« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Again, St. Peter exhorts Wives, that their adorning be not that outward adorning of plaiting the Hair, and of wearing of Gold, or of putting on of Apparel, but let it be the hidden Man of the Heari, &c. For after this manner in the old time (says he) the holy Women also who trusted in God, adorned themselves, &c. 1. Pet. 3:3, 4, 5. That is, the holy Women of old who trusted in God, did not adorn themselves with that outward adorning of plaiting the Hair, and of wearing of Gold, or of putting on of Apparel, &c. Now we know that Rebecca did wear Golden Earings and Bracelets, Gen. 24. 22, 3.0. and surely she was one of those holy Woo men of old who trusted in God. Nor can we suppose that the rest of the ancient Wives ran about the Streets like Wolves and Bears, without plaiting or tying up their Hair, or putting on of Apparel, that is, with their Hair about their Ears, and their Bodies Stark-naked. For this would little become holy and godly Mạtrons; and St. Peter, I believe, would hardly encourage a fober and modest Woman to follow such shameless Examples. The Apostle therefore means, that their principal Ornament should not copấft in fine Cloathing, but in their Virtues, the Ornaments of their Minds.
Thus also Christ saies, I am not come to call the Righteous, but Sinners to Repentaxce, Matt. 9. 13. tho' 'tis plain, and confesled by our Adversaries themselves, that he called all to Repentance, even those pretended Saints not excepted : but his chief Business was to call Sinners. And again he faith, I am not sent but to the loft Sheep of the House of Israel, Matt. 15. 24. And yet he healed the Daughter of the Woman of Canaan; and there. fore, tho' he was principally sent to the Jews, X 2
yet he was sent to the Gentiles also. And accordingly, tho' St. Paul was not principally sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel ; yet he was sent to baptize also.
Now tince these words are fo fairly capable of this Senfe, I shall in the next place prove, that they must be fo understood. Because the Holy Scriptures must other wise contradict themselves. For I have thewn, that Christ fent his Apostles to baptize with Water, Matt. 28. 19. and Mr. Barclay (a ) faies, it is not to be questioned, but Paul's Commission was as large as any of the rest; for be kimself said, that he was not inferior to the chiefest of the Apostles. And confequently, St. Paul was fent to baptize with Water, as well as the rest. Nay, he (b) tells us, that the Apostle Paul's Commillion was as large, as that of any of them; and consequently be being in special manner the Apostle of Christ to the Gentiles, if Water-Baptifm be to be accounted the Badge of Christianity, he had more need than any of the rest to be sent to baptize with Water, that he might mark the Gentiles converted by him, with that Christian lign. Now if St. Matthew faies, that Christ fent St. Paul to baptize with Water; and St. Paul faies, that he was not at all sent to baptize with Water : then St. Paul does flatly contradict St. Matthew, Whereas if we understand the words in that Sense which I have given 'em, then the two Apostles do perfe&tly agree. For both of 'em say, that St. Paul was fent to baptize with Water: only St. Paul faies, that his principal business was to preach the Gospel, he being peculiarly qualified for that Office; whereas all the
(a) Barclay's Truth cleared of Calumnies, p.31. (b) Apology, prop. 12. P.4845
Ministers of Christ could baptize with Water as well as himself. For Water-Baptism requires only Authority to administer it, which all the Ministers of Christ had in as great a Measure, and to as good purpose, as St. Paul.
I can't see, how 'tis possible for our Adversaries to avoid the force of this Argument, and clear St. Matthew and St. Paul from thus flatly contradiding each other; unless they will suppose (with. out any the least Reason) that St. Paul's case was very peculiar, and different from that of all the other Apostles, who were indeed sent to baptize with Water; whereas St. Paul was not at all fent to execute that part of the Ministerial Office. But this groundless notion, (which is also inconsistent with what has been quoted above out of Mr. Barclay) even tho' it were granted them, will do their Cause more harm than good. For,
1. If St. Paul's case was peculiar in this respect, then St. Paul's not being sent to baptize with Water is no Argument against the Necessity of Water-Baptism. But the peculiarity of his Case, is certainly a strong Argument for it. Because then all the rest of the Apostles must needs have been fent to baptize with Water, by virtue of that Commission, Matt. 28.19. And consequently WaterBaptism is a necessary Duty. But,
2. Since all the Ministers of Christ are by that General Commission, Matt.28.19. sent to baptize with Water, 'tis plain, that if any Minister be not sent to baptize therewith, the reason must be,because God has excepted him from the general Rule, and forbidden him fo to baptize. And consequently, if St. Paul was not fent to baptize with Water; the reason was, because God had forbidden him foto haptize. But then, if God had forbidden St. Paul X 3
to baptize with Water; how durst he at any time administer Water-Baptism; as 'tis plain he fometimes did, from this very Objection? For who shall dare, tho' he be a Minister of Christ, to do even that which is a part of the Ordinary Duty of Ministers, if God has exprefly and particularly forbidden him so to do?
Sixthly, They tell us, that there is as much reason to wash one another's Feet, to anoint the Sick with Oil, to abstain from Bloud, &c. as to be baptized with Water. In Answer to which Objection I shall not produce those many reafons, which we draw from Scripture, to prove that we are not ob, liged to wash one another's Feet, to anoint the Sick with Oil, to abstain from Bloud, &c. Those who desire to study thofe Matters, may have recourfe to such Authors as have written upon thofe Subjees. 'Tis sufficient for me to say briefly, that washing each others Feet, anointing the Sick with Oil, abstinence from Bloud, &c. were in the judgment of our Adversaries themselves) never de. signed by our Lord, or understood by his Apostles, to be universally and perpetually injoined. Whereas I have largely shewn by unanswerable Arguments, that Water-Baptism is commanded to be univerfally and perpetually practised. And consequent. ly there is manifest reason for us to be baptized with Watcr,tho'we do not wash one another's Feet, anoint the Sick with Oil, abftain from Bloud, óc.
But if the case were quitc otherwise; if there were as much reason to walh one another's Feet, to anoint the Sick with Oil, to abstain from Bloud, c, as there is for Water-Baptism; yet it will by no means follow from thence, that we ought to neglect Water-Baptism. Because it would then be necessary for us to observe all those things,
as well as Water-Baptism; and not negle&t any one of them. And for my own part, I freely declare, that when our Adversaries can fhew, that there is as much reason for our washing each others Feet, Gr. as there is for Water-Baptism, I will acknowledge, that we ought to waih one another's Feet, Gr. as well as to be baptized with Water.
CH A P. XXVI.
Of the Lord's Supper,
"HE last Controversy, which I shall endevor
to determine, is concerning the necessity of receiving the Lord's Supper.
By receiving the Lord's Supper I understand cating Bread and drinking Wine in remembrance of Christ. The necessity of this eating and drinking the Quakers deny. Whereas I shall prove, that we are commanded by Christ fo to do; and consequently that 'tis a damning Sin wilfully to neglect it.
Now that Christ has commanded us to eat Bread and drink Wine in remembrance of him, will appear, if we consider what St. Matthew, St.Mark, St. Luke and St. Paul relate concerning his Institution of this practice. St. Matthew saics, As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave them, saying, Drink ye all of it, Matt. 26. 26, 27, To the fame purpose speaks St. Mark, 14. 22, 23. and St. Luke, 22:19, 20. only the latter adds, that our Lord said, This do in remembrance of me.
St. Paul also, tho he was not then present with the o.