fancies of your owne braine that you have vented before I will not think it burdensom to answer you though in some things the same for substance that hath been said before That you say viz. the Iewish Church-state and old Covenant being constituted upon nature and the naturall seed of Abraham Answ I pray you can you tell what you meane when you say that the Iewes Church-state was constituted upon nature and the naturall seed of Abraham I am sure you speake not according to Scripture that I say not nor according to sense or reason As far as I can apprehend when you say it was built upon nature If you have any meaning in these words and doe not let them fall from you at randome it must be understood either first that nature was the ground cause of this covenant or secondly that naturall blessings were onely bestowed in this covenant or thirdly that this covenant was made onely with the naturall children of Abraham all which are manifestly false For first if your meaning be that this covenant was grounded on nature so that nature was the cause of it you must either meane the nature of God as contradistinguish't to his will and good pleasure or the nature of Abraham The nature of God was not the cause of it for what God doth by nature his nature being the cause he doth eternally necessarily unchangeably so as he cannot but doe it as to know himselfe and all things knowable to love himselfe Or if you meane that the nature of Abraham was the ground of this covenant it is as false for there was nothing in Abraham by nature that put difference between him and others Deut. 7. Iosh 24. Rom. 4. Or if you meane God onely bestowed temporall blessings in this covenant that is palpably and execrably false also God was their God in the old covenant circumcised their heart to love him feare him and obey him and trust in him he gave remission of sinnes and sanctification under that Covenant which were not naturall blessings Or thirdly if you meane that that Covenant was made with Abrahams naturall posteritie there is no appearance of truth in it for bond-men and those that were bought with money and Proselytes of any nation or stock whatsoever were admitted into this Covenant Gen. 17. Exod. 12. You adde This to wit the Christian Church-state upon grace and the spirituall seed of Abraham Answ So was the old Covenant to use your phrase constituted on grace Gods free favour was the cause of it and the graces of the Spirit bestowed as truly under it though not so plentifully and clearely as now as these phrases expresse Gen. 17. Deut. 30. Mal. 2.5 I am God all-sufficient I will be thy God I will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God c. My Covenant was with him of life and peace Secondly if you meane by the spirituall seed of Abraham Iesus Christ the seed of the woman that was to breake the Serpents head Gen. 3. Joh. 8. Rev. 13. 1 Tim. 2. in whom the Covevant was made with our first parents fallen at the seeing of whose day Abraham rejoyced in whom God promises that all the Nations of the earth should be blessed the old Covenant was made with Abraham in him who is the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world who is the onely Mediatour between God and man and by whom alone Abraham and all the faithfull have had communion with God You adde That therefore termed Israel according to the flesh and of the circumcision of the flesh this Israel according to the spirit and of the circumcision of the heart Rom. 2.28 29. 4 6 7 8. Col. 2.11 Answ No such thing appeareth in those Scriptures Take heed how you falsifie Gods word would you perswade men that God gave not circumcision of heart under the old Covenant that because all were not right Israelites that were Abrahams seed therefore none were that because he is not a Iew that is one outwardly therefore none under the old covenant were inwardly Iews because true Christians are circumcised with a circumcision without hands therefore the Iewes were not circumcised but onely with hands not spiritually Let any man examine those Scriptures and see whether from thē it can be gathered that all under the old covenant had onely circumcision of the flesh and that all under the new covenant have circumcision of the spirit It will appeare to any judicious Reader that here are two or three notorious falsehoods with a grosse perverting of Scripture in this short sentence The first That the Iewish Church-state or old covenant is called Israel according to the flesh or circumcision of the flesh but the Gospel-state Israel according to the spirit or the circumcision of the heart wherein are infolded more untruths then one Secondly that therefore they are so called because that was constituted on the naturall seed of Abraham c. The abuse of Scripture appeares that these Scriptures neither prove the antecedent nor sequele nor consequent neither make any thing for his purpose as if it would not be overtedious to stand upon and needlesse to any men of judgement might be shewed But such uttering of falshoods and then propping them with Scriptures to abuse the simple is ordinary almost in every page and sometimes frequent in one page as may appeare by the answer though I have not said so much in expresse words before neither should have said so now but that I consider such is the weaknesse of some Readers that what they read if Scripture be brought for proofe thereof though never so impertinently abusively and perversely they thinke it must goe for currant Thirdly that you say a state of bondmen or servants so as in that state an heire or beleever differed nothing from a servant though he were lord of all c. Gal. 4.7 Answ That under the Old Testament the Church of the Iews was an heire yea lord of all though in regard of its infancie and immaturitie nothing differing from a servant as being held under the tutourship of the Law this I say is sufficient to prove that the Church of the Iewes and the Christian Church is one and the same for substance and under the same Covenant in all essentialls For all know that a sonne and heire is the same for substance and in person at three yeares old and at thirty though altered in some accidentall priviledges at riper yeares And hence your fancie of the Iewish Church being constituted on nature is quite overthrowne For if the Iewish Church was heire and lord of all beleevers were then children though in minoritie and under tutourship How were they children not by nature for Christ onely is the Sonne of God by nature therefore by grace and so they were under a Covenant of Grace Thus powerfull is the word of truth to overthrow those errours that ignorant men would abuse and force it
we grant your proposition is true viz. that Baptisme must be either by dipping or infusion and so that it be either way it is sufficient But you take it not in this sense as may appeare by the manner of your reasoning for by the affirmation of the one you inferre the deniall of the other and if you should take it in this sense it would make against your selfe and overthrow your own argument Therefore it appears you take it by way of opposition and so we utterly deny it as false Your reasoning is like this We come to the knowledge of Christ by reading the Scriptures or hearing the word preached Joh. 5.39 But Christ bids the Iewes to search the Scripture viz. by reading that they might come to the knowledge of him Therefore not by hearing the word preached Or like this The Minister must preach either sitting or standing But Christ preached sitting Matth. 5.1 c. Therefore Ministers may not preach standing Or this We must pray either standing or kneeling or sitting or lying c. But Christ saith when you stand praying Mark 11.25 Therefore it is not lawfull to pray with any other gesture but standing Who seeth not the weaknesse of this reasoning yours is no better But to come to your assumption But Iohn the Baptist or Dipper as you say according to the Dutch did use the water By putting the partie into the water not by insusing or sprinkling Mat. 3.11 Mar. 1.8 Ioh. 1.26 Act. 11.16 Answer Answ First None of these places prove that Iohn put the partie into the water much lesse that the whole man was dipped all over in the water which you undertooke to prove But here is not the least intimation of any such matter Secondly Whereas you gather from the Originall that Iohn baptized in the water and dipped the whole man all over in the water and put the party into the water you might as well say that Christ baptized in the holy Ghost and fire and that he dipped the whole man all over in the holy Ghost and in the fire Act. 11.6 Matth. 3.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or put the party into the holy Ghost and fire which were a strange interpretation for the particle is the same Thirdly Whereas you gather hence A Baptisme in water not a Baptisme with water I would have you tell me what were they baptized or washed with if not with water as if there were an irreconcileable repugnancy between baptizing in water and baptizing with water But that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not necessarily signifie in you grant in our objection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you propound thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie with sometime as in Revel 19.21 And the rest were slain with the sword Whereunto I might adde that not onely in this place but frequently in the New Testament the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an Hebraisme answering the prefixe ב signifies as well with as in Matth. 5.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with not in what shall it be salted Matth. 7.2 with not in what judgement Act. 26.18 with not in the sanctified You answer this objection thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never taken for with after baptizo Reply I reply That is the thing in question And I would demand whether you thinke that our Translatours and most or all others who have Englished it with knew not how to render the Originall in its proper signification as well as your selfe Besides these forementioned places Mat. 3.11 Act. 11.19 speaking of Christs baptizing with the holy Ghost and with fire cannot be otherwise Englished with any sense Your peremptory deniall of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie with after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you would confirme thus Either the word Baptizo must signifie to sprinkle or the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not signifie with But the word baptizo doth signifie to dip Ergo the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie In and not with as is proved very clearely and denyed of none who are not ignorant of the language Answ As for this your Syllogisme it shews your Clarklinesse wherewith you scoffingly taunt our Ministers It is notoriously fond it wants forme hath foure termes In the assumption you put to dip in stead of not to sprinkle as if one word might not signifie to dip and sprinkle both There is no necessitie in the proposition Your assumption wherein you say But baptizo signifies to dip if it be taken exclusively as to debarre all other significations which it must or else it is brought to no purpose is false Whereas in your conclusion you say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie in and not with which you say is denied by none who are not ignorant of the language Answer Answ What fond arrogancy this is I shall make appeare by and by But let us heare this criticall Linguist prove what he saith from the signification of the Greek word You say that Greeke Authors account Bapto and Baptizo to signifie that for which the Latines use Mergo Immergo Tingere immergendo that is to dip or plunge to douse over head or under water Answer Answ Bapto indeed signifies Mergo or Tingo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo is a derivative that cometh thence which sometimes may signifie the same with its primitive But if we look into the use of it in the New Testament we shall finde it rendred To wash where the Originall word to Baptize is not kept as Mark. 7.4 And when they come from the market they eate not except they wash The washing of cups and of pots and of brazen vessels and of beds or tables Again vers 8. The washing of pots and cups Here you have the verbe Baptizo to wash and the noune Baptismos washing And that this is the proper signification of the word may appeare a Bez Lotiones Arias Mon. lotiones vul Baptismata beside the consent of Translatours in that it is used as signifying the same thing with the other words that alwayes signifies a Bez Lotiones Arias Mon. lotiones vul Baptismata washing as vers 2. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 With unwashen hands and vers 3. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wash their hands By which it appeareth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie the same thing So Hebr. 9.10 And divers washings where the Apostle speaketh of the legall washings So Luk. 11.38 The Pharisee marvelled that Christ had not washed before dinner So that the word signifies properly to wash whether by infusion or immersion it matters not But should we grant Baptizo and Bapto to be altogether of the same signification though the contrary have been sufficiently proved what will you gain thereby 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies either mergo or tingo Mergo signifies properly to drown overwhelm swallow up c. If you will have your converts
according to this interpretation so baptized as to drown them you will make sure work to prevent their sinning any more And so your Baptisme will have a priviledge above the Baptisme of Christ Iohn or the Apostles for their converts and baptized ones sinned after Baptisme But if you will have Baptisme taken and used in this sense I know none that will be your disciples unlesse they be weary of their lives The other word Tingo signifies to dip or c Dan. 4.12 c Interpreters render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in sound hath great affinitie with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some letters being transposed by Intingitur Iun. Trem. Ar. Mon. Buxtorf our Translatours render it to be wet Where Intingo cannot signifie to douse over head or to dip but to besprinkle or bedew for it follows with the dew of heaven besprinkle to embrue stain wet or wash c. Now what reason is there why it should be restrained onely to the first signification Nay if we compare Scriptures we shall finde that what is rendred by sprinkling in the Old Testament is expressed by this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New As if we conferre these two places Rev 19.13 and Esa 63.3 In Rev. 10.13 And d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sparsus aspersus inspersus fuit vel active aspersit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conspersus tinctus madefactus Bez. veste tincta sanguine Ari. vestimention tinctum Vulg. veste aspersa he was cloathed with a vesture dipt in blood So our Translatours or rather sprinkled so we Esa 63.3 Their blood shall be sprinkled on my garments To which place of Esay it is certain that the holy Ghost in the Revelation alludes that I say not that it may be a repetition of the same prophesis pointing at the same time and thing as it may appeare by the same similitude of treading the wine-presse of Gods wrath largely prosecuted in both places See Esa 63.1 With dyed garments vers 2. Red in his apparell c. vers 3. I have trod the wine presse and compare Rev. 19. v. 15. c. So that it is evident that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth expresse the same that was meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though our Translatours render it dipped because the word in the Originall signifies either dipped or sprinkled equally Yea Beza useth a word that equally signifies dipped or sprinkled So Arias Montanus But the vulgar translation hath a word that onely signifies besprinkled not dipped But you say That Baptizo signifies to dip plunge douse over head c. is proved by Christs own Baptisme And e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was baptized into the Iordan Mark 1.9 But it is not the water was put upon him as in sprinkling the water is put on the partie Answ 1. Neither is it he was dipped plunged doused over head or under the water c. 2. The force of your argument lyes in this particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you will needs have translated Into not In. But can you who censure others for their ignorance of the language be ignorant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth very frequently In or by not Into as Matth. 2.23 f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He dwelt in not into a citie called Nazareth Matth. 4.13 He dwelt in not into Capernaum Matth. 5 45. Neither by the earth neither by Ierusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are put in the same signification there Matth. 10.9 Neither possesse money in not into your purses and 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In not into the name of a Prophet Matth. 13.33 She hid it in not into three measures of flower c. Thus you see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying in so that it were absurd to render it into and so you have proved nothing for your purpose from the particle You adde the testimonie of our Translatours themselves For which I answer Matth. 26.23 and Mar. 14.20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have the preposition set before them which alters the signification and restrains it to signifie Dipping in which signification the simple Verbe that we are about is not restrained unto From Luk. 16.24 Ioh. 13.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you prove nothing but what we willingly grant without this labour namely that bapto sometimes signifies to Dippe But thence it followes not that it signifies so alwaies or onely Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revel 19.13 and the difference betweene Bapto and Baptizo I have spoken before And here you confirme what I said and contradict your self For saying that in no Greek Authour nor Scripture written by the Apostles in that Language can be found that they differ Mark 7.4 Immediately you bring a place where Baptizo is taken in a sense different from Bapto which you never shewed not have I read to signifie to Wash So that you pull down with your owne hands what you have beene building all this while See before what hath beene said to that place where mention is made of such a washing as is so farre from necessarily implying dowsing into the water onely that it will scarcely admit it as washing themselves when they come from the market and the washing of Beds or Tables What you adde That washing of cups is putting cups into the water is as true as washing hands or face is putting them into the water May not cups be as well washed by infusion of water in and upon them as by putting them into the water Your conjecture from Ioh. 3.23 is as frivolous As if there could be no reason why Iohn should chuse a place where were many waters but this that he might dip the whole man into the water plunge and douse them over head or under water as your expressions are But no such reason is here expressed nor so much as intimated Rather the cause seemes this Because in those hot countreys waters were rare Gen. 21.15.19 Gen. 26.18 Judg. 1.15 and in some places could not be had in a great distance therefore Iohn chose places where were continuall running waters and streames especially seeing there came such huge multitudes unto him to be baptized Mat. 3.5 6 7. and it is more then probable that not onely Iohn but also his disciples baptized as Ioh. 4.1 2. Christ is said to baptize those whom his disciples baptized So Iohn may be said to baptize those whom he and his disciples baptized together a long the river at severall places of the river that they might make more speedy dispatch with so great multitudes Act. 2.41 Act. 16.15.33 Neither is it true that you say A little font will suffice to besprinkle a whole world with handfuls Moreover we reade of great multitudes baptized even three thousand in Ierusalem without mention of going to the rivers and of whole
as in the first or of providence as in the later is the principall thing whereon the power and the authoritie of the Minister doth depend And then the lesse principall are the ordination and choyce of them by such as are the Ministers and people of God by profession though something Antichristian or otherwise sinfull may cleave unto them in regard of their qualities or stations And lastly the expression of the end for which they were ordained viz. to administer the holy things of God By which two latter viz. the outward calling and the manifestation of the end the hearts of Gods people may be assured of Christs inward calling so farre as that they may be confident that whiles they discharge the duties of Ministers it shall not be without efficacie for their good if they be not wanting to themselves Answer 5 Fifthly as Paul proveth his Apostleship when it was questioned amongst the Corinthians by occasion of the whisperings of the false apostles who could not otherwise insinuate themselves into the favour of the Corinthians but by traducing Paul and bringing him out of favour with them as no Apostle of Christ which hath beene ever the guise of false Teachers which practise is too rife now adayes As I say Paul proves his Apostleship amongst other arguments from Gods blessing upon his ministery Are not you my worke in the Lord 2 Cor. 9.1 2. If I be not an Apostle unto others yet doubtlesse I am unto you for the seale of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord Which must needs be a good argument both because the Apostle used it who would not bring a weake and non-concluding argument and also because as God will not blesse any Ordinances but his owne to work repentance faith and holinesse so neither will he blesse any Ministery but his owne Ministery so through the mercy of God our Ministers have a sufficient answer for all that shall examine them concerning their ministery The Conversion Humiliation Reformation Faith Consolation heavenly Ioy and Holinesse which God thereby hath wrought in thousands of soules to his everlasting glory be it spoken evince them to be the Ministers of Christ whose worke and seale so many faithfull soules are and prove that all those which goe about to perswade the people that they are Antichristian ministers are slanderers 2 Cor. 9.13 14 15. Like those false Apostles of which Paul speaks deceitfull workers transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ and no marvell for Satan himselfe is transformed into an Angel of light Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed into the Ministers of righteousnesse whose end shall be according to their workes Or like those deceivers which had so bewitched the Galatians Gal. 4.14 15 16 17 18. that whereas they had received the Apostle as an Angel of God even as Christ Iesus c. yet after a while accounted him their enemie because he told them the truth whom they zealously affected but not well desiring to separate those Galatians from the Apostles that they might have all their affection But I will leave such deceivers and those which are deceived by them if they doe not truely repent to the judgement of him on whose Ministers they raile knowing that he who hath so farre honoured their faithfull labours will vindicate them in his due time from all those contumelious aspersions wherewith on all sides they are laden if they continue faithfully and resolutely doing his worke notwithstanding all oppositions Your reasoning that you falsely say the Non-conformists have taught you is idle Did the Non-conformists ever call midwives Antichristian ministers midwives were never capable of ministerial functions nor called to the ministerie by the ordination of Ministers nor choyce or acceptation of the people neither have they any ministeriall power from Christ But our Ministers have although there have beene some disorder or defect in the externall exhibition of this power through the fault of men which yet probably was nothing so great as was the disorder among the Iewes in calling the Scribes and Pharisees whose ministerie notwithstanding our Saviour enjoynes the people to use To an Objection which you bring in of our Ministers That they received their office of Bishops as Elders not as Lord Bishops You answer That if our Bishops be lawfull Elders they must be Elders chosen by a true Church which is a Congregation constituted of beleevers and Saints by calling Act. 2.41 1 Cor. 1.2 Phil. 1.7 Rom. 1.7 8. To which your Answer I reply First If you speake of Bishops being lawfull Elders so as to be right Ministers in all circumstances and particulars of their station and calling so that there needs no reformation we doe not plead for them as lawfull Elders in that sense as knowing that some evill adhereth unto their Ministery which being removed they become lawfull Ministers But so farre we hold them lawfull Elders as that their calling of Ministers Preaching administring of Sacraments when done for the substance according to the rule of Gods word are not meere nullities nor prophanations of Gods Ordinances to Gods people or Ministers that make use of them but may be and oft are effectuall for their good so that if these Bishops will cast away that which being Antichristian adhereth unto them Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 and faithfully discharge the office of Elders and Ministers of Iesus Christ faithfully feeding the flock of God they are to be imbraced as Christs Ministers and that without any new Ordination Rev. 2.3 as may appeare Revel 2. and 3. Chapters where the Angels or Ministers which had left their first love Rev. 2.13 14. had them which held the doctrine of Balaam which taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel Rev. 2.20 to eate things offered to idols and to commit fornication and had them which held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which Christ hated yea which suffered the woman Iezabel which called her selfe a Prophetesse to teach and deceive Christs servants c. Rev. 3.15 Those which had a name to live and yet were dead whose workes were not perfect such as were neither hot nor cold but luke-warme Such I say are still called Angels bidden repent and doe their first workes with a promise at last implied that they shall keep their stations of Angels And this is sufficient to warrant unto us Matth. 23.1 2 3 c. per totum the acts which they doe as Ministers The Scribes and Pharisees had many corruptions in Christs time and so had the Priests both before and in Christs time adhering to their function and those very grosse yet was not their ministery vaine to those which according to Christs appointment made use of it Now to your position That they must be Elders chosen by a true Church which is a congregation of beleevers That I may know your meaning I would demand of you First Whether you mean that
him into a state of salvation so farre as that now they are within the Covenant and so consequently have right unto the seale of initiation It is said indeed that they spake the word of the Lord unto him and all that were in the house viz. so many as were capable of instruction But there is no word of the actuall beliefe or repentance by expression word or action of any in the family except onely of the Iaylour himself whose repentance and faith at least initiall is expressed by the effects thereof viz. his humiliation and desire of salvation vers 29. and 30. and more fully by the fruits of them declared vers 33. in taking them the same houre of the night and washing their stripes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then it is said that he and all his were baptized straight-way Which evidently sheweth that the governours faith and repentance or being within the Covenant doth sufficiently interesse their inferiours that are at their dispose to the Covenant of Grace and so to the Seale of entrance at least if they be not refractary wilfully and stubbornly refusing to be given up to God by their superiours The like may be said of Stephanus his family 1 Cor. 1.16 But most cleare and expresse is the example of Lydia Act. 16.14 15. When the Lord had opened her heart to attend to those things that were spoken of Paul she was baptized and her houshold Not a word spoken of preaching to or actuall faith and repentance of the rest So that it is apparent that as upon Abrahams faith and repentance and interest in God his whole Family whether those that were born in the house or those that were bought with money yea even his infants of eight dayes old had so farre interest in God that upon his tendring them up unto God according to his gracious appointment now they had right unto the Seal of Circumcision after God had once instituted it so Christian governours of families or parents by their faith and repentance are meanes of bringing salvation to their families and interessing those that are under them to God and Christ so farre as that they have right unto Baptisme at least except they stubbornly refuse the Seale and reject the Covenant A. R. To this Argument especially the Scriptures brought to confirme the assumption you answer There might be no Infants there viz. in those families which were baptized and my negative say you is as good as your affirmative Answer This toucheth not the force of mine Argument which hath shewed that upon parents or governours of families receiving the Gospel their families were accepted unto Baptisme their superiours tendring them thereunto Whether Infants or not there is no exception of Infants or others But you say your Negative is as good as our Affirmative without proofe and that you bring Scripture for your negative as Act. 18.8 which Scripture maketh nothing against us For first if Crispus beleeved in the Lord with all his Family it doth not follow that these families which we mentioned had none but actuall beleevers in them before they were baptized Secondly Crispus may be said to beleeve he and his houshold and so to be baptized though they were not all indued with actuall faith as Abrahams Family was a Family of beleevers even the whole Family when the Seale of the righteousnesse by faith had been set upon all the Males therein although they did not all actually beleeve You adde the example of the Iaylour Act. 16.31 32 c. Answer We have already sufficiently considered what is contained in vers 31 32 33. viz. though Paul and Silas preached the word unto all in the family viz that were capable of instruction yet the faith and repentance of none but of the Iaylour himselfe is manifested But you say He and all his houshold beleeved in God as it is vers 34. Answ If you looke into the Originall you shall finde that that verse makes nothing for your purpose It is word for word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he rejoyced with all his house having beleeved in God or when he had beleeved in God But because the English cannot so fully and clearely give the sense of the place it may be noted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having beleeved being the Masculine gender and singular number as the Grammarians speake cannot be referred to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone or taken with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the keeper So that the sense should be the whole house beleeved or the Iaylour and the whole house beleeved I say the words cannot beare this sense as the skilfull in the language may easily see and therefore in the translation beleeving or rather having beleeved in God is to be read within a parenthesis so that those words with his whole family is to be referred onely to the word rejoyced Thus And rejoyced beleeving or having beleeved in God with all his house So that though our Translatours did well render the words yet the want of observing the parenthesis causeth the words at the first sight otherwise to sound then indeed they do to those that looke on the Originall Laetatus est cum omni domo credens Deo So Arias Montanus But under correction and with submission to better judgements if I might be so bold I conceive it might be rendered more agreeably to the signification of the words the scope of the place and for the avoyding of ambiguitie And having beleeved in God he rejoyced exulted or testified his joy openly by outward actions in all his family or through his house or all his house over For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beleeving and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rejoyced are both the singular number and so have reference to one alone viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Iaylour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred with all his house is an adverbe and so according to the ordinary use of that part of speech is referred to the verbe to shew how the thing was done not by whom Beside the scope of the place seemes to favour this Interpretation for it is said in the words before that he brought them into the house and set meat before them or made them a feast so that he expressed his rejoycing in his whole house by making a solemn feast in all the family as it were celebrating that night as his spirituall birth-dayes solemnitie Now you come to compare that Scripture mentioned which you apprehend to speake of whole families beleeving before they were baptized with these that speake of baptizing families where yet none are said to beleeve save the heads and thence you gather That it cannot be reasonably imagined but that the Apostle did baptize these families according to commission c. and those other places which are more silent must be expounded by this which is more plain and not this by those Answ First No question the Apostle baptized according to commission but that their
doctrin by whom they may be had in admiration while they are suffered to go on in their bold presumption and confident venting of their ignorant conceits and malicious rayling against authoritie which may appeare by this Authours abuse of Scripture for a colour of accusation of those that would restraine them and by his tale of a Minister in the West But I come to the fourth Consideration The fourth Argument Answered YOur fourth Consideration then is taken from the ground of baptizing children which as you are short in urging I will be short in answering A. R. Whereas therefore you say The faith and repentance of the Sureties is the ground of our baptizing as you would prove from the questions propounded at the baptizing and out of the Catechisme Whence you conclude that it is not true Baptisme because in true Baptisme the faith and repentance of the partie baptized is the ground Answer I Answer Not the faith and repentance of the Sureties as you pretend is the ground of our Baptisme neither do we say so but Gods gracious Covenant which he hath made with the parents and their children of which hereafter Which Covenant that parents may publiquely professe themselves to have interest in and with them their children it is convenient that they and other Sureties if they see it good to joyne such with themselves to undertake what they promise in the behalfe of their children in case parents should be negligent ignorant or by speedy death or otherwise disabled to bring up their children religiously I say it is convenient that they should make a profession of their faith and repentance which yet doth not at all prove that their faith and repentance is the ground of the childrens Baptisme But the tenour of Gods gracious covenant under which they professe themselves and with them their children to be is the ground of this act Now though there may be some unjustifiable or unfit passages in the Catechisme or manner of Baptisme whence you fetch your Argument seeing that it is apparent that our ground of baptizing Infants is the Covenant of God made with the parents or those which are in stead of parents which Covenant that they are in they testifie by professing their faith and repentance and considering that the answering of Sureties and the Catechizing of Children doth nothing touch the essence of Baptisme those passages nothing prejudice the truth of Childrens Baptisme But concerning this matter viz. the ground of Childrens Baptisme more hereafter The fifth Argument against the Baptisme of Infants taken from the subiects to whom it is administred Answered THe fifth Consideration A. R. which yeelds an Argument against our Baptisme is taken from the subiects on whom Baptisme is administred and those are Infants whereas say you the Scripture holds forth the Disciples or beleevers onely are to be baptized which you prove thus For the Commission of Christ was onely to baptize disciples as appeareth Matth. 28.19 the words being these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Going therefore disciple all nations baptizing them c. Now the question say you is to what this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them hath relation whether to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nations or no. But say you it is cleare out of the words that it hath not relation to nations but to disciples for the word which is put for them in that place is autous not auta which it should be if it had relation to nations Answ 1. But I pray you who but your self ever saw in this Text the word Disciples to which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them may have relation There is no such word either in any usuall translation or in the Originall 2. What necessitie or likelihood is there that your supposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciples should be antecedent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them Because forsooth it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Know you not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nations though in voyce it be Neuter yet in signification it is Masculine Signifying men in the Nations or Heathens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homines in Gentibus or Gentium or Gentiles You sure would never have been so confident that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciples if you had but consulted with Lylies Rules who tels you of a figure called Synthesis when a sentence is congruous in sense Synthesis est ocatio congrua sensu non voce Gens armati 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though not in voice and brings an example like to this The Armed nation which figure is very frequent in the Greeke language to instance onely in this same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 15.17 And all the nations upon whom my name is called upon them where you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom and them answering to the antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gentes And I beleeve where you finde a Relative in Scripture answering to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most frequently if not alwayes it is the Masculine gender as Act. 28.28 to the Gentiles is sent this salvation and they shall heare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act 13.48 The Gentiles hearing glorified the word of the Lord and they beleeved so many as were ordained unto eternall life Rom. 2.14 15. When the Gentiles not having the law do by nature the things of the law these having not the law are a law to themselves which shew the work c. Insomuch that your Criticisme hath greatly failed you here and so your foundation which you have laid to prove That all who are baptized according to Christs Commission proving but a meere conceit or self-deceit your building that you reare thereupon will vanish away Obiect If it be said Christ commanded the Apostles to teach or make disciples and then to baptize so that none are capable of Baptisme but those that have been taught or made disciples first Answer 1 To this I answer First This cannot be gathered by any necessary consequence from the connexion of the words any more then it may be concluded from the same verse that none may Teach or Baptize but Apostles or such as have authoritie and gifts of miracles and tongues to goe to all nations For as Baptizing is joyned with Teach so Teach ye is joyned with Go ye before and All nations after But if no wise man will deduce or yeeld to this conclusion None must either Preach or Baptize but those which have gifts and authoritie to goe into all nations for that end from the coherence of the words you must excuse us if we yeeld not to the deducing of your conclusion from the coherence viz. That none are to be baptized but those which have been first taught or made disciples Answer 2 Secondly I answer It is
And it may further appeare by these Scriptures Act. 8.38 Nothing now could hinder the Eunuch from being baptized for now the spirituall blessing appertained to him and therefore the externall signe Act. 10.47 48. Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we And he commanded them to be baptized c. And Chap. 11.17 The Apostle implies that it had beene a withstanding of God not to have baptized them on whom the gift of the holy Ghost had been powred And so still upon the profession of faith and repentance when in the judgement of charitie the Preachers apprehended the parties to have interest and right to the spirituall grace they administred the outward signe though questionlesse they were deceived in many as Ananias Sapphira Simon Magus c. Yet it was a sufficient warrant to the Ministers to baptize them because so farre as they could judge they were under the promise For if amongst Christs few Disciples there was one traytour sonne of perdition devill doubtlesse amongst those many thousands that were baptized upon their profession of faith and repentance at the preaching of Iohn and the Apostles many were hypocrites as may appeare by the great evils that brake out in the Primitive Churches This I adde to shew that there is no infallible certainty of the inward grace required of or possible to the Minister And that to whom the inward grace belongs to them the outward signe belongs appeareth in Peters exhortation in that place quoted in the proposition Act. 2.38 39. And Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Iesus Christ to the remission of your sinnes and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are afarre off even so many as the Lord our God shall call Wherein he shews them that if they will repent they have right unto baptisme as having right unto the thing signified in baptisme viz. the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Christ powred on their soules and the gift of the holy Ghost being the Spirit of Christ powred on them of which he had spoken before ver 17. both clearely represented and signified by the infusion or powring of water in baptisme And the rather to perswade them to repent and be baptized that they might receive remission of sinnes and the gift of the holy Ghost Peter tels them that the promise is to them and their children and so many as God should call though afarre off even among the Gentiles So that if by faith and repentance they and the Gentiles should accept the promise they and their children should have interest in the remission of sinnes and the gift of the holy Ghost and so consequently in baptisme so that not onely the parents repenting but also their children had title to the promise of the holy Gohst and so to the seale thereof A. R. First against this you object It is not said your infants but your children Ans Infants are not excluded I hope for infants are children though not onely infants neither do we hold that the promise was made to infants onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter useth a generall word that signifieth posteritie of what age soever whether of ripe or tender years Secondly you object It is not said promises but promise and that it is not promises but promise not infants but children You promise us satisfaction by looking back to what went before in the Chapter after a long repetition wherof you tell us what we may gather to wit that the gift of the holy Ghost mentioned ver 17. to be prophesied of by Ioel and to be received of the Father and shed forth by Christ ver 33. is repeated ver 38. Answ All this maketh nothing against us but for us Thirdly you adde You may see who are meant by children viz. the same that were mentioned ver 17. under the termes of sonnes and daughters that should prophecie Answ As if the Spirit mentioned here were onely a Spirit of prophecie The Spirit hath divers operations some ordinary and some extraordinary 1 Cor. 12.4.7 8 9 10 11. Neither is it said that all shall prophecie and dreame dreames Fourthly you say Therefore no infants are meant here who cannot prophecie c. Answ Why may not infants be of the number of that all flesh on which God would powre his Spirit though none of those that prophecie see visions dreame c. For these effects of the Spirit are not related as common to all on whom God would powre his Spirit but peculiar to some which had extraordinary gifts Secondly What hinders but they may receive the Spirit in their infancie by which they may prophecie in ripe yeares as we see in Iohn the Baptist Luk. 1.15 41. Thirdly I answer That this promise is not onely made concerning the extraordinarie gifts of the Spirit which were bestowed in the times of the Apostle by which men did prophecie dreame dreames see visions speake with tongues c. but also of the sanctifying Spirit which is common to all ages of the Church even where such miraculous and extraordinarie gifts are not bestowed may appeare vers 30. The promise saith the Apostle was to all afarre off whomsoever the Lord should call that is all the Gentiles whom God should call by the Gospel to faith Now no man I hope will say that all whom over God called dreamed dreames saw visions prophecied spake with strange tongues c. Fifthly you adde There is not so much as any colour for baptizing of infants from hence For the Text is not Be baptized For the promise is to you and your children as many in Print doe falsely alledge But repent and be baptized c. and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy ghost For the promise is to you and your children Answ If we should take the words in your sense viz. that those words For the promise is made c. are brought as a reason onely of the words going immediately before it makes nothing against me for so the 38. vers containes a pregnant proofe of my proposition and vers 39. of mine assumption Secondly I answer There is no necessitie can appeare no nor probable reason I beleeve can be rendred why the reason For the promise c. vers 39. should be referred onely to the words immediately preceding you shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost and not unto the exhortation Repent and be baptized c. which untill you could have given some proofe of you might well have spared your immodest language and hainous accusation of false alledging Scripture For the context may either be analysed thus First Peter exhorts to repent and be baptized then he spurres them on by a reason taken from the effect viz. remission and the gift of the Spirit secondly from the promise that God had