the Covenant of the Gospell solemnly made with our father Abraham long before the Law was given the old Testament established or Moses born Their discourse about Rome is vain except they can proue that the outward baptism there administred though unlawfully is not to be reteyned by such as unto whom the Lord afterward vouchsafeth the inward baptism of his spirit and so answer our Reasons to the contrary which they haue and haue had so long time in their hands These things thus cleared it remaines we come in the next last place to examine their defence of that their own unhallowed baptism in use amongst them formerly proved by me a mere nullity by their grounds and practise set together Their ground is that baptism unlawfully ministred is no baptism their practise that he who ministring his gift poorely as their manner is doth convert in truth pervert another may also baptize him without any speciall calling For foundation of my proofs I laid down these two Rules 1. There is no lawfull baptism but by him that hath a lawfull calling to baptize 1. Thess. 4. 11. Heb. 5. 4. 5. And unto this they assent 2. Onely he hath a lawfull ordinary calling to baptize and extraordinary they challeng not who is called therto by the Church This their first rebaptizer Mr. Smith had not neyther haue they that now administer baptism amongst them neither doe they account that more is requisite for power and right to baptize then a personall gift of teaching and making thereby one of their Proselites and supposed converts Whereupon it follows that they themselvs being baptized by such as want a lawfull calling are not lawfully baptized and so by the verdict of their own quest unbaptized persons Their defence they begin with the perverting both of my words and meaning very unhonestly in setting down the state of the question which yet seems not strang unto me considering their licentious dealing in like sort with the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures They frame the question whether any but Pastors or Elders may baptize and my charge upon them that they are unbaptized because they want Pastors But where haue I so spoken or how gather they that to haue been my meaning had it so been why could I not as easily haue said that none but Pastors for of baptism by others Elders which labour not in the word and doctrine we approve not may lawfully baptize as that none but such as are lawfully called by the Church may baptize which are my words My meaning was not to deny that a Church wanting Pastors may appoint a member able to teach though out of office to baptize for which much may be said and hath been by some so minded Which though I doe not simply approve of yet neyther did neither had I occasion ro deal thereagainst but onely against the wilde course of these All-alikes of whom any that can wrest a few Scriptures intended of men of yeares onely against the baptizing of Infants to the corrupting of some simple man or woman thinks himself another Iohn Baptist as their practise and profession manifests Now whether they haue thus altered my words and perverted my meaning out of bold rashnes as being more hasty to answer then to understand their adversarie or out of cunning for their advantage the Lord and themselvs bee Iudges Onely this any may see and I shall make appeare that the most and most colourable of their Arguments are against their misconceaved and not mine intended sense which gives occasion to suspect that they haue rather been cunning then carelesse in the thing ADVERSARIES LET us come to the particulars and first to their first and main ground and foundation of their course which is that members and Churches of Christ are made both by faith and baptism and not by the one onely DEFENCE THIS their foundation in respect of baptism is sandy seeing it servs but to signifie and confirm what was before but makes nothing to be that was not The Scriptures being many cited by them are partly impertinent and partly against them some of them expresly and the rest truely Some of them indeed speak of being baptized into Christ and into his death and into one body with him and make baptism a foundation but mean not 〈◊〉 to shew that men are made Christian soules by baptism as ignorant persons think and speak but onely that they are confirmed and furthered thereby in that which they were before Some of the places joyn with baptism the Lords Supper others the laying on of hands which yet rather is meant of the doctrine then ministration of those things Now doe they conceaue that such as were no true Christians before are in part made Christians by the Lords Supper and laying on of hands When the Scriptures affirm any thing of an ordinance they must be interpreted according to the nature of the ordimance As where Christ saith of the bread This is my body or of the rock And the rock was Christ or the Apostle here that we are baptized into Christ and draw neer unto Christ by baptism and the like we must understand the speaches as sacramentall so far as they are applied to ordinances that is as intending those things for signes and seales and means of confirmation and not otherwise Others of the Scriptures brought by them are so plainly against them as it is marvail that in setting them down they thought not of the Lords answer to the evill servant Luke 19. 22. For example Math. 28. 19. Go teach or as they well turn it make all nations disciples baptizing them c. The Apostles then were first to make to wit by their teaching disciples that is Christians and after to baptize them Is it not the Scriptures constant voice and these mens plea true in it self but to a wrong end that men must first beleeue and repent and upon manifestation thereof be baptized Are not they that beleev and repent Christians with them Otherwise How doe they baptize them But thus it is with men in all sects that are lead by passion and appetite more then reason they doatupon some one thing truly or apparantly good and labor aboue measure to magnifie it esteeming all things without it as nothing Thus these men esteem of baptism others of Church government others of seperation others of imposition of hands by Bishops And so according as men haue advantage by particulars or suffer for them or are otherwise prejudiced towards them they set high valuation upon them But as grace teacheth us to acknowledg better things in Christians then any outward ordinances so must wisdom warn us not to ascribe too much to any one as fond folks use to doe to the person or thing which they affect Math. 18. 20 is against them To be gathered together in Christs name there presupposes a Church state So is Io◠4. 1. Christ made and baptized disciples they were made disciples by preaching
Baptism in which they think themselvs in their element as a fish in the water And beginning with Iohns Baptism they will haue it so called as Paul cals the Gospell his Rom. 1. 16 But they mistake It was so called because Iohn was under God the first both instituter and exerciser of it By their rule Iohn Murton might be called Iohn Baptist. Secondly they err in saying Baptism is repentance for the remission of sins c. Repentance goes before Baptism Repentance is inward the Baptism outward of which our question is God giues repentance Men confer Baptism Repentance is mans work for it is man that repenteth by grace Baptism considered as inward is Gods work as outward the Ministers under God They affirm p. 169 that the baptizing or washing of which we speak is an action of the hand Is repentance so with these men Indeed that repentance upon which they rebaptize is rather the work of their hands then of Gods The Scriptures alledged pag. 129. 130 shew what is required of men of years before they be baptized but are misapplyed as a bar to the Infants of beleevers Divers of them might more colourably though alike untruely be brought to proue that no infants could be saved as else-where hath been shewed them Their answer to the objection pag. 130 is but the fencing of their own stroak We willingly acknowledge that the doctrine and practise for baptizing men of years brought to beleev by preaching and unbaptized before is perpetuall This was the state of the persons instanced and this alone the places cited doe proue ADVERSARIES AGainst the baptizing of Infants they alledg that there is neither commandment nor example nor true consequence for it in Chrsts Testament which is perfect c. DEFENCE THE perfection of Christs Testament we avow and that the estate of the Church under the Ministery and Institution of the Apostles those great Maister-builders was most perfit as otherwise so in respect of Ordinances But in saying that we grant that there is neither commandement nor example for baptising infants they take their own presumption for our grant We grant that the Scriptures no where say in expresse terms Baptise infants or that Infants were baptised But withall they should consider with us that whatsoever can by just consequence be drawn out of the Scriptures expounded in their largest extent is conteined in them first els how could it truly be drawn out of them whatsoeuer then can be drawn by true consequence out of a commandement is commanded in it though not expresly yet truly and aswell as if it were expressed Else how could all duties towards God and our neighbour be commanded in the decalogue called the ten commandements Surely not except things be commanded which are not expressed if by consequence they can be gathered Else how could Christ say frō Deuteronomy It is written Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serue Whereas the word onely upon which the speciall weight of Christs answer lyeth is not expressed but the thing onely included thence to be truely necessarily collected But let us trace their foot-steps in disproving manifestly our consequences and taking away clearly all our objections to every mans conscience in the sight of God If bold promises may bee taken for due performances And first in observing what Baptism is they again untowardly confound the inward and outward Baptism Which though they ought not to be separated by Gods appointment yet are too oft by mans default and should alwaies by us be distinguished the outward as the work of mans hand as themselvs elsewhere confesseth from the inward as the work of God alone the former being with water the latter with the Holy Ghost as Iohn expresly distinguisheth his baptizing and Christs that came after him The meaning of the English Primer and of Vrsinus they mistake They speak of the inward and outward Baptism joyntly wheras our question is of that which is outward and in mans power to giue or with-hold So the faith and repentance which they require in persons to be baptized is actuall indeed in men of years but in Infants onely in disposition Neither doth Ursinus simply say that the Sacraments are no Sacraments in an unlawfull use as they cite him but that they are not Sacraments but to them that receiv them with true faith onely they haue benefit by them In like manner the Apostle tels the Corinthians that their comming together was not to eat the Lords Supper that is not for the better as v. 17 else they did eat the Lords Supper outwardly So elsewhere Hee is not a Iew which is one outwardly neither that circumcision which is outward in the flesh that is not that wherein God took delight else he was a Iew and that was circumcision after a sort I demand of these Rebaptizers whether Simon Magus being baptized by Phillip and yet remaining in the gall of bitternes and without all part in the ministration of the Gospell and so whether those false brethren creeping in unawares and being without doubt baptized by the Apostles or others had that inward and greater Baptism or no If not as is plain how were their Baptism a Sacrament in the lawfull use And if God gaue any of them repentance afterward were they to be baptized anew as being unbaptized before because they wanted the inward and greater Baptism when they received the other I suppose no even in these mens judgments If any object that the fault here was onely in the baptizeds unfitnesse in Gods sight he saith truely but must withall remember that notwithstanding the inward and greater Baptism wanted which by their ground should haue made a meer nullity of the other And note heerewith as of speciall consideration that Baptism is most corrupted by an unworthy receiver since both the Baptism is ministred and the baptizer ministreth for the baptizeds sake who being impure himselfe all things are impure unto him and that his baptism no baptism of the Lord to him in right use but rather a prophane usurpation till by his faith and repentance God afterwards giving them it become the Lords baptism to him for the confirmation of hi◠faith in the bloud-shedding of Christ for his sins Neither is it requisite that we proue as they require of us that Infants haue faith and repentance but let them proue which they presume but proue not that the actuall having and manifesting of these graces being conditions requisite for men of years are to be exacted of Infants if they be admitted to Baptism May they not as reasonably and charitably conclude that Infants are not to eat because they worke not from 2 Thess. 3 and are to be damned because they beleev not from Mark 16. 16. And was there not that required at Abrahams hands for his circumcision which was not required at Isaaks for his Or not more of
Christ promiseth to be present alwaies even to the end If I should answer as I know not but I might lawfully that these words of Christ I am with you alway even unto the end of the world are to be expounded as those of the Apostle 1 Thess. 4. 15. 17 Wee which are aliue and remain unto the comming of the Lord and that the meaning of both is that all should so walk as if that day of the Lord were to come every day of their liues what would they reply But admit this be spoken mediately to the successours of the Apostles not in their power Apostolicall for that ceaseth with their office Apostolicall and their office with their persons neither is there left in the Church any authority or direction for the chusing of Apostles but in the performance of such ordinary works in lawfull order as the Apostles were to exercise themselvs in specially of teaching and baptizing there mentioned I thus proue that by those successors are not meant as they conceiv disciples but such as haue speciall commission and authority and so specially Pastors And first Christ here opposeth them to whom he speaks as the makers of Disciples as the words are to Disciples to be made by them Secondly if every disciple of Christ then why not women also which are disciples as well as men and wherof there are diverse to be found better gifted then any of this fellowship Neither can they object the Apostles prohibition of women 1 Cor. 11 1 Tim. 2 seeing they hold Baptism no Church action but personall onely and so administer it as privately as Midwines use to doe Thirdly if Pastors be most rightfully the Apostles successors in other works of their Apostolicall commission here given by name in administring the Lords Supper and over-seeing the flock and defending the same in the truth which they grant why not in teaching and baptizing also which alone are expressed Math. 28. ADVERSARIES BVT this they account a meer fiction seeing converting and baptizing is no part of the Pastors office which is to feed watch and oversee the flock of Christ and defend the same in the truth then which they deny further charge to be laid upon him by his office quoting for that purpose Act. 20. 28 Tit. 1. 9 proceeding also to challenge it as an imagination that he is to preach by vertue of his office yea adding that any disciple having ability is authorized yea commanded to preach convert and baptize as well and as much if not more then any Pastour To this height of usurpation are these Chorites come DEFENCE FIrst here as alwaies they alter the state of the question which between them and me is not whether onely Pastors but whether onely such as haue a speciall Church-calling may baptize Secondly it is true that Pastors in the right state of things are not to be set over heards of goats and swine but over flocks of sheep yet doth it not follow thereupon that Pastors in no sort convert For first there may be in the Church hypocrites undetected or after detection yet uncensured which they may by Gods blessing effectually convert Secondly the Pastor as Pastor of the flock and feeding it may convert a stranger comming in and why then not baptize him by their own ground The person so converted publiquely may and ought to be baptized publiquely and should not the Pastor doe it by whom also hee is converted rather then a private member Thirdly it is not all one though they confound them to convert to wit from being wicked to become godly and to make a disciple Children born in the Church may be made Disciples yet not so converted as it may be never having been such as of whom it could be said that they were wicked Fourthly it is their ignorance to make converting of men and the baptizing them actions of the same nature seeing onely men and women before converted and repenting are to be baptized Lastly in granting according to the Scriptures that the Pastor is by office to feed the flock they cannot deny but that hee is to baptize thereby seeing baptism is a part of that feeding properly serving to confirm the faith of beleevers in the washing away of their sinnes by the bloud of Christ Begetting is by the seed of the word the word of truth and so whatsoever means follow thereupon is but for feeding and nourishing the so begotten ADVERSARIES BVT that which followeth is admirable viz. that the Pastour is not required to preach nor doth perform it by vertue of his office when he doth it DEFENCE MAny men and these with the rest haue spoken many absurd things in religion but these in this exceed them all yea and themselves They from Act. 20 affirm that the Pastours are to feed the flock by their office And can the flock be fed as it ought without preaching and where the bread of life is not broken unto it They also graunt in the same place from Titus 1. 9. that he is to defend the flock in the truth against all gainsayers But why to defend the flock c. as their cunning and corrupt glosse is rather then as the words of the text are by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsaier Are exhortations and convictions by sound doctrine no preachings with these men yea are they not directly for the conversion of gainsayers And how then belongs it not to Pastours to whom these things belong to convert So where it is required that the Bishop to be called be apt to teach is he not by his office to doe that which is requisite in him for his enabling unto it I say for the enabling of him unto his office and not for the adorning of it onely as hospitality is which though he wholy want ability to perform yet that disables him not as the want of aptnes to teach doth Ioyn with these the Apostles exhortation that the Elders that rule well be had in double honour specially they that labour in the word and doctrine for the labourer is worthy of his reward and what can be clearer then that the Pastour is to preach by his office and that as being the speciall work for which his wages are due unto him Is not to labour in the word and doctrine here spoken of for him to preach and that as an Elder as the former rule as Elders Strange it is that a Pastour or Teacher by office should not teach and preach by office that is not exercise their office or ministery the Teacher in teaching and Exhorter or Pastour in exhortation And see we not here what new Patrons dumb ministers haue gotten of whom the old almost every where are ashamed If it be not required of the Pastour to preach by his office then though he never preach at all yet it cannot be said to Archippus fulfill thy ministery which thou hast received in the Lord. The Pastour