from Gen. 1.1 when according to his own Assertion all true Believers are in the Covenant of Grace and so are the Elect of God in a true and proper sence and the fit subjects of Baptism And if he would himself who is yet an unbaptized person truly believe and be baptized and by a Gift from Christ did once become a Teacher in the true visible Church he might then baptise penitent Believers upon a foundation that himself acknowledges to be good and warrantable from the practice of the Apostles But for his baptizing Infants as he hath no authority for it from the Word of God so by his own Confession he hath no Foundation for it as they are in Covenant because he doth not know they are so But 2dly He saith page 7. That all Infants of such believing parents i. e. External and Visible Professors are in the Covenant of Grace and have as much a right to Baptism the Now Seal of the Covenant as the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision the then Seal of the Covenant And saith This is the principal thing designed from this Text meaning Gen. 17.7 c. Well if it be so it shall be considered but I pray who told him these things he hath so boldly asserted For in the first place If all Infants are not within the Covenant of Grace how comes it about that all the Infants of such believing Parents qua talis are in that Covenant Hath he not forgot what he wrote in the very Page before That the Covenant of Grace is God's gracious Promise of delivering from a state of Sin and Death and bringing into a state of Salvation by Jesus Christ all that by faith fly to and lay hold on him and could it enter into his imagination that little Infants can by faith fly to and lay hold on Christ And if they cannot then it 's plain this Gentleman hath been guilty of a Self-contradiction from which he can no ways extricate himself Mr. Collins had given him sufficient notice of it by saying surely the Gentleman hath forgot himself in the Definition of the Covenant of Grace and hath sufficiently confuted this Assertion but I find it 's as yet a Work he cares not to undertake to recant his Errors when he is detected for them But 2ly How doth he know that Infants have as much a right to Baptism now as the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision He gives us neither Reason Argument nor Scripture in this place to prove it and therefore we must consider it our selves All the Answer I think needful to give is this Infants were commanded by God to be circumcised Gen. 17.10 Every man-child among you shall be circumcised Ver. 12. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised And the particular Direction is given Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin Here you see is the Command of God both for the Work it self the Subject upon whom and the time when it was to be performed So that God's Command gave Infants then a right to Circumcision Now let but Mr. H. shew us any such Command in all the Scriptures for the baptizing of Infants and we will thank him for we never yet could find it in all the Book of God And till he doth we have no reason to believe what he so confidently asserts to be true But 3ly Mr. H. asserts That Baptism is the now Seal of the Covenant I know not how he will prove it for I am sure it 's an unscriptural Notion For the Holy Scripture doth no where tell us that Baptism is the seal of the Covenant but hath plainly told us that Christians were sealed with the holy Spirit Ephes 1.13 14. After that ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of Promise which is the earnest of our Inheritance And I will rather believe the Apostle Paul than Mr. H. And this leads me to consider what he hath asserted in his first Chapter Part 1. CHAP. III. HAving in the former Chapter confuted those Arguments he hath brought from Gen. 17. to prove Infants Baptism I come now to consider his five introductory Considerations which he saith are very needful for the right understanding the Controversy of Infant-baptism 1. He saith That a Doctrine or Practice may be proved to be of God two ways 1. By the express Words of Scripture 2. Or from evident Consequences drawn from Scripture As to the first It is a great Truth And thus we can prove our Practice of Believers Baptism with all the Perspicuity imaginable as I shall make appear when I come to treat of that Subject Therefore he must from his own Rule acknowledge that our Practice therein is of God But I am sure he is conscious to himself that the Practice of Infant-baptism cannot be proved by the express Words of Scripture because he finds fault with us for urging them to it in Page 10. where he brings us in saying bring us a plain Text and we will believe it and represents it as an unreasonable Demand But if his Passion hath not so far transported him as to make him forget what Subject-matter he is treating of he might have forborn those Reflections against us For I do affirm that Baptism is a part of Instituted Worship and therefore whilst he pretends to practice Infant-baptism he is obliged to shew us where it is expresly commanded in the Word of God or otherwise how does he know it is the Will of God that it should be practised at all For all Instituted Worship hath its Foundation only in the Will of the Law-giver as he hath revealed it unto us and unless he hath found out some other Rule of Faith and Practice besides the Word of God he is bound to submit himself to the Authority thereof in the Determination of this Controversy To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no light in them Isa 8.20 2. He endeavours to perswade us That evident Consequences drawn from Scripture are sufficient I might deny this in the Point under Consideration because Baptism is a part of Instituted Worship For altho' this may be true about speculative Points in Divinity it is no necessary Consequence it must be so in positive Duties But I will not insist upon it but for Arguments sake allow it to be true And therefore let him proceed as soon as he pleases to prove the Baptism of Infants an Ordinance of God by evident Confequences drawn from Scripture and I will allow it As for his second Observation it is applicable to himself and not to us and therefore I shall leave it at his own door 3. He saith Those Doctrines which were clearly revealed and fully consirmed in the Old Testament tho' little or nothing be said of them in the Now Testament and were never repealed are yet to be owned received and believed as if much had been said of them in the
Covenant made between parties as Aquila translateth it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testiment or disposition of ones last Will as the word is used by the Apostle Heb. 9.15 And the learned Dr. Coxe in his discourse of the Covenants pag. 5. saith Covenant relation to God and interest in him doth not immediately result from the proposal of a Covenant and terms of Covenant relation to man but it is by restipulation that he actually enters into Covenant with God and becomes an interressed party in the Covenant it is a mutual Consent of the parties in Covenant that states and compleats a Covenant-relation and this is called an avouching of the Lord to be their God by consent to the terms of a Covenant proposed to them It includes mutual ingagement But what Rutherford saith is not at all agreeable to the nature of Man's entring into Covenant with God under the Gospel because the Subjects he speaks of viz. Little Infants are not capable of understanding much less of giving themselves up to God in baptism in the way of a Covenant Engagement And I remember a saying of Mr. Richard Baxter in a Sermon I heard him preach some years agoe which is as follows It was the practice of the Church generally for the first five hundred years not to admit any to Baptism but such that did first make a publick profession of their Faith before the Church But for as much as the Church hath alter'd the time of Baptism and doth administer it to such that are not capable to make such a profession of their Faith were I a Pastor of a particular Congregation I would admit none to the Lord's Supper but such who should first make a publick profession of their Faith before the Church for we ought to avouch the Lord to be our God Now by what Mr. Harrison saith in his Book concerning Mr. Baxter I take him to be of that sort of Presbiterians which are called Baxterians And if he will abide by the sentence of his Master then Infants can make no restipulation and so not be actually in the Covenant For they cannot avouch the Lord to be their God and consequently can have no right to Baptism by vertue of the Covenant if they are not actually in it But further Mr. H. saith If this displease we will stand by Mr. Stephens his Syllogistical Frame upon the Text viz. That they who have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise they also have a right to be baptized by the word of Command But the Infants of Believing Parents have a right to be baptized by the word of promise therefore they have a right by the word of Command Who this Mr. Stephens is I neither know nor care but this I know that his Argument is nothing to the purpose he brings it for For 1. He doth not toll us what this word of promise is Nor 2. Where it is written And therefore we are at as great a loss as before But if there be any consistence betwixt Mr. H. and him it is in Acts 2.39 and if he reads the Text but once more without Mr. Stephens his Spectacles he will not find any promise there that Infants shall be baptized I may with far better Authority argue thus If there be no Command in all the Scripture that Infants should be baptized nor any promise of any blessing to them in being baptized then they have no right to be baptized But there is no Command in all the Scripture that Infants should be baptized nor any Promise of any blessing to them in being baptized Ergo They have no right to be baptized The major is undeniable the minor is proved from that universal silence throughout the whole Book of God there â—ot being the least word spoken concerning it either directly or indirectly of any such command or promise And yet for all this Mr. H. according to his usual way of ludere sacra trifling and fooling with Holy Things saith He hath now answered our desire here is both a word of Command and a word of Promise But it is in his Friend Stephens his Argument and not in the Holy Scripture But seeing he hath promised he will stand by Mr. Stephens his Syllogistical Frame we have reason to conclude he values it above any thing that can be said to the contrary tho' never so plain evidence be given him from the Holy Scriptures But if it were not the gain of filthy lucre that incited him thereto perhaps he might as well change his mind about that as he hath done about some other things when he left a small Benefice under Episcopacy to get a better Livelyhood under the form of Presbytery I have said enough to this of the Covenant to satisfie any man that is willing to receive satisfaction either from Scripture or the reason of the thing But if neither of those will prevail we must leave such to stand and fall to their own Masters For all the benefit we can expect from the best of means where it is willfully rejected is that they will still persevere in their old practises contradicting and blaspheming the way of the Gospel as the Jews did in opposition to the Apostles Doctrine to their own Destruction CHAP. V. Shewing that the right manner how Baptism ought to be administred is by Dipping Plunging or Overwhelming the whole Body of the Person baptized under Water And that it is not by sprinkling or otherwise applying Water to the Person baptized as Mr. Harrison saith MR. H. tells us The Anabaptists confidently affirm the right manner is dipping the whole body under water and say they if not so performed is no baptism at all Answ There are many who do thus affirm and that truly but that the Anabaptists do so I know not for I do not know of any Anabaptist in the World If he means those that do baptize believers upon profession of Faith they cannot be called Anabaptists because they do not baptize any who were before baptized and I hope he is so good a Master of the Word himself uses as to know the Etymology thereof For the word Ana signifies again and we do not baptize any that were baptized before And indeed it 's neither like a Man much less a Scholar to beg the Question but to prove it Besides he knows we deny sprinkling to be Baptism and till he hath proved himself or any of those he sprinkles to be baptized he hath no reason to call us Anabaptists Now for dipping in Baptism saith he they plead 1. That the Greek Word signifies to Dip. 2. The manner of baptizing in the primitive times was by dipping 3. John's baptizing at Aenon 4. The word Burial being buried in Baptism Answer A man would suppose that this plea were good but it seems not pleasing to Mr. Harrison For 1. He saith we say the word baptizing in Greek signifies to be Dipped They say to baptize in English is to dip And what
that the Souls of the Godly or Wicked went to Heaven or Hell 'till the day of Judgment Answ If there were any such it shewed them to be Men of Weak Judgment but not to be blasphemous Hereticks 10ly That the visible Church consists of those which are perfect and of them only Answ He would have done well to have proved his Assertion and 'till he doth I must return it upon him as a false accusation pick'd up from some of our Lying Adversaries 11ly That Universities Schools and Humane Arts ought not to be Answ As he hath worded it I do not believe it to be true For how they would have got a Livelyhood without being Tradesmen and exercised in Humane Arts I know not And the former I believe to be as true as the latter for 't is the abuse of things and not the use of them that are to be complained of 12ly The Anabaptists called Liberi Fratres denyed the Scriptures to be the Word of God and Singing of Psalms Answ This is certainly a false accusation for our Brethren have in all Ages made that the ground of their Separation from the false Churches that they did not walk according to the Will of God prescribed in the Holy Scriptures but set up the Inventions of Men in the room thereof As for that of Singing of Psalms they never denyed the practice of it according to the Word of God but they did and still do deny the use of singing in Rhime by a prestinted limited form of all the people together Saints and Sinners because they have no Authority for it from the Word of God 13ly That a Man was not tyed to one Wife therefore their Fairy King John Becold had fifteen together Answ Let this go as a false Accusation from whence it came for by John Becold he saith in the next page was meant John of Leyden and I am as well assured as I can be of a thing of this nature that it 's utterly false 14ly That none were to be owned as Christians or Churches of Christ but themselves only Answ If by Christians he means nominally so they always allowed all to be such that professed the Christian Name but if he means real Christians they never owned any to be such but what were so truly in the Judgment of Charity And if by Churches he means true constituted Churches according to Christ's appointment then they could not believe any to be so besides themselves unless they had at the same time believed themselves not to be so But notwithstanding this they have and do believe that many persons are in the Love and Favour of God and in a State of Salvation whilst they hold the Head Christ Jesus altho' they differ from them in some of the external parts of Worship 15. That we must become as little Children in Childish Actions therefore they would play with Rattles ride on Hobby-horses and wallow in their own dung in imitation of Children Answ Can any serious Christian believe such an ill told Story as this or can they think that Mr. H. believes himself Certainly his Hearers must blush at such Folly as this in their Teacher to utter such Nonsensical unheard of Untruths unless they have wholly given up their Reason to the conduct of a blind Guide and pin their Faith as the Romanists do upon their Priests Sleeve I hope the people of Potters Pury have more wit than to give credit to such foolish and improbable stories as these are But to deal plainly with you I believe Mr. H. had got a Rattle in his Head which hath made him so troublesome among his Neighbours And perhaps his playing with Rattles when he was young hath hindred him from a serious Application of himself to any thing but ratling and confused Noises ever since and from thence concludes others to be like himself But 2dly saith he They rid on Hobby-Horses I know not but he might ride on a Hobby-Horse from his late Parochial Church to Potters-Pury which might occasion him to think of a Hobby-Horse ever since But to be serious I rather take him by a figure in Rhetorick to be a Hobby-Horse himself than a solid grave Christian not to say a Minister that he should talk at this Hobby-Horse rate if I may be allowed to use such a figure in speaking according to his Example But 3dly he saith They did wallow in their own Dung in imitation of Children It would tempt a Man to think that either his Mother or Nurse were but ordinary House-wives to suffer him so to wallow in his own Excrements that all the Water in their Countrey could never wash it off but that it should penetrate thro' the pores of his Skin and get such entrance into the secret recesses of his Heart and interior parts and remain there till he wrote these two Treatises against the Baptists and then vomit it forth against them in such a violent and unpresidented manner as to infect all the people that come near him with the stence thereof and then to charge his innocent Neighbours for having stinking breaths when it 's only the infection of the ambient air occasioned by the breaking of his own Gall and vomiting it forth against the Baptists And for his Story I must do by that as by the rest of his Lyes and Slanders against us return them upon himself and his Lying Authors 16. That Luther and the Protestant Ministers were worse than the Pope Carnal Preachers c. with much more of the like kind Answ He would have done well to have told us where these People lived in what Book and page we might have found it But to take all he saith upon his own ipse dixit is more credit than I will give to any Priest upon Earth without other Evidence I will sooner believe a Gentleman that writes about Divinity than a Parson because our Law hath provided that no Man shall be a Witness in a cause wherein himself hath either profit or loss and I doubt Mr. Harrison's Sallary tempts him to prevaricate at this egregious rate either to gain or keep Proselites But I need not wonder at this for we read of such in the Scripture of whom it 's said Their God is their Belly their Glory is in their shame they mind earthly things And we find by woful Experience too much of this verified in some of the Priests of our day But saith he I would not have all these things charged upon our English Anabaptists Answ We have no cause to thank him for that because he knows that all their Neighbours among whom they live could easily confute him But if he could do it it 's evident he would not spare us after he hath poured out all the Malice that Earth and Hell could furnish him with against us He further tells us That in the Space of a few years Germany was filled with Anabaptists Answ I am sure if they were such an Erroneous Wicked People as he
Amity with him And therefore their opposing force to force in their own Defence and for the maintaining the Liberties of Europe cannot be otherwise than lawful This is our Case Mr. Harrison after himself was become a Dissenter could not be contented to enjoy the Liberty of his Conscience to Worship God by the Favour of our Rulers who have permitted him the quiet and peaceable Exercise of Religion in his own way but he must be disturbing his quiet and peaceable Neighbours Preaching and Printing against them in such a shameful and unpresidented manner that they were not able to be silent but Necessitated to write in their own Defence Whatever therefore is the Consequence of this Vndertaking we are to be excused and the blame must lye at his Door he being the Aggressor After his first Book was published Mr. Hercules Collins did write an Answer thereto which was sufficient to have silenced him from any further prosecution thereof together with that addition made by that eminently Learned Minister Mr. Richard Claridge But as if nothing had been done of this kind he runs over his old Nine Arguments again in his second Book without giving a solid Answer to any thing that those Gentlemen had said And for want of Truth Reason and Argument to defend his own Position he stuffs his Book with scurrilous and abusive Language railing and reviling ridiculing and reproaching both them and the whole Party So that his Books can be esteemed by sober judicious Christians no other than scandalous Libels And if this be the first Fruits of his Labour in print it 's adviseable he either stop here or alter his Mode of Writing for in both these Tracts he hath dipt his Pen in Gall and Vinegar yea in the Poyson of Asps That this is true will appear if we consider That he is not contented only to accuse the Baptists in general who whatever he thinks are no inconsiderable Party with Error Heresie and Blasphemy in Points of Doctrine but Vnchristian Carriages fearful Curses yea with Murder it self and that their Imployment hath been to Play with Rattles ride on Hobby-horses and wallow in their own Dung with much more of this kind which I have faithfully Collected from his two Books and placed together at the entrance of my own that the World may see what a Monster of a Man I have to deal with in this Vndertaking If therefore I have let drop any words which may savour of great Indignation against such a procedure I hope the Reader will make a Charitable Construction of it For as the Apostle saith in another Case He hath Compelled me Having thus given this brief Account both of the Occasion and Manner of Manageing this Vndertaking I shall commit it to thy serious and impartial Perusal and Consideration Begging that the Father of Lights may assist thee therein that thro' his Blessing it may be a Means of thy Illumination in the Truths of Christ and through his Grace of the Salvation of thy precious Soul W.R. The EPISTLE of the Author to Mr. Michael Harrison Teacher of a Presbyterian Congregation in Potters-Pury in Northampton-shire SIR YOur Person I know not but I can with great facility discern your Spirit and the Frame and Temper of your Mind by your two Books for it 's discovered almost in every Paragraph thereof I have endeavoured to shun following your Example Quoad potest with respect to the Nature of the thing and instead of Railing to give you Scripture Reason and Argument for what I have said But whether after all as to your self I have not lost my labour you are best able to resolve For my own part I have little hopes of such who set themselves to oppose and contradict the Truths of God in such a way as you have done However I have according to my power endeavoured your Conviction being exhorted by the Apostle 2 Tim. 2.25 In Meekness to instruct those that oppose themselves if God peradventure will give them Repentance to the acknowledging of the Truth But Dear Sir remember that in the Judgment of the Apostle it 's but a peradventure be not therefore high minded but fear For as our Lord said to Paul It 's hard for thee to kick against the Pricks to spurn against the Authority of Jesus Christ in his Word Sir One Eminent Instance of your Wilfull Opposition to Truth and the Conviction of your own Conscience is that you tell us about Aenon in John 3.23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim because there was much water there and they came and were baptized Now Sir You tell us it could not be supposed to be done by dipping nay almost impossible it should because of the extream scarcity of Water that there was not Water to dip such multitudes in That at Aenon where John was baptizing there was not much water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but Oculus an Eye a very little Fountain now here you speak directly contrary to the very Letter of the Text For the Holy Ghost saith There was much water And you say There was not much water Which must we believe This is a bold and daring Assertion Now Mr. H. Collins in his Answer to your first Book sufficiently confutes this Assertion of yours not only from Scripture but by the Authority of Learned Men who also were for Infant-sprinkling as the Learned Lightfoot Dr. Hammond Erasmus and that profound Critick Mr. Poole who all testifie there was Pools of Water many Waters gushing Streams of Water and that the Word so signifies both in the Greek and Syrian Languages Now if you had confessed your Error in your Second Book you had heard nothing from me about it But in your second Book you persist in your opposition hereunto for you say in page 33. Mr. Collins saith I have contradicted the Scripture in saying there was not much Water there Which you are pleased to say is no contradiction for notwithstanding the Scripture saith otherwise yet you say what I have said is true And you bring the Evidence of the Learned Piscator after all this to contradict your self The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 videntur significare plures rivos c. That the words signifie many Rivers c. If there was many Rivers as your Author saith no Man can doubt but there was much water and that it was a fit place to dip multitudes in And why you brought this Testimony unless to confute your self I know not The next Testimony you bring is Hierom Aquae multae erant illic there was much water there But because that would have directly contradicted your self you say which Holybuse Englishes many Waters And you say the Town had its Name from some Fountains of Water springing there And you further say That Aenon come from the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gnajin a Fountain A Man would have thought all this had beeh a full Confutation of your self and you had been
eternal and then you prove Gnolam to be eternal because the Covenant is eternal I pray Sir shew us the Medium if you can And 'till you do it 's nothing to your purpose and yet the main pillar of your Discourse is founded upon this doubtful Interpretation of the Word Gnolam But Sir Suppose as Mr. Collins hath already told you that this word is not limited to a perpetual Eternity but oftentimes signifies a much shorter space of Time then all you have said from Gen. 17. is insignificant That it is so to be understood I will give you the Opinion of divers Learned Men upon it both Jews and Christians Leigh in his Critica sacra saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gnolam Hebraeis Non semper aternum est ut neque Graecis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed saepe seculum atque etiam temporis spatium seculo brevius significat This word Gnolam with the Hebrews doth not always signifie Eternity as neither doth Aion with the Greeks but it often signifies an Age as also a shorter space of time than an Age. The Learned observe two things that are diligently to be noted in the use of this word 1. That when it is affirmed of God or other eternal things then it designs an absolute Perpetuity and Eternity 2. That when it is affirmed of things mutable in their own Nature it designs only a periodical or circumscribed Perpetuity according to the quality of the Subject Of this latter signification we have divers Examples in the Holy Scripture as Deut. 15.17 speaking there of the degenerate Slave it 's said Then thou shalt take an Awl and thrust through his Ear unto the Door and he shall be thy Servant for ever which can intend no longer than during his Life And it 's used in the same sence 1 Sam. 27.12 where Achish King of Gath saith of David Therefore he shall be my servant for ever As also in 1 Sam. 1.22 Hannah tells her Husband that Samuel should go to Shiloh and there abide for ever which is explained in ver 28. to be as long as he liveth And in Exod. 12.14 speaking of the Passover Ye shall keep it a feast by an Ordinance for ever And yet your self must acknowledge this Ever hath been at an end above 1600 years agoe the Passover being abolished by the Death of Christ and in Exod. 31.16 the Sabbath is said to be a perpetual Covenant and yet you do no think your self obliged to keep the Jewish Sabbath Now from hence we may fairly infer That as those things before-mentioned are not to be observed because they are abolished by the coming of Christ so neither is the Covenant of Circumcision Gen 17. because the word Gnolam everlasting is added to the other as well as to that and signifies no more than the time of the Jewish Oeconomy which was to continue but 'till the time of Reformation They being temporary and mutable and subjected to the will of the Law-giver 'till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made and then all that shadowy dispensation was done away Besides Had you been a Master of the Hebrew Tongue you might have known that this in Gen. 17. cannot signifie a perpetual Eternity because the Characteristical Note thereof is there wanting I will deliver my sence thereof in the Words of that Learned Rabbi Rabbi Moses ben Maimon who saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gnolam non necessario significat aeternitatem nisi ei conjungatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idque vel post illud ut Gnolam vagned vel ante gnad gnolam Mor. Nebochim Part. 2. Cap. 28. Gnolam doth not necessarily signifie eternal except gnad or gned be joyned with it and that either after it as gnolam vagned or before it as gnad gnolam And he instances in Psalm 10.16 the Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovab melech gnolam vagned The Lord is King for ever and ever Thus you may see Sir Those skilled in the Hebrew know when it signifies Eternal and when not altho' you are ignorant of it And because this is not added to it in Gen. 17. it doth not prove it to signifie so and therefore not the New-Covenant because that is eternal and immutable And thus you see the main pillar upon which you build your Anti-christian Practice of Baby-Rantism is fallen like Dagon before the Ark of God I pray consider it take advice change your Mind and practice it no longer for it hath no Scripture Authority for its Foundation But Sir I cannot close this Epistle without making some further Observations 1. Upon that Argument of yours Part 1. page 44. which you have urged again in Part 2. page 26. viz. That all Christ's Disciples ought to be baptized is not dark Mat. 28.19 Infants are Disciples therefore 't is plain they ought to be baptized Sir If I should deny the Minor neither you nor all the World are able to prove it For Infants are not capable to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men which is there intended in that Commission But you tell us the Command is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you render as if you did not understand it in this Tautologizing English Go disciple me all Nations teaching them Now because I would if possible explain this to your Understanding I shall first give you the Opinion of the Learned upon this place and then argue upon it The Learned Leigh upon Mat. 28.19 saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matheteusate Go and teach all Nations or Word for word from the Greek Go make them Disciples as it is expounded John 4.1 Discipulate liceat mihi sic loqui gratia docendi sive Facite mihi Discipulos Vide Bullinger Significat et docere ut Mat. 28.19 simul etiam discipulum esse ut Mat. 27.57 from hence you may see that it is not a bare speaking to them that is intended but such a teaching of them by which they learned and were made Disciples of Christ by the Apostle's Ministry And as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by our Translators Disciple and in the plural Disciples where it occurrs in the New Testament in all other places so far as I have found and particularly five times in this very Chapter as I have shewed in my Epistle to the Inhabitants of Ashford c. concerning Baptism why they have rendred it only Teach here in ver 19. the Reader may easily guess For you cannot but know it signifies as a Learned Critick hath it Omnes eos qui doctrinam Christi sectabantur Mat. 5.1 and as the Learned Grotius saith Ita etiam usurpatur Mat. 12.49 Luk. 6.13 Act. 11.26 multisque alijs in locis It is taken for a Learner or Scholar who submitteth himself to another to be taught which can no way agree with little sucking Infants so soon as they are born It is distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ver 20. Teaching
them For as it 's another word so it hath a different respect and signification Matheteusate in Mat. 28.19 importing that the Apostles should teach and instruct the Gentiles who were Strangers and Aliens in the Faith and Doctrine of the Gospel that they might believe it and become Disciples of Christ But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 20. Teaching them vero docere significat eos qui jam discipuli redditi sunt Magisterio nostro jam addicti By which it 's plain that you have no reason to imagine that Infants can possibly be here intended qua talis because the first word intends such as were to be made Disciples by their Ministry and the latter respects their being instructed in all those other Duties this new Master of theirs the Lord Jesus required of them after they were first made Disciples and believed and were baptized that they might be made perfect and compleat in all the will of God How false therefore and incougruous is that rendring of the Words Matheteusate panta ta ethne Discipulize all Nations as you have done to say Go disciple me all Nations teaching them when the plain meaning is That they were first by their Ministry to be made Disciples of Christ and then to be baptized as it follows in the Text. And not as you say That when the Parents being taught believe they are discipled and their Infants with them For if that be the meaning of the Word Matheteusate that such who are so taught as to believe are discipled their Infants not being capable to be so taught by the Ministry of the Apostles as to believe they cannot be Disciples in your own Understanding from any meaning can be put upon these Words by you recited Mat. 28.19 But further here is an express Command to baptize some Persons That they were Believers we affirm because it 's said in that Parallel Text Mark 16.15 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved That any Infants can be intended by it you must deny because you say there is no express Command to baptize them For in Part 1. page 41. you put this Objection But we have no express Command in the New Testament to baptize Infants Your Answer is I have shewn there needed none And in page 37. you bring in this Objection If it be God's will Infants should be baptized why is there no Command for it as there was for their Circumcision Your answer is There was no need of any particular mentioning of them And further say It had been absurd to have given a New Command for Children and your saying that the general Command includes Children and yet never tells us what it is or where to be found is a covering too narrow for you to escape this consequence For if there be an express Command in Mat. 28.19 given by Christ to his Apostles to baptize fome Persons or other and there be no express Command by your own Confession in the New Testament to baptize Infants then Infants are not at all intended in this great Commission And I pray Sir tell me how it is then an Ordinance of God if it be no where commanded by him in his Word For baptism is a part of instituted Worship And you ought to shew the Institution or else forbear practising it any more I will now shew you what Grounds we have from Scripture for baptizing penitent Believers that are adult Persons able to give an account of their Faith And because Mr. Richard Baxter is an Author you so much esteem I shall give you his Arguments from Scripture for proof thereof in his Book called The second Disputation of Right to Sacraments p. 149 150. in these words upon this very Text Mat. 28.19 20. This is not like some occasional mention of Baptism but it is the very Commission it self of Christ to his Disciples for Preaching and Baptizing and purposely expresseth their several works in their several Places and Orders Their first Task is to make Disciples which are by Mark called Believers The Second Work is to baptize them whereto is annex'd the promise of their Salvation The Third Work is to teach them all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ To contemn this Order is to contemn all Rules of Order for where can we expect to find it if not here I profess my Conscience is fully satisfied from this Text that it is one sort of Faith even saving that must go before Baptism the profession whereof the Minister must expect Of which see what is to this purpose before cited by Calvin and Piscator which Words are mentioned by him p. 85. and are as follows Calvin upon Mat. 3.6 saith Therefore that Men may rightly offer themselves to Baptism Confession of Sins is required othewise the whole Action would be nothing else but Sport And Piscator upon Mark 1.4 saith It is called the Baptism of Repentance for Remission of Sins because John preached the Remission of Sins to the Penitent Believers Mr. Baxter further saith p. 149. If there can be no Example given in Scripture of any one that was baptized without the profession of a saving Faith nor any Precept for so doing then must we not baptize any without it But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequence To prove this Assertion he produces the several Examples in Scripture which he saith might afford us so many several Arguments but I shall put them together viz. First John as I have shewed you required the prosession of true Repentance and that his Baptism was for the Remission of Sin Secondly When Christ layeth down the Apostolical Commission the Nature and Order of the Apostles work is first to make them Disciples and then to baptize them That it was saving Faith that was required of the Jews and professed by them Acts 2.38 is plain in the Text. The Samaritans believed and had great Joy and were baptized into the Name of Jesus Christ Acts 8.12 whereby it appeareth that the Understanding and Will were both changed And they had the profession of saving Faith yea even Simon himself ver 37. The Condition upon which the Eunnch must be baptized was If he believed with all his Heart which he professed to do and that was the Evidence Philip expected Paul was baptized after true Conversion Acts 9.18 The Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles before they were baptized Acts 10.44 Lydia's Heart was opened before she was baptized and she was one the Apostles judged faithful to the Lord and offered to them the evidence of her Faith Acts 16.30 The Example also of the Jaylor is very full to the resolution of the Question in hand He first asketh What he shall do to be saved The Apostle answereth him Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thy House So that it was a saving Faith that is here mentioned He rejoiced and believed with all his House and was baptized the
same hour of the Night or straightway Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue believed on the Lord with all his House and many of the Corinthians bearing believed and were baptized Acts 18.8 Philip in Acts 8.37 is determining the Question and giveth this in as the decision If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest And to say that this is but De bene esse meaning that it includes not the Negative otherwise thou may'st not is to make Philip to have deluded and not decided or resolved In a word I know not of one Word in Scripture that giveth us the least Intimation that ever Man was baptized without the Profession of a saving Faith He also affirms positively That we must not baptize any without the profession of true Repentance which he thus proves Argu. 1. If John Baptist required the profession of true Repentance before he would baptize them then so must we but John did so therefore the Consequence is clear The Antecedent I prove saith he from mark 1.3 4. he preached the Baptism of Repentance unto remission of Sins and doubtless that Repentance which is to remission of Sins is true special Repentance Argu. 2. If Jesus Christ hath by Scripture Precept and Example directed us to baptize those that profess true Repentance and no other then we must baptize them and no other but the Antecedent is true so therefore is the consequent which is fully made good from Mat. 4.17 Mark 1.15 16. Acts 17.30 Luke 24.47 when Christs himself did and sent forth his Disciples also to preach Repentance to prepare them for Baptism which afterwards followed as Mat. 3.11 Mark 1.8 Luke 3.16 Acts 2.37 38 41. And in page 156. if according to the Institution the Answer of a good Conscience must be joyned with Baptism for the attaining of its end then we must admit of none that profess not the answer of a good Conscience But the former is certain from the Text for Baptism is said to save that is its appointed use yet not the external washing but the answer of a good Conscience doth it therefore this is of a necessary injunction and without it Baptism cannot attain its End But it is to be administred and received only in order to the Attainment of its end and therefore never in a way by which the End is apparently not attainable Paul calleth all the Baptized Church of Corinth justisied none that profess not justifying Faith are called justified therefore none such should be baptized I confess saith he t is sad that good Men should be so unfaithful to the Truth which is so preclous and is not their own and which they should do nothing against but all they can for it Divers other Testimonies might be added besides these already recited but these shall suffice at this time And Sir If these do not plainly prove our practice of baptizing Persons upon profession of Faith and also that Infants cannot be the Subjects of Holy Baptism as not being capable of performing the necessary pre-requisites thereto I have no Skill in Polemicks I proceed therefore to what you say Part 1. page 44. Objection The baptizing Persons before they know occasions much gross Ignorance To which you answer Christ is the Occasion of the Ruine and Damnation of thousands I reply Dear Sir Altho' you make bold to abuse the Baptists and throw very Reproachful Scandals and Calumnies upon them Methinks you might have spared their Lord and Master and not have laid the Ruine and Damnation of thousands at his Door Who came not into the World to condemn the World but that the World through him might be saved But I need not wonder at this in you when divers of your party have charged Christ with being the greatest Sinner in the World notwithstanding he did no sin neither was Guile found in his Mouth Sir These are unsavoury Expressions unbecoming the Pen of one who would fain be esteemed a Minister of Jesus Christ And now Dear Sir as a Close I have some few things to speak to your self by way of Caution and Advice which I wish may be received by you as candidly as they are imparted by me In all your Discourses about Polemical Divinity that you would observe these few short Rules which may be of use to your self and others 1. Be careful to avoid all invective Calumnies Wrath Bitterness and Reviling against the Party with whom you contend For that is so far from being a means to convince them that it rather begets a Prejudice in them against what you shall say I know every Person is naturally a Friend to what he supposeth to be a Truth and wisheth that others were of his Mind and it 's both lawful and commendable to promote it in a sober and judicious way But surely it is an Excess to propagate Truth a thing divine by the Methods of Hell as Anger Biterness Fraud Reviling Reproaches and throwing out Scandalous and Vile Invectives against your Antagonists Sir You have more Reason to believe your Adversaries are in the right than your self For that they have both Precept and Precedent for their Practice in the Holy Scripture but you have neither for your own What need was there therefore of all those bitter Revilings you have poured out against us Sir We could use the Liberty of Lex talionis if we were minded to recriminate in such instances against your Party that would blacken you with a Witness of which you could never acquit them by all the Artifices you could use But we do not think it comports with Charity to exasperate your Enemies against you and make you vile in their Eyes notwithstanding you have so unchristianly dealt by us 2. When any of your Christian Neighbours labour to convince you of some Truth you are yet ignorant of do not scorn their Advice nor trample upon the Truth for their sakes because they are but mean in the Worlds Esteem but remember that Apollo altho' he was a Man mighty in the Scriptures did not disdain that Aquila and Priscila should expound unto him the way of God more perfectly Acts 18.26 A Cardinal could once say upon the Words of a Shepherd Unlearned Men take Heaven by force whilst we with all our Learning are thrust down to Hell 3. Let me entreat you to search the Scriptures and see whether the things I have said be so or no give your self to Fasting and Prayer cry mightily to God to give you his Spirit to open your Understanding that you may understand the Scriptures Lastly Give me leave to tell you That it 's not likely your People should think you in earnest when in the Pulpit you Press them to Meekness and Charity when they find so much Railing and Reviling in your Books Truly Sir If Ministers Books of Disputation were as full of Charity as they require their People to be in their Sermons our Disputes and Writings would be Excellent Expedients of improving Knowledge and discovering Truth
And not as now perpetuating Controversies and of widening and imbittering them No Debates saith one have been managed with that bitterness no Questions debated with that virulence as the Theological When will Divlnes be ashamed of sacrificing of their Charity to their Passions that is to the sensual and brutal part of our Natures The Tartars manage their Wars with less Cruelty than the Clergy For saith he there is neither Measure nor End of our Reproaches and Infamations I beseech you Sir consider these things and if you are not satisfied about the Controversie depending if you please to acquaint me with any particular doubt about it so you do it in the spirit of Meekness I shall endeavour to give you all reasonable satisfaction For in short the best Expedient I can think of to promote Knowledge is that we argue all our Religious Controversies with that Spirit of Charity and Tenderness and of deference towards our Opposites which the Gospel we preach to others more especially obiiges us to Then may we expect a Blessing from the Lord in such Pious and Charltable Procedures I shall add no more but subscribe my self as in Duty bound A Sincere Lover of your Soul W. R. A VINDICATION OF THE Baptized Churches BEfore an Artificer can build a new House in the room of an old one that is fallen down he must first clear away all the Rubbish that he may lay a new Foundation That Rubbish of Railery and Abusive Language with which I perceive Mr. Michael Harrison hath lined his Mouth in his Pulpit and has stuffed his Book in print for he tells us in his Epistle to his first Book that he was first put upon preaching upon that Subject and afterwards consented to the printing of it I intend to remove before I speak any thing to his Book CHAP. I. IN the Epistle of his first Book he charges us with Erroneous Doctrines that we are like pricking Briars and wounding Thorns Those wild and Erroneous Doctrines broached by the Anabaptists have been a perpetual Vexation and Trouble The confident repeated Challenges the restless Insinuations of the Anabaptists Their various Attempts to ensnare and draw away my Hearers to their own way They are a sort of restless People with great Indignation spurning at Infant-Baptism They tempt you to be cruel to the Children of your own Bowels setting them among Pagans and Infidels They are the Enemy of Infants The Doctrine of the Anabaptists makes all Infants to be of the visible Kingdom of Satan and leaves us no well-grounded Hope of the Salvation of any dying in Infancy and is therefore to be justly abhorred as false Doctrine Then it seems by his Doctrine that Baptism doth it self regenerate Infants in his Understanding and translate them out of the Kingdom of the Devil into the Kingdom of Christ This is plain downright Popery and abhorred by the Protestants as false Doctrine But he goes on with his Railery for want of Argument What barbarous usage is this to poor Infants the Anabaptists perversely thrust them away from Christ and from his Church set them among Pagans and Infidels who are of the visible Kingdom of the Devil But in the same page he tells us That the Anabaptists do not assert the damnation of all Infants dying in Infancy but on the direct contrary they assert the certain Salvation of all Infants Why then doth he charge it upon them Poor Man I pity him for his Ignorance in Divinity We have many Inferionr Mechanicks in our City of Londou that blessed be God understand the mind and meaning of the Spirit of God in the Holy Scriptures better than he And there is another unhappiness attends the poor man he hath so lately changed his Religion from Episcopacy to Presbytery that he is not well instructed in the Presbyterian Doctrines but began to write too soon before he knew what they held or what himself was talking of I am ashamed to think that a man should print himself a Minister of the Gospel and should know so little of the Gospel Church-state if all his Knowledge be suitable to what he writes in his two Books But he proceeds Erroneous Doctrine Weak Anabaptists Their Children are ignorantly and bruitishly brought up live and dye Pagans It 's a false and dangerous Doctrine They wilfully shut their Eyes They do it with much scorn and contempt They are guilty of a plain breach of the sixth Commandment Thou shalt not kill Dipping Persons in water is a most heinous Sin is a plain breach of the sixth Commandment Thou shalt not kill Observe what Tautologies the poor man is guilty of Dipping in cold water tends to the taking away of Life many have contracted such Distempers that have hastened their Deaths thereby therefore the so doing is a great sin But the contrary to this is true that divers have recovered of their Diseases upon their being baptized Ergo. Mr. Michael Harrison's assertion is a great untruth great malice and a great sin And herein he imitates the Devil who was a Lyar from the beginning and is the false accuser of the Brethren If this Charge be true that we are guilty of Murder why hath not he or some of his horrid lying Authors accused us to the Magistrate that Justice might have been executed upon us as murderers But I am confident he doth not believe himself but writes directly against his Knowledge and Conscience I never had to do with such a scurrilous foul mouthed Author in Divinity in all my life and I am heartily sorry he hath so foolishly offered me this occasion for it 's very contrary to my Genius to render railing for railing All this Rubbish is in his first Book of a Groat price But in his 2d Book as he begins with a known untruth in the Frontispiece Infant-Baptism God's Ordinance when he knows it is not so much as mentioned in all the Holy Scripture so he exceeds all bounds in his railing and abusive Language in this 2d part For in the Title Page you have these Words Anabaptists plea of Antiquity a meer untruth A Rebuke of their several Erroneous Opinions An Answer to several Scandalous and Erroneous Papers put out by the Anabaptists c. In his Epistle the Anabaptists have been exeeeding troublesome to all our Reformers Hardned the Churches Enemies hindred the Reformation Bitter Enemies to the Work of God Have most maliciously charged me with preaching Popish Doctrine Malicious Slander Betrayed their Weakness and Ignorance Are a People strangely alienated from the Spirit of the Gospel They have an Hatred and Opposuition to all Christian Churches and look on all others to be Pagans Then he falls upon abusing Mr. Collins who hath together with that faithful and eminently learned Minister of Christ Mr. Claridge sufficiently answered his first Book Which Answer he saith is so weak it scarcely deserves any reply And saith He is a weak unthinking man foul and unchristian Carriage and then he quotes one Mence for
it for he hath written two Books already and not one Argument in either of them that concludes the thing in Question And to tell you my Thoughts upon it I am of Opinion if he should write a hundred Books it will be still the same for he hath run over nine Arguments twice to no purpose For there is nothing of the Point in question inferr'd in any of them And I know the Reason It is not simply for want of Parts and Learning but for want of Matter for that which is not cannot be proved to be but Infant-baptism is not an Ordinance of God and therefore it cannot be proved so to be And whereas he doth allow he cannot shew us a Command for it by abusing us for but demanding it of him I am sure his Attempt to prove that to be an Ordinance of God by Consequence only when he hath granted there is no express Command is too great a Task for him ever to perform And if he would take my Advice I would not have him so much as attempt it any more because it 's imâ—ossible to be done But why doth Mr. H. tell us Baptism is a Seal of the New Covenant If it be his Arguments are all out of doors for a Seal is not to be set to a Blank as it must be if applied to Infants Besides he is mistaken in the whole of his Position for Circumcision is only said to be a seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham and not to the rest of his Posterity Rom. 4.9 Faith is reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness And in the 10th Verse he tells us it was before he was circumcised But in Ver. 11. he received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe tho' they be not circumcised that Righteousness might be imputed unto them also This is the only Text that I find the Word is used in as applied to Circumcision and here it is restrained to Abraham only and not applied to any other Person whatsoever I do think therefore it was an unwary Expression of Mr. H. to make Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Law to all circumcised Infants when it 's applied by Paul to Abraham only and not to any one of his Posterity Nor could it be because it was to him as a Seal of that Promise that he should be the Father of all Believers which could not be true of Individuals nor of any other but himself it being commanded to them for other Ends. As for his calling Baptism a Seal of the New Covenant I must say the same of it as of the other For 1. It is no where called so in all the Holy Scripture and therefore no metaphorical Use to be made of it 2. The Holy Scriptures do tell us 〈◊〉 other thing that is the Seal of the New and everlasting Covenant wherewith Believers are sealed under the Gospel and that is the Holy Spirit 2 Cor. 1.21 22. Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ and hath anointed us is God who hath also sealed us and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts Ephes 1.13 After ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of Promise Ephes 4.30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God whereby ye are sealed unto the day of Redemption The Learned Dr. Cox upon these words Rom. 4.11 saith It is Genitivus Speciei as when we read the City of Jerusalem for the City Jerusalem and the like For we read not saith he that any other Ordinance No not Baptism is so called in Scripture but in the New Testament the sealing of Believers is attributed to the Holy Ghost For it is not possible to conceive that Circumcision should be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith c. to one that never had Faith And it is equally absurd to say that Circumcision was a Seal unto all its Subjects of the Righteousness of Faith which they had while uncircumcised as to affirm that it was the Seal of a paternal relation to all Believers unto every one that received it And I hope this Gentleman will allow me to say that it 's more absurd now under the Gospel wherein all the Children of the Covenant are to be taught of God and all of them to know God that any should affirm that Baptism is a Seal to Infants who have no Faith at all neither in Habit nor in Act espeeially seeing it 's no where called so in the Holy Scriptures If men â—â—â—ough the Lightness and Vanity of their Minds must needs play with metaphorical Expressions in Scripture yet I know not how they should have a liberty to impose words upon us as Mr. H. doth which are not at any time nor in any place so much as mentioned This is our Case Mr. H. will have Baptism called the Seal of the Covenant we will not allow it him because it 's no where so called in Scripture But suppose we should it would ruine his beloved Cause for then it could be administred to none but such who are true Believers But before Mr. H. goes any further he proposes this Question Who we are to understand by the Children in the Text viz. Acts. 2 39. His Answer is No doubt but they are the very same which in Gen. 17 are called Seed The Reason he gives for it is from the Etymology of the Greek word there used The Word saith he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for little sucking Babes Matt. 21.18 and 1 Cor. 7.14 How he came to give us this sence of the Word so contrary to the Scope of the place I know not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the singular is rendred thus by a late famous Grecian A Child an Off-spring and in the plural a numerous Off-spring In the 2d Epistle of John Ver. 1. he uses the same Words as in Acts 2.39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The elder unto the elect Lady and her Children Here it 's rendred Children as it is in Acts. 2.39 but not little sucking Babes For you have their Character given in Ver. 4. I rejoyced greatly that I found of thy Children walking in truth as we have received a commandment from the Father And he writes to her and them in the plural to look-to themselves and to 〈◊〉 false Teachers c. And in the last Verse 〈◊〉 saith The Children of thy Elect Sister greet thee Now these things can no ways agree with Mr. H's little sucking Babes And he hath every whit as much Reason to give this sence of the word here as in Acts 2.39 it being the same Word But let us examine his other two Texts In Matt. 21.18 Now in the morning as he returnned into the City he hungred This I am sure hath neither the word nor thing he intends But I suppose he intended the 15th Verse And when the chief Priests and
doth he say to that And so there is the English of English This is a meer Quibble for baptize is from baptizo and is not originally an English Word and by his good favour there is if he will have it so other English for it viz. to dip or plunge c. and whether he will or no we believe that to be the signification of the word and doubt not to make it appear Mr. H. Well saith he but let us enquire what these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie in the Original Language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes indeed from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dip or plunge Answ I wish Mr. H. would do by himself in this as he saith he will do by Mr. Stephens his Syllogistical Frame stand by it For if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to dip or plunge how comes its derivatives to signifie otherwise Bapto is the Theme or Root from whence all the other are derived and the Branches certainly are of the same nature with the Root What wise man expects Apples to grow upon an Oak or Grapes from Thorns or Figs from Thistles And it 's as strange to think that the genuine and proper derivatives of Bapto to dip or plunge should signifie to sprinkle or scatter But in the very next words he saith But it is seldom or never used for dipping in the New Testament Answ It 's a wonder that the Evangelists and Apostles who were divinely inspired should feldom or never use a word in its right signification Pray let Mr. H. either retract this unwary assertion or else acquit himself from blasphemy against the Holy Ghost if he knows how It 's a dangerous thing to charge the Holy Pen-men at this rate But seeing he saith it 's seldom or never so used in the New-Testament it implies that it 's so used by other Authors Why doth he not tell us who they are that we may apply to them for the right use of words and not any longer be deceived by the Pen-men of the Scripture Doth he not see what a Trifler he is about divine things and what horrid consequences do attend such a frothy way of arguing Can he believe himself I do not think it possible But saith he though it be derived of a word that signifies to dip it does not follow it signifies so Answ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo is the word he intends or nothing for himself puts that down and that must be the it he means and tells us it 's never rendred to dip in all the New Testament Nay further he saith it 's not yet proved that it ever signifies dipping in all the New Testament Now seeing he hath mentioned the Learned Leigh in his Critica Sacra and prefaced it with these words Instar omnia in the stead of all I will examine his Author These are his Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo the word Baptize notwithstanding what he cites out of Dr. Featly he declares to be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bapto Tingo to dip or plunge into the Water and signifieth primarily such a kind of washing as is used in Bucks where Linnen is plunged and dipt Now if Mr. H. doth not know how they use to order their Linnen when they wash Bucks let him ask the good women in the Countrey and they will inform him that they do not sprinkle a little water only upon their Cloaths but cover them all over with it And again saith the Learned Leigh the native and proper signification of it is to dip into Water or to plunge under Water and quotes several Places in the New Testament where it 's so used as John 3.22 23. Mat. 3.16 Acts 8.38 Again for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptisma he saith it is dipping into Water and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptismos Mersionem significat in aquam It signifies to be drowned or overwhelmed in the Water He further saith That it appeareth from the Notation and Etymology of the word it self what was the custom of administring Baptism in the beginning whereas we now have rather Rantism that is Sprinkling in the stead of Baptism Wherefore he further tells us that we might not be deceived by a fallacious use of some latter Authors as if less than dipping the whole Body under Water were intended when they use the word wash or washing in the stead of baptizing Neque vero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat lavare nisi à consequenti Nam propriè declarat tingendi causâ immergere Neither indeed doth the word Baptizein signifie to wash except only by consequence For it properly declares they are to be plunged under water as things are that they may be dyed Again Siquidem proprie baptismos est immersio intinctio Baptismos is properly a dipping a dying And Lastly He saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Intingor Dipt For which he quotes Rev. 19.13 He hath his Vesture dipt in blood And concludes thus it is taken from the Dyers Vatt and is a dying or giving a fresh colour and not a bare washing only whence cometh Baptism So that you may see how fairly he is confuted out of his own Author We will now examine another of his Authors Schrevelius as published with many additions by the Famous Linguist Mr. William Robertson Entuled Cornelij Schrevelij Lexicon manuale Graco-Latinum copiosissime Adauctum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bapto Intingo Mergo Lavo hine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo idem Baptismos Baptisma c. all which signifie to dye to dip or plunge but not one word of sprinkling so much as mentioned And there was was a very good reason fet it because he tells us there is another word in the Greek to signifie that by I shall give it you from the same Author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rantizo Aspergo to sprinkle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rantismos Aspersio Sprinkling and Rantisma the same So that you may see the words are as different in the Greek as they are in several other Languages and are as discernable as they are in English And every English Reader knows there is a vast difference in the Action signified by dipping and that signified by sprinkling Sprinkling is not Dipping nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and seeing the Spirit of God uses two Words to signifie two different actions it would be great presumption in us to confound them Alstedius in his Lexicon Theologicum saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantum significat immergere non lavare nisi ex consequenti that Baptizein signifies only to dip plunge or drown and not to wash except by consequence Besides as I have noted in my Epistle concerning Baptism that this sence is so well understood however it comes about that Mr. H. is so great a stranger to it that every School-boy in the Greek Grammar can tell you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is there rendred mergo immergo to dip
to plunge or overwhelm and that all its Derivatives are used in the same sence I could give you multitudes of Instances to prove that the right way of baptizing is by dipping Mr. John Gosnold in his excellent Treatise of the Doctrine of Baptisms saith The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo in its proper and native signification is to dip This saith he the Learned in all Ages and all Lexicous or Dictionaries do acknowledge nor can we find by the most diligent search that 't is otherwise accepted by any Author whatsoever excepting some very few of late He hath there given us divers Instances from men of good Authority for Learning as he saith in all Nations some of them I shall recite Hugo Grotius as Learned a man as any our latter Age hath afforded saith the word signifies to dip under water Bishop Vsher in his Body of Divinity saith the same As also Dr. Ames in his Marrow of Divinity Book 1. Chap. 40. As also Mr. Perkins Ball 's Catechism hath it washed by dipping Mr. Leigh in his Critica sacra on the New Testament the last and best of this kind saith The native and proper signification of the Verb is to dip into water or to plunge under Water and of the substantive dipping into Water So also Wilson's Dictionary The Dutch Translation according to their Language reads for John the Baptist John the Dipper and for he baptized them he dipped them And the Common-Prayer Book prescribes Dipping as the best way for the manner of the performance of this Ordinance and always places it first The Priest shall dip c. So likewise Daniel Rogers a famous English Writer in his Treatise of the two Sacraments c. Part 1. Chap. 5. hath these Words It ought to be the Churches part to cleave to the Institution which is dipping especially it not being left arbitrary by our Church to the discretion of the Minister but required to dip or dive That he betrays the Church whose Officer he is to a disorder'd Error if he cleave not to the Institution which is to dip And this saith he I so aver as thinking it exceeding material to the Ordinance and no slight thing yea which Antiquity constantly and without exceeption of Countries hot or cold witnesses unto and especially the constant word of the Holy Ghost first and last approveth as a Learned Critick upon Mat. 3.11 hath noted to wit Causabon And he further saith I doubt not but contrary to our Churches intention this Error having once crept in is maintained still by the carnal ease of such as looking more at themselves than at God stretch the Liberty of the Church in this case deeper and further than either the Church her self would or the solemness of this Sacrament may well and safely admit I speak this saith he as desiring such as it concerns in their places to look to their Duty in this behalf Afterward he further saith I confess my self unconvinced by Demonstration of Scripture for Infants sprinkling Thus you see here is a Cloud of Witnesses to prove that baptizing was and ought to be by dipping or plunging the whole Body under Water And I am perswaded there was not one of these but understood the Etymology of the Greek word Baptizo as well as Mr. Harrison and yet they all agree that Dipping is the right manner of baptizing But Mr. H. is pleased to tell us as tho' our Translators had never rendred the Word to dip or that it signified dipping in all the New Testament pag. 29. Answ I will prove that in divers places where there was nothing of the stress of the Controversy depending they have so rendred it as I have given a plain and full Account in my Epistle concerning Baptism to which I refer you as Rev. 19.13 Matt. 26.23 Luke 16.24 John 13.26 it 's translated dipt dippeth dip dipped as you will see by reading the places cited Now seeing he also tells us to sprinkle is a certain known sense of the Word and that it signifies to baptize by sprinkling page 29. I answer in the words of the learned Mr. Gosnold the Translators themselves never once in all the New Testament renderd it by sprinkling There is another word for that which they constantly translate to sprinkle to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rantizo And the Translators do in effect render the word Baptizo as we do for they translate it washing Mark 7.4 8. Luke 11.38 and Heb. 9.10 washed which all know cannot be done by sprinkling but must be by dipping or plunging so much of it as is washed into the Water And where it is spoken of Persons it can signify no less than the whole body being dipt thereir And that this was the Practice in the first times of the Gospel I will alledge two or three Testimonies and so pass on On Matt. 3.6 were baptized in Jordan The Assemblies Annotations read it dipping in Jordan And Diodate saith they were plunged in water In Ver. 16. And Jesus when he was baptized c. Cajetan saith Christ was baptized not by sprinkling but by dipping into the Water And Lucas Brugensis upon the same place saith The Party baptized went into the Water as deep as his Thighs or Navel the rest of his Body was dipt not sprinkled Upon Acts 8.38 39. And he baptized him c. The Assemblies Annotations saith They were wont to dip the whole body And Piscator on the place saith The ancient manner of Baptism was that the whole Body was dipt into the Water Mr. Mede a great Antiquary in his Diatribae on Titus 3.5 saith That there was no such thing as sprinkling used in Baptism in the Apostles time nor many Ages after them Calvin also upon John 3.22 23. saith From this place you may gather that John and Christ administred Baptism by plunging the whole Body into the Water and confesses That the Church hath assumed this Liberty to her self of sprinkling I might add many other Testimonies to prove this Truth but I am tired with writing and these I have already alledged are more than sufficient Now a man would think it were highly reasonable that Mr. H. should give us some plain Evidence for his Rantism or Sprinkling to be Baptism when I have given my self so much Trouble to satisfy his Curiosity But he puts us off with a sham Pretence without any Scripture Testimony either from the English Translation or from the Greek His Pretence is this That in 1 Cor. 10.2 it signifies to baptize by sprinkling for all the World knows a Cloud doth but sprinkle Observe I pray how this Man deals with us Doth the Text by him quoted say They were baptized by sprinling Surely No There is not one word of sprinkling so much as mentioned In the next Page he abuses his Reader more for there he tells him that the Word Baptizo doth signify sprinkling but then his Heart failing him in the Proof he adds or to baptize by
sprinkling 1 Cor. 10.2 They were all Insants as well as grown Persons baptized by the Cloud There are two great Abuses he puts upon his unwary Reader 1. He falsifies the Text for instead of being baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea he saith by the Cloud Doth he think the Apostle Paul who was divinely inspired did not know how to use an apt word to express his meaning by but he must be beholding to such a one as he to mend it for him Had Mr. H. the like Advantage against us we might have expected to have been sufficiently abused by his virulent Pen but he shall see by the Grace of God that we have other wise learned Christ But 2dly He tells us They were all Infants as well as grown Persons baptized Who told him so He is a bold Man to venture upon adding to the Word of God Let us read the words and then you will see there is not the least mention of Infants in the Text But his Design was to prove Infants the Subjects as well as sprinkling the manner of Baptism 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3 4. Moreover Brethren I would not that ye should be ignorant how that all our Fathers were under the Cloud and all passed through the Sea and were all baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spiritual drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ But with many of them God was not well pleased for they were overthrown in the Wilderness Now let us see if we can by Gods Assistance find out the Mind of the Spirit in these words 1. The Subjects are described to wit the Fathers All our Fathers 2. They are said to eat spiritual Meat and drink spiritual Drink to drink of Chirst the Rock of Ages 3. That from hence it will manifestly appear That all the Persons said to be Baptised unto Moses c. were true Beleivers because none can eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood but such that are united to him by Faith John 6.32 33 34 35 36. I shall only recite part of the words you may read the rest at your leisure And Jesus said unto them I am the bread of Life he that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst c. See also from Ver. 47. to Ver. 59. So that it appears from hence That it was only the Believers in Christ among that mixt multitude that were the Persons intended But 4ly With many of them God was not well pleased for they were overthrown in the Wilderness Now let us examine who those were whose Carkasses fell in the Wilderness In Numb 14.22 Because all those Men which have seen my glory and my Miracles which I did in Egypt and in the Wilderness and have tempted me now these ten times and have not hearkned to my voice surely they shall not see the land c. V. 29. Your Carkasses shall fall in this Wilderness and all that were numbered of you according to your whole number from twenty years old and upward c. save Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun Here you see who they were whose Carkasses fell in the Wilderness who are called Fathers viz. The men among them from Twenty years old and upward they sinned they murmered they tempted Christ c. and their Carkasses fell in the Wilderness From whence the Apostle cautions these Saints at Corinth to be warned by their Example V. 12. Wherefore let him that thinketh he stands take heed least he fall But saith Mr. H. Infants as well as grown Persons I pray therefore see what is written from the mouth of God Numb 14.31 32. But your little ones which ye said should be a prey them will I bring in and they shall know the land which ye have despised But as for you your Carkasses they shall fall in this Wilderness From whence I infer That if Baptism were here caken for an Ordinance administred by Moses the Subjects of it as expressed by the Apostle were Fathers and from that of Numbers where we are told what they were They are called men and said to be twenty years old and upward So that you may see Mr. H. makes strange work in his Interpretation of Scripture for he turns Men into Infants But 2ly If it must be so taken as an Ordinance then Believers in Christ are the only Subjects of it For they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ But saith Mr. H. They were Baptised by sprinkling for they were all Baptised by the Cloud and a Cloud doth but sprinkle or pour out water not Dip. What he means by a Cloud dipping I know not but when he hath falsified the Text by putting in by in the room of in he had a mind to accommodate it to his own Fancy But why Mr. H. fancies that they were sprinkled by the Cloud I cannot tell except it be that he prefers his own Imaginations before the written Word I would ask this Gentleman a few Questions 1. How he knows there was Water in this Cloud If he shall say that all Clouds have Water in them that I must deny Besides other Reasons that might perhaps be assigned I shall offer this in Evidence That in the Epistle of Jude ver 12. we read of Clouds without Water and how doth he know but this might be such a Cloud 2ly If this Cloud had Water in it How will he be able to prove that it dropped upon the Children of Israel whilst they were passing through the Sea For I am sure the Scripture saith not one word of it 3ly If he will but consider the account that is given of this Cloud in Numb 14.14 Exod. 13.21.22 whether he will not find that this which is called the Pillar of a Cloud was not the Token of God's Presence as a Guide to them by day as the Pillar of Fire was by night And whether this was not a miraculous manifestation of God's Favour to them and not a common natural cloud see Exod. 14.21 29. Chap. 15.8 Psalm 106.9 Now these places assure us they went thro' the midst of the Sea as on dry Land and the Waters were a Wall unto them on the right hand and on the left Pray how had it been dry Land if it had rained upon them all the time they passed thro' Compare but this with Psalm 105.39 He spread a Cloud for a Covering c. 4ly Seeing the word in 1 Cor. 10.2 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it being here used in the passive form it may not properly be read thus They were all overwhelmed unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea as they must needs be when the Cloud covered them and the Waters were a Wall unto them on the right hand and on the left
he had known how and then it should have run thus All such as are by Nature Children of Wrath are liable to the Condemnation of Hell All Infants are by Nature Children of Wrath Ergo All Infants are liable to the Condemnation of Hell which is the thing I suppose he meant And then I deny his minor Proposition and let him prove it if he can As for his Text he brings for probation thereof I deny that Infants are either expressed or intended therein For the design of the Apostle in that place is to set before them what a miserable condition they had been in before Conversion by their own personal transgressions viz. Dead in trespasses and sins who in times past walked according to the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the Air the Spirit that now worketh in the Children of Disobedience Among whom also we all had our Conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh fulfiling the desires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature i. e. by the corrupt and fleshly Inclinations that were within us Children of wrath even as others Meaning thereby other Gentiles who were still in an unregenerate Estate wallowing in their Iniquities So that as Infants are not here exprest neither can they be intended as being free from all personal transgressions and not capable to transact those Evils there spoken of I shall now offer some Reasons why I do not believe that any Infants dying in their Infancy shall be tormented for ever in Hell-fire 1. Because there is no such thing exprest either in the Threatning or Sentence Gen. 2.17 Gen. 3.17 18 19. as I have already shewed 2. Because God himself hath disclaimed such an Opinion as Erroneous and declared the contrary Ezek. 18.2 3 4 20. 1. Hear what the first Founder of your Sect from whence you have your denomination viz. John Calvin saith upon this Subject speaking of all others besides the Elect so many Nations of Men together with their Infants were involved without remedy in eternal punishment by the fall of Adam for no imaginable reason but that so it seemed good in the sight of God Calvin's Instit l. 3. cap. 23. Sect. 7. 2. Hear what God saith in the fore-mentioned place The soul that sinneth shall dye the Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father this must intend eternal punishment for as to temporal punishment Children do often suffer for their Fathers faults and we all suffer for the fault of Adam both temporal Miseries and Death it self But whereas these People of Israel had such a blind Notion as that of Mr. H. That the Fathers had eaten sowre grapes and the Childrens Teeth were set on edge God tells them As I live saith the Lord God ye shall not have occasion any more to use this Proverb in Israel for the Son shall not bear the Fathers iniquity the soul that sinneth it shall dye 3. Because the Lord who best knew hath declared that Infants belong to the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19.14 4. I will add to these the Opinion of the Learned Poole that he would rather believe that all Infants dying in their Infancy were elected than conclude that any of them were damned and his reason was because as no man knew the contrary so they ought not to affirm what they did not know But I suppose Mr. Poole must be a blasphemous Heretick in Mr. H's Opinion as well as the poor Anabaptists But it 's our mercy he is not to be our Judge in the Great Day The 2d Heresie or Error this man of might charges us with is 2. That Christ dyed alike for all men and that all Persons in the World c. This doth necessarily divide it self into two General Parts 1. That Christ dyed alike for all men 2. That all Persons in the World are by the Death of Christ put into a Capacity of Salvation I shall answer to both of them distinctly 1. That Christ dyed for all men I do with the Pen-men of the Holy Scripture affirm and that it 's a great and fundamental Truth this appears from these following positive assertions 1 Tim. 2.6 He gave himself a ransom for all 2 Cor. 5.14 15. He dyed for all Heb. 2.9 He tasted death for every man 1 Tim. 4.10 Who is the Saviour of all men 1 John 2.2 He is a propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world So that to deny this is to deny the very express words of Scripture And therefore Mr. Harrison being aware of this hath owned it to be true in some sence but not content with this he puts in the word alike thinking to puzzle us with that and lays down some Arguments to prove he did not dye for all alike and thinks we are obliged to prove it I answer It 's an Unscriptural term a man of Straw of his own setting up for in all our Confessions of Faith that I remember to have been published there is not the word alike to be found in any of them As for that last he refers to printed 1691. the words are these Article 3. That Christ freely gave himself a ransom for all tasting death for every man a propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole World So that the word alike is not by them inserted And it being a term of Art of his own Coyning I return it to the mint from whence it came The Question therefore betwixt us is this not whether Christ dyed for all men for that he owns but whether all persons in the World are by the death of Christ put into a capacity of Salvation This he denyes and we affirm Article 4. Of the aforesaid Confession of the Baptists they have these express words No man shall eternally suffer in Hell that is the second death for want of Christ that dyed for them but as the Scripture saith for denying the Lord that bought them 2 Pet. 2.1 or because they believe not in the Name of the only begotten Son of God John 3.18 Unbelief therefore being the cause why the just and righteous God will condemn the Children of Men it follows against all contradiction that all men at one time or other are put into such a capacity as that through the Grace of God they may be eternally saved 1. The Scriptures of Truth do affirm this in as plain words as a matter of this kind can well be exprest John 3.14 15 16 17. here is set down the design of God in the Gift of Christ for the World 1. Negatively that they should not perish that God sent not his Son to condemn the World 2. Affirmatively That whosoever believeth in him should have eternal life and everlasting life and that the World through him might be saved And in 1 Tim. 2.4 speaking of God our Saviour he saith who will have all men to be
and the fruits of it are offered to one as well as another But it is true that it was never the intent of his Mind to pardon and save any that would not by Faith and Repentance be converted And in the next page he saith If there be any man that cannot reconcile this truth with the Doctrine of Predestination or the actual damnation of the Wicked that 's his own Ignorance he hath no pretence left to deny or question therefore the truth of the point in hand for this is confirmed by the Oath of God Ezek. 33.11 and therefore must not be distorted to reduce it to other points but doubtful points must rather be reduced to it and certain Truths must be believed to agree with it tho' our shallow Brains do hardly discern the Agreement Thus far Mr. Baxter and now let him rail at him if he pieases for we have given him no occasion but Mr. Baxter hath assigned the ignorance of Mr. Harrison to be the cause But saith Mr. H. The Fourth Error the Anabaptists hold is That a Person truly justified and sanctified and so a branch in Christ united to him may yet fall away and be eternally damned and cites part of the 18th Artitle of the fore-mentioned Confession Answ I will therefore deal impartially and recite the whole Article with the Scriâ—â—â—â—â—… at large and then the World will see that his peeviâ—hness against us is without any just cause Article 18th That such who are true Believers even Branches in Christ the Vine and that in his Account whom he exhorts to abide in him John 15.1 2 3 4 5. I am the true vine and my Father is the Husbandman every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away and every branch that beareth fruit be purgeth it that it may bring forth more fruit Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you abide in me and I in you as the branch cannot bear fruit of it self except it abide in the vine no more can ye except ye abide in me I am the vine ye are the branches he that abideth in me and I in him the same bringeth forth much fruit for without me ye can do nothing or such who have Charity out of a pure heart and of a good Conscience and of Faith unfeigned 1 Tim. 1.5 Now the end of the Commandment is Charity out of a pure heart and of a good Conscience and of Faith unfeigned may nevertheless for want of Watchfulness swerve and turn aside from the same v. 6 7. From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling desiring to be Teachers of the Law understanding neither what they say nor what they affirm and become as withered branches cast into the fire and burned John 15. If a man abide not in me he is cast forth as a branch and is withered and men gather them and cast them into the fire and they are burned But such who add unto their faith virtue and to virtue knowledge and to knowledge temperance c. 2 Pet. 1.5 6 7. Such shall never fall Ver. 8 9 10. For if these things be in you and abound they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ But he that lacketh these things is blind and cannot see afar off and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins Wherefore the rather Brethren give diligence to make your Calling and Election sure for if ye do those things ye shall never fall 'T is impossible for all the false Christs and false Prophets that are and are to come to deceive such for they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation 1 Pet. 1.5 I have often wished that all Creeds had been delivered only in the Words of Holy Scripture that it might have prevented those vain Janglings which the World hath been filled with about them and herein I have my Hearts desire in this Article For the Reader may observe that it is delivered in the plain positive and express words of Scripture And yet Behold the fury of this Man's unbridled passion For he hath no sooner recited the Words of the Article but he crys out Abominable Doctrine false dangerous and uncomfortable Doctrine doth this man pretend to be a Gospel-minister and yet dare thus let fly his Rage and Malice against Christ himself and his Blessed Apostles Oh! what a pass is this World come to I shall say no more to such horrid Trifling as this for all he says against us is a stone flung at the head not of the general Anabaptists as he saith but at the head of Christ and his Ambassadours I pray God give him Repentance for it that he may recover himself out of the snare of the Devil who leads him captive at his Will He proceeds in his false Accusations against us and saith that the fifth Error of the Anabaptists is They disown all Ministers Christians and Churches of Christ to be any Ministers Churches or Christians at all but only such as are gathered in their way that is by dipping And for this he quotes part of the 11th Article which is misprinted in his Book the 14th Article I must be forced to recite the whole Article because of his false Representation of it but that is a small thing in his Eyes to belye the Baptists and abuse them for his Book is full of such Railery Article 11th of our Confession of Faith That the right and only way of gathering Churches according to Christ's appointment Mat. 28. 19 23. is first to teach or preach the Gospel Mark 16.15 16. to the Sons and Daughters of Men and then to baptize that is to dip in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit or in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ such only of them as profess Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ Acts 2.38 Acts 8.12 Acts 18.8 And as for all such who preach not this Doctrine but instead thereof that Scriptureless thing of Sprinkling of Infants falsly called Baptism whereby the pure Word of God is made of noue effect and the New-Testament way of bringing in Members into the Church by Regeneration cast out when as the Bond-woman and her Son that is to say the Old Testament-way of bringing in Children into the Church by Generation is cast out as saith the Scripture Gal. 4.22 23 24 30. Mat. 3.8 9. All such we utterly deny forasmuch as we are commanded to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of Darkness but rather to reprove them Eph. 5.11 This is the Article he quarrels with and by the Grace of God we will abide by it as the true Way and Order of planting a right Gospel-Church Now pray Observe how this Man doth abuse us 1. In that here is nothing spoken of in this Article but the right way of gathering Churches according to Christ's appointment and we only deny them to