fancies of your owne braine that you have vented before I will not think it burdensom to answer you though in some things the same for substance that hath been said before That you say viz. the Iewish Church-state and old Covenant being constituted upon nature and the naturall seed of Abraham Answ I pray you can you tell what you meane when you say that the Iewes Church-state was constituted upon nature and the naturall seed of Abraham I am sure you speake not according to Scripture that I say not nor according to sense or reason As far as I can apprehend when you say it was built upon nature If you have any meaning in these words and doe not let them fall from you at randome it must be understood either first that nature was the ground cause of this covenant or secondly that naturall blessings were onely bestowed in this covenant or thirdly that this covenant was made onely with the naturall children of Abraham all which are manifestly false For first if your meaning be that this covenant was grounded on nature so that nature was the cause of it you must either meane the nature of God as contradistinguish't to his will and good pleasure or the nature of Abraham The nature of God was not the cause of it for what God doth by nature his nature being the cause he doth eternally necessarily unchangeably so as he cannot but doe it as to know himselfe and all things knowable to love himselfe Or if you meane that the nature of Abraham was the ground of this covenant it is as false for there was nothing in Abraham by nature that put difference between him and others Deut. 7. Iosh 24. Rom. 4. Or if you meane God onely bestowed temporall blessings in this covenant that is palpably and execrably false also God was their God in the old covenant circumcised their heart to love him feare him and obey him and trust in him he gave remission of sinnes and sanctification under that Covenant which were not naturall blessings Or thirdly if you meane that that Covenant was made with Abrahams naturall posteritie there is no appearance of truth in it for bond-men and those that were bought with money and Proselytes of any nation or stock whatsoever were admitted into this Covenant Gen. 17. Exod. 12. You adde This to wit the Christian Church-state upon grace and the spirituall seed of Abraham Answ So was the old Covenant to use your phrase constituted on grace Gods free favour was the cause of it and the graces of the Spirit bestowed as truly under it though not so plentifully and clearely as now as these phrases expresse Gen. 17. Deut. 30. Mal. 2.5 I am God all-sufficient I will be thy God I will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God c. My Covenant was with him of life and peace Secondly if you meane by the spirituall seed of Abraham Iesus Christ the seed of the woman that was to breake the Serpents head Gen. 3. Joh. 8. Rev. 13. 1 Tim. 2. in whom the Covevant was made with our first parents fallen at the seeing of whose day Abraham rejoyced in whom God promises that all the Nations of the earth should be blessed the old Covenant was made with Abraham in him who is the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world who is the onely Mediatour between God and man and by whom alone Abraham and all the faithfull have had communion with God You adde That therefore termed Israel according to the flesh and of the circumcision of the flesh this Israel according to the spirit and of the circumcision of the heart Rom. 2.28 29. 4 6 7 8. Col. 2.11 Answ No such thing appeareth in those Scriptures Take heed how you falsifie Gods word would you perswade men that God gave not circumcision of heart under the old Covenant that because all were not right Israelites that were Abrahams seed therefore none were that because he is not a Iew that is one outwardly therefore none under the old covenant were inwardly Iews because true Christians are circumcised with a circumcision without hands therefore the Iewes were not circumcised but onely with hands not spiritually Let any man examine those Scriptures and see whether from thē it can be gathered that all under the old covenant had onely circumcision of the flesh and that all under the new covenant have circumcision of the spirit It will appeare to any judicious Reader that here are two or three notorious falsehoods with a grosse perverting of Scripture in this short sentence The first That the Iewish Church-state or old covenant is called Israel according to the flesh or circumcision of the flesh but the Gospel-state Israel according to the spirit or the circumcision of the heart wherein are infolded more untruths then one Secondly that therefore they are so called because that was constituted on the naturall seed of Abraham c. The abuse of Scripture appeares that these Scriptures neither prove the antecedent nor sequele nor consequent neither make any thing for his purpose as if it would not be overtedious to stand upon and needlesse to any men of judgement might be shewed But such uttering of falshoods and then propping them with Scriptures to abuse the simple is ordinary almost in every page and sometimes frequent in one page as may appeare by the answer though I have not said so much in expresse words before neither should have said so now but that I consider such is the weaknesse of some Readers that what they read if Scripture be brought for proofe thereof though never so impertinently abusively and perversely they thinke it must goe for currant Thirdly that you say a state of bondmen or servants so as in that state an heire or beleever differed nothing from a servant though he were lord of all c. Gal. 4.7 Answ That under the Old Testament the Church of the Iews was an heire yea lord of all though in regard of its infancie and immaturitie nothing differing from a servant as being held under the tutourship of the Law this I say is sufficient to prove that the Church of the Iewes and the Christian Church is one and the same for substance and under the same Covenant in all essentialls For all know that a sonne and heire is the same for substance and in person at three yeares old and at thirty though altered in some accidentall priviledges at riper yeares And hence your fancie of the Iewish Church being constituted on nature is quite overthrowne For if the Iewish Church was heire and lord of all beleevers were then children though in minoritie and under tutourship How were they children not by nature for Christ onely is the Sonne of God by nature therefore by grace and so they were under a Covenant of Grace Thus powerfull is the word of truth to overthrow those errours that ignorant men would abuse and force it
we grant your proposition is true viz. that Baptisme must be either by dipping or infusion and so that it be either way it is sufficient But you take it not in this sense as may appeare by the manner of your reasoning for by the affirmation of the one you inferre the deniall of the other and if you should take it in this sense it would make against your selfe and overthrow your own argument Therefore it appears you take it by way of opposition and so we utterly deny it as false Your reasoning is like this We come to the knowledge of Christ by reading the Scriptures or hearing the word preached Joh. 5.39 But Christ bids the Iewes to search the Scripture viz. by reading that they might come to the knowledge of him Therefore not by hearing the word preached Or like this The Minister must preach either sitting or standing But Christ preached sitting Matth. 5.1 c. Therefore Ministers may not preach standing Or this We must pray either standing or kneeling or sitting or lying c. But Christ saith when you stand praying Mark 11.25 Therefore it is not lawfull to pray with any other gesture but standing Who seeth not the weaknesse of this reasoning yours is no better But to come to your assumption But Iohn the Baptist or Dipper as you say according to the Dutch did use the water By putting the partie into the water not by insusing or sprinkling Mat. 3.11 Mar. 1.8 Ioh. 1.26 Act. 11.16 Answer Answ First None of these places prove that Iohn put the partie into the water much lesse that the whole man was dipped all over in the water which you undertooke to prove But here is not the least intimation of any such matter Secondly Whereas you gather from the Originall that Iohn baptized in the water and dipped the whole man all over in the water and put the party into the water you might as well say that Christ baptized in the holy Ghost and fire and that he dipped the whole man all over in the holy Ghost and in the fire Act. 11.6 Matth. 3.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or put the party into the holy Ghost and fire which were a strange interpretation for the particle is the same Thirdly Whereas you gather hence A Baptisme in water not a Baptisme with water I would have you tell me what were they baptized or washed with if not with water as if there were an irreconcileable repugnancy between baptizing in water and baptizing with water But that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not necessarily signifie in you grant in our objection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you propound thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie with sometime as in Revel 19.21 And the rest were slain with the sword Whereunto I might adde that not onely in this place but frequently in the New Testament the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an Hebraisme answering the prefixe ב signifies as well with as in Matth. 5.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with not in what shall it be salted Matth. 7.2 with not in what judgement Act. 26.18 with not in the sanctified You answer this objection thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never taken for with after baptizo Reply I reply That is the thing in question And I would demand whether you thinke that our Translatours and most or all others who have Englished it with knew not how to render the Originall in its proper signification as well as your selfe Besides these forementioned places Mat. 3.11 Act. 11.19 speaking of Christs baptizing with the holy Ghost and with fire cannot be otherwise Englished with any sense Your peremptory deniall of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie with after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you would confirme thus Either the word Baptizo must signifie to sprinkle or the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not signifie with But the word baptizo doth signifie to dip Ergo the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie In and not with as is proved very clearely and denyed of none who are not ignorant of the language Answ As for this your Syllogisme it shews your Clarklinesse wherewith you scoffingly taunt our Ministers It is notoriously fond it wants forme hath foure termes In the assumption you put to dip in stead of not to sprinkle as if one word might not signifie to dip and sprinkle both There is no necessitie in the proposition Your assumption wherein you say But baptizo signifies to dip if it be taken exclusively as to debarre all other significations which it must or else it is brought to no purpose is false Whereas in your conclusion you say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie in and not with which you say is denied by none who are not ignorant of the language Answer Answ What fond arrogancy this is I shall make appeare by and by But let us heare this criticall Linguist prove what he saith from the signification of the Greek word You say that Greeke Authors account Bapto and Baptizo to signifie that for which the Latines use Mergo Immergo Tingere immergendo that is to dip or plunge to douse over head or under water Answer Answ Bapto indeed signifies Mergo or Tingo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo is a derivative that cometh thence which sometimes may signifie the same with its primitive But if we look into the use of it in the New Testament we shall finde it rendred To wash where the Originall word to Baptize is not kept as Mark. 7.4 And when they come from the market they eate not except they wash The washing of cups and of pots and of brazen vessels and of beds or tables Again vers 8. The washing of pots and cups Here you have the verbe Baptizo to wash and the noune Baptismos washing And that this is the proper signification of the word may appeare a Bez Lotiones Arias Mon. lotiones vul Baptismata beside the consent of Translatours in that it is used as signifying the same thing with the other words that alwayes signifies a Bez Lotiones Arias Mon. lotiones vul Baptismata washing as vers 2. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 With unwashen hands and vers 3. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wash their hands By which it appeareth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie the same thing So Hebr. 9.10 And divers washings where the Apostle speaketh of the legall washings So Luk. 11.38 The Pharisee marvelled that Christ had not washed before dinner So that the word signifies properly to wash whether by infusion or immersion it matters not But should we grant Baptizo and Bapto to be altogether of the same signification though the contrary have been sufficiently proved what will you gain thereby 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies either mergo or tingo Mergo signifies properly to drown overwhelm swallow up c. If you will have your converts
according to this interpretation so baptized as to drown them you will make sure work to prevent their sinning any more And so your Baptisme will have a priviledge above the Baptisme of Christ Iohn or the Apostles for their converts and baptized ones sinned after Baptisme But if you will have Baptisme taken and used in this sense I know none that will be your disciples unlesse they be weary of their lives The other word Tingo signifies to dip or c Dan. 4.12 c Interpreters render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in sound hath great affinitie with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some letters being transposed by Intingitur Iun. Trem. Ar. Mon. Buxtorf our Translatours render it to be wet Where Intingo cannot signifie to douse over head or to dip but to besprinkle or bedew for it follows with the dew of heaven besprinkle to embrue stain wet or wash c. Now what reason is there why it should be restrained onely to the first signification Nay if we compare Scriptures we shall finde that what is rendred by sprinkling in the Old Testament is expressed by this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New As if we conferre these two places Rev 19.13 and Esa 63.3 In Rev. 10.13 And d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sparsus aspersus inspersus fuit vel active aspersit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conspersus tinctus madefactus Bez. veste tincta sanguine Ari. vestimention tinctum Vulg. veste aspersa he was cloathed with a vesture dipt in blood So our Translatours or rather sprinkled so we Esa 63.3 Their blood shall be sprinkled on my garments To which place of Esay it is certain that the holy Ghost in the Revelation alludes that I say not that it may be a repetition of the same prophesis pointing at the same time and thing as it may appeare by the same similitude of treading the wine-presse of Gods wrath largely prosecuted in both places See Esa 63.1 With dyed garments vers 2. Red in his apparell c. vers 3. I have trod the wine presse and compare Rev. 19. v. 15. c. So that it is evident that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth expresse the same that was meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though our Translatours render it dipped because the word in the Originall signifies either dipped or sprinkled equally Yea Beza useth a word that equally signifies dipped or sprinkled So Arias Montanus But the vulgar translation hath a word that onely signifies besprinkled not dipped But you say That Baptizo signifies to dip plunge douse over head c. is proved by Christs own Baptisme And e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was baptized into the Iordan Mark 1.9 But it is not the water was put upon him as in sprinkling the water is put on the partie Answ 1. Neither is it he was dipped plunged doused over head or under the water c. 2. The force of your argument lyes in this particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you will needs have translated Into not In. But can you who censure others for their ignorance of the language be ignorant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth very frequently In or by not Into as Matth. 2.23 f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He dwelt in not into a citie called Nazareth Matth. 4.13 He dwelt in not into Capernaum Matth. 5 45. Neither by the earth neither by Ierusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are put in the same signification there Matth. 10.9 Neither possesse money in not into your purses and 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In not into the name of a Prophet Matth. 13.33 She hid it in not into three measures of flower c. Thus you see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying in so that it were absurd to render it into and so you have proved nothing for your purpose from the particle You adde the testimonie of our Translatours themselves For which I answer Matth. 26.23 and Mar. 14.20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have the preposition set before them which alters the signification and restrains it to signifie Dipping in which signification the simple Verbe that we are about is not restrained unto From Luk. 16.24 Ioh. 13.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you prove nothing but what we willingly grant without this labour namely that bapto sometimes signifies to Dippe But thence it followes not that it signifies so alwaies or onely Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revel 19.13 and the difference betweene Bapto and Baptizo I have spoken before And here you confirme what I said and contradict your self For saying that in no Greek Authour nor Scripture written by the Apostles in that Language can be found that they differ Mark 7.4 Immediately you bring a place where Baptizo is taken in a sense different from Bapto which you never shewed not have I read to signifie to Wash So that you pull down with your owne hands what you have beene building all this while See before what hath beene said to that place where mention is made of such a washing as is so farre from necessarily implying dowsing into the water onely that it will scarcely admit it as washing themselves when they come from the market and the washing of Beds or Tables What you adde That washing of cups is putting cups into the water is as true as washing hands or face is putting them into the water May not cups be as well washed by infusion of water in and upon them as by putting them into the water Your conjecture from Ioh. 3.23 is as frivolous As if there could be no reason why Iohn should chuse a place where were many waters but this that he might dip the whole man into the water plunge and douse them over head or under water as your expressions are But no such reason is here expressed nor so much as intimated Rather the cause seemes this Because in those hot countreys waters were rare Gen. 21.15.19 Gen. 26.18 Judg. 1.15 and in some places could not be had in a great distance therefore Iohn chose places where were continuall running waters and streames especially seeing there came such huge multitudes unto him to be baptized Mat. 3.5 6 7. and it is more then probable that not onely Iohn but also his disciples baptized as Ioh. 4.1 2. Christ is said to baptize those whom his disciples baptized So Iohn may be said to baptize those whom he and his disciples baptized together a long the river at severall places of the river that they might make more speedy dispatch with so great multitudes Act. 2.41 Act. 16.15.33 Neither is it true that you say A little font will suffice to besprinkle a whole world with handfuls Moreover we reade of great multitudes baptized even three thousand in Ierusalem without mention of going to the rivers and of whole
families without mention of going out to the waters or fetching great store of waters It is like the waters they had within doores at midnight sufficed Act. 8.38 39. Your Collection from Philips going down to the water with the Eunuch that therefore they used dipping is as vain Must not they go to the water where it was if they would use it would the water have come up unto them in the chariot any sooner for sprinkling then for dipping Of the same stamp is your inference from Matth. 3.16 Mark 1.10 from Christs ascending from the water For as Christ was pleased to be baptized with water so he was pleased to go where the water was viz. in the channell to which there was a descent and from which there was an ascent so that he must go down to and come up from the water But here is not the least hint that Iohn doused Christ over head or under the water Nay rather that conceit of yours is here confuted for if our Blessed Saviour had been plunged of Iohn into the water then it would rather have been said That Iohn cast or plunged Christ into the water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and took him out of the water But it is onely implyed that Christ went down unto the water and came up again from it From your other Scriptures Col. 2.12 Rom. 6.4.5 1 Cor. 15.29 what you goe about to gather I know not unlesse this that as Christ was buried abode in the grave three dayes and then rose again so the party baptized must be put under the water abide there some considerable time and then come up againe for if you presse a similitude of Christs buriall in going down into the water and of his resurrection in coming up out of the water why not also of his abode in the grave three dayes by abiding three dayes or some answerable time under the water which will make bad worke neither can any such thing be gathered from those Scriptures Now to use your owne words Let any man that is not quite fallen out with his reason judge whether in all these Scriptures be any syllable that speaks more for dipping then for sprinkling or washing with water Men may well be at agreement with their reason and yet perceive no such thing as you inferre hence Col. 2.12 Rom. 6.4 5. 1 Cor. 15.29 But I would demand here two Questions First How can you gather from these places a dipping of the whole man over head and under water and that a similitude of Christs death buriall and rising againe to be represented by dipping into the water is signified here These Scriptures shew indeed that the end of our baptisme is to seale our communion with Christ in his death and resurrection by which we are dead to sinne and raised againe to holinesse But if you will presse hence a necessitie of resemblance of Christs death buriall and resurrection by our descending into abiding in and coming up out of the water Pro. 30.6 Revel 22.18 take heed lest you be one of those which adde to Gods word lest he reprove you as a lyer and adde unto you the plagues written in his Booke For I know not any word of God wherein this representation is necessarily implied much lesse expressed Besides if you urge death and resurrection to be resembled by descension into and ascension out of the water you must urge also buriall which is principally there expressed by the biding of the whole man head and all under for a time answerable to Christs three dayes buriall which cannot be without danger yea certainty of drowning Secondly If it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christs death buriall and resurrection is set before us in baptisme and so of our death to sinne and rising again to holinesse Yet I would demand why may not this be represented as well by infusion of water as by dipping Can you give me an example of so many killed and buried by immersion or dipping into the water as I can give of them that have beene put to death and buried by the infusion of water I am sure a whole world of men and other earthly creatures those few that were in the Arke excepted were buried in the universall Deluge at once by infusion not by dipping So that infusion or sprinkling Gen. 6.27 7.11 12. may well as clearely signifie death and buriall as dipping And to the preservation of Noah and those that were with him by the Arke on which waters were poured from drowning the Apostle compares baptisme as its antitype Wherefore you might doe well to be henceforth a little more modest and not talke as if all men were fallen out with their reason which will not jumpe with you in your weake conceits Now we come to your inference or conclusion which being built on the crazie and rotten foundation of such vaine and fond premises falls to the ground of it selfe And whereas you say that The Greek wanted not words to expresse any other act as well as dipping I answer Neither did the Greek want words to expresse onely dipping of the whole man all over into the water or dowsing and plunging over head and under the water which you would have Baptizo to signifie but neither have nor can prove that it doth if the holy Ghost had meant any such act Neither doth the Spirit of God need your helpe to find out fit words It seemed fit to that wise Spirit to use Baptizo which signifies to wash whether by dipping or sprinkling washing onely being intended to be significant and not either dipping or sprinkling Whereas you say that It cannot be proved that baptisme was administred any other way then by dipping for at least a thousand years after Christ Ans I leave the proofe and trialls of that to Historians and Antiquaries as being unfurnished with the Records of Antiquitie though I conceive your Assertion is as bold and groundlesse as your others are proved to be Secondly Why do you not prove that dowsing over head and under water was used for at least a thousand years after Christ Thirdly How can you tell it cannot be proved that sprinkling was used of all that time Will you perswade people that you have read over all the writings of the Ancients or that you are so honest faithfull and unerring that your word must be taken for an Oracle without proofe As for your cleare resulting consequence as I said It is built on too weake grounds to stand and therefore may be safely denied as a plaine untruth And whereas you apply the words of Peter and Ananias unto us Act. 2.38 Act. 22.16 1 Sam. 15.23 as to unbaptized persons perswading us to arise and be baptized Intimating that for us to refuse this your Charge is rebellion and stubbornesse as witchcraft iniquitie and idolatrie I would advise you take heed of and repent for abusing Scripture as in these and a great part
of your quotations you doe most grosly God will not hold them guiltlesse that take his name in vaine When you come to us with the same spirit and authoritie as Peter Ananias and Samuel had we will hearken to you Now though what hath beene said in answer to this disputers Arguments against baptizing by sprinkling or infusion and for onely dipping or plunging might suffice yet I will adde something more to what hath been written endeavouring to make it appeare that washing whether it be by dipping or sprinkling is the externall act required in this Sacrament to be used and that sprinkling or infusion is as if not more agreeable to the nature and institution of this Sacrament as dipping or immersion Argument 1. As the word used signifieth washing as hath beene shewed so the thing represented signified and sealed in this Sacrament is set forth in the Scripture by the phrase of washing or cleansing as 1 Cor. 6.11 But ye are washed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but ye are sanctified but yea are iustified c. Now who questions but our justification and sanctification or remission of sinnes together with mortification and vivification are sealed and signified by baptisme c. But these are here called washing So T it 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost In the former of which expressions washing if here be not meant baptisme it selfe which to deny I see no reason yet certainely here is meant the thing signified by baptisme which is sufficient for our purpose which way so ever it is taken Heb. 10.22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having our bodies washed with cleane water 1 Ioh. 1.7 And the bloud of Iesus Christ his Sonne shall cleanse us from all our sinnes Heb. 9.14 The bloud of Christ shall purge your conscience Now we know washing purging or cleansing may be and commonly is as well by infusion or powring on the thing to be washed as by dipping Common experience testifies so much and Scripture is not silent herein Luk. 7.44 She hath washed my feet with tears viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by powring or distilling as the word signifies And though it were granted that in those hot Countries they commonly washed by going downe into the water and being dipped therein whether in ordinary or ceremoniall or sacramentall washing that will no more inforce on us a necessity of observing the same in baptisme now then the example of Christ and his Apostles * Matth. 26.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mar. 14.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 22.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 14.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gesture in the Sacrament of the Supper ties us to the same which was leaning and partly lying which was their usuall table gesture then Now the ordinary table gesture which is usuall among us is most fit so the usuall manner of washing amongst us is most fit to be observed in baptisme and that is by powring as well as by dipping But it may be objected That sprinkling a little water doth not so fitly represent the perfect washing away of all our sinnes as dipping or plunging sith here the whole body is washed there onely the face or head onely Answ First the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body in baptisme Secondly with as good reason one might plead thus It is most convenient that at the Lords Supper every communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine and take as long as stomack and head will hold to signifie the full refreshment of the soule with the body and bloud of Christ But who would endure such reasoning These outward elements of Water Bread and Wine are for spirituall use and to signifie spirituall things so that if there be the truth of things the quantitie is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end namely to represent the spirituall grace and that it be neither so little as not clearely to represent it 2. Pet. 3.21 nor so much as to take off the heart from the spirituall to the corporall thing Not the washing away of the filth of the body in baptisme nor the glutting or satisfying of the naturall appetite in the Lord Supper is to be looked after but the washing and refreshing of the soule which may well be represented by the sprinkling of a little water eating and drinking of a little bread and wine In Circumcision a little skin was cut off Arg. 2 The spirituall grace and invisible act of God upon the soule signified and represented by the outward act of baptisme is oft expressed in Scripture by the phrase of powring and besprinkling and that in great probabilitie if not certainly and unquestionably with allusion to the Sacrament of Baptisme either already administred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fudit Infudit affudit profudit perfudit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to be administred I mean the bloud of Christ and the Spirit of God which are the invisible grace of Baptisme are said to be powred or sprinkled on Gods people Esa 44.3 For I will powre water on him that is thirstie and floods on the dry ground I will powre my Spirit on thy seed and my blessing upon thine off-spring Here the Spirit is said to be powred and this benefit is signified by the type of powring water Ioel 2.28 I will powre out my spirit on all flesh Which promise Peter citing calleth upon the people to repent and receive baptisme as being the signe and seale which God had appointed to represent and exhibite this promised blessing by Ezek. 36.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I will sprinkle upon you cleane water and you shall be cleane This cleane water questionlesse is the blood and spirit of Iesus Christ represented by the water in baptisme Thus we see three severall phrases signifying to sprinkle besprinkle powre If we look into the New Testament we shall find the like phrases Act. 2.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will powre forth my Spirit upon all flesh Heb. 10.22 Having your hearts besprinkled from an evill conscience 1 Pet. 1.2 By the sanctification of the spirit and sprinkling of the bloud of Iesus Christ See Heb. 9. 13. and 14. verses compared together and Heb. 12.24 Now let any one without prejudice consider these Scriptures whether at least some of them speake not in allusion to baptisme and whether they all hold not forth the thing signified in baptisme and whether baptisme be not a lively resemblance and representation of the things here spoken off And then withall let him consider whether the thing exhibited in this Sacrament be ever so fully set forth by dipping and then I leave him to judge whether sprinkling be not as that I say not more agreeable to the nature of this Sacrament as dipping Arg. 3 Thirdly this dousing over
head and under water that A. R. pleads for as essentiall to baptisme seems directly against the sixth Commandement and exposeth the person baptized to the danger of death For first suppose the party be fit for baptisme as they account in the sharpe Winter as now beleeving professing c. He must immediately be taken to the river as his tenet seemes to hold and there plunged in over head and eares though he come forth covered with yce But if he escape perishing with cold how can he escape being choaked and stifled with the water if he must be plunged over head to signifie his death to sinne secondly be kept under water to signifie his buriall and thirdly be taken up as this Disputer seemes to reason But whatsoever be the danger of freezing or suffocation it seemes this he holds the onely baptisme and therefore must not be swerved from Arg. 4 Fourthly will not this their manner of dipping be found also against the seventh Commandement in the Decalogue For I would know with these new dippers whether the parties to be dowsed and dipped may be baptized in a garment or no If they may then happily the garment may keep the water from some part of the body and then they are not rightly baptized for the whole man say they must be dipped Againe I would aske what warrant they have for dipping or baptizing garments more then the Papists have for baptizing Bells Therefore belike the parties must be naked and multitudes present as at Iohns baptisme and the parties men and women of ripe yeares as being able to make confession of their faith and repentance yet though they both sinne against the sixth Commandement indangering life and against all common honestie and civilitie and Christian modestie required in the seventh Commandement they must have this way observed because they fancie it the onely baptisme Shall we thinke this was the baptisme of Iohn Christ and his Apostles But enough of this second Consideration we come to the third Consideration The third Argument or Consideration against our Baptisme taken from the Ministers by whom administred examined YOur third Consideration against baptizing of infants amongst us is taken from the Calling Office Power and Authoritie of the Ministers by whom they are baptized Which subject because it hath been largely handled by others shall be lightly passed over Yet we will try what you say to it with shew of truth or weight A. R. Whereas you say That our Ministers power and authoritie was received from Bishops who received their power from the Antichristian State of Rome as they confesse so that the baptisme is from Antichrist not from Christ Answer 1 I answer First our Ministers have their authoritie and office from Iesus Christ as many as being fitted for that function upon due triall and approbation of Ministers though a Bishop or Bishops have had an hand yea a chiefe stroke therein and the choyce or acceptation of Gods people have set upon the worke of the Ministery Answer 2 Secondly a thing is not therefore forthwith unwarrantable or Antichristian because it comes from a Bishop or from the Pope or authoritie derived from them Is the doctrine of the unitie of Gods Essence Trinitie of Persons Creation of the world c. therefore unlawfull or Antichristian because holden by them If the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament have been in the custodie of the Papists as the Old Testament in the custodie of the Iewes so that we have no Bibles now but what came successively from the Iewes and Papists Must we therefore reject the Scripture as Antichristian or Iewish and look for immediate revelations Or if the Bishops had a hand in the Translation of our Bibles must they therefore be cast away as Antichristian so that neither you nor your disciples may meddle with them because they have passed through the hands of the Bishops If any of you have heard any Sacred truths from Ministers which have beene ordained by Bishops which you seemed to beleeve for a time must you of necessitie cast them away as falshoods and Antichristian Tenents false doctrines or nullities as you will make their baptisme Antichristian baptisme the reason is the same Take heed lest in so doing you cast away your soules Answer 3 Thirdly many things that Antichrist and they that are held under Antichrists tyranny hold and professe are not Antichristian but truly Christian As that the Canonicall Scriptures are the word of God that God is one in Essence yet three in Persons that Christ is the Sonne of God c. And many things taught by them many acts done by them are not Antichristian but Christian For Antichrist was foretold to sit in the Temple of God 2 Thess 2.4 which he would never have beene suffered to do had he not professed and practised some things that for their substance were of God And as for the faithfull over whom he did tyrannize while he sate in the Temple of God though they were abused and cheated by him with many superstitions and errours that he imposed upon them yet there were some saving truths that they professed and holy and acceptable worship and practise which they did performe which in Christ God was pleased to accept so that it is fond to reason Baptisme Ordination and the Scriptures were received from Antichrist therefore Antichristian Answer 4 Fourthly the power and authoritie of the Ministers doth not depend on the qualitie or station especially in respect of the worst part of the person or persons chusing or ordaining them Else men could never be assured of their owne or others ministrie whether it be true or false for the qualitie of men is onely knowne unto God and in the station of the best there may be somewhat irregular and wanting exact perfection but principally on Christs inward call discerned by the gifts propensitie and sincerity of the parties undertaking that office al which are requisite if they will to their own comfort and with Gods approbation exercise their ministerie although the want of some of these hinder not but that he which by Gods providence is called to the ministerie may have power and authoritie sufficient from God to be an instrument of God for the good of others though he were weake and unfound himselfe Mat. 10.4 and 40. as we may see in Iudas who was one of those to whom Christ saith He that receiveth you receiveth me c. the Scribes and Pharisees concerning whom Christ gave a charge that they should be heard and obeyed in those things which they taught sitting in Moses chaire Matth. 23.2 3. Phil. 1.15 16.18 Act. 6.5 Rev. 2.6 vide Brightman in locum though their lives were not exemplary the envious contentious and unsincere Preachers of Christ in whose preaching yet Paul rejoyced in Demas and Nicolas the Deacon who as Interpreters hold proved afterward the ring-leader of the Nicolaitanes This I say Christs inward call either of approbation
doctrin by whom they may be had in admiration while they are suffered to go on in their bold presumption and confident venting of their ignorant conceits and malicious rayling against authoritie which may appeare by this Authours abuse of Scripture for a colour of accusation of those that would restraine them and by his tale of a Minister in the West But I come to the fourth Consideration The fourth Argument Answered YOur fourth Consideration then is taken from the ground of baptizing children which as you are short in urging I will be short in answering A. R. Whereas therefore you say The faith and repentance of the Sureties is the ground of our baptizing as you would prove from the questions propounded at the baptizing and out of the Catechisme Whence you conclude that it is not true Baptisme because in true Baptisme the faith and repentance of the partie baptized is the ground Answer I Answer Not the faith and repentance of the Sureties as you pretend is the ground of our Baptisme neither do we say so but Gods gracious Covenant which he hath made with the parents and their children of which hereafter Which Covenant that parents may publiquely professe themselves to have interest in and with them their children it is convenient that they and other Sureties if they see it good to joyne such with themselves to undertake what they promise in the behalfe of their children in case parents should be negligent ignorant or by speedy death or otherwise disabled to bring up their children religiously I say it is convenient that they should make a profession of their faith and repentance which yet doth not at all prove that their faith and repentance is the ground of the childrens Baptisme But the tenour of Gods gracious covenant under which they professe themselves and with them their children to be is the ground of this act Now though there may be some unjustifiable or unfit passages in the Catechisme or manner of Baptisme whence you fetch your Argument seeing that it is apparent that our ground of baptizing Infants is the Covenant of God made with the parents or those which are in stead of parents which Covenant that they are in they testifie by professing their faith and repentance and considering that the answering of Sureties and the Catechizing of Children doth nothing touch the essence of Baptisme those passages nothing prejudice the truth of Childrens Baptisme But concerning this matter viz. the ground of Childrens Baptisme more hereafter The fifth Argument against the Baptisme of Infants taken from the subiects to whom it is administred Answered THe fifth Consideration A. R. which yeelds an Argument against our Baptisme is taken from the subiects on whom Baptisme is administred and those are Infants whereas say you the Scripture holds forth the Disciples or beleevers onely are to be baptized which you prove thus For the Commission of Christ was onely to baptize disciples as appeareth Matth. 28.19 the words being these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Going therefore disciple all nations baptizing them c. Now the question say you is to what this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them hath relation whether to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nations or no. But say you it is cleare out of the words that it hath not relation to nations but to disciples for the word which is put for them in that place is autous not auta which it should be if it had relation to nations Answ 1. But I pray you who but your self ever saw in this Text the word Disciples to which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them may have relation There is no such word either in any usuall translation or in the Originall 2. What necessitie or likelihood is there that your supposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciples should be antecedent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them Because forsooth it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Know you not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nations though in voyce it be Neuter yet in signification it is Masculine Signifying men in the Nations or Heathens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homines in Gentibus or Gentium or Gentiles You sure would never have been so confident that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciples if you had but consulted with Lylies Rules who tels you of a figure called Synthesis when a sentence is congruous in sense Synthesis est ocatio congrua sensu non voce Gens armati 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though not in voice and brings an example like to this The Armed nation which figure is very frequent in the Greeke language to instance onely in this same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 15.17 And all the nations upon whom my name is called upon them where you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom and them answering to the antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gentes And I beleeve where you finde a Relative in Scripture answering to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most frequently if not alwayes it is the Masculine gender as Act. 28.28 to the Gentiles is sent this salvation and they shall heare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act 13.48 The Gentiles hearing glorified the word of the Lord and they beleeved so many as were ordained unto eternall life Rom. 2.14 15. When the Gentiles not having the law do by nature the things of the law these having not the law are a law to themselves which shew the work c. Insomuch that your Criticisme hath greatly failed you here and so your foundation which you have laid to prove That all who are baptized according to Christs Commission proving but a meere conceit or self-deceit your building that you reare thereupon will vanish away Obiect If it be said Christ commanded the Apostles to teach or make disciples and then to baptize so that none are capable of Baptisme but those that have been taught or made disciples first Answer 1 To this I answer First This cannot be gathered by any necessary consequence from the connexion of the words any more then it may be concluded from the same verse that none may Teach or Baptize but Apostles or such as have authoritie and gifts of miracles and tongues to goe to all nations For as Baptizing is joyned with Teach so Teach ye is joyned with Go ye before and All nations after But if no wise man will deduce or yeeld to this conclusion None must either Preach or Baptize but those which have gifts and authoritie to goe into all nations for that end from the coherence of the words you must excuse us if we yeeld not to the deducing of your conclusion from the coherence viz. That none are to be baptized but those which have been first taught or made disciples Answer 2 Secondly I answer It is
commission bound them to baptize none but those which were brought to actuall faith you have not proved as may appeare by the foregoing examination of what you produced Secondly Why should not we interpret their commission by their practise rather then draw their practise to that sense which your fancy is pleased to put on the commission Their practise as a commentary on their commission shews in what sense it was understood by them Thirdly Why may not those places that speake of the beleeving of the family before they were baptized if you can produce any such be expounded by these that shew the heads of that the families beleeving and being baptized and giving up themselves and theirs unto God the whole families were accounted beleeving families and so baptized especially seeing it so agreeth with Gods proceeding with Abraham the father of the faithfull Fourthly Or what necessitie is there that either those Scriptures should be expounded by these or these by those when they are both equally plain and cleare They may be both true according to the proper sense of the letter and history In some families all might well be of ripe years and actuall beleevers in others not and yet both sorts might be baptized without absurditie Arg. 3 Those which are Saints or holy ones are meet members of the Church and so have right to that Sacrament that seales admission into the Church Eph. 5.25 26 27. 1 Cor. 1.2 But the children of Christian parents are Saints or holy ones Ephes 5.25 26 27. 1 Cor. 7.14 Therefore they are meet members of the Church and so have right to baptisme being the Sacrament that seales admission into the Christian Church The Proposition namely that Saints or holy ones are members of the Church and so to be admitted to the Sacrament of entrance thereinto I know not to be questioned or denied by any and if it should may be confirmed by those Scriptures wherein the Churches have the title of Saints given to them or Saints by calling implying that a Saint and a member of the Church are termes convertible considering that in some Epistles the faithfull are all called by the name of Church the name of Saints or holy ones not being used and contrariwise so that sometime the Apostle calls them to whom he writes Saints not Church sometime Church not Saints sometime both Church and Saints Rom. 1.7 1 Cor. 1.2 2 Cor. 1.2 Ephes 1.1 Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.2 Gal. 1.2 1 Thes 1.1 2 Thes 1.1 as may appeare in the places quoted in the margine so that all the members of the Church are Saints all Saints are members of the Church Yet it is to be noted by the way they were Saints by calling or called to be Saints Not so that every member of these Churches were truly sanctified but such as had beene called to holinesse and made at least an externall profession of obeying this heavenly call For some among those sanctified ones or Saints by calling were notorious offenders and such as were stained with grosse errours as 1 Cor. 3.3 5.1 2. 6.1.8.13 so Chap. 8.11 15. 2 Cor. 12.21 Gal. 3. Phil. 3.15 Yet it was sufficient to make them Saints by calling and members of the visible Church that they were partakers of the heavenly calling Heb. 3.1 and so they had externall right to the Sacrament although if they did not walke worthy their calling they brought upon themselves the greater condemnation Secondly it is confirmed hence In that holinesse comprehends all the conditions or qualifications that are requisite to baptisme Holinesse cannot be without communion with Christ regeneration and remission by the Spirit and Bloud of Christ 1 Cor. 6.11 1 Ioh. 1.7 So that as much as a man is holy so much he hath communion with Christ regeneration and remission If indeed and truth he be holy then is he inwardly and really united unto Christ regenerated and justified If outwardly and in profession onely he be holy then hath he communion with Christ regeneration and remission onely outwardly and in profession as Heb. 10.29 Those Apostates are said to account the bloud of the Covenant wherewith they were sanctified prophane and to doe despite to the Spirit of Grace These were not truly and inwardly sanctified for then should they have never fallen away but onely outwardly faederally and in respect of externall profession Yet this externall holinesse is as much as the Minister can discern or require as necessary for receiving into the outward covenant and admitting to the seale of entrance Thirdly this is confirmed by that Scripture cited in the Proposition Ephes 5.25 26 27. where it is shewed that the Church is sanctified and purged by Christ in the washing of water in the word that he might make it to himselfe a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and unblameable Wherein these two propositions making for the confirmation of my Proposition are plainly contained First that the Church is sanctified by Christ and that it is an holy societie which holinesse is such a proper adjunct or unseparable propertie of the Church that whosoever is holy must needs be a member of the Church Secondly that this Church which Christ so loved for which he gave himselfe which he hath made holy he hath cleansed with the washing of water in the word which whether it be meant of the outward signe or thing signified in baptisme or rather both doth apparently shew that the whole Church and all the members thereof being holy have right to the outward washing of water in baptisme To the Minor or Assumption That the children of Christian parents are holy First it might be proved from the same place Ephes 5.25 26 27. For otherwise unlesse it be granted that all the children of Christian parents are so faederally holy that at least some of them are sanctified in deed and truth it will follow that they are not loved of Christ none of those for whom Christ gave himselfe nor part of the Church at least in their infancie and consequently those children of Christian parents that die before the years of discretion and actuall faith must unavoidably and remedilesly perish and that the parents of such can have no hope at all of their escaping eternall damnation not withstanding all the promises that God hath made to his people and their posteritie which opinion what Christian heart doth not abhorre Secondly but for the fuller proofe of the point that children of parents whereof the one at least is a beleever are holy that place 1 Cor. 7.14 is most direct and cleare where the Apostle saith For the unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children uncleane but now they are holy whence we may note First that the word holy is the same that is used else-where for Saints as the proper title of the members
in examining these testimonies in probability you would bee found no honester in citing them then you have been in citing many scriptures For he that will be so bold as to pervert and abuse Gods word will not spare mans But because we are not bound to stand to the testimony of humane authors neither will you as I conceive I will answer no more at this time to your humane authorities but these two things First that if you would stand to the verdict of authors I make no question but more and more approved authors might easily be brought against you then those you have brought for your selfe Secondly what credit is to be given to your authors who manifestly contradict one another In a word to give a touch Origen the prime and ancientest of those whom you cite which lived about 200. yeeres after Christ overthrowes what you bring out of him or other authors for your purpose For whereas you say he calls it a ceremony or tradition of the Church which yet it may be well called and withall be of divine institution as being delivered to and used by the Church in which sense Baptisme in generall and the Lords Supper may be called Ceremonies and traditions of the Church which is the keeper and user of them not the author or institutor of them elsewhere he speaks of it as an unquestionable practise of the Church in his time thus in his second tome and 14. homily on Luke cited by * Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorem Quorum peccatorum aut quo tempore peccaverunt aut quomodo potest ulla lavacri in parvulis ratio subsistere nisi juxta illum sensum de quo paulo ante diximus Nullus mundus a sorde nec si unius dici quidem fuerit vita ejus super terram Et quia per baptismi sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur propterca baptizantur parvuli Orig. Tom. 2. Hom. 14. in Luc. citat Polan Synt. Tom. secundo lib. 6. cap. 55. Polanus in his Syntagme Little ones are Baptized for the remission of sinnes Of what sinnes Or at what times have they sinned Or how can there be any reason of washing in little ones but according to that sense of which we spake a little before There is none cleane from filthinesse no though he hath lived but one day on earth And because by the Sacrament of Baptisme the filthinesse of birth is put away therefore little ones are also Baptized Wherein this Authour seems for I have not his Booke from the Baptizing of Infants as from an unquestionable practise of the Church in those Primitive times to demonstrate as from a cleare principle that Infants even of one day old were polluted with sinne And yet you say Luther saith that for one thousand yeares since Christ and the Apostles it came to be in use in the Church and was established by Pope Innocentius Surely your Authours are honestly cited by you or worthy credit with us when you bring them speaking such flat and irreconciliable contradictions But you returne now to the question What is meant by holynesse which children are said to have 1. Cor. 7.14 In answer to which question you say I shall only shew you what I conceive it to be and then leave it to the judgment of the wise Answ It is well yet that you give leave to wise men to use their owne judgement and doe not tie them upon necessitie of salvation to subscribe to your fancies You goe on I say then it is such an holynesse as is opposite to some kinde of uncleannesse which holynesse I take to be this as if when they are said to be holy it is no more then to say they are not uncleane to wit no bastards Answ Who ever before but * Note reader that this is Bellarmines interpretation of this place Liberi tales dicuntur non inmundi i. e. infames spurij sed sancti i. e. legitimi liberi a civili ignominia Whether A.R. borrowed this answer of Bellarmine or invented it of himselfe as it is the hapinesse of the good wits and holy affections of Iesuiticall and Anabaptisticall heads hearts to jumpe in the same thing let others judge Bellarmine or such Iesuiticall perverters of Scriptures tooke it so putting uncleane for bastards or holy for legitimate But you come to shew your ground from opening of the text and therein spend many lines Answ But let any man that is not given over to strong delusions to beleeve lies judge whether there be any syllable favouring this interpretation or proving that by holy must be meant only No-bastards or whether you can with all your cunning wrack the Apostles speaches to speak any thing for you yet now we must take your word for it because you say it clearely appeares to be so Further This you say may likewise appeare Mal. 2.14 15 c. In which words it plainly appeareth that the scope of the place is that those children which are generated by one man and one woman lawfully married are a godly or an holy feed and those that are generated otherwise are not so but bastards And the reason of this holinesse ariseth not here from any relation they had to the Iewish State not from any Church covenant but meerely from Gods first institution of marriage in the creation and his then providing one woman for one man and which therefore is of universall concernment to all mankind by the law of creation Answ No such thing plainly appeareth as you would beare men in hand For the scope of the Prophet in that of Malachi seemes to be this which in the 16. vers he concludes viz. that God hates putting away that is divorcement whereby the Israelites alienated their owne wives that were Israelites that they might marry strangers and this he proves by divers reasons to be odious before God First because by this meanes they prophaned the holinesse of the Lord in breaking his covenant by putting away their owne wives that were Israelites and marrying the daughters of strange gods viz. heathenish wives which God in his covenant had forbidden by which meanes they would soone grow out of covenant and cease to be an holy people vers 11. Secondly because by this meanes they caused the Altar of the Lord to be covered with teares so that no sacrifices were acceptable which should have beene offered in joy because the poore sorrowfull wives that had been put away could not but testifie before the Altar the sorrow for the wrong that had been done unto them vers 13. Thirdly because in so doing they dealt treacherously against the wife of their youth which was the husbands companion and the wife of his covenant vers 14. Fourthly because God had made them one vers 15. In the first institution of marriage appointing that two onely should be made one flesh by marriage appointing also that they should be of one stock viz. of the Tribe of Israel of
it is the dutie of all that are beleevers children of Abraham and will be blessed in Abrahams seed that is Christ to imitate Abrahams example in laying hold on the covenant for themselves and their children and giving them up to God even in their infancie by requiring the seale of the Covenant to be administred unto them and not to loose any part of that inheritance that God entayled upon Abraham and his children seeing as it hath been proved it is no peculiar priviledge of Abraham to have his seed in covenant nor his peculiar dutie to lay hold on the covenant for his children but the common priviledge and dutie of all the faithfull You proceed Therefore though the promises were made to Abraham and his seed yet the consequence will not follow that the covenant is likewise made with all beleevers and their seed for beleevers onely are the seed and the seed onely and none of them a father in the Gospel sense nor any other save onely Abraham to whom and his seed the covenant and promises were made Answ First If the consequence will not follow Because God is the God of Abraham and his seed Therefore he is to all the faithfull and their seed how is Abraham a father of the faithfull and patterne of beleevers Or how will it follow that Abraham performed any dutie or received any priviledge Therefore all beleevers ought to doe those duties may receive those priviledges Secondly your reason that you bring for your deniall of our consequence is a bold assertion manifestly repugnant to plain Scripture as Exod. 20.5.6 Where God having laid downe the summe of the covenant vers 2. bindes his people to his true worship and to avoid Idolatrie with a promise of mercy unto thousands of those that should love him and keepe his commandements Now these thousands are meant of the godly mans posteritie as appeareth by the Antithesis of vers 5. visiting the sinnes of the fathers on their children unto the third and fourth generation c. Doth not this promise belong to all that are in covenant with God and are bound to the obedience of the morall Law and to the pure worship of God and abstinence from idolatry so Esa 59. last vers Act. 2.37 What is meant by Gods shewing mercy to a thousand generations making a covenant that his Spirit and word shall be continued to their seed and seeds seed that the promise is made to them whom the Lord doth call and their children but the same that God promiseth unto Abraham that he will make a covenant with him and his seed be a God to him and his seed So that this answer to your boldly-affirmed but never-proved assertion that to Abraham and his seed onely the promise was made may suffice to overthrow the inferences you bring thereupon and your absurdities that you would father upon us mingled with divers untruths as may appeare to any intelligent Reader not worth answering Onely that which you lay downe in the beginning For beleevers onely are the seed and in the conclusion Abraham hath not two sorts of seeds in the sense and acceptation of the Gospel Vpon which as upon a ground-work of all your reasoning is built that the rottennesse of the foundation being discovered it may appeare how easily the superstruction will come down of it selfe I answer therefore Answ We read in the Gospell or new Testament of three sorts of Abrahams seed First Christ is called his seed Gal. 3.16 Secondly the faithfull of what Nation soever are called his seed Gal. 3.29 Thirdly those who naturally desended from his loynes Iohn 8.37 2. Cor. 11.22 And in this last kind to be Abrahams seed was sufficient to intresse men to the outward Covenant and the seale thereof and the promise was made to Abraham Gen. 17. literally and properly in this last sense not in the first or second as is apparent by the text For with that seed God made the Covenant in Abraham and to that seed God became a God which was to be circumcised at eight dayes old in respect of the males as you say the females in the males But the natural issue of Abraham was to be circumcised at 8 dayes old in respect of the males in them the females See Gen. 17.7.10.11.12 for proofe of both propositions Therfore the naturall issue of Abraham is the seed to which according to the litteral and proper meaning of the Scripture God promises to be a God in Covenant And so it appeares to be false which you say that beleevers only were the seed of Abraham sith many naturally descending from Abraham and circumcised and so outwardly in Covenant were unbeleevers You add that wee say Infants were then members of the Church and demand when they were cast out to which you answer that they were cast out when the Iewes Church-state and old Covenant was abrogate by the comming of Christ and preaching of the Gospell and planting of other Churches farre different from that of the Iewes in many respects Answ But I hope Gods people are not so simple as to beleeve your bare words against Gods expresse truth though you were an Angell from heaven or an Apostle Gal. 1. â— much lesse being as you are discovered and to think that in former times indeed Infants were in Covenant with God but now are excluded that now all Infants of christian parents dying without actuall faith and under yeares of discretion must certainly perish as aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and out of Covenant with God that grace is so farre straitned under the Gospell in comparison of what it was under the law that whereas God was then a God to parents and to children even to many generations yea to the children of Proselytes Exod. 12.48 of what Nation soever now the holyest Christian parents can apprehend no benefit from the Covenant for their children at least till they come to yeares of discretion and actuall faith and till then must accompt them infidells and wholly under the power of the devill Is this to advance Gods Grace to extoll the Gospell and glorifie Iesus Christ Or rather is it not a tricke of the devill greatly to obscure and indeavour the utter extinguishing of the glory of Gods grace the virtue of Christs death the lustre of the Gospell and the comfort of a Christian all at once They that will hearken to such deceits as these let them make account at the last to be cheated of all grounds of comfort in Gods word Act. 2.39 Doth not the Apostle say the promise is to you and your children and to them that are afarre off c. when the Iewes Church-state and old Covenant were abrogated But let us come to consider the many respects wherein you say that the Church of the Gospell differs from the Iewish state or old Covenant whence you would prove that Infants are now cast out of Covenant wherein because you repeat for substance some toyes and
speakes as it was taken without the promise and that Covenant which God made with Abraham and as men sought justification by it whether without the promise before Christ or without the Gospell since Christ or whether they sought justification by the Law together with the promise or the Gospell which was not Gods end in giving the Law to his people but mans abuse of it so it brought men into a state of bondage and so the obstinate Iews that thus abuse the Law are cast out as Ishmael and Hagar And as the faithfull were under the discipline and padagogie of the Law they were in a servile condition in comparison of that great freedome from those intolerable burdens of ceremonies and great discomfort and feare accompanying the same which the faithfull have under the Gospel But notwithstanding their bondage they were sonnes and heires and lords of all Gal. 4.1 and so they were under a Covenant of grace though legally administred As for your following discourse wherein you talke your pleasure against Magistrates and Ministers and cry out of the Baptisme of Infants as the greatest delusion and a thing of as dangerous consequence as ever the man of sinne brought into the world and that the greatest maintainers thereof are the greatest deluders and that it is time for you to awake out of your drunken slumber and seek by whom and by what meanes you are so miserablely intosticated as you call it whether by an errour of the Printer or because you are so intoxicated with your drunken slumber that you cannot speake English with much other like raving talke wherein you abuse the Scriptures and shew what manner of spirit you are of Answ I account this wild talke being the evaporations of a giddy braine intoxicated with a drunken slumber whereof you complaine worthy no other answer but this Of every idle word you must give an account at the day of judgment Matt. 12.36 much more of speaking evill of those things you know not railling upon dignities and authorities despising dominions 2 Pet. 2.9.10.11.12 Iud. 4. 8 9. c. and of calling evill good and good evill putting darknesse for light and light for darknesse Es 5.20 Which places of Scripture I would intreate you when you shall awake out of your drunken slumber to consider and seriously ponder So much for the fourth argument and clearing it from exceptions Now I come to the fifth which is of affinity with the former and confounded with it by A. R. and therefore his answers to it mingled with his answers to the former but not the same and therefore we will consider it apart and set downe his answers of any weight and replie to them God willing and this is taken from circumcision 5. Argument If Infants of beleeving parents or parents in Covenant under the old Covenant might and ought to be consecrated unto God and initiated into Covenant by circumcision then Infants of beleeving parents under the new Covenant ought to be consecrated to God and solemnly entred into Covenant by Baptisme But Infants of beleeving parents under the old Covenant might and ought to be consecrated to God and initiated into Covenant by circumcision Gen. 17.10.11 Exod. 12.48 Therefore Infants of beleeving parents under the new Covenant ought to be consecrated unto God and solemnly entred into Covenant by Baptisme For the clearing and confirming of the sequele of the proposition for of the assumption there is no question I will lay downe two or three considerations First that the old and new covenant were one and the same for substance Abraham Moses David and all the faithfull before Christ were under the same Covenant that all the faithfull since Christ are under For since Adams fall there hath been but one way of salvation common to all that have been saved which way is revealed and exhibited only in the Covenant of grace as hath been partly shewed before see Rev. 13.8 14.6 Heb. 11. through the Chapter and 13.8 Hath been demonstrated by the godly learned and must be needs acknowledged by all that will without prejudice consider that Exod. 34.6.7 first God considered as a mercifu l Father a gratious long-suffering God abundant in goodnesse and truth Ezeh 16. is the Authour of the old Covenant as well as the new secondly Iosh 24. Exod. 33.19 That man considered as a miserable sinner yet weary of sinne desiring mercy professing and promising repentance faith and obedience Eph. 1.12 upon his being received into this Covenant is the other Covenantier or confederate in the old aswell as in the new Thirdly 1. Cor. 10.4 that Christ is the Mediatour in both being the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world Gen. 3.15 Ioh. 8. Ps 110. Exod. 34.7 the promised seed who brake the serpents head whose day Abraham seeing rejoyced A priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek Fourthly that the principall good things promised in both were pardon of sinnes Ps 32.1.2 adoption sanctification perseverance and eternall salvation Fiftly Gen. 15.6 that the condition required is repentance faith and obedience in the old Covenant aswell as the new Sixtly that the end in both is the same Act. 15.10.11 to wit the glory of Gods rich mercie in powring spirituall temporall and eternall blessings upon his people And seventhly that the summe of the Covenant is the same viz Rom. 4. Exod. 19.5 6. Deut. 4.29 30. 10.16.19 11.22 I will be thy God and thou shalt be my people All which are undenyably the same in the old Covenant and new So that considering they agree in Author Object Mediator Good things promised Duties required End Effects in a word in Matter Forme and Definition there can be no essentiall difference Only they differ in some Accidents As there the Covenant was made in Christ to come Here in Christ already come There with a few people and after Abrahams or at least Moses his time only with the house of Israel and those that should joyne therewith Here with more even with all nations Then dispensed by darker prophesies and more obscure sacraments sacrifices and ceremonies or types now by cleare revelation and plaine or open ordinances without the vaile of shadowes types and darke ceremonies Then grace was more dimly scantly and with mixture of legall slavery ordinarily bestowed now more plainly plentifully comfortably and freely all which are but circumstantiall or graduall differences Secondly when the new Covenant succeeded the old then Baptisme succeeded in the place of circumcision as the Lords Supper in stead of the Passeover Exod. 12 48. Rom. 4.11 1 Cor. 12.13 Act. 22.16 Col. 2.11 12. I say Baptisme succeeded in the roome of circumcision and is to us of the same use that circumcision was to the Iewes to wit a signe of entrance into the Church a seale of the righteousnesse of faith which comprehends remission of sinnes Baptisme of the spirit and circumcision of the heart
use of circumcision to Abraham and his posteritie for the substance to wit to be a signe of their being in covenant and seale of the righteousnesse of faith in your opinion why doe you not shew the difference of Abrahams circumcision and theirs If you say it was to Abraham a seale of his faith righteousnesse and regeneration that he had already to them of that which they were to have I answer this is but a circumstantiall difference and gives what we desire and maintaine If you say that many who were circumcised were never justified by faith or regenerated this was mans abuse and fault who being received into such a Covenant wherein God promised to be his God and was ready to performe his promise yet would not performe the conditions required in the covenant For if some that received circumcision were never internally in Covenant nor indued with the righteousnesse of faith that hinders not but that circumcision was a signe of their being outwardly received into that covenant wherein God was ready to bestow faith and regeneration if through their owne default they did not deprive themselves thereof Besides if there was not the same use of circumcision to Abraham and his children circumcised by Gods appointment How doe you say in your Preface to the Reader That baptisme is an undoubted pledge from God of the free pardon and remission of sinnes to the right subjects thereof sith it may with as good reason be said though it were so in our Saviours time yet it is not so now as you seeme to beare men in hand Though circumcision was a seale of the righteousnesse of faith and a signe of the covenant between God and him to Abraham yet it was not so to his posteritie though they were the right subjects thereof whom God had appointed to be circumcised But if you rightly gather that Baptisme is an undoubted pledge of the pardon of sinne to the right subjects thereof now because it was so to those which were first baptized we may as well gather that circumcision was a signe of the Covenant and seale of the righteousnesse of faith to those infants which by Gods appointment received it as it was to Abraham Hitherto of those Arguments of ours whereunto this Disputant answers As for the other Arguments and Objections which he brings and answers I shall leave them to defend them that owne them I will adde briefly one or two Arguments more 4. Arg. Arg. 6. If the baptizing of Infants born of Christian parents or parents within the new covenant be not according to the rule of Gods word then there is no rule or warrant in the Scripture for baptizing the posteritie of beleevers under the New covenant at all and so consequently the children of beleevers must not be baptized at all neither young nor old for we must do nothing without Scripture warrant But that the posteritie of Christian parents ought not to be baptized at all is most absurd and false as I think will be acknowledged of all that beare the names of Christians For how can it be supposed that the faith and Christianity of the parents should be so prejudiciall to the children as to deprive them of the pledge of the remission of sinnes though they repent and beleeve when yet the posteritie of Infidels may be baptized upon their faith and repentance Therefore the Antecedent must needs be false viz. that the baptizing of infants of Christian parents is not according to the rule of the word and consequently the contradictory thereto true viz. that the baptizing of infants borne of parents in covenant is according to the rule The Assumption I conceive needs no proofe seeing Christ hath appointed that the Sacraments of the New Testament should be perpetuall to the end of the world Matth. 28.19.20 1 Cor. 11.26 to those that should be in Covenant For the confirmation then of the proposition and making cleare its consequence Consider first there is no command example or other testimony in Scripture can be given to shew that the children of testimony in Scripture can be given to shew that the children of beleeving parents should be kept from baptisme untill they could in their owne persons actually repent beleeve and make confession of their faith But still when parents were converted to the faith and baptized their whole families were baptized with them Neither is there any word concerning the posteritie of Christian parents who were borne of them being in covenant to have been baptized in riper yeares Secondly those commands and examples of baptizing them that repented beleeved and professed the faith are all of such as had before been out of the New covenant and were come of parents that had never been under the covenant of the Gospel and therefore with lesse reason can be applied to the posteritie of Christian parents when they come to yeares of discretion then when they were infants For those examples and commands shew that so soone as one is in covenant with God in the time of the Gospel he hath right unto baptisme Neither can it without sinne to God and injurie to the person be denied to him but ought to be administred so soone as it may conveniently be had And therefore as they that had beene out of covenant before so soone as they had repented and beleeved at least professed so much which was necessary to their being taken into covenant ought to be baptized as soone as might be conveniently Act. 8.36 37 38. Act. 10.47 Act. 22.16 and might not without injurie be hindred by others or sinne in themselves neglect it So the children of Christian parents being in covenant as hath beene proved and cannot be denied with any shew of truth that I say not without blasphemy cannot without injurie be denied baptisme so soone as it may expediently be administred to them This Argument for more evidence and clearenesse may be propounded thus The posteritie of beleevers either must be baptized in their infancie or when they are able to make a profession of faith and do it really or they must not be baptized at all But to hold that they should not be baptized at all but that all the children of beleevers should be debarred baptisme though they prove never so godly is absurd and wicked that they should be baptized onely when they come to yeares of discretion and make profession of faith and repentance there is no warrant in Scripture neither by command practise or otherwise as hath been shewed Therefore they are to be baptized in infancie Arg. 7. If Christian women that are under the new covenant have right to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and may and ought to be admitted thereunto neither can without great injurie be detained therefrom notwithstanding their sexe though there be no cleare expresse direct and immediate command or example in the Scripture for the same then may and ought infants of Christian parents being in covenant to be admitted to
the Sacrament of Baptisme neither can without great injurie be debarred there from notwithstanding their age though there were not any clear expresse direct immediat command for the same But Christian women have right to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and may and ought to be admitted thereunto neither can without great injurie be detained therefrom notwithstanding their sexe though there be no cleare expresse direct and immediate command in Scripture for womens being received to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Therefore may and ought infants of Christian parents being in covenant to be admitted to the sacrament of baptisme neither can without great injurie be debarred therefrom notwithstanding their age though there were not any clear expresse direct and immediate command or example in the scripture for the same For confirmation of the sequele in the major or first proposition note First there is as much cause to question womens title to the Lords Supper in regard of their female sex as there is cause of questioning childrens baptisme because of their infant age especially considering the female was deprived of one Sacrament in the old covenant and there is no more if so much spoken in Scripture for womens being admitted to that then for infants being admitted to this Secondly whatsoever can be said or gathered by good consequence from Scripture for Christian women receiving the Lords Supper the same as much or more may as truly and by as cleare consequence be said for the baptizing of infants of Christian parents Are Christian women of some standing and continuance in the covenant of grace and so have title to the seale and Sacrament that signifies growth in grace and continuance in Christ No lesse are infants of Christian parents entred into the covenant of grace by vertue of the covenant made with their parents as hath been proved and will not be denied I thinke by any that cares and knows what he saith and so have title to the seal of admission or entrance into covenant Have they at least in judgement of charitie right to the thing signified in the Lords Supper viz. Christ his body and bloud with all the benefits of his death and passion No lesse have these in the like judgement of charitie right to the thing signified in baptisme viz. the Bloud and Spirit of Christ pardon of sinne and regeneration Were they being the inferiour sexe comprehended under the superiour sexe of men in the command Why might not these as well being inferiours in age and wholly at their parents dispose be comprehended under the command of baptizing the parents Were they never forbidden nor excepted or exempted from the Lords Supper though not expressely commanded to receive it The same may be said concerning childrens baptizing Have women need of the Eucharist to strengthen faith and quicken them to obedience as well as men so have infants need of baptisme to confirme faith in Gods gracious covenant and incite to obedience their parents for the present and themselves for the future Is it more then probable that although at the first institution of the Lords Supper there were no women because Christ had none present but onely his owne family and peculiar flock of his Disciples who were all men yet Act. 2.42 if breaking bread unquestionably signifie the use of the Sacrament there and Act. 20.7 and 1 Cor. 11. when mention is made of the Lords Supper there were women though it is not expressed No lesse probably may it be gathered that in those families that were baptized there were some children In a word were women admitted to eate of the sacrifices and sacrament of Passeover in the time of the old covenant among the Iewes It is known that infants were received to the Sacrment of circumcision in the old Covenant likewise So that I see no reason why the one should be questionable when the other is not called into question For the Assumption or minor proposition it hath two things in it to be confirmed first that there is no direct expresse immediate command or example in the Scripture for women receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper more then for childrens being baptized This is easily proved by turning over to all those places of Scripture that speak of the Lords Supper which are not many Mat. 26.26 27 28. Mar. 14.22 c. Luk. 22.19 c. Act. 2.22 20.7 1 Cor. 10. 11. neither do I remember any other places that speake expresly of this Sacrament in all which places is no mention of women The second part of the assumption is that notwithstanding this is not expressed in so many words in Scripture that beleeving women shold receive the sacramēt of the Lords Supper yet that they may ought to be admitted neither can without injury be debarred which is so universally for ought I know acknowledged that I never heard it questioned And he that should question it might seeme worthy of detestation or contempt rather then answer or disputation It may be confirmed by such grounds as were intimated in my confirmation of the proposition And my reason why I say this is an unquestionable truth Beleeving women have right to the Lords Supper aswell as men that by Scripture warrant is the received maxime in Divinity that what is contained in Scripture in expresse words or may be gathered from the Scripture by just consequence hath sufficient warrant from Gods word and is a matter of faith Or as it is expressed by some thus A scripture commandeth promiseth or threatneth whatsoever is contained in it though not expressed and that is contained in it which may justly and truly be gathered from it though by never so many consequences or inferences Now I hope none questions but that it may by just and undenyable consequences be proved that beleeving women aswell as men ought to receive the Supper and so it hath been proved that children ought to be baptized otherwise if we will not admit that we have sufficient scripture warrant not only for that which is expresly set downe in scripture but also for whatsoever by just consequence is or may be deduced therefrom we shall deprive our selves of all or most Scripture-promises or priviledges and exempt our selves of all or most commands Seeing what is set downe in the Scripture is not spoken immediatly and expressely to us in particular but only by just consequence or inference is derivable and appliable unto us And therefore let those that either out of ignorance and scruple or wilfulnesse and prophanenesse think that there is warrant or obligation for nothing to be done as an act of faith and obedience but what is set downe or they are commanded expressely and clearely in the scripture in so many words take heed they doe not at once deny to God all obedience and to their soules all comfort in the promises This last argument may be summed up briefly thus If it be not warrantable for children to be baptized then