Featured How To Get To Heaven When You Die

BrotherJoseph, you wrote: " The RCC added 11 books to the Bible after the Protestant Reformation.}


You can't be serious, you really must be kidding to write something as off the wall as that statement. Please reference your history source on that ridiculous accusation. Documentation please?

 

In a paper, "The Canon" by William Webster, he says:

 

Matthias took the place of Judas because there had to be 12 and only 12 Apostles.

There was a reason for that:
Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
--This in itself demonstrates there was no succession.

 

The Bible says you are dead. Baptism does not make one born again.
You are dead. Death in the Bible means separation.
Physical death is separation of the body from the spirit, as James says.

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
--When the spirit separates from body it is called death.

You are separated from God. You are spiritually dead.
Thus the necessity of the new birth.
Jesus said: You must be born again.

In order to be reconciled to God who is the fountain of life, you must be reconciled to God. This has nothing to do with baptism.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
--We are all born of the flesh, but not everyone is born of the Spirit.
Thus Jesus says: you must be born again.

He makes it clear:
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
--Again, there is no baptism here.
The Spirit does mean the Holy Spirit, but what does the water signify.
Water is commonly used to cleanse. Here it signifies the Word of God which cleanses us.

Jesus clearly says:
John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
--It is through the Word of God that we are made clean.

This truth is also taught in the OT.
Psalms 119:9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
--A young man cleanses his way by taking heed to the Word.

Look what James says:
James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
--The word "begat" means born.
We are "born" through the Word.

And Peter makes it very clear:
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
--It is impossible to be born again without the Word of God.
One is born again by the Word of God that is what it says here.

Now according to John 3:5 there are two agencies and only two agencies by which a man must be born again: water and the Spirit. We already know that the Spirit is the Holy Spirit.
Now we have determined that the "water" symbolizes the Word of God or the gospel. The Holy Spirit working through the Word of God will convict of sin and bring a person to a saving knowledge of Christ.

That is what happened in Acts 16:30,31:
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
He was convicted; he believed; he was saved.
Baptism always comes after as a step of obedience, never as a requirement.
Later the Philippian jailer was baptized at his own house.

He was dead. Now after believing in Christ as his Savior he has life--not through baptism, but through Christ.

 

Brother Lakeside,

I never said what you posted above. Go back and reread the thread. I believe it was Brother Bob Ryan who said this to you in post # 236.

 

Does Catholic theology assert man has the capability to repent, believe the gospel, and do good works prior to becoming born again?

 

Brother Lakeside,

If there was a succession, the next set of apostles would exhibit the "signs of an apostle", but no one did!

"Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." (2 Corinthians 12:12)
"And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles." (Acts 2:43)
"And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people;" (Acts 5:12).

Brother Lakeside, why do the new set of apostles that succeeded the original, not exhibit the "signs of an apostle" that Paul references (miracles, signs, wonders, etc)? I'll tell you why, because there was no apostolic succession. If there were, there would be people today healing, raising the dead, etc. to show they are indeed an apostle.

 

This is the historical facts concerning the canon of inspired books!

The jews at the time of Jesus had already received/accepted as inspired books ONLY the one in the protestant canon of scripture, and those were the ONLY ones recognized as such jesus Himself...

the early church received/accepted as inspired books, on same par as OT canon blooks themselves, ONLY those that are in the protestant canon of the scriptures..

Rome accepted and added in those other dubious and non inspired books ONLY to try to stop the reformation, and to try to get a basis for its own false doctrines and teachings, as most of them are NOT supported in the offical canon scriptures!

 

DHK, what the average reader doesn't know is that Webster's own words and arguments ultimately turn around and condemn and self-refute his own position.
Where does the Bible say all information God wanted preserved was at some point, specifically the end of the apostolic age, confined to Scripture? The answer is, again, "nowhere". And where does the Bible say that there will come a time when only Scripture will contain divine revelation? (Nowhere!)

These are two foundational flaws Webster is building from, and they are such because they are not "founded on the Scriptures themselves."

Further, Webster has unwittingly trapped himself by framing his doctrine in an anachronistic fashion. An anachronism is when someone reads something back into a text that was historically impossible at the time. For example, if we found a writing that said, "George Washington spoke with a device that carried his voice long distances," we could not claim this device was a cellphone because cellphones had not been invented yet. So whatever it was, it wasn't a cellphone. In the case of Webster, he cannot point to any given text of Scripture and say, "See this text, the Apostle is teaching the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to these Christians," because Sola Scriptura didn't exist yet - it wasn't operable yet! In other words, not only does Webster not have a Scriptural basis for his claims, he has also slammed the door on himself in terms of appealing to any Scriptures in the first place!

 

BrotherJoseph, you asked why the successors of the apostles never performed miracles. St. Paul seems to indicate that working miracles and healing are distinct gifts for those of apostles, prophets, and teachers (bishops), though obviously not mutually exclusive gifts.

28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31But earnestly desire the higher gifts. (1 Corinthians 12:28-31)

It seems that God used miracles to confirm the authority of the Apostles while the Christian faith was just getting started. Such confirmation would probably not be so necessary once the Christian faith was better established, especially once Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. However, God, in his generosity, has continued to work miracles through some popes, bishops, priests, deacons, and lay people throughout the last two thousand years as the lives of the saints attest.

 

DHK. you mentioned Baptism;- Baptism: The Door of the Church [ Taken from the Teachings of the Church [

The Sacrament of Baptism is often called "The door of the Church," because it is the first of the seven sacraments not only in time (since most Catholics receive it as infants) but in priority, since the reception of the other sacraments depends on it. It is the first of the three Sacraments of Initiation, the other two being the Sacrament of Confirmation and the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

Once baptized, a person becomes a member of the Church. Traditionally, the rite (or ceremony) of baptism was held outside the doors of the main part of the church, to signify this fact.

The Necessity of Baptism

Christ Himself ordered His disciples to preach the Gospel to all nations and to baptize those who accept the message of the Gospel. In His encounter with Nicodemus (John 3:1-21), Christ made it clear that baptism was necessary for salvation: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." For Catholics, the sacrament is not a mere formality; it is the very mark of a Christian, because it brings us into new life in Christ.

Baptism of Desire

That doesn't mean that only those who have been formally baptized can be saved. From very early on, the Church recognized that there are two other types of baptism besides the baptism of water.

The baptism of desire applies both to those who, while wishing to be baptized, die before receiving the sacrament and "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of conscience" (Constitution on the Church, Second Vatican Council ]

Baptism of Blood

The baptism of blood is similar to the baptism of desire. It refers to the martyrdom of those believers who were killed for the faith before they had a chance to be baptized. This was a common occurrence in the early centuries of the Church, but also in later times in missionary lands. The baptism of blood has the same effects as the baptism of water.

 

Yeshua, { Gal 2:11-12,} is where Paul writes:

But when Cephas [ Peter ] came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.

This has been taken to display a certain deference on Peter’s part to James.

But James isn’t even there. Peter’s not deferring to him but to the sensibilities of men associated with him (“the circumcision party”).

What’s the explanation for this?

The most logical one is not that James is the man in charge but that Peter is simply trying to keep peace between different groups within the Church.

That is, itself, something leaders often have to do.

Furthermore, the fact that, in Galatians, Paul uses Peter as a test case for the authority of his gospel strongly suggests that Peter is the leader.

Paul wants to show that his gospel is above any man, and using the top man as a test case is an excellent way to show that.



The{ Acts 15} Argument

The second major passage is{ Acts 15,} where the Jerusalem council is held.

This council is presented as having the following stages:

There is “much debate” {v. 7a}.

Peter gets up and says, “you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe” {v. 7b}. He points out that God accepted the gentiles without the Law of Moses and so it should not be imposed on them now {v. 8-11}.

Barnabas and Paul relate the signs and wonders God has been doing through them as they preached to the gentile {vv. 12}.

James says, “Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name” {v. 14}, he cites a corresponding Old Testament proof text {vv. 15-18}, endorses the idea of not imposing the Mosaic Law on the gentiles {v. 19}, and goes on to make several proposals to keep Jewish Christians from being scandalized by the behavior of gentiles, because “from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him” {v. 21}.

This text does not show that James was more authoritative than Peter, for several reasons:
Peter, along with Barnabas, Paul, and James, are viewed together as the debate closers. It is “after much debate” that Peter speaks. He initiates the process of closing the debate and coming to a conclusion.

Peter reminds people of his unique role in how the question was originally settled.

James also refers to how the question was originally settled through Peter.

James makes his comments about not scandalizing Jewish believers as a pastoral way of implementing a decision that he, Peter, and Barnabas and Paul are all in agreement on.

The thing Luke is here concerned to stress for us is that all four of these figures are in agreement. That’s his main message.

Some have tried to claim a special authority for James because, in some translations, he says, in verse 19, “Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God.”

The fact he uses the phrase “my judgment” is taken to imply that he is acting as a judge, as the final authority, but this is far too much to hang on this single word (Greek, krino), which also means, “I think.”

Indeed, even in English, saying, “In my judgment we ought to do this . . .” in no way implies that the one expressing this view is a judge, much less the final authority on the matter.

If these two arguments are weak, what other evidence is there on the question?

 

Brother Lakeside if the Holy Ghost is imparted via when an infant is baptized why did Jesus say to Nicodemous, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit". If the Holy Ghost is imparted at the point of infant baptism, then one could indeed tell "whence it cometh" at that specific time, however it is not imparted at baptism, but rather sovereignly through no means of man, thus one cannot tell "whence it cometh".

Also, Jesus told Nicodemous, "18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God". Here we see Christ equating salvation with the evidence of believing, and likewise the verse says those that believe not have not salvation. This is repeated over and over again throughout the gospel of John, but in no place did he say, "he that believeth and is baptized has eternal life" or "he that believeth not an is not baptized does not have eternal life". The reason is because baptism is not how one is saved, but all true children of God will have the evidence of belief in Christ.

As far as water referenced in John 3 and also found in Titus 3: "The washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost" it is not referring to water baptism. There is a close and inseparable connection between "water" and "Spirit." The numerous washings in the Mosaic law made water familiar to the Jews as an emblem of purification. By the term "water," Christ meant the "Spirit." This is shown in Isa. xliv. 3, and Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27. By "water and Spirit," Christ meant , "purifying Spirit," or "Holy Spirit." A similar expression is found in Matt. iii. 11---"He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire."Both fire and water are purifying and powerful principles, and are used to represent the Holy Spirit.

Brother Lakeside literal water baptism is no more alluded to in John 3:5 than literal fire baptism in Matt. 3: 11. Do you think the baptism by "fire" means literal fire? Of course not! Likewise it is silly to take the water mentioned in John 3:5 as literal. In describing the heavenly or spiritual birth, water is not used in John 1:13, nor in 3: 3, 6, or 8. In the latter verse, "wind" is used to represent the Spirit, just as water is used in the fifth verse.


Brother Joe

 

Brother Lakeside,

Regarding the incident with Peter and the Jews in Galatians 3, Paul states, "14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" If Peter was the first Pope as the Catholic church believes, why did Paul scold him saying he did not "walk uprightly according to the truth", I thought popes were infallible?

Also, when Paul describes his conversion and preaching in Galatians 1 he declares, ,"17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days." (Galatians 1:17-18). Why did Paul wait 3 years to talk to the so called "Pope" Peter?

Finally Brother Lakeside, if Peter was the Pope to both Jew and Gentile why does Paul state, "(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles" (Galatians 2:8), if Peter had a special leadership to the Gentiles, why did Paul say his was "apostleship of the circumcision (Jews) and his was "toward the Gentiles" thus clearly distinguishing the two?


Brother Joe

 

Brotherjoe, I asked for one question at a time, you people gang up on me with your questions and answers, let me answer your first post #253 first.
Here is a partial answer to infant baptism.

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

 

BrotherJoseph, Infants are baptized on the faith of the Church as expressed by their parents. Whether or not one is below the age of reason and capable or incapable of belief is not the issue. Anti-Catholics seem to miss this point. The issue is, “Can God confer his grace upon an individual based on the faith of another?” The answer is a resounding “Yes.” The Bible is filled with examples of this.Matt. 8: 5- 13
Here we see the servant healed based on the faith of the centurion. But not only that, the text also tells us that Jesus “marveled” at the faith of the Roman soldier. Would he not also approve of the faith of parents who have their infants baptized?

Matt 9: 1- 7
Notice in the narrative that Jesus healed the paralytic when he saw “their” faith, that is, the faith of those who brought the paralytic to him. As the episode is presented in the text, the grace of God’s healing power descends upon the paralytic based on the faith of others. Another verse is Mark 5: 21- 24
you and other anti- Catholics claim that infant baptism is wrong because infants below the age of reason are incapable of a profession of faith falls apart with the preceding verses. Certainly twelve-year-old adolescents are mature enough to profess their own faith when they are alive but not when they are dead. Obviously Jesus raised Jairus’s daughter from the dead based upon the faith of her parents, just as God confers his grace upon infants based on the faith of the parents.

 

BrotherJoseph, Regarding Galatians, this passage has nothing to do with Peter leading people astray. Paul opposed Peter because he was separating himself from the Gentiles during meals. Why was this a big deal? Because Peter was the one who infallibly taught that the Gentiles were equal members of the New Covenant. Peter was the one who made this monumental decision as we read in the book of Acts. Paul was criticizing Peter's conduct, not his teaching authority. Everyone would have looked naturally to Peter and his conduct since he was the leader. God specifically reveals this in Scripture to teach us that there is a difference between a pope's private conduct and opinions and his official teaching authority.

I believe Peter's conduct can be viewed as legitimate. Peter had a mission to the Jews, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul was therefore very concerned about how the Gentiles were evangelized. Paul viewed Peter's conduct as a possible scandal to the Gentile's evangelization. However, Peter had his own reasons. In the book of Acts, we read that the Jews were angry that Peter was dining with Gentiles. They could not understand this, since they always viewed themselves as having a preferential position with God. Peter was trying to pacify them for the moment by trying to make the best out of a difficult situation.

Paul probably should have known this. Paul did the very same thing, and Peter could have just as easily called Paul a hypocrite. Paul engaged in the Jewish purification ritual, and also had Timothy circumcised, even though Paul perennially taught that we were now free from the law of Moses. Why did he do this? For pastoral reasons. He was reaching out to the Jews, while trying to evangelize the Gentiles. Peter did the same thing.

Gal.2: 8 St. Paul spends 15 days being instructed from Peter before Paul goes out on his ministry.

 

I have no idea what you are speaking about. The last time I quoted Webster (and the only time) was on May 2--quite a number of days ago, post #215, on page 22. A lot has gone under the bridge since then. And that post had nothing to do with the Bible or sola scriptura. From him I gave two definitions of "redemption," and the post was about redemption. None of my posts since has been on that specific topic.
Please refer me to the post you are answering here.

 

1Cor.13:8-13; Rev.22:18,19, Mat.5:18; 2Tim.3:16; 2Pet.1:20,21

But they are.

Acts 17:11 and Isaiah 8:20 proves otherwise.

Every Baptist appeals to scripture as his final authority. Do you really think we all have it wrong?

BTW, regard my last post. I thought you were referring to another Webster.

 

Brother Lakeside,

I too desire to discuss one scripture at a time and that was my original intent. I posted a question for you in post 246 regarding Catholic belief, but you never replied, thus I continued to respond to your other posts, but now you are going back and complaining that I am asking more than one question at a time. Please go back and answer my post 246 and we can narrow are focus down to that post.

Regarding your belief that baptism is the new "circumcision, I do not agree with you, but even if I did, circumcision never gave anybody the Holy Spirit or forgave sins, thus why do you assert baptism does?

Are we not the taught the only subjects of baptism known in the commission? “He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved.” Mark 16:16. “Then, they that gladly received his word were baptized.” Acts 2:41. “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Acts 2:47. “But when they believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” Acts 7:12. Allow me to inquire, If, as the Catholic church contend, baptism came in the place of circumcision, where their authority for extending the ordinance to females? Circumcision, under the law, was confined to Abraham’s male descendants, and those servants [male] bought with his money. Whence were Timothy and Titus, who had been previously baptized, compelled to be circumcised, if baptism superceded circumcision? I proceed; “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we.” Acts 10:47. “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Rom. 10:10. “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water,” &c. Acts 8:37-39. Need I multiply proofs that believers are the only Bible subjects of baptism?

The following is from the late Baptist elder Elder John Leland. He cites 24 compelling reasons why baptism did not simply take the place of circumcision as the Catholics contend,


"First. The Jews circumcised their male children only, but the Christians baptize (rantize) both male and female.

Second. The Jews never circumcised a child under eight days old. In ordinary cases, no other day would answer. A weekly sabbath might be profaned, that the law of Moses (respecting circumcision) might not be broken: but the Christians baptize their children at any age. If they are sick, and likely to die, a priest is called to baptize them before they are half eight days old.

Third. Circumcision was never a priestly rite among the Jews, but fathers, mothers, masters, and neighbors, did the work; but infant baptism is supposed to belong to the priests. Gospel baptism is certainly to be performed by those who are sent to teach.

Fourth. Circumcision was performed by drawing blood from the subjects, but infant baptism by applying water to them. Gospel baptism, by burying the candidate in water.

Fifth. Circumcision left a mark in the flesh, but baptism leaves none.

Sixth. Circumcision was not performed on the faith of the parent, but by the express command of God; but infant baptism is done on the faith of the parent, without any command of God.

Seventh. Circumcision distinguished the church from the world, but infant baptism unites them together.

Eighth. All that were circumcised ate of the passover, but baptized infants do not eat at the Lord’s table.

Ninth. If native innocency entitles them to baptism, as some think, why does not the same innocence entitle them to the eucharist?

Tenth. If infants are fit for heaven, and, therefore, for for baptism, why not fit for church-fellowship and communion.

Eleventh. If children are innocent, they are not proper subjects for baptism; for baptism, in every case, but that of Jesus presupposes repentance, Christianity being a religion for sinners, and not for holy beings.

Twelfth. But, if infants are sinful, how can they be entitled to baptism before they repent of their sins, and bring forth the fruits of repentance?

Thirteenth. Whatever circumcision, under the law, figured out in gospel times, it was something to be done without the hands of men: “Being circumcised with the circumcision made without hands,” says Paul. Now, as all kinds of water-baptism are performed by the hands of men, the conclusion is in point, that baptism is not the antitype for circumcision.

Fourteenth. If children, by being baptized, are brought within the covenanted mercies of God, as is often said, the covenant is either conditional or unconditional. If the covenant is unconditional, all of them will be saved, for God never fails; but if the covenant is conditional, the conditions rest either with the parent or the child. If with the parent, it stands thus: if the parent does his duty, the child will be saved. This grounds the salvation of one upon the obedience of another, and not on the atoning blood of Christ. And, besides, if Noah, Daniel, and Job, could save neither son nor daughter by their own righteousness, can any others do it? How would every humble man, who loves the souls of his children, shudder, if he knew that the salvation of them depended on his own obedience. But if the conditions rest with the baptized child, I am at a loss to know what duties he owes to God or man, more than those children that were never baptized.

Fifteenth. The circumcised Jew, though he knew not when he was circumcised, yet knew that he was circumcised, by the mark in his flesh, and therefore had not to depend on what others told him; but the baptized infant has no mark, and has to rest his faith on human testimony.

Sixteenth. Gospel baptism is said to be “the answer of a good conscience.” but what conscience a young infant can have, about that which he knows nothing of, I cannot tell.

Seventeenth. Is there an error in christendom, which has prevailed as extensively as infant baptism, and yet admits of so feeble support?

Eighteenth. If God made that covenant of grace with Abraham, which secures the salvation of souls, it follows of course, that all who died before the covenant was made, are lost.

Nineteenth. When a minister dips his hand in water, and sprinkles the face of a child, would there be a greater correspondence between his words and his actions, to say, “I baptize my hand,” than to say, “I baptize this child?”

Twentieth. Should an angel descend from heaven and address a man as follows: “Some baptize infants without their consent, or knowledge, by sprinkling water in their faces. Other baptize adults on a confession of their repentance for sin, and their faith in the Lord Jesus, by burying their bodies in water. Now, which of these modes is according to the will of Christ? The salvation of your soul depends upon a right judgment. Judge right, and you shall live – judge wrong, and you shall be damned.” Should a man be thus addressed, with the Bible in his hand, what answer would he make? Or would it be in this case, as in many others, that men think more of will and wealth than they do of the salvation of their souls?

Twenty-first. When a heathen forsook his idols, and was proselyted to the Jewish religion, all his males were to be circumcised, before he cold eat the passover: but is there any account in rabbinical or Christian history, that the Jewish priests ever baptized the proselytes with water at their admission? If there is, the important question follows, what orders to do it had they from their great law-giver?

Twenty-second. That John the Baptist was of the priestly line, is certain, but that he was consecrated, or officiated as a Jewish priest, is denied with almost the same certainty. He was as great a stranger to killing sacrifices, burning incense, lighting lamps, etc., as the Jewish priests were to preaching repentance and baptizing believing penitents in Jordan, and other waters.

Twenty-third. None but Aaron, and his sons, could be priests in the Jewish church. It was miraculously decided by the budding of Aaron’s rod. King Uzziah was of the tribe of Judah, and for assuming the priest’s office, to burn incense, he was smitten with leprosy. Jesus Christ was of the tribe of Judah, of which Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood. Now, if the Christian church is the same as the Jewish, how could Christ be the great High Priest forever, after the order of Melchisedec?

Twenty-fourth. The Grecian church baptize their children in fonts. The Latin church imitate them, with the addition of chrism, (an unction made of oil and balsam,) which the bishop consecrated at Easton, and sells to the parish clergy for the year. The church of England enjoins dipping, unless the priest is informed that the child is unable to bear it, and then sprinkling is to suffice."