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 Heart, &c. For after this manner in the old time (fays he) the holy Women alfo who trusted in God, adorned themselves, &c. 1 Pet. 3. 3, 4, 5. That is, the holy Women of old who trufted 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, 30. and furely fhe was one of thofe holy Women of old who trufted in God. Nor can we fuppofe that the reft 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 Matrons; and St. Peter, I believe, would hardly encourage a fober and modest Woman to follow fuch fhameless Examples. The Apoftle therefore means, that their principal Ornament fhould not confift in fine Cloathing, but in their Virtues, the Ornaments of their Minds.

Thus alfo Chrift faies, I am not come to call the Righteous, but Sinners to Repentance, Matt. 9. 13. tho' 'tis plain, and confeffed by our Adverfaries themselves, that he called all to Repentance, even thofe pretended Saints not excepted but his chief Bufinefs was to call Sinners. And again he faith, I am not sent but to the loft Sheep of the Houfe of Ifrael, Matt. 15. 24. And yet he healed the Daughter of the Woman of Canaan; and therefore, tho' he was principally fent to the Jews,

yet he was fent to the Gentiles alfo. And accordingly, tho' St. Paul was not principally fent to baptize, but to preach the Gofpel; yet he was fent to baptize also.

Now fince thefe 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 muft other wife contradict themselves. For I have thewn, that Chrift fent his Apoftles to baptize with Water, Matt. 28. 19. and Mr. Barclay (a) faies, it is not to be queftioned, but Paul's Commiffion was as large as any of the rest; for he kimself said, that he was not inferior to the chiefeft 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 Commiffion was as large, as that of any of them; and confequently he 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 fent to baptize with Water, that he might mark the Gentiles converted by him, with that Christian fign. Now if St. Matthew faies, that Chrift fent St. Paul to baptize with Water; and St. Paul faies, that he was not at all fent to baptize with Water: then St. Paul does flatly contradict St. Matthew. Whereas if we understand the words in that Senfe which I have given 'em, then the two Apoftles do perfectly agree. For both of 'em fay, that St. Paul was fent to baptize with Water: only St. Paul faies, that his principal bufinefs was to preach the Gofpel, he being peculiarly qualified for that Office; whereas all the

(a) Barclay's Truth cleared of Calumnies, p.31. (6) Apology, prop. 12. p. 484.

Ministers

Minifters of Chrift could baptize with Water as well as himfelf. For Water-Baptifm requires only Authority to adminifter it, which all the Minifters of Christ had in as great a Measure, and to as good purpose, as St. Paul.

I can't fee, how 'tis poffible for our Adverfaries to avoid the force of this Argument, and clear St. Matthew and St. Paul from thus flatly contradicting each other; unless they will fuppofe (without any the leaft Reafon) that St. Paul's cafe was very peculiar, and different from that of all the other Apoftles, who were indeed fent to baptize with Water; whereas St. Paul was not at all fent to execute that part of the Minifterial Office. But this groundlefs notion, (which is also inconfiftent with what has been quoted above out of Mr. Barclay) even tho' it were granted them, will do their Caufe more harm than good. For,

1. If St. Paul's cafe was peculiar in this refpect, then St. Paul's not being fent to baptize with Water is no Argument against the Neceffity of Water-Baptifm. But the peculiarity of his Cafe, is certainly a ftrong Argument for it. Because then all the reft of the Apofties muft needs have been fent to baptize with Water, by virtue of that Commiffion, Matt. 28. 19. And confequently WaterBaptifm is a neceffary Duty. But,

2. Since all the Minifters of Christ are by that General Commiffion, Matt.28.19. fent to baptize with Water, 'tis plain, that if any Minifter be not fent to baptize therewith, the reafon muft be,because God has excepted him from the general Rule, and forbidden him fo to baptize. And confequently, if St. Paul was not fent to baptize with Water; the reafon was, becaufe God had forbidden him fo to baptize. But then, if God had forbidden St. Paul X ३

to baptize with Water; how durft he at any time adminifter Water-Baptifm; as 'tis plain he fometimes did, from this very Objection? For who fhall dare, tho' he be a Minifter of Chrift, to do even that which is a part of the Ordinary Duty of Minifters, if God has exprefly and particularly forbidden him fo to do?

Sixthly, They tell us, that there is as much reafon to wash one another's Feet, to anoint the Sick with Oil, to abftain from Bloud, &c. as to be baptized with Water. In Anfwer to which Objection I fhall not produce thofe many reafons, which we draw from Scripture, to prove that we are not obliged to wash one another's Feet, to anoint the Sick with Oil, to abftain from Bloud, &c. Thofe who defire to ftudy thofe Matters, may have recourfe to fuch Authors as have written upon thofe Subjects. 'Tis fufficient for me to fay briefly, that wafhing each others Feet, anointing the Sick with Oil, abftinence from Bloud, &c. were (in the judgment of our Adverfaries themfelves) never defigned by our Lord, or understood by his Apostles, to be univerfally and perpetually injoined. Whereas I have largely fhewn by unanfwerable Arguments, that Water-Baptifm is commanded to be univerfally and perpetually practifed. And confequently there is manifeft reafon for us to be baptized with Water,tho' we do not wash one another's Feet, anoint the Sick with Oil, abftain from Bloud, &c.

But if the cafe were quite otherwise; if there were as much reafon to wash one another's Feet, to anoint the Sick with Oil, to abflain from Bloud, c. as there is for Water-Baptifm; yet it will by no means follow from thence, that we ought to neglect Water-Baptifm. Because it would then be neceffary for us to obferve all those things,

as

as well as Water-Baptifm; and not neglect any one of them. And for my own part, I freely declare, that when our Adverfaries can fhew, that there is as much reason for our washing each others Feet, c. as there is for Water-Baptifm, I will acknowledge, that we ought to wash one another's Feet, c. as well as to be baptized with Water.

Of the Lord's Supper.

To determine, is concerning the neceffity of HE laft Controverfy, which I fhall endevor

to

receiving the Lord's Supper.

By receiving the Lord's Supper I understand eating Bread and drinking Wine in remembrance of Chrift. The neceffity of this eating and drinking the Quakers deny. Whereas I fhall prove, that we are commanded by Chrift fo to do; and confequently that 'tis a damning Sin wilfully to neglect it.

Now that Chrift has commanded us to eat Bread and drink Wine in remembrance of him, will appear, if we confider what St. Matthew, St.Mark, St. Luke and St. Paul relate concerning his Inftitution of this practice. St. Matthew faies, As they were eating, Jefus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the difciples, and faid, Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, faying, Drink ye all of it, Matt. 26. 26, 27. To the fame purpofe fpeaks St. Mark, 14. 22, 23. and St. Luke, 22. 19, 20. only the latter adds, that our Lord faid, This do in remembrance of me. St. Paul alfo, tho he was not then prefent with the o

X 4

they