such distinctions in the new testament We can for we read in the new testament of pastours and flocks they who feed with the word are the Clergy and the flocks who are fed are the Laity All are not pastours or teachers 1 Cor. 12. 29. Are all Apostles are all Prophets are all Teachers That is all are not so Deacons preached they were Lay-men therefore may Lay-men preach I instance in Steven c. The Deacons were not meer Lay-men but men full of the holy Ghost and of wisedom upon whom the Apostles layd their hands Acts 6. 6. Prove that any preached who had not imposition of hands Here that Anabaptist failing Cufin undertook it saying In the 8. of the Acts we read plainly that after that great persecution of the church at Jerusalem they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria except the Apostles and that they who were scattered abroad went every where preached the gospel and that God gave a blessing to their preaching it is plain Acts 11. 19. Again Peter saith 1 Pet. 4. 10. As every man hath received the spirit even so minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of Christ. If God have given us a talent it is our duty to improve it They that were scattered and preached the gospel were such as the Apostles had layd hands on and sent to preach and among them Philip the Deacon there mentioned For the text of S. Peter he speaketh not there of publike preaching and administring the sacraments which appertaineth only to pastours by their speciall function but of edifying one another and teaching and admonishing in private according to the precept of S. Paul Colos. 3. 16. Let the word of God dwell richly among you in all wisedom teaching and admonishing one another this was no publike preaching or expounding the word but godly conference in private houses with those whom they met such as every godly master of a family useth in his house instructing his children and servants the best that he can telling them their duty out of Gods word It is true in time of persecution we read of one Frumentius a Lay-man who in his travailes converted some to the christian faith confirming the truth of christian religion by scriptures That is all we desire to do as Frumentius did That was no preaching publikely by vertue of a pastorall function or expounding scriptures but holy conference and exhortation such as that of Aquila and Priscilla And the historian addeth after the church had notice how God blessed Frumentius his labours in turning many heathen to christinity the bishops sent ministers unto them to confirm them and administer the sacraments unto them and himself also received holy orders to accomplish that work which he had so happily begun The scripture puts no difference betwixt publike and private it is as lawfull to worship God in a private house to preach there as in one of your Steeple-houses The Apostle puts a difference 1 Cor. 11. 22. What Have you not houses to eat and to drink in Or despise ye the church of God The word in the originall is ecclesia not templum which never signifieth your Steeple-house in all the scripture The word ecclesia is taken diversly in holy scripture sometimes 1. For a company of men and that either of the wicked as Psal. 26. 5. Odi ecclesiam malignantium Or of the godly Acts 20. 28. 11. 26. c. 2. For the place of their publike meeting and so the word ecclesia is here taken If the people of God meet in a private place is not that then the house of God There is a publike house of God that is a place sequestred from common use and dedicated to Gods service and there is a private house of God as we read Ro. 16. 5. where some of the faithfull privatly meet and that also is called the church greet the church in thine house in such private houses it is lawful to preach in time of persecution but not now when we have publike churches for the service of God to which we may and ought to repair and in these churches no lay-man ought to preach nor at all exercise the pastorall function either there or any where else Which I prove by two reasons especially First none ought to take upon them the office of pastour or minister of the word who are not able to reprove and convince Hereticks and all gain-sayers but your lay and unlettered men are not able to convince Hereticks and stop the mouths of gayn-savers because they can alledge no scripture but that which is translated into their mother-tongue in which there may be and are some errours for though the Scriptures be the infallible word of God yet the translators were men subject to errour and they sometimes mistook Will you say that those learned men who translated the bible at Geneva committed any error in their translation I will and for instance Luke 22. 25. in the Geneva translation printed 1569. we read the Kings of the Gentiles reign over them and they that beare rule over them are called gracious Lords whereas in the originall it is Euergetai that is benefactors or bountifull yet this place hath bin much urged against the titles of our Arch-Bishops and Bishops as if Christ forbad any ministers of the gospell to be called by the titles of Lords or gracious wheras there is never a word in the text that signifieth either Lord or gracious neither dâ—th Christ there speak only to the ministers of the gospell but to all Christians Besides this I could produce many other errors in that translation which are corrected in the Kings translation Though we cannot prove the letter to be well translated that matters not much for the letter of the scripture is not scripture That 's blasphemy I pray take notice of it he denyeth the letter of the Text to be scripture The letter of the word of God is not scripture without the revelation of the spirit of God the word revealed by the spirit is scripture Very fine doctrine if God reveal not to us the meaning of the scripture is not the letter of the text scripture By this reason the greatest part of the Revelation and other difficult texts of scripture should not be scripture because God hath not revealed to us the meaning of them Here one that stood by demanded of the Anabaptist how prove you the bible to be Gods word By experience For whatsoever is written in the word of God commeth to passe concerning Christ and Anti-christ experience is the best doctor that teacheth us This reason alone will not prove the bible to be Gods word for Moses saith If a false prophet shall arise and fore-tell any thing and it come to passe Deut. 13.
an Apostolicall tradition Origen having alledged the words of the Psalme 51. 5 I was borne in iniquitie and in sinne hath my mother conceived me inferreth upon it propter hoc for this reason because we are all conceived and borne in sinne the Church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to administer baptisme to little children And S. Austine The custome of our Mother the Church in baptizing infants is no way to be slightened or rejected nor otherwise to be thought on or beleeved then as an Apostolicall tradition Thirdly it may be proved to be an Apostolicall tradition by that ground which S. Austine layeth and every mans reason readily giveth assent thereunto namely that whatsoever is observed uniformly in all churches and no man can tell when it began must needs be thought either to be done by the Decree of some generall Councell or to have descended from the tradition of the Apostles themselves But the baptisme of children hath been observed and practised through the whole Christian church as Austine affirmeth neither was it first appointed by any Canon of generall Councell that can be produced for though it be mentioned in the Councell of Vienna and the second Councell held at Brachara and in Synodo Gerundensi yet was it farre more ancient then any of those Councels neither can any name the time when first it began and therefore we cannot otherwise conceive of it then that it had its first originall from the Apostles ARGUMENT X. All members of the reformed Protestant churches in Christendome ought to conforme their judgements to the harmonie of the Protestants confessions set forth by the consent of all orthodox churches and firmly grounded upon deductions at least of holy scripture if not evident texts But the judgement of all the reformed churches delivered in the harmonie of their confessions is professedly for the baptisme of children and expressely against this renet of the Ans. baptist's Ergo let the Anabaptist either disclaime the 〈◊〉 of Protestants and children of the reformed churches 〈◊〉 renounce this their heresie for tâ—â—s pâ—rs quâ—â— nâ—m congruit â—otâ— Now for the Protestant confessions concerning this point I shall rehearse them in order beginning with the English Articles of Religion Artic. II. First the infants of Christian parents are not to be kept from baptisme because they care borne in sinne and belong to the people of God Secondly the Helvetion confession We condemn the Anabaptists who deme that children newly born ought on be baptized for according to the doctrine of the Gospel of such is the kingdom of God and they are within the covenant of God why therefore should not the soul of that covenant be given unto them Thirdly the Bohemian confession Though baptisme for the most part in the primitive church were administred to men of riper yeares yet children ought to be dedicated and consecrated to Christ according to his command Suffer little children to 〈◊〉 unto me Fourthly the French Article zy Although baptisâ—â— be a sacrament of saith and repentaunce yet in as much as children are reckoned with their parents in tho church of God we affirme that infants that are born of holy parents ought to be baptized by Christs authoritie Fifthly the Belgick confession We beleave that children ought to be baptized and signed with the sign of the covenant for the same reason for which the children in Israel were circumcised namely for that the same promises are made to them and to us Sixtly the Augustane confession they condemn the Anabaptists who dislike the baptisme of children and affirm that infants without baptisme and dying without the church may be saved Seventhly the Saxon confession We retaine the baptisme of infants because it 〈◊〉 must certain that the promise of grace belongeth also to infants and because of them it is said Suffer little children to come unto me for of such is the kingdome of seaven To drive this nayl to the head I shall need to adde nothing save the capitall punishments inflicted upon such as taught and practised Anabaptisme those Christian States accounted it no light errour upon which they layd so heavie a load of punishment in some places the broachers of this heresie and practisers of rebaptizing have been punished with beheading in some with drowning and in some with burning There is a law against this sect in the Code of Iustinian written with blood rather then ink If any man be convicted to re-baptize any of the ministers of the Catholike sect let him who hath committed this hainous crime together with him whom he hath seduced to be re-baptized suffer the stroake of death At Vienna the Anabaptists are tyed together with ropes and one draweth the other into the river to be drowned as it should seem the wife magistrates of that place had an eye to that old maxime of justice quo quis peccat eo puniatur let the punishment bear upon it the print of the sinne for as these sectaries drew one another into their errour so also into the gulf and as they drowned men spiritually by re-baptizing and so prophaming the holy sacrament so also they were drowned corporally In the year of our Lord 1539 two Anabaptists were burned beyond Southwark in the way to Newington and a little before them five Dutch Anabaptists were burned in Smithfield If I have been somewhat the more prolix in the prosecution of the arguments which make for the baptisme of infants S. Austine shall plead for this my large plea for them We are in conscience bound to speak the more for poor infants because they are not able to speak for themselves Now there remaineth nothing but that we stop the mouthes of their adversaries by reselling such objections as they usually make and unchristianly urge against christening them at our fonts The objections of the Anabaptists answered First they argue from the Scripture negatively thus the baptisme of children hath no warrant in Gods Word for we find there no command for it no example of it no promise to it therefore it is to be rejected as an humane invention and condemned also as an addition to the Scripture But we answer that by the like argument they might prove that no woman ought to be admitted to the sacrament of the Lords Supper for there is no command for womens participation of the sacrament nor example of it nor promise to it in Scripture If they answer that women are comprised under the name of beleevers so are children under the name of whole housholds and families which are reported in holy Scripture to have been baptized if they say further that by a like reason women are to be admitted to the sacrament as men because Christ dyed as well for them as men and they are as wel incorporated into Christs mysticall body as men we rejoin in like manner for the same reason that children
Circumcision was instituted as appears Rom. 4. 11. to be a seal of the righteousnesse of faith But for the same end also was baptisme instituted to be a seal of the covenant of grace and the free remission of our sins by faith And though children in the old law before eight dayes had not actuall faith nor could make profession thereof yet they received the sacrament thereof Therefore by the same reason children under the gospel though they have not actuall faith nor can make profession thereof yet may and ought to receive the sacrament of baptisme which is a seal of the covenat of grace and righteousnesse by faith Children ought not to be baptized because there is no command for it Mark I pray how uncertain they are in their grounds sometimes they say that children are not to be baptized because they have not actuall faith which I overthrew but even now sometimes because there is no commandement for it Which as the future arguments disprove so see a punctuall refutation of this answer Infra art 2. ob jâ Prove it by scripture that they ought to be baptized So I will first I will alledge you the text of scripture and then frame my argument from it the place of scripture is Ioh. 3. 5. Verily verily I say unto you except a man he born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God My argument from this place for the baptizing of infants is this If none can enter into the kingdom of God but those that are born of water and the spirit that is those that are baptized with water and regenerated by the spirit then is there a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the kingdom of God that is ordinarily for we must not tye God to outward means But the former is true Ergo the latter By this your reason it would follow that all that are baptized are regenerated and none regenerated but those who are baptized what becomes then of those who dye without baptisme I conceive the same of them as of those among the Jews who dyed before they were circumcised we leave them to the mercy of God conceiving charitably of their salvation because the children of the faithfull are comprised in the covenant Gen. 17. 7. and Acts. 2. 39. and the Apostle saith They are holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. All that I will conclude from this place is that no children enter into the kingdom of heaven by the ordinary way chalked out by Christ but those who are baptized or which comes all to one that the sacrament of baptisme ought to be administred to children as the ordinary means of their salvation This text speaks not of children but of men children are not men You might as well and better say that women are not men and doe you think that women ought not to be baptized this text speaks of children as well as those in riper years male or female for as the Apostle speaketh In Christ there is no difference of sex or age All that are to enter into the kingdom of God ought to be born of water and the spirit But children enter into the kingdom of God as well as men of ripers years Ergo children ought to be born again with water c. How prove you that children enter into the kingdom of God All those that are holy enter into the kingdom of God But the children of the faithfull are holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. Ergo they enter into the kingdom of God The Apostle meaneth that such are not bastards At which the company laughing as a ridiculous answer as if all that were not bastards were holy or that no children could be holy in the Apostles sense who were base-born Another Anabaptist came in and propounded a question concering Lay-mens preaching I will prove unto you M. Doctor that neither you nor such men as you are ought to preach but such only ought to perform that office of preaching as are appoynted by us How prove you that Those who are ordained ministers by ungodly men ought not to preach But you and others as you are be ordained by ungodly men Ergo you ought not to preach I denie both your propositions First because although we should suppose the bishops who ordained ministers to be ungodly men yet if they were themselves lawfully ordained and had power of imposition of hands the ministers ordained by them may and ought to discharge their function Iudas the Apostle and Nicholas the deacon were ungodly men yet the ministeriall acts they did either in preaching the word or administring the sacraments were never accounted void Secondly I denie that our bishops were ungodly men They that persecute good men are ungodly men But all your bishops persecute good men Ergo the bishops are ungodly men I answer first some of our bishops never persecuted any man as namely the Arch-bishop of Armagh and bishop Potter Secondly though some of our bishops by their places as they were high commissioners punished some men by Mulcts imprisonments or other censures yet they persecuted no godly man but executed justice upon delinquents namely factious schismaticks that disobey the Kings ecclesiasticall laws and disturb the peace of the church Yea but they are good men whom your bishops persecute and you cannot except the bishop of Armagh for when I was called in question before the high commission the Primate of Ireland sate there and by silence gave consent The Primate of Ireland was never a Judge in our high commission in England as it is well known sometimes he might sit with the rest but he had no power to give sentence in the high commission in England and if I might know truly for what cause you were brought into the high commission I doubt not but to prove the sentence given against you to be just for you are one who come not to church nor will hear our preachers but only some of your own sect and those no better then meer Lay-men We do no read of any such distinction in the word of God as Lay-men and Clergy-men these are popish distinctions the word Lay is not in all the scriptures No more is the word Trinity nor sacrament nor many others read in scripture yet the sense of them is there and so is the distinction of Clergy and Laitie for God commandeth that the people should learn the law from the Priests mouth the Priests were no other then the Clergy and the common people then the Laity Their Priest-hood was not the same with yours It was the same for substance but not for ceremony and manner of worship their Priest-hood was typicall ours evangelicall they by the figures of the ceremoniall law fore-shewed Christ to come we preach that Christ is come Can you prove any
the institution of circumcision then they ought to observe it in everie thing and baptize males only and that precisely on the eighth day ANSWER This argument is fallacious and childish called in the schools fallacia accidentis as when a Sophister argueth on this wise If thou didst eat that which thou boughtest in the market thou didst eat raw flesh but thou confessest thou didst eat what thou bought'st therefore by thine own confession thou didst eat raw flesh The argument is captious and fallacious wherein the Sophister subtily argueth from the subject to the accident from the substance to the circumstance it is true he ate what he bought in substance or kind were it flesh or fish but not in what qualitie or condition he bought it for he bought it raw he are it rost or boyl'd in like manner M. Bradbourn fallaciously argued before the High Commission for the observation of the Saturday or Jewish sabbath What the Iews were commanded in the â—ourth commandement that we Christians are bound to perform But the Iews were commanded to keep holy the seventh day from the Creation therefore we Christians are bound to keep that day In this syllogisme as the former there is fallacia accidentis For the Sophister as I noted before argueth from the substance to the circumstance from the same day specie to the same day numero in the week It is true we Christians are bound by vertue of that command to appoynt a certain day for the publike service of God and no lesse then one in seven or a seventh day every week yet are we not bound precisely to keep that seventh day viz. from the Creation which they did The Quartodecimani used a like Sophisme if our Easter succeed the Jewish passe-over then we ought to keep the fourteenth day precisely as the Iews do But our Christian Easter doth succeed the Jewish passe-over therefore Christians ought to keep their feast of Easter precisely on the fourth day of the month whether it fell on the first day of the week or not In like manner A. R. argueth If baptisme succeed circumcision then all children ought to be baptized on the eighth day this will not follow no more then that children ought to be baptized in the same part where they were circumcised The answer is very easie the one sacrament is to succeed the other in substance but not in each circumstance their circumcision was expressely confined to the males and to the eighth day so is not baptisme Only it will follow that because circumcision was administred to the infant as soon as it was capable thereof or could receive the sacrament without danger therefore children ought to be baptized as soon as conveniently they may And this is agreeable to the resolution of S. Cypr. 1400. years ago in his Epistle to Fidus and of a Councell held at Africk in his dayes The third argument I find p. 25. None may be warrantably baptized untill they do manifest and declare their faith by profession thereof this is apparant by the doctrine and practise First of Iohn Mat. 3. 6. 89. Mar. 1. 4. Secondly of Christ and his Apostles Ioh. 3. 22. compared with the 4. 1. 2. Act. 2. 20. 41. and 8. 36. 37. and thirdly by the tenor of the commission Mat. 28. 29. Mar. 16. 15. 16. ANSWER Though the sinews of this Argument have been cut before and the texts alledged answered yet for the further satisfaction of the reader I further adde First that none are required to manifest and declare their faith before baptisme but such who have been taught and have use both of reason and speech For the rule of the schools nemo tenetur ad impossibile holdeth in all sacramentall acts as well as others neither can they hence infer that children therefore ought not to be baptized because they can make no declaration of their faith no more then it will follow that children ought not to eat because they cannot labour for their living For though the Apostles rule be generall Let him not eat that will not labour yet all agree it must be understood of such as are able to labour so likewise all the texts of Scripture which require confession of faith must be understood of such who have the use of reason and of the tongue wherewith they may confesse Secondly children make profession of their faith and repentance both at their baptisme by their sureties and if they live to years of discretion in their own persons PART 2. The last argument I find p. 30. The administration of baptisme which over-throws the vese nature of the covenant of grace and whole Gospell of Christ is Anti-christian and abominable But the administration of baptisme upon infants doth so because it stands upon the ground and interest which they have in the covenat by naturall generation only or by the meer profession of faith in the parents or sureties without faith in their own persons whereby faith is made void and the promise which is the Gospell and object of faith is also made of none effect and so the preaching thereof becomes uselesse and vain also Rom. 4. 14. Therefore the administration of baptisme upon infants is Anti-christian and abominable ANSWER Here is thunder without lightning thundering in the conclusion the baptisme of infants is anti-christian abominable but no lightning in the premises no proof at all that the christening children overthroweth the nature of the covenant of grace the whole Gospell of Christ. For that which is built upon the covenant of grace to wit I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and is nothing else but the setling to the seal of the covenant of grace upon pre-supposition of faith present or future in the person of him that is baptized can be no over-throwing of that covenant but a confirmation and establishing it rather If we taught that children were heirs of the covenant by the law then as the Apostle teacheth us we should make faith void and the promise of none effect But now sith we teach that Abraham the father of the faithfull and all his seed are heirs of the kingdom of heaven not through the law but through the righteousnesse of faith we confirm the covenant of faith and in the christening of children accomplish the promise Act. 2. 39. The promise is to you and your children and to those that are afar off and to as many as the Lord shall call by the ministerie of the Gospell into his church Yea but saith he the administration of baptisme upon infants stands upon the ground and interest which they have in the covenant by naturall generation only or by the meer profession of faith in their parents and sureties without faith in their persons This is a false charge we teach no such thing but that children have interest in the covenant by vertue of Gods promise above mentioned and not without faith in their own persons as without may signifie the
neither had they the gift of prophesie what then Was the promise there spoken of made to the Iews and their children and all the Gentiles whom God had vouchsafed to call namely the promise of salvation v. 21. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved and the gift of repentance and remission of sins by baptisme mentioned v. 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Iesus for remission of sins Thirdly whereas they who are wel-affected to childrens baptisme draw an evidence thereof even from the cloud mentioned 1 Cor. 10. 2. after this manner This truth answereth the type but children were baptized in the type when they were baptized in the cloud and in the sea as Israel passed out of AEgypt into the wildernesse Ergo children ought now to be baptized in the truth This sworn enemie of childrens Christendom goeth about to blot and deface this evidence by scribling upon it that the baptizing in the sea and the cloud the Apostle speaketh of was an allegorie and an allusion not any type or figure from whence any substantiall argument might be drawn for childrens baptisme But if we scrape away his scribling we may read a clear evidence for the lawfulnesse of childrens baptisme REPLY For first it is confessed on all hands and may be collected from the sacred storie that the Israelites took all their children with them out of AEgypt and that they together with their parents passed through the red sed which was an embleme of Christs blood in which the spirituall Pharoah and all our ghostly enemies are destroyed and that they were washed and sprinkled as well as their parents with the water of the sea and that which dropt from the cloud and S. Paul addeth v. 6. that all those things were types 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that as the Apostle saith They and we ate the same spirituall bread v. 4. and drank of the same spirituall rock and the rock was Christ so he might have said that they were all baptized in the water of the cloud and in the sea and that water spiritually was Christs blood for so the ancient Fathers teach us to speak S. Hilarie in Psal. 67. They were all under the cloud and were drenched with Christ the rock giving them water And Leo likewise the sacraments were altered according to the diversitie of the times but the faith whereby we live in all ages was ever one And S. Austine yet more fully these things were sacraments in outward tokens diverse but in the things tokened all one with ours And the sacraments of the old law were promises of such things as should afterward be accomplished our sacraments of the new law are tokens that the same promises alreadie are accomplished Fourthly among many other arguments brought for the justification of the practice of the Christian church in the baptizing infants that passage of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. is much insisted upon For the unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified by her husband else were you children unclean but now are they holy that for verie good reason For the Apostles argument concludes that some holinesse redounds to the children by the unbeleeving wives cohabition with her husband being a beleever or of the unbeleeving husband with a wife that is a Christian. Now the question is whether inward holinesse or outward that which some call federall holinesse the Apostle cannot mean inward holinesse for the beleefe of the father or mother cannot infuse or produce such holinesse in the infant and if the Apostle speak of this outward or federall holinesse and his meaning is that the unbeleeving wife is so farre sanctified to her husband as to bring forth a holy seed to him that is children belonging to the common-wealth of Israel and having a title to the covenant of grace then undoubtedly the children of beleevers ought to receive the seal of that covenant to wit baptisme To avoid this inference and defeat the whole argument this Anabaptist with his fellow Barbar coyneth a new holinesse never heard of in scripture and withall corrupteth the Apostles text with this absurd glosse ANSWER Because the unbeleeving wife is sanctified to her beleeving husband therefore her children are holy that is lawfully begotten not spurious not bastards REPLY A bastard exposition repugnant both to the text and the scope of the Apostle as I have declared before in-part Article 2. Argument 8. whereunto may be added these important considerations First holinesse in Scripture is no where taken for legitimation they may be holy whose birth was yet not legitimate and their birth legitmate who are far from holinesse Bastardie though it be a fruit of uncleanesse in the parents and a blemish to their children in their reputation yet it maketh not them unclean nor federally unholy that is such as belong not to the covenant of God for Pharez Zarah Iephthah and other base-born among the Iews were circumcised and reckoned among the people of God Secondly if the Apostle meant no more by holinesse but legitimation he had no way resolved the Corinthiant scruple which was whether according to the law of God and the example of the Israelites in the dayes of Ezra they were not to put away their unbeleeving wives and children the Apostle answereth no because their children begotten born by them should be no bastards as they expound the word holy This answer could give them no satisfaction at all for the children that were born or begotten by the Iews who had married strange wives in the days of Ezra were not bastards being born in wedlock yet they were commanded to put them away and their mothers Thirdly that cannot be the meaning of the Apostle which implies untruth for the Apostle wrote inspired by the Spirit of truth but it is not true that all those children are unclean that is as they interpret bastards that come of unbeleeving parents for though either or both the parents were infidels yet if the children were begotten born in lawfull wedlock they were no bastards noman doubteth but there may be lawful wedlock between infidels For marriage is de jure naturae and adulterie among the heathen was a crime but if the heathen marriages were no marriages then there could be no adulterie among them for adulterie is the defiling of the marriage bed Lastly the main scope of the Apostle in this place was to perswade the beleevers among the Corinthians to cohabit with their wives that were willing to live with them though they were yet unbleevers not only because they might conceive good hope of their conversion by their loving and Christian conversation with them but because thereby their children should acquire some holinesse But if the children of beleeving parents should not be admitted to the communion of Saints and congregation of the faithfull by baptisme their children should
18 20. Hos. 4. 4 9. Mal. 2. 7. Ergo None ought to confound them ANABAP ANSWER By the Leviticall Law the Priests were distinguished from the people but that distinction is now taken away and by the Gospel any who hath the gift of Prayer and Interpretation of Scripture may both expound and dip and doe all such things as the Clergie of late have appropriated to themselves REPLY 1. The distinction of Priest and People is more ancient then the Leviticall Law and founded in the very Law of nature for the Indians have their Brackmans the Turks their Mufieâ—s the Heathen Romans had their Flamines and Arch-Flamines the Britaines and Galls their Druides Before the Law given we reade of Priests in Egypt and in Canaan and in Midian Melchizedech was a Priest to the most high God Gen. 14. 18. The Priests in Egypt had a portion by themselves Gen. 47. 22. Onely the land of the Priests Pharaoh bought not for the Priests had a portion assigned them and they did eat their portion which he gave them And Exod. 2. 16. there is mention of a Priest of Midian which had seven daughters 2. In the New Testament though the Leviticall Priesthood be taken away yet there still remaineth a distinction betweene the Clergie and Laitie for Christ Mat. 28. 19. giveth commission to his Apostles and their successors to teach all nations and baptize them and Iohn 20. 22. to remit and retaine sins and the Apostle evidently distinguisheth the Flock from their Pastours Act. 20. 28. Take heed to your selves and all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers And Gal. 66. Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good things And Heb. 13. 17. Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch over your soules as they that must give account that they may doe it with joy and not with grief ARGUMENT II. That for which God inflicted most severe punishments in the Law ought not to be attempted by any that feare God But God inflicted severe punishments upon Lay persons for usurping upon and intermedling with the Priests function as namely upon Corah Daâ—han and Abiram Num. 16. 31. and upon Vzza 2 Sam. 6. 7. and upon Vzziah 2 Chron 26. 21. Ergo None that feare God ought to attempt any such thing ANABAP ANSWER These plagues and judgements fell upon the persons above named for other crimes namely upon Corah and his complices for their conspiracie against Moses and Aaron Uzza for his presumption and Uzziah for his pride not simply for those acts done by them which seemed to trench upon the Priests and Levites office REPLY 1. It is true that the former delinquents were guilty of other crimes For as Angels often appeare single but Devils by legions so eminent vertues are for the most part single and rare in men but enourmous vices are seldome alone Yet this no way dulleth the point of the argument For the Text is expresse that the particular punishments above mentioned were laid upon them for those illegall acts done by them to the wrong and prejudice of the Sacerdotall function For what saith the Text Corah and his company said to Moses and Aaron You take too much upon you seeing all the congregation are holy every one of them Ver. 18. They took very man his censer and put fire on them and that hereby they encroached upon the Priests office it is evident by Moses reproofe ver 9 10. Is it a small thing that God hath appointed you to stand before the congregation to minister unto them and he hath brought thee neere unto him and seek ye the Priesthood also Likewise it is said of Vzza that he put his hand to the Ark of God and that therefore the Lord was wroth with him and smote him in the same place And for Vzziah the case is yet clearer for the Priests withstood him and said unto him 2 Chron. 26. 18 19. It pertaineth not unto thee Vzziah to burne incense to the Lord but to the Priests the sonnes of Aaron yet Vzziah will be medling with the censer and be burning incense contrary to the Law and thereby he incensed the wrath of God against himselfe and immediately the leprosie rose up in his forehead before the Priests in the house of the Lord besides the Incense Altar 2. I grant Corah and his complices couspired against Moses and Aaron but the cause was Moses and Aaron withstood his ambition and would not suffer him to arrogate to himselfe the Priests fâ—â—â—tion Vzza was presumptuous but for ought appeares in the Text he shewed it in nothing but this that he without any calling from God presumed to touch his Arke and doe the office of a Priest Vzziah was proud and it was the height of his pride which moved him to burne incense and not content with his Scepter to meddle with the Censer I shall adde no more to enforce this Reason then the Application of the words of the Oratour to Mark Anthonie I wonder Anthonie that thou art not frighted at their ends whose courses thou followest So I very much marvaile that they who doe such things as Corah Vzza and Vzziah smarted for feare not that they shall suffer in the like kind or a worse without repentance For although the earth open not her mouth and swallow them up as she did Dathan and his fellow Conspiratours yet Hell will open her mouth and swallow them body and soule And though God smite them not with temporall death as he did Vzza yet he will with eternall And though their flesh be not infected with leprosie as Vzziah's was yet their consciences are most foule and leprous in the sight of God ARGUMENT III. All that take upon them to execute the office of a Priest or Minister of the Gospel ought to have a calling thereunto Heb. 5. 4. 1 Tim. 4. 14. But Lay persons whether Merchants or Artizans or Husbandmen or any the like have no calling to execute the office of a Priest or Minister of the Gospel Ergo they may not assume or arrogate it to themselves ANABAP ANSWER Gods conferring gifts upon any man is a sufficient calling as for the imposition of Episcopall hands it is an Antichristian rite and giveth the partie ordained no power at all REPLY There is a double calling necessary to a dispenser of the mysteries of salvation Inward and Outward The Inward enableth them the Outward authorizeth them to discharge their sacred function Where thers are gifts if God encline the heart of the party to enter into the Ministery there is an inward calling yet this alone sufficeth not without an outward calling either ordinary or extraordinary Extraordinary callings sith Miracles are ceased we are not now to expect nor if any pretend easily beleeve or give way thereunto and therefore wee must stick to the ordinary calling by the imposition of the hands of the Presbyterie