor any other have been ever able to prove.

AND so his high Charge, Page 53, against Robert Barclay, of calling the Veracity and Truth of God in Question, which, to heighten, he compares to the Sin which is not to be forgiven, may be urged with more Force against him than against Robert Barclay, and the Quakers: And he had Need to pray for himself as well as others.

NOW as to his Reason which he calls a prudential one, which is of so great Weight with him, when it is examined the Reader may judge whether it has any Weight at all in it: Since it cannot with any Reason be supposed that Christ has left his Church at such Uncertainties in so important and essential a Point, as he observes himself, in his second Page, this of Baptism is, lest we should be tossed to and fro, and carried about with every Wind of Doctrine; but that we may be ready to give an Answer to every Man that asketh us a Reason of the Hope that is in us: But this prudential Reason would leave us in Uncertainties. And that it cannot be a Sin to use Water Baptism because the Apostles used it, and Peter commanded it; the same Argument might be used with as much Force for Circumcision and the other Jewish Ceremonies to be continued: But the Danger of Sin in this Case of Water Baptism lies in this, that altho' it was good in its Time as a Figure of the Substance, even as the brazen Serpent was a [Page 48] Figure of Christ, yet now by People's putting a Dependance in that for Salvation, and laying hold of the Shadow, they thereby neglect the Substance and are left wandering at Uncertainties. As to what this Author saith in the remaining Part of Page 54, it can be of no Force against us, neither has it any Shew of Reason, being built upon his usual Foun­dation of positive Assertion without Proof. And observe his Assertions:

1st, That Water Baptism is a positive Command of Christ.

2d, That it is one of the Conditions of eternal Sal­vation.

3d, That Christ has promised to accompany it with his divine Presence.

4th, That Peter has declared the Effects of it upon the Soul, viz. That by it we shall obtain Remission of our Sins.

5th, That the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is ceased, Page 52.

6th, That the Renewing of the Holy Ghost is the most necessary Part. And,

7th, That the Baptism with Water is the less neces­sary Part, Page 34.

WHICH if thou canst reconcile, Reader, it is more than I can do.

BUT now as he draws towards a Conclusion he would, I suppose, be understood that God has insti­tuted, by his Son, a Water Baptism which washes the most inveterate and malignant Diseases of the Soul; but adds, by Virtue of the divine Presence of the great Author and Mediator of a new Covenant, and the sanctifying Graces of his holy Spirit accompany­ing the due Administration thereof: Which, with­out [Page 49] he can make a Divorce between the sanctifying Graces of the Holy Spirit and the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, must center in this, that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is the most necessary Part: And then as he says that has long ago ceased, his Building at last is but a mere Babel Tower. But as to that Virtue which he talks of being in Water Baptism, the Multitude of uncleansed Souls who have passed thro' that Administration are most irrefutable Evi­dences of its being an Application of no Value: And how consistent it is with the evangelical Dispensation to suppose that Christ commanded a Duty and the Ser­vice thereof never appear, I leave to the judicious to determine.

AS to his Impartiality here boasted of, I have proved the Contrary by a necessary Consequence, viz. his fre­quent Perversions and Additions, of not only Robert Barclay's Writings, but also of the Scriptures of Truth, and I think that he would do well in Time to repent for his adding to the Words of the Testimony of Truth which was spoken under the Influence of the Holy Ghost, in that Case of Peter.

AND now I shall leave it to the judicious and impar­tial Reader to determine whether this Author has either stated or vindicated the Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land upon the important Point of Baptism; seeing he has wholly passed over that of Infants, the most usual Practice of that Church, or whether he has answered our Objections against Water Baptism in General.



The READER is desired to correct the foregoing Errors with his Pen, viz. In Page 10, Line 19 and 20, instead of Ambrose, says John, baptised, read Ambrose says, John baptised, &c. P. 11, l. 27, blot out the. P. 12, l. 25, blot out a. P. 13, l. 33, between to and eclipsing insert the. P. 14, l. 33, blot out that. P. 17, l. 11, instead of endowed read endued. P. 17, l. 27, P. 18, l. 20, and P. 45, l▪ 26, before Papists read with. P. 19, l. 10, betwixt that and which insert with, and in l. 33, instead of that read the. P. 20, l. 21, blot out their. P. 32, l. 30, after twenty add seven. P. 38, l. 2, between should and divided insert be. P. 42, l. 22, instead of watereth read watered. P. 43, l. 1, after Samaritan add Woman. P. 46, l. the last, before has read he. P. 47, l. 13. instead of the first and read or.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.